The Luck Of The Draw

First topic message reminder :

Getting to the semi of a slam is a big achievement. It is rewarded not only with prize money but with enough ranking points to keep a player ranked in the 60's for an entire year even if that is the only tournament played (720 points). But how difficult is it to do? Well that depends on the luck of the draw.

How many players in the top 100 would be capable of beating Haase, Souse, Berank, An injured player/bye and Chardy or Seppi?

Probably quite a few more than could beat Paire, Davydenko, Tomic, Raonic and Gasquet or Tsonga.

But the funny thing is we have to pretend that both tasks are equal. Ha ha!

You know what Emancipator, I posted on yours recently at the same time, and I thought Id made the same mistake and mixed the articles up, thankfully I think its the right way around

Well it would/could have been second match on so rest time would have been around an extra four hours but what the heck its only Simon so his reward for a gutsy win is to be given less time to recover than he should have got. The scheduling should be about fairness to players first then spectators later. I see no reason whatsoever why Federer/Raonic had to be the night match considering all things. Still it is done and I havr had my say.

bogbrush wrote:God, this tournament has been brutal to Murray hasn't it?

Can you give me any reason why Federer should be playing his third match out of four at night whilst Simon gets a lesser recovery time? Who knows BB Roger could reach the semis having played 80% of his matches at night on Rod Laver and Murray having pkayed 0%. Hardly fair is it?

They schedule based on attractiveness for TV. Murrays matches have been processions, as will his next. Federers, apart from the first round, have been bigger. And then it's Federer, which gets watched for his knock ups.

It's actually very fair, based on the reasons for scheduling.

Does that count as a reason?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:God, this tournament has been brutal to Murray hasn't it?

Can you give me any reason why Federer should be playing his third match out of four at night whilst Simon gets a lesser recovery time? Who knows BB Roger could reach the semis having played 80% of his matches at night on Rod Laver and Murray having pkayed 0%. Hardly fair is it?

You mean because the slower night conditions work against Fed's natural game and he prefers to play in the daytime?

Ah right so the scheduling should not be taking players recovery time into consideration. Thanks for clearing that up.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:God, this tournament has been brutal to Murray hasn't it?

Can you give me any reason why Federer should be playing his third match out of four at night whilst Simon gets a lesser recovery time? Who knows BB Roger could reach the semis having played 80% of his matches at night on Rod Laver and Murray having pkayed 0%. Hardly fair is it?

You mean because the slower night conditions work against Fed's natural game and he prefers to play in the daytime?

Does it really? Hmm hasn't bothered him in his past night match with Murray or previous Australian Opens.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah right so the scheduling should not be taking players recovery time into consideration. Thanks for clearing that up.

You needed that clearing up? Where've you been?

Anyway, aren't you moaning on behalf of Murray, not Simon?

falzy21 wrote:You know what Emancipator, I posted on yours recently at the same time, and I thought Id made the same mistake and mixed the articles up, thankfully I think its the right way around

Wilander seems to have dismissed Federer's chances.

He said it's gonna be tough for Screech to get through this match and then Berdych, Ferrer and Murray.

Both to be honest. Simon put himself through the wringer the other night with almost five hours on court finishing at midnight then had three hours physio. Surely, it is only fair he geys maximum recovery time to give him the maximum chance to recover and make a match of it. And for Murray he at the moment could go into the semi (should he get there) having not experienced a night match on Rod Laver. I mean could you see the schedulers choosing a Murray/Seppi/Chardy match at night over possibly Federer/Tsonga? I can't and that means an immediate advantage to Federer - it may not mean a lot on the night but is is an easily avoidable advantage with better scheduling. That is my take on it.

But Murray will get more recovery time which could be crucial if Fed has a long match against Tsonga. Of course there's Raonic to deal with first.

Why give a toss about recovery time though as they haven't with Gilles Simon. In any case recovery time is not as necessary this year as night court time.

But CC, the reason Murray hasn't had any night matches is because none of his matches so far (nor as you point out the potential QF) is likely to be a great match - they are too one-sided (on paper at least). So it's swings & roundabouts.

I can't believe you cannot see it from the point of view of paying spectators though - on Hisense, it's one of four matches in the session; on Laver, it's one of two with Serena's match potentially a quick one. How could the tournament risk having a session with 2 quick WTA sets and then a retirement in the men's match?

I'm sure ideally they would have put a Murray match in the night session at some point, but the draw didn't work out to give them one worthy of it. As hawkeye so subtly points out, from Murray's point of view, that makes his task of getting to the semi easier.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Both to be honest. Simon put himself through the wringer the other night with almost five hours on court finishing at midnight then had three hours physio. Surely, it is only fair he geys maximum recovery time to give him the maximum chance to recover and make a match of it. And for Murray he at the moment could go into the semi (should he get there) having not experienced a night match on Rod Laver. I mean could you see the schedulers choosing a Murray/Seppi/Chardy match at night over possibly Federer/Tsonga? I can't and that means an immediate advantage to Federer - it may not mean a lot on the night but is is an easily avoidable advantage with better scheduling. That is my take on it.

fFs, one minute you recognise they can't schedule Murray / Chardy and the next want Murray / Cripple on?

BB reverse the positions here and are you honestly trying to tell me you would be happy for Fed to potentially go into the semi without having played at night on Rod Laver when your opponent has played 80% of their matches there? And as I said what of Simon? If that were Fed I am sure you'd be vociferously demanding maximum recovery time. Anyway I have said my piece here.

I think Federer would swap draws with Murray, yes I'm fairly confident of that.

Not his fault if he's the draw and Murray's cupcake draw isn't.

bogbrush wrote:I think Federer would swap draws with Murray, yes I'm fairly confident of that.

Not his fault if he's the draw and Murray's cupcake draw isn't.

You think he'd rather play himself than Muray?

Well I support Murray, and I think it's better for him to be in semi having not played a night match on Laver than to possibly lose in the quarter finals to Del Potro. So I'm OK with the way things have worked out.

Of course, now I've said that, he'll lose to Chardy or Seppi........

You are evading the points I made so I will take that as you seeing my point of view but if you don't then say so.

CaledonianCraig wrote:You are evading the points I made so I will take that as you seeing my point of view but if you don't then say so.

You have no point. You're crying for Murray and talking about Simon. It makes no sense, except to distract from Murray's cupcake draw.

Nope I made my point. If Federer was to go into the semi having not played a night match on Rod Laver where conditions differ and his potential opponent had played 80% of his matches in those conditions you would not be happy. Secondly, if Federer had went through the wringer like Simon you would be vociferously calling for maximum recovery time before his next match so why should Simon expect anything different?

You need to point me to the bit where it says they schedule on any basis other than marketability.

You're inventing these other things, then getting outraged that they aren't being applied.

Well can you point me to where it says it is all about marketability. And see you are still evading an answer there.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well can you point me to where it says it is all about marketability. And see you are still evading an answer there.

Er...... every days schedule?

I can't do much more than point out you don't seem to have any idea why they schedule matches as they do.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope I made my point. If Federer was to go into the semi having not played a night match on Rod Laver where conditions differ and his potential opponent had played 80% of his matches in those conditions you would not be happy. Secondly, if Federer had went through the wringer like Simon you would be vociferously calling for maximum recovery time before his next match so why should Simon expect anything different?

You always want to see the scheduling giving everyone a fair crack in terms of recovery time and exposure to the important Courts in similar conditions to those that they may be playing in later stages.

But the reality is that organisers who want to sell their tournaments are justified in putting the biggest draws in the matches which will garner the largest live and TV audiences so long as they avoid absurdities like super-saturday. Every tennis player has an equal opportunity to establish his place as a huge draw over the course of their careers - the likes of Federer have earned their status.

There's the need to strike a balance.

Okay barry I have said all I am going to say on the matter. Hopefully, the matches tomorrow can match this Djoko/Wawrinka match for drama.

CaledonianCraig. You are funny. You claim to be a tennis fan and yet you have no idea how popular Federer is? Have you watched any of his matches at this years AO? (or ever... ). Have you seen how the crowd love him? Have you noticed that wherever he plays he is treated like a home favourite? I presume the answer to these questions must be no because if you knew you wouldn't question why a tournament would put him on at prime time. Also if you had watched him and you are a tennis fan you would understand why he is such a big draw. Put simply he is just beautiful to watch.

Tennis is an entertainment and should be scheduled for our benefit not the players.

Ha ha! though. Good try to make out that Murray is hard done by and doesn't have one of the easiest routes to a semi of a slam I have ever seen.

hawkeye wrote:CaledonianCraig. You are funny. You claim to be a tennis fan and yet you have no idea how popular Federer is? Have you watched any of his matches at this years AO? (or ever... ). Have you seen how the crowd love him? Have you noticed that wherever he plays he is treated like a home favourite? I presume the answer to these questions must be no because if you knew you wouldn't question why a tournament would put him on at prime time. Also if you had watched him and you are a tennis fan you would understand why he is such a big draw. Put simply he is just beautiful to watch.

Tennis is an entertainment and should be scheduled for our benefit not the players.

Ha ha! though. Good try to make out that Murray is hard done by and doesn't have one of the easiest routes to a semi of a slam I have ever seen.

Our dear Hawkeye....

For once, your views align with those of the TME organization.

Who's TME??

The Main Event lads aka Spaghetti HAns Group

JuliusHMarx wrote:The Main Event lads aka Spaghetti HAns Group

606v2s official multiple personality disorder member(s).

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The Main Event lads aka Spaghetti HAns Group

606v2s official multiple personality disorder member(s).

Federer would rather play all his matches during the day no question, he said himself that at night its 30 percent slower than during the day. Yes he has beaten Murray on a slow hard court but he doesn't struggle with Murray as much as Novak and Nadal on a slow court, mainly because Murray is probably better on a fast court than a slow court himself if you judge where he's done his best in his career.

I understand what you are saying, you are looking a head to the potential semi-final with Federer and feeling he would have had more practice than Murray on the slower conditions, but to be honest I think Murray has a better chance of beating Federer on a slower court than a faster court, so you should be at least glad they are playing at night at all.