Shouldn't the final be the 1 and 2 players?
Shouldn't the final be the 1 and 2 players?
It's called upsets.
I've seen the same thing happen in college basketball occasionally.
Andy Murray was seeded #1 and Rafa Nadal #2. They both lost earlier.
All So Completely wrote:
Andy Murray was seeded #1 and Rafa Nadal #2. They both lost earlier.
So if you lose they change your schedule for later in the season?
Seeding is a myth anyway.
The cool thing about sports is that the athletes get to self-select who makes it to the finals.
Dumbest post ever on letsrun?
All So Completely wrote:
Andy Murray was seeded #1 and Rafa Nadal #2. They both lost earlier.
No I think that Djokovic was 2, Rafa was 4. Wimbledon has it own ranking system where points on grass over the last 2 years are added back on, in 2015 Novak won so 0.75 x 2500 or 1875 got added to his ABP score making him 2 (plus any points from last year).
I guess what I don't get is that when they set the schedule in the beginning they don't know who what the upsets are going to be.
Controlled by Prince Philip wrote:
Seeding is a myth anyway.
Not true, over 90% of Grand Slam winners were in the top 5 rankings, so they are an excellent predictor of who is likely to win. The Australian open earlier the year was an exception but that was due to the fact that Federer & Nadal were top tier players but spent a large part of 2016 out injured.
Macdaddy wrote:
Dumbest post ever on letsrun?
This is easily the stupidest, most moronic question I've ever seen on here.
His, not yours, for clarity.
not a tennis guy wrote:
I guess what I don't get is that when they set the schedule in the beginning they don't know who what the upsets are going to be.
I mean it's not *boxing* dude... :p
If they knew from the outset who'd be in the finals, it would be the NBA.
Better to question, why don't they always let the top three qualifying runners run for the medals?
Monkeys typing wrote:
If they knew from the outset who'd be in the finals, it would be the NBA.
Boston was the #1 seed in the east and didnt make the finals
Jimmy21 wrote:
Monkeys typing wrote:If they knew from the outset who'd be in the finals, it would be the NBA.
Boston was the #1 seed in the east and didnt make the finals
If they knew from the outset who'd be in the finals, it would be the NBA.
No clue dude but watching Wimbledon for the first time today in many years was quite exciting...🎾 in fact, I might go join a club now😎.
correction: they both choked earlier.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Wimbledon has it own ranking system where points on grass over the last 2 years are added back on
That's the real question, why do they still play on grass? Why did they ever play on grass? Hard surfaces have been available since tennis was invented. It seems much more difficult to me to cut grass close enough for a tennis ball to bounce off of.
For the same reason they make them wear white?