Expires in 3 months
27 December 2021
In basic terms, the seeding for any given tennis tournament (World Tour 250 to Grand Slam) is done according to the same, simple guideline.
The total number of players, which can be 28, 32, 48 or 64, are listed in the order of their world ranking. Dewa GG Seedings are then given in descending order until the desired number of seeds are determined. The No.1 seed is the highest ranking player in the world rankings, followed by No.2, No.3, and so forth.
The usual format is for the No.1 and No.3 seeds to be placed in the top half of the draw, the No.2 and No.4 seeds in the bottom half. The rest of the seeds are then divided equally to create the frame around which the rest is done.
Not rocket science (and the above blueprint is open to a fair amount of interpretation by tournament organisers from time to time) but it's something which every tennis backer should be familiar with - although not many are!
However, a blind acceptance of these seedings in selecting outright bets is a HIGHLY RISKY strategy. link alternatif dewagg They take little, or no, account of current form, surface form nor the rest of the players in the draw (in that a top seed might avoid other seeds until the QF's or SF's but they could still face some tough opponents in the opening rounds).
The statistics are clear that the No.1 seeds do not win as many tournaments than you might think.
The ratio of wins/seeds in the 20 first tournaments of 2010 was: No.1 (1), No.2(4), and No.3(5). No.4 & 5 (0), No.6 (1). No.7(0), No.8 (1). Unseeded (5). That's right, only 4/20 (or 20%) of ATP Tour winners were top seeds but interestingly 5/20 (or 25%) were unseeded.
Example: Feliciano Lopez (Johannesburg 2010) WON 8/1
The Spaniard was the No.3 seed in South Africa - statistically the most successful of the seeds - and his success added further evidence to the argument that not every No.1 seed should be seen as the surefire winner of a tournament. They are not more likely than any other seed to win, according to the numbers.
While it is sensible to believe that the No.1 seed will be the best player in the draw (as his ranking is highest in the world), and therefore the player most likely to win, it is far too simplistic to use as a basis for a betting strategy.
When making outright bets, the seedings should only be used as a guideline. After all, the market leader is not always the No.1 seed. If the bookies don't consider him the most likely winner why should you?