The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1922-10-11
TENNIS SEEDING
IS LIKELY TO STAY
No Basis for Alleged Danger
of COmmercialism in New
Process.
By SAMUEL J. BRooKMAN.

What Is to be the fate of the seeded
draw. which has had one seasons test
in tennis competition? Has 1t won suffi-
cient favor to stay or will it be relegated
to the tennis scrap heap when the rule
makers of the national association meet
to settle the point at the next annual
convention?
Not little difference of opinion APP
pears to have developed on the ques-
ton since the close OF tournament play
During the season the seeding process
seemed to be working smoothly enough
in the majority of the tournaments
The argument was advanced once in a
while that the arbitrary placing of the
top ranking players in different sections
of the draw robbed the first round or
two of interest, for as a rule it was a
simple matter to name the winners in
advance. Yet it was admitted almost
unanimously that seeding had the effect
of making the late rounds exceptionally
attractive-of assuring sustained in
terest to the end.
It was admitted that seeding brought
all of the top notchers into the semi
final or round before the, scmi-finals,
and prevented a TIlden, for instance.
from eliminating a Johnston before the
tournament was well under way, as was
the case in 1921 at Germantown. The
supporters of the new arrangement
pointed out that it was far better to
have the early rounds comparatively dun
than the late rounds, that 1t dill not seem
fair to have the ranking PLAYERS elimi-
nate one another on the first or second
day of title event.
Talk of CommerciaIism.
But of late there has sprung up a fac
ton which processes to see in the seeded
draw the danger of the sport being in
fected with the commercial germ. A
Philadelphia critic makes much ado of
this alleged danger. why, except for
purely commercial reasons" he says,
should the champion and twenty other
players. be seeded"
1t is a fact that the national cham
pionships brought the Germantown
Cricket Club and the national associa-
ton a healthy financial reward this sea-
son. Apparently the seeding of promi
nent players in the draw had the effect
of keeping interest in the tournament
alive and of attracting record crowds,
bigger crowds than the year before when
the blind draw leaving so much to
cnance, Drought COnteiueTS Together III
the early round.
But what if the club and association
did profit considerably? Wherein does
that condemn the seeded draw? In the
first place the profits do not go into
the pockets of professional promoters.
Indeed, they strengthen the treasures
of the clubs and association, and make
1t easier for them to promote The prog
ress of the sport enables the associa-
ton for instance to meet the expenses
of sending teams to foreign countries
and advance the international feature
of tennis. But granting that the clubs
profit too much. why discard the seeded
draw as a remedy? Why not the more
simple expedient of having clubs charge
a smaller admission fee?
Tennis wants the crowds at It's tour
naments, and If seeded draw can
help to attract fans in larger numbers
let it stay by all means.
VIII Find Happy Medium.
incidentally. it may be apropos to
point out that there is such a thing as
overseeing the draw. There seems no
real necessity of placing twenty names
arbitrarily in the draw, as was done in
the national championship as German
town last month. The idea is to have
the top notchers. the real title con-
tenders. get out into the late rounds,
and eight seeded players or so should
be quite enough. BY drawing the rest
by lot interesting matches can be as
sured for the early rounds without ac-
tually having the contenders eliminate
one another. The opponents of the seed
ing idea should remember that the new
rule has had only a preliminary test
The process may have been overdone
III
makers will find in another season But
seeding should not be condemned on the
arguments that have thus far been adj
vanced against it,