Cincy draw: Djoko v Federer meeting in semi...

..for a change.

I agree that draws are randomly sorted but what are the odds for Federer and Djoko to fall on the same draw for the last what 100 times?

Miami, Madrid, Rome...

I was waiting for a post like this. Didn't think it would come from you though Tenez. You are in danger of being in cahoots with socal...

I seem to remember a terrible run for Djokovic when he kept drawing Nadal in the semi finals so I guess it evens out in the long run, as it should.

Anyway, I am sure that Federer will be much more concerned with Del Potro in the 2nd round than the possibility of playing Mr Unbeatable in the semifinals.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Miami, Madrid, Rome...

I was waiting for a post like this. Didn't think it would come from you though Tenez. You are in danger of being in cahoots with socal...

No danger from that...but what? 3 tourneys out of the last 40? it still a peculiar stat! Like at the USO, I think Djoko has been in Fed's quarter for the lasst 4 or 5 years in a row!

The fact you expected a post from this matter just shows you had your mind on this "oddity".

Presuming Fed gets to the semis of course

I haven't really analysed this too much, so apologies if this has been asked before but I have a question for those who have studied this... Does this statistical oddity disappear when you take the players out of it, and just deal with the rankings?

I mean, Federer and Djokovic may have been in the same half many times which looks a strange coincidence, but their rankings have changed quite a few times over the years. When you at it in black and white, and study how many times it's been 1v4 & 2v3 or 1v3 & 2v4, is it fairly evenly split or not?

I'm playing devils advocate a little, but you can only really judge whether it's a mathematical oddity on the numbers, not on the individuals... If that makes sense.

The way Federer is playing there is every chance his luck will change and he may well beat Djokovic, assuming both get that far.

As for actually winning it Doubtrful, but never say never.

Tenez wrote:..for a change.

I agree that draws are randomly sorted but what are the odds for Federer and Djoko to fall on the same draw for the last what 100 times?

I've been bleating about this since 606 days (at least 2-3 years) and when I did it after Wimbers draw you all jumped at my throat, I think I'll implode if it happens at USO

icecold wrote:I seem to remember a terrible run for Djokovic when he kept drawing Nadal in the semi finals so I guess it evens out in the long run, as it should.

Anyway, I am sure that Federer will be much more concerned with Del Potro in the 2nd round than the possibility of playing Mr Unbeatable in the semifinals.

The Nadal half of the draw were happening almost exclusively on clay tournaments. Surprise, surprise!

Yes, add cincy and canada to the 5 straight grandslams that Novak has gotten Federer while Nadal gets murray. This trend also shows up in their head to head record, poor Djokovic has both more matches with Nadal and Federer than anyone else on tour. He has played Andy 9 times, and Roger close to 30 times. If he gets Roger in his half for the US open it willl be a big disadvantage since if both reach the semi it will almost certainly be the last match ending late in the night on super saturday. It sure is strange how Roger and Rafa will virtually never be put in the same half even when not ranked #1 and #2, it is also strange that this is the most financially rewarding layout for the big 4 since it preserves the chance of a big ratings final with Fed and Nadal. This year the us open might be different though, it might actually behoove the tournament directors to put Fed in Nadal's half since they might consider it too much of long shot to both make the final, and then Nadal and Fed can headline stupid saturday.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, add cincy and canada to the 5 straight grandslams that Novak has gotten Federer while Nadal gets murray. This trend also shows up in their head to head record, poor Djokovic has both more matches with Nadal and Federer than anyone else on tour. He has played Andy 9 times, and Roger close to 30 times. If he gets Roger in his half for the US open it willl be a big disadvantage since if both reach the semi it will almost certainly be the last match ending late in the night on super saturday. It sure is strange how Roger and Rafa will virtually never be put in the same half even when not ranked #1 and #2, it is also strange that this is the most financially rewarding layout for the big 4 since it preserves the chance of a big ratings final with Fed and Nadal. This year the us open might be different though, it might actually behoove the tournament directors to put Fed in Nadal's half since they might consider it too much of long shot to both make the final, and then Nadal and Fed can headline stupid saturday.

Where to begin here? Add these two Masters series but ignore 3 earlier in the season? This is cherry-picking at it's best/worst. Comparing Djokovic to Murray in terms of matches with Nadal and Federer is baffling too. For the most part, Djokovic and Murray have been ranked 3 and 4, so one would get Federer and the other Nadal. Djokovic has more matches against them because he reached more semi-finals and finals surely? Or are you suggesting that 'poor' Djokovic had to play them both while Murray was drawn in neither half of the draw...

Also, if you want to count, then how is it that Djokovic has played Nadal more often than he's played Federer if he's always in Roger's half?

Just enjoy the fact that your guy is on an incredible run of form without making out that he did it in the face of a conspiracy and ramming it down our throats. Please.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, add cincy and canada to the 5 straight grandslams that Novak has gotten Federer while Nadal gets murray. This trend also shows up in their head to head record, poor Djokovic has both more matches with Nadal and Federer than anyone else on tour. He has played Andy 9 times, and Roger close to 30 times.

Poor Nole doesn't play Andy much? Probably got a bit to do with them spending almost the whole of the last 3 years as #3 and #4.

There, wasn't too hard to figure out was it?

Anyway, I thought the one to watch out for was Fognini?

noleisthebest wrote:

icecold wrote:I seem to remember a terrible run for Djokovic when he kept drawing Nadal in the semi finals so I guess it evens out in the long run, as it should.

Anyway, I am sure that Federer will be much more concerned with Del Potro in the 2nd round than the possibility of playing Mr Unbeatable in the semifinals.

The Nadal half of the draw were happening almost exclusively on clay tournaments. Surprise, surprise!

Hi nitb,

I hope this is tongue-in-cheek and not a conspiratorial alliance with socal. Your favourite player is on a truly incredible run, just enjoy that. Implying that he did it in spite of the dark forces of the draw being against him, thus making him even better, is a step too far.

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:Miami, Madrid, Rome...

I was waiting for a post like this. Didn't think it would come from you though Tenez. You are in danger of being in cahoots with socal...

No danger from that...but what? 3 tourneys out of the last 40? it still a peculiar stat! Like at the USO, I think Djoko has been in Fed's quarter for the lasst 4 or 5 years in a row!

The fact you expected a post from this matter just shows you had your mind on this "oddity".

Or that I am aware of the paranoia and conspiracy theorists on this board...

I think some posters would only be happy if it alternated for each draw, but this is as far from random as possible! And as likely as getting the same person every time. One day I'll do a thread on elementary probability.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:..for a change.

I agree that draws are randomly sorted but what are the odds for Federer and Djoko to fall on the same draw for the last what 100 times?

I've been bleating about this since 606 days (at least 2-3 years) and when I did it after Wimbers draw you all jumped at my throat, I think I'll implode if it happens at USO

There's a 50/50 chance of it.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:..for a change.

I agree that draws are randomly sorted but what are the odds for Federer and Djoko to fall on the same draw for the last what 100 times?

I've been bleating about this since 606 days (at least 2-3 years) and when I did it after Wimbers draw you all jumped at my throat, I think I'll implode if it happens at USO

There's a 50/50 chance of it.

yea, 50% that it will happen and another 50% it will happen

Nah, come on, it's not statistically that odd that they have this run.

Yes actually bogbrush it is statistically odd. It is a 1/32 longshot to get fed in five grandslams in a row. And frankly it is odd how this longshot comes and it is the precise draw configuration that favors a federer Nadal final and the financial interests of the broadcasters and tournament directors.

socal1976 wrote:Yes actually bogbrush it is statistically odd. It is a 1/32 longshot to get fed in five grandslams in a row. And frankly it is odd how this longshot comes and it is the precise draw configuration that favors a federer Nadal final and the financial interests of the broadcasters and tournament directors.

Any particular sequence is a 1/32 chance. If you toss a coin 50 times (think 50 tournaments) and then pick out 5 non-consecutive tails (think 5 US Open draws) then is this evidence of a biased coin? I'll tell you, no. This is getting ridiculous!

I notice JMDP will play Federer next in Cincy. Obviously the tournament organisers aren't that bothered in getting a Rafa/Fed match.

Lets see how the US open draw plays out, there will definetly be a socal's conspiracy corner to discuss all possible ramifications.

socal1976 wrote:Lets see how the US open draw plays out, there will definetly be a socal's conspiracy corner to discuss all possible ramifications.

Can you make it a small dark corner that I find difficult to locate?

Have a feeling Novak will pull out for some reason

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Have a feeling Novak will pull out for some reason

Wishful thinking....

No he wont. He'll probably play on Wednesday so will get 2 full days rest.

socal1976 wrote:Yes actually bogbrush it is statistically odd. It is a 1/32 longshot to get fed in five grandslams in a row. And frankly it is odd how this longshot comes and it is the precise draw configuration that favors a federer Nadal final and the financial interests of the broadcasters and tournament directors.

1 in 32 is nothing. Stick around long enough and you'll see that all around you. This is the thing with probabilities, most people don't understand that unlikely isn't abnormal.

As for the inference, it's childish. Though what else to expect from the man with the Fognini hypothesis?

At the end of the day its just the luck of the literal draw.
Djokovic shouldnt be worrying about anyone with the form he's in and the form Roger and Nadal are in. Roger has to get past DP anyway.

lydian wrote:At the end of the day its just the luck of the literal draw.
Djokovic shouldnt be worrying about anyone with the form he's in and the form Roger and Nadal are in. Roger has to get past DP anyway.

It probably cost him a shot at a calendar slam as I highly doubt that anyone other then Fed (with the help of fogninni) would have beaten Novak at RG. Did you see the cakewalk Nadal had in the semi with Andy at RG? And at the USO with stupid saturday it is going to be a big advantage because Roger and Novak or Roger and Rafa will be the late match on stupid saturday. Novak's current form is great but how about a fair draw occassionaly.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah socal not Fogninni again. Am off to look up which Wimbledon Fed had a bye in (was it 2007) inconveniently and then managed to win.

For goodness sake, isn't it less shaming for your all conquering hero to have been beaten by one of the greats of the game reliving his illustrious past, than by inconvenient scheduling????????

Jeez - has someone warned the US not to give Djoker any night matches, not to allow it to rain and delay play and for heaven's sake to take out any players who may injure themselves and have to retire out of his side of the draw. Don't start on stupid Saturday either - Fed has managed to win having both the first semi and the last, and Novak will have to take his chances too!

It was 2007, and if I'm right, I think Fed had five days off.

Still didn't stop him winning.

In any case by socal's theory, it's Fed who will have the definite disadvantage of playing second on sat.

Novak only has a 50% chance of landing Fed in his half and thus avoiding the blockbuster sat late semi.

Oh of course.. i forgot the other part to socal's worldwide tennis conspiracy - the draw is rigged!

Blame it on the illuminati.

They killed Tupac too, you know.

I do think the draw is manufactured, we never see Fed and Nadal on the same half of the draw in a slam since he was number 3, and I don't think we will see unless Fed's ranking drops like a stone..

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I do think the draw is manufactured, we never see Fed and Nadal on the same half of the draw in a slam since he was number 3, and I don't think we will see unless Fed's ranking drops like a stone..

Yes, and what a massive sample size to draw your conclusion from.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:At the end of the day its just the luck of the literal draw.
Djokovic shouldnt be worrying about anyone with the form he's in and the form Roger and Nadal are in. Roger has to get past DP anyway.

It probably cost him a shot at a calendar slam as I highly doubt that anyone other then Fed (with the help of fogninni) would have beaten Novak at RG. Did you see the cakewalk Nadal had in the semi with Andy at RG? And at the USO with stupid saturday it is going to be a big advantage because Roger and Novak or Roger and Rafa will be the late match on stupid saturday. Novak's current form is great but how about a fair draw occassionaly.

Hi socal,

I recall you telling me not to speculate on what-might-have-beens on another thread, yet here you are...

Even if Djokovic had not lost to Federer there is no guarantee he would have beaten Nadal. Or that he would then have won Wimbledon; increased pressure with 2 in a row, different circumstances as he would have been #1 already. Trying to take away from Nadal's victory at RG is in poor taste. Your paranoia about draws is reaching alarming levels, as are your attempts to elevate Djokovic further with claims that he triumphed in spite of fixed draws and a secret agenda from the powers-that-be to stop his rise.

[quote="Positively 4th Street"]

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:At the end of the day its just the luck of the literal draw.
Djokovic shouldnt be worrying about anyone with the form he's in and the form Roger and Nadal are in. Roger has to get past DP anyway.

It probably cost him a shot at a calendar slam as I highly doubt that anyone other then Fed (with the help of fogninni) would have beaten Novak at RG. Did you see the cakewalk Nadal had in the semi with Andy at RG? And at the USO with stupid saturday it is going to be a big advantage because Roger and Novak or Roger and Rafa will be the late match on stupid saturday. Novak's current form is great but how about a fair draw occassionaly.

All i know is that I would rather play Andy than Roger even at 30 in a slam. Maybe in a year Andy will be stronger and then the Fedal worshipers desperate for tv ratings will probably start putting him into Novak's half everytime. Then people will say oh look it evened out, no it didn't Novak has over 50 matches with Federer and Nadal with them at or near their peak, and it would be nice if like Nadal he would keep getting the softer draw in every single grandslam. Personally, I am almost certain at this point that it is rigged, just like that convenient first round matchup this year of Isner and mahut what are the odds of that? If Novak, and it is still a big if runs the table at the USO we will have the french organizing committees malfeasance and fogninni's bum leg to thank for him not getting the calendar slam and it will be a terrible blow to the game because some grandslam committee got gready for Tv ratings. Imagine the immense attention that would have drawn to a sport desperately in need of the attention in a crowded sports marketplace. In short, Fogninni and the greedy French open tournament committee could go down as the slam busters. By the way Novak had by far the toughest draw when it first came out and the worst scheduling. He had to play 3 consecutive days and then not play for 4 days. A longer gap between his victory in Canada and his first round match in cincy, he played that semi like it was the first round of a tournament and Roger was playing in the semis.

Novak Djokovic to accomplish what he has accomplished has count it 51 matches against Federer and Nadal. Andy murray 29 matches against Fed and Nadal. Maybe because regardless of his #1 or previously #2 ranking he will always have to beat both Fed and Nadal to win major tournaments. Because afterall the world would end if Roger and Rafa were put in the same half, just an unfortunate coincidence for Novak that probably cost him a chance at the calendar year grandslam.

OMG now you're replying to yourself?

And Fognini is back! Hurrah! Yet no comment about Federer winning Wimbledon in 2007 after a bye. Oh well.

Oh, and what cost Djokovic the French was running into a player who at his peak Nole wouldn't be able to lace the shoes of and who rolled back enough years to remind the #1 who the Daddy was.

It's not that I think Directors fix the draw, I am just very annoyed to find all the time all my favourite players in the same half. Luckily so far didn't see Serena in the same half but then you never now.......

bogbrush wrote:OMG now you're replying to yourself?

And Fognini is back! Hurrah! Yet no comment about Federer winning Wimbledon in 2007 after a bye. Oh well.

Oh, and what cost Djokovic the French was running into a player who at his peak Nole wouldn't be able to lace the shoes of and who rolled back enough years to remind the #1 who the Daddy was.

Funny, Djokovic beat Federer as early as 2007 when he was a teenager. He lost his first 5 matches against Roger when Roger was at his absolute best and Novak was just breaking into the tour, there head to head is actually much closer than it appears and will continue to shrink down. If Novak's wins over a post peak Federer are somehow tainted what about Roger beating up 18 year Novak a bunch of times when he was at his absolute prime? By the way h2h this year 3-1 Novak. And I wasn't responding to myself I was trying to quote Positevely but deleted one of the brackets of formatting text.

As for Fed in 07, he was able to win, great for him, never doubted that he is a great champion. The horrifying scheduling and brackets of the french this year, along with Fogninni withdrawal broke up Novak's timing and resulted in a rusty couple of sets. The way Fed was playing he might still have won that match. I thought Novak played well in sets 3 and 4 but still lost set #4. Still, despite not playing for 4 days, despite having to beat Roger to tie Mac's record and having that added pressure of the streak (which he would have tied against Fogi and not had that pressure if Fogi played) he still almost won that match as he served for the 4th set. Regardless, 3-1 scoreboard buddy, and Novak beat peak Roger before, how about all those times peak Roger beat up on 18 year old Novak before he had it figured out, how many of those wins should we discount?

Federers reputation is not made by victories over Djokovic but by far bigger things. When the history of the game is written they will be footnotes.

As for yet another hopeless effort to dredge for excuses for the French, I have never read anything so insulting to Djokovic. Too much rest, I ask you!

And what are you on about with discounted wins? That's something you've made up all by yourself.

Positively 4th Street

I guarantee you that Fed will not draw on the same side as Nadal for the next 3 slams unless hisranking becomes lower....

Just to add some detail to this debate, if you ignore the players involved and just look at the seed numbers, the last four grand slams in a row have all had the number 1 seed and number 4 seed in the same side of the draw.

Over the last 8 grand slams, 6 of them have had the number 1 seed and the number 4 seed in the same side of the draw.

So, one way or another, the US Open will make things statisically surprising. If Federer and Djokovic are in the same half, that will be 6 slams in a row they have been together. But if they are in different halves of the draw, that will be 5 slams in a row that the number 1 seed has played the number 4 seed!

Pretty clever this Fedal fixing the draw like this

HM Murdoch wrote:Over the last 8 grand slams, 6 of them have had the number 1 seed and the number 4 seed in the same side of the draw.

So, one way or another, the US Open will make things statisically surprising. If Federer and Djokovic are in the same half, that will be 6 slams in a row they have been together. But if they are in different halves of the draw, that will be 5 slams in a row that the number 1 seed has played the number 4 seed!

Well it's about time that the number 1 seed met the number 3 seed then Murdoch ...............hang on

It's 50/50 next time out. The conspiracy theorists are barking up the wrong tree.

bogbrush wrote:It's 50/50 next time out. The conspiracy theorists are barking up the wrong tree.

Is that the tree that's planted on the grassy knoll?

bogbrush wrote:Federers reputation is not made by victories over Djokovic but by far bigger things. When the history of the game is written they will be footnotes.

As for yet another hopeless effort to dredge for excuses for the French, I have never read anything so insulting to Djokovic. Too much rest, I ask you!

And what are you on about with discounted wins? That's something you've made up all by yourself.

No, not really you alluded to it, about how peak Federer destroys Djokovic. Great, Roger is goat does that make you happy. Pre-peak Nadal destroyed Peak Fed in his prime in grandslam final after grandslam final. As for the French, I like my excuse a lot more than the one that many fed fans had after the FO final, oh my god Roger had to wait 2 minutes for Nadal to get his ankle taped and that threw off his rythymn. The same people that cry about slow courts, slow balls, 5 extra seconds of Nadal scratching himself in between points, are worried about my excuses.

First I've heard about taping having any bearing, except from you. He lost that match because he fell down at a few critical moments. It was easily their closest final at RG.

So I have no excuses at the FO, though if I were thinking one up I'd be looking elsewhere than being put off by getting a bye. It implies the player wasn't allowed to practise (at any level he chose) on his day off, would have had any kind of match against Fognini anyway, and is such a mental pygmy that not having a quarter would disable him anyway. Not nice really.

bogbrush wrote:First I've heard about taping having any bearing, except from you. He lost that match because he fell down at a few critical moments. It was easily their closest final at RG.

So I have no excuses at the FO, though if I were thinking one up I'd be looking elsewhere than being put off by getting a bye. It implies the player wasn't allowed to practise (at any level he chose) on his day off, would have had any kind of match against Fognini anyway, and is such a mental pygmy that not having a quarter would disable him anyway. Not nice really.

Yes, I have never heard any Fed fan's complain about MTOs and Rafa's delays in other matches. You and tenez are two of the principal people who continually trump this fantasy that somehow Nadal's extra 5-7 seconds between points is a terrible unfair advantage that has allowed him to succeed over Fed.

You keep mentioning a bye and fail to mention that if Fogninni had played he wouldn't have the added pressure of the streak going into the match with Fed. As he would have tied that record going into the Fed match. With Fogninni withdrawal now instead of having to beat Fogi to tie mac's record he had to beat a fed who was playing great tennis. And had that added to the pressure of playing for the #1 ranking, and playing Fed in the semis of a grandslam. 2 factors that wasn't the case in wimbeldon 07 that you bring up. Its the same reason that in basketball prior to a big free throw the opposing coaches will often call a timeout in an attempt to ice the shooter late in the game, or in American football before a late game winning field goal attempt they do the same thing to kicker. Either all those multimillion dollar coaches are idiots deluding themselves or there is something to this throwing off the preparation and timing of a player. In short that withdrawal came at the absolute worst possible time for Djokovic one match away from tieing the record. It added a lot of pressure to an already pressure packed situation of playing Fed in a grandslam semi, and playing for the #1 ranking as well. Frankly, I have made myself clear on this topic and I am done with it. Fogi and the french open committee had a hand in that defeat to me it will always be the tainted french open of 2011.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Positively 4th Street

I guarantee you that Fed will not draw on the same side as Nadal for the next 3 slams unless hisranking becomes lower....

I'll take that bet. What's the wager?