Posted by Peter Bodo, TENNIS.com
They don't make draws like they used to, and that's a real shame as we sit here asking ourselves the same question: Who's going to get Novak Djokovic in the semifinals, Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal?
Back in the day -- actually, officials couldn't provide a definite answer to when the system changed, but it was probably over the course of a few years in the late 1970s and '80s -- the 16 seeds at Grand Slam events were given specific places in the draw based on the sole reason for seeding: to ensure that the best players did not knock each other out of tournaments by having to face each other too early. So the top seed would play the No. 8 seed in the quarters, with No. 2 meeting No. 7, 3 vs. 6, and so forth.
Once the seeds were planted in the draw, the names of all the other entrants were drawn, one by one, and placed in the draw sheet on consecutive lines (skipping over the lines already occupied by seeds, including line 1, where the top seed is always placed, and line 128, the bottom-of-the-draw line reserved for the No. 2 seed).
Somewhere along the line, somebody got hold of a computer and decided to have some fun with it. As a result, the process has been turned upside down.
As the French make their draw, all but the 32-seeded positions will have been filled in, at random, by a computer. Next, the top two seeds are automatically placed at opposite ends of the draw. Then, the names of third and fourth seeds are pulled from a hat to determine which of the top-two seeds each one plays.
And then it gets crazy.
The names of seeds 5 through 8 are drawn blindly to fill in the remaining, theoretical quarterfinal pairings, line-by-line. The next group -- seeds 9-12 -- are then similarly placed to begin fleshing out the potential round-of-16 pairings and so forth.
Make sense?
We saw how disastrous the system was last year at the U.S. Open, when five of the top six women contenders -- Justine Henin, Venus and Serena Williams, Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic -- all ended up in the same half of the draw. On the men's side, James Blake, Fernando Gonzalez and Tommy Robredo, all might have been drawn as Federer's potential quarterfinal opponent. Instead, the "honor" went to Andy Roddick.
Something similar might happen at the French Open; it's all a crap shoot. And that flies right in the face of the very idea of seedings. If you believe in seedings, why not make sure that the math gives you the most fair or accurate pairings based on a seed's presumed, earned right to meet the toughest opponents at the latest possible time?
This is somewhat unrelated, but Nadal should be the top seed at Roland Garros -- that much is self-evident. The guy has won three French Open titles in a row. What more could you ask? And if you believe in the theory of seedings, he's earned the right to get Nikolay Davydenko instead of Novak Djokovic in the semifinals. Or look at it in this counterintuitive way: By the logic of seedings, Federer has earned the right to play the No. 2 player in the world, Nadal, in the final. But Djokovic might have something to say about that.
Somehow, I don't see Federer filing a protest.
Peter Bodo
