Socal's conspiracy corner: PHD statistician proves the draws aren't random!

First topic message reminder :

Clearly, the level of statistical improbability that is taking place at the grandslams bears some mentioning of the financial and pecuniary interest( god I love using those law school words) in protecting the possibility of a fedal final and the ratings boon that would follow is just overwhelming. For the sixth consecutive slam Novak gets Roger and not Andy, this should only be a 50 percent probabiltiy and the odds of Novak getting Roger six straight times is 64 to 1. I have been roundly criticized in the past for my cynical and conspiratorial nature, being a middle eastern man raised in George Bush's America I am powerless to be anything but what my nature dictates. I am calling the fix. Not only does Novak get Roger for the umpteenth time, but he will most likely draw the shortest straw on stupid saturday by having the late match again. Stupid Saturday magnifies the importance of the semi draw, the feature semi (most likely Roger and Novak) will be greatly disadvantaged in the one day turnaround of Stupid Saturday. Now Novak most likely with a bum shoulder, will be required to defeat Roger federer in a night match, then comeback the next day and defeat the winner of the Nadal/Murray semi that took place earlier in the day. In short, Djokovic as the least marketable of the top four is getting jobbed by the tournament committee that is doing their best to protect their superbowl of ratings if Roger and Rafa happen to play in the final.



The brits should be happy as this configuration presents both Andy and Rafa with a wonderful opportunity to steal one from Novak who might as well be rated as the 32 seed as opposed to the number 1 seed with the draw he is getting. Roger also is done no favors with this draw as most likely if he wins out he will get the deathmatch on saturday night. In light of Djoko's shoulder injury and the quick turnaround in the final this grandslam has been decided at the outset by the tournament commitee to be a victory for either Rafa or Andy. So if you got any money right now bet those two to win the tournament, they have all the possible benefits of scheduling and draw imaginable at this point. It is a shame that the second biggest slam has to taint the sport with such a ridiculous fix and its even more ridiculous stupid saturday event that unfairly discriminates against the second semi.

Danny_1982 wrote:Removing the players from the equation, does anyone know how often the draw matches 1&3 compared to 1&4?

Assuming that the draw isn't fixed (big assumption according to some) then over the last 5 or so years 1v3 should have been drawn roughly as often as 1v4.

If they are massively uneven, then the law of averages would suggest that it is a fishy. If you just analyse the players and not the seed, then you can't objectively call it a fix as the draws are based on numbers not names.

Socal - Up until this year I would have agreed that Djokovic is the least marketable of the top 4. However now, after the year he has had, I would put him above Murray in terms of marketability.

This is completely irrelevant, for the entire 6 slam period Novak Djokovic has had .5 percent chance of drawing Federer. Nothing changes in the numbers if Djokovic is #1 or #2 and Fed is number #3 or vice versa. The only thing that would change the probability in anyway whatsoever if there was a grandslam period in which Fed was #1 and Novak #2, or Novak #1 and Fed #2. Since this has never been the case in the period in question the probability is .5 percent per event regardless of which is #3 and which guy is #1, and now 6 times in a row it has come up heads for Novak.





The key here is that the slam committees know that a fed Nadal final will provide literally double the ratings of any other configuration. And oddly enough the configuration that protects a Fedal final has come about at the outset 6 times in a row, which is a 1/64 longshot.



Add to the equation that a PHD statistician has found overwhelming evidence the draws aren't random, and the case is overwhelming for malfeasance. Once you establish that the draw is tinkered with, ie not random then all manner of malfeasance can and does become possible.

socal, you're basically saying that you think Wimby, FO and AO draws are fixed despite no-one having produced any proof of this, statistical or otherwise?
Dr. Swift has exonerated them from his particular analysis, but you think they're fixed anyway, despite no evidence?
Have I got that right?

(There was nothing writing about my previous post, by the way - it was just a set of correct statistics)

JuliusHMarx wrote:I just flipped a 2p coin 6 times and it came up H,T, T, T, T, H.
What are the odds of that sequence? 1 in 64.

And again - T,H,H,T, T, T - again a 1 in 64 chance of that sequence coming up.

What are the odds of of the last six slams being drawn for the following semis in the following sequence
1. 1st seed v 3rd seed
2. 1st seed v 4th seed
3. 1st seed v 3rd seed
4. 1st seed v 4th seed
5. 1st seed v 3rd seed
6. 1st seed v 4th seed

1 in 64. Yet how many people would suspect a fix in that case?

your argument is astoundingly and tragically awful

Socal - Up until this year I would have agreed that Djokovic is the least marketable of the top 4. However now, after the year he has had, I would put him above Murray in terms of marketability.

year of the DjokoGOAT

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I just flipped a 2p coin 6 times and it came up H,T, T, T, T, H.
What are the odds of that sequence? 1 in 64.

And again - T,H,H,T, T, T - again a 1 in 64 chance of that sequence coming up.

What are the odds of of the last six slams being drawn for the following semis in the following sequence
1. 1st seed v 3rd seed
2. 1st seed v 4th seed
3. 1st seed v 3rd seed
4. 1st seed v 4th seed
5. 1st seed v 3rd seed
6. 1st seed v 4th seed

1 in 64. Yet how many people would suspect a fix in that case?

your argument is astoundingly and tragically awful

It's not an argument, it's a statement followed by a question. Are the stats incorrect in any way?

It's not an argument, it's a statement followed by a question. Are the stats incorrect in any way?

little pedantic as well

only a sheep will believe the draw's are anything but rigged.

I would be very interested to see Dr. Swift analyze the semi streak of Novak and Roger, but unfortunately that wasn't his focus.

Unsurprisingly; a study based around 8 pieces of data is unlikely to draw much attention from his fellow statisticians.

OK. I'm glad no-one refuted my statistical example.
Here's another - you roll a die and it comes up 6 three times in a row. Is that proof the die is rigged/weighted. Probably not, it can happen, right?
What are the odds? 1 in 216. No big deal, it happens.
But Fed/Djoko in the same half 6 times in a row? It must be a fix, the odds are 1 in 64.

Yes, no-one can prove the draws aren't fixed, but no-one has proved that they are, except for this one 'narrow focus'. So why the wild extrapolations with no actual evidence to back them up? (I'm leaving aside the possibility that 'weird' results, as Dr Swift, calls them, can actually happen, and also that if the looked at the last 5 years or the last 15, his results might not be the same i.e. there's no statistical 'control gorup'.)

Equally no-one can prove that Dr Swift didn't already analyse all sorts of other potential rigging and found no statistical proof of anything and so ESPN chose not to publish it - isn't that an equally plausible conspiracy theory?

It all goes to show, we believe what we want to believe, regardless. Stansted UFOs anyone?

Socal - I've been thinking and your statistic IS accurate.... but it doesn't link directly the point you are making.

Where you are correct is that Djok and Fed being placed together 6 times in a row is 1/64. Very unlikely to happen. But this doesn't directly argue for the draw being rigged.

I've thought of a slightly clumsy illustration. Imagine a group of people made up of 25% black men, 25% white men, 25% black women and 25% white women. Someone says that they will pick a random selection of men and women from the crowd and pulls names out of hat. Twenty names are selected and it turns out to be ten men and ten women. This is exactly what you would expect. It also turns out though that all twenty people are black. This is an amazing coincidence but does it prove the draw was rigged? No, the aim of the draw was to get a mix of men and women and that is what it got.

The point of this illustration? An unlikely outcome in one characteristic (in this case the people's race) does not disprove the randomness of a process based on another characteristic (in this case gender).

The grandslam draws are constructed on seeding. Certain seedings go in certain sections. Their randomness should be judged on the seedings.

Last 6 grandslams have grouped 2&3 four times and 1&3 twice. Although this has turned out to be 6 in a row of Fed/Djok, that statistic does not relate to the draw process as the coincidence is in a different characteristic - the players identity rather than their seeding.

So yes, you raise a good point on Dr Swift's findings and the implications that any part of the draw being fixed has on the rest of it being fixed too.

But the 1/64 is not drawn from the process you are commenting on, even though it is in itself accurately calculated.

I'm exhausted! Time for a beer.

The draws are clearly rigged, in my opinion, in favour of a Federer v Nadak final. Money talks sadly.

Although if Federer was to lose and, say, Tsonga was to make the semi final against Djokovic, would Murray v Nadal be considered the bigger game and therefore on second?

The important bit is that of the 3/4 times Federer and Djokovic were NOT in the same half of the draw was ALWAYS at Roland Garros. The only other two times were RG 2009, and WIMBLEDON 2007 (to the best of my fading memory)

Interestingly, the actual analysis was done by ESPN's own stats team. Dr Swift was only brought in to check the methodology. I'm sure EPSN only checked this one factor and didn't check any others that ended up not showing any statisitcal evidence of draw rigging

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how-espn-lines-analyzed-us-open-tennis-tournament-draw

Yes, no-one can prove the draws aren't fixed, but no-one has proved that they are, except for this one 'narrow focus'. So why the wild extrapolations with no actual evidence to back them up? Julius



Wrong again julius clear evidence has been provided for one slam tampering with the draw in a specific case. Therefore, are we to assume that in light of the bias for a fedal final that when the exact 1 to 64 longshot that benefits TV ratings comes up that there is no rational basis for questioning the results? Does the USO committee who tinkered with the top seed matchups all of a sudden find religion at the semi phase of the draw?



That Espn article really does downplay the signifigance of the findings. They bury it in the middle of the article and basically finish up the article with a weak non-mathematical argument basically stating:"Why would the USO do such a thing"? This espn article in its self the way it is written is an attempt to bury the significance of the findings. Why would Espn want to bury the significance of this finding of tampered draw? Could it have anything to do with the fact that they televise a lot of grandslam tennis or the fact that ESPN AIRS THE ENTIRE DRAW SELECTION OF THE USOPEN, basically they write this article to exonerate themselves. Other than the actual hard and earth shaking findings of the article the rest of ESPN's snowjob in the article ho humming the results is hearsay and their unsupported opinion. Unless you find self serving denials of the media agency who is broadcasting the matches and the DRAW SELECTION as more convincing than a PHD mathmetician with no vested interest in rocking the boat. Should we take the word of an interested party with no mathematical backing of their assumption that the draw is random, or the word of a non-interested expert.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. I can only admire your zeal. Or possibly I can admire only your zeal. Any counter-argument would be pointless and a waste of my time. I hereby withdraw my application and request a full refund under the original terms and conditions.

HM Murdoch wrote:
The grandslam draws are constructed on seeding. Certain seedings go in certain sections. Their randomness should be judged on the seedings.

Last 6 grandslams have grouped 2&3 four times and 1&3 twice. Although this has turned out to be 6 in a row of Fed/Djok, that statistic does not relate to the draw process as the coincidence is in a different characteristic - the players identity rather than their seeding.

So yes, you raise a good point on Dr Swift's findings and the implications that any part of the draw being fixed has on the rest of it being fixed too.

But the 1/64 is not drawn from the process you are commenting on, even though it is in itself accurately calculated.

I'm exhausted! Time for a beer.

Ok so therefore you accept my thesis. I do not have the ability to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the Novak/Roger thing is a fix. There is no way to get that kind of evidence by me a humble poster. However in light of the fact that one slam has been caught tinkering red handed. And then you look at the 1/64 longshot of Novak/Roger meeting and the implications that it preserves the ratings boon of a Fedal final, in light of the fact that one slam has been caught tinkering with the draw, then the inference I am drawing is completely reasonable. It is very odd statistically that Novak has gotten Roger in 6 straight slams. And it is very odd that this longhsot coming in preserves the possibly of Rafa Roger final and the ratings benefit those controlling the process would get from such a final. Frankly, people have been sent to the electric chair with much less evidence than this. My argument is circumstantial because I have no means of garnering direct evidence. But legally speaking circumstantial evidence is very strong evidence, despite what the cop shows on tv would have you believe sometimes circumstantial evidence is stronger than direct evidence. One type of direct evidence is an eyewitness account and in fact this form of direct evidence is by far one of the weakest types of evidence that exists. All the circumstances are pointing to draw tampering and a statistical oddity that benefits the financial interests of those controlling the process, as the saying goes usually where there is smoke there is fire.

If neither make the final as could easily happen - then as Willie S would say isn't this much ado about nothing!

sportslover wrote:Willie S would say....

Surely you know Shakespeare didn't really write those plays

Guest82 wrote:The draws are clearly rigged, in my opinion, in favour of a Federer v Nadak final. Money talks sadly.

Although if Federer was to lose and, say, Tsonga was to make the semi final against Djokovic, would Murray v Nadal be considered the bigger game and therefore on second?

As I've already pointed out to socal - in 2008 we had exactly the same semi-final line-up as is protracted to happen this year and on that occasion the first match on Super Saturday was Federer V Djokovic followed by Nadal V Murray but suddenly socal is certain it will be different this time. I have pointed out before and will point out again - whoever plays whoever in the semis (if all top four seeds make it through) are going to have a mighty tough match. Now socal I could understand your angst if Federer was in the form of two or three years ago but he isn't and Djokovic is playing on a different level this year to Federer so why the panic - after all you could have drawn the reigning champion Rafael Nadal or Andy Murray who beat Novak last time out.

Where the conspiracy falls down is that when Fed was seed 2 and Nadal seed 1, why do you have a better chance of a Fed/Nadal final by putting Fed against Dkokovic? Surely he would have a better chance against Murray? And Nadal as number 1 would have a better chance than Fed of beating Djokovic?

HM Murdoch wrote:Where the conspiracy falls down is that when Fed was seed 2 and Nadal seed 1, why do you have a better chance of a Fed/Nadal final by putting Fed against Dkokovic? Surely he would have a better chance against Murray? And Nadal as number 1 would have a better chance than Fed of beating Djokovic?

That is a fine counter-argument. Furthermore, is it not the case that in previous slams up to last year's US Open Nadal had been beaten by Murray, but never by Djokovic, and Federer by Djokovic, and never Murray? Thus to maximise the chances of a Nadal-Federer final it would have made sense to pair Nadal with Djokovic and Federer with Murray.

Also, Julius is correct in mentioning that often only the most 'interesting' results get published, it's known as publication bias in the stats business. Studies that turned up nothing remain 'in the draw', so to speak.

Guest82 wrote:The draws are clearly rigged, in my opinion, in favour of a Federer v Nadak final. Money talks sadly.

Although if Federer was to lose and, say, Tsonga was to make the semi final against Djokovic, would Murray v Nadal be considered the bigger game and therefore on second?

Interesting question, at this point since you have a top 4 matchup Guest with Murray and Nadal then most likely Murray and Nadal get the deathmatch on stupid saturday, but if all the seeds win out and its Nadal v. murray, or Djoko v. Fed; almost certainly they would put the Djoko v. Fed match being two multislam champs going at it on second as the feature match later in the day. This is crucial because not only is novak getting the more dangerous semi over and over again he is getting the double whammy of most likely finishing late in the night and having to play another 5 setter in 12 hours.



Very succinctly put Guest, money talks and isn't interesting that the we have had this 64 to 1 longshot come in and it is PRECISELY THE CONFIGURATION THAT PRESERVES THE POSSIBILITY OF A MASSIVE RATINGS BOOST WITH A FEDAL FINAL? You have the motive, the means, the odd statistical trend, and now additional evidence that draws in other instances aren't random and are tampered with.

socal1976 wrote:

Guest82 wrote:The draws are clearly rigged, in my opinion, in favour of a Federer v Nadak final. Money talks sadly.

Although if Federer was to lose and, say, Tsonga was to make the semi final against Djokovic, would Murray v Nadal be considered the bigger game and therefore on second?

Interesting question, at this point since you have a top 4 matchup Guest with Murray and Nadal then most likely Murray and Nadal get the deathmatch on stupid saturday, but if all the seeds win out and its Nadal v. murray, or Djoko v. Fed; almost certainly they would put the Djoko v. Fed match being two multislam champs going at it on second as the feature match later in the day. This is crucial because not only is novak getting the more dangerous semi over and over again he is getting the double whammy of most likely finishing late in the night and having to play another 5 setter in 12 hours.



Very succinctly put Guest, money talks and isn't interesting that the we have had this 64 to 1 longshot come in and it is PRECISELY THE CONFIGURATION THAT PRESERVES THE POSSIBILITY OF A MASSIVE RATINGS BOOST WITH A FEDAL FINAL? You have the motive, the means, the odd statistical trend, and now additional evidence that draws in other instances aren't random and are tampered with.

Sorry but for the third time in 2008 we had the same semi line-up as we MAY get this year and Federer V Djokovic was the first match on that year on Super Saturday. If anything I'd say it would be more likely that would be the case this year as well as, after all, Nadal is the reigning champion.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Where the conspiracy falls down is that when Fed was seed 2 and Nadal seed 1, why do you have a better chance of a Fed/Nadal final by putting Fed against Dkokovic? Surely he would have a better chance against Murray? And Nadal as number 1 would have a better chance than Fed of beating Djokovic?

That is a fine counter-argument. Furthermore, is it not the case that in previous slams up to last year's US Open Nadal had been beaten by Murray, but never by Djokovic, and Federer by Djokovic, and never Murray? Thus to maximise the chances of a Nadal-Federer final it would have made sense to pair Nadal with Djokovic and Federer with Murray.

Also, Julius is correct in mentioning that often only the most 'interesting' results get published, it's known as publication bias in the stats business. Studies that turned up nothing remain 'in the draw', so to speak.

Take a bow Positively. That is the best comment on this article. Well said.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Guest82 wrote:The draws are clearly rigged, in my opinion, in favour of a Federer v Nadak final. Money talks sadly.

Although if Federer was to lose and, say, Tsonga was to make the semi final against Djokovic, would Murray v Nadal be considered the bigger game and therefore on second?

As I've already pointed out to socal - in 2008 we had exactly the same semi-final line-up as is protracted to happen this year and on that occasion the first match on Super Saturday was Federer V Djokovic followed by Nadal V Murray but suddenly socal is certain it will be different this time. I have pointed out before and will point out again - whoever plays whoever in the semis (if all top four seeds make it through) are going to have a mighty tough match. Now socal I could understand your angst if Federer was in the form of two or three years ago but he isn't and Djokovic is playing on a different level this year to Federer so why the panic - after all you could have drawn the reigning champion Rafael Nadal or Andy Murray who beat Novak last time out.

Wrong Craig, Novak has been getting fed more often now for about 2-3 years for all of that period Fed has been more dangerous than Andy, and this obviously bogus draw rigging has resulted in Novak losing one slam at RG this year. And your point about how Novak could get Nadal is a non-sequiter at this point because as one and 2 they have to be on opposite sides of the draw. There is only one other semi that can take place and that is putting Andy and Novak in the same half and Rog and Rafa in the same half. Well you can't have Rog RAfa grandslam final with all that added attention if they play each other in a semifinal can you. THE ONLY CONFIGURATION THAT MAXIMIZES AT THE OUTSET THE FEDAL FINAL IS ROGER IN NOVAK'S HALF. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ORGANIZERS WANT TO HAPPEN IF THEY CAN HELP IT AND THIS INCREDIBLE 64 TO 1 LONGSHOT HAS COME IN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE TV RATINGS. WHY DOESN'T A 64 TO 1 LONGSHOT COME IN WITH NOVAK GETTING ANDY SIX TIMES IN A ROW? Well because it destroys the chances of a fedal final and doesn't serve the interests of the tournament or their broadcasters.



Prior to AO this year, if you wanted to pick a semi seeding for Nadal to guarantee he gets to the final you would pick Andy. (Prior to AO 2011) Prior to this season if you wanted to give Fed the semi he most would prefer you would give him Novak. Remember that Andy still has a better h2h against fed than Novak does. Now that Novak is playing much better it doesn't change the equation, they can't put him in Rafa's half, and now THE ONLY CONFIGURATION THAT PRESERVES THE CHANCE OF A FEDAL FINAL IS TO PUT ROGER IN NOVAK'S HALF OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Sorry but can you explain how the draw resulted in Djokovic losing the French Open even though he had the added advantage of playing a game less than his opponents hence he was as fit as a fiddle?

Also then pray tell - for all this 'draw fixing' how many times has this flawless fixing system yielded results you claim the organisers wanted by getting a Federer/Nadal Final. It has happened once this year at Roland Garros and the last time it happened was over two years earlier. Now if I were organisers trying to fix a final and wasn't getting the result I was looking for then I'd make a change (as they would) and have say Djokovic drawing Murray or Nadal instead but they haven't so what does that tell you?

no doubt the US crowd in NY will hardly know who Djokovic is, much like Wimbledon crowd didn't really know who Djokovic is and were almost bewildered that he could toy with Nadal so easily.

Socal are you a keen advocate of the Moon landing being a hoax?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but can you explain how the draw resulted in Djokovic losing the French Open even though he had the added advantage of playing a game less than his opponents hence he was as fit as a fiddle?

Also then pray tell - for all this 'draw fixing' how many times has this flawless fixing system yielded results you claim the organisers wanted by getting a Federer/Nadal Final. It has happened once this year at Roland Garros and the last time it happened was over two years earlier. Now if I were organisers trying to fix a final and wasn't getting the result I was looking for then I'd make a change (as they would) and have say Djokovic drawing Murray or Nadal instead but they haven't so what does that tell you?

Simple, Novak had Nadal's number if he had the benefit of waiting for Rafa and Roger to duke it out, with Rafa winning again on clay he would be a heavy favorite in that final. He just beat Rafa at madrid and Rome in similar conditions. Did you see the cakewalk Nadal had with murray and the war Djoko had with Roger in the semi? The only player at RG that I really feared was Fed because while lacking consistency he was the one guy with the serve and variety to trouble Novak if he hit top gear, which is precisely what happened in that semi final. And then he promptly rolled over as usual for Nadal on clay. Not to mention the terrible scheduling of the french that required Novak to first play 4 straight days then to not play for 4 days in a row. Draw rigging has already cost Novak at least one slam.

Sorry but can you enlighten me as to what Djokovic's RG record is and what Rafa's RG record is? No comparison is there. Now if a fresh as a daisy Djokovic who had played a game less than an aging Federer and still couldn't beat him on clay how can you honestly claim Novak would have beaten Nadal? Especially when Nadal himself beat Federer - a feat Novak couldn't manage. And I will ask again:-

Also then pray tell - for all this 'draw fixing' how many times has this flawless fixing system yielded results you claim the organisers wanted by getting a Federer/Nadal Final. It has happened once this year at Roland Garros and the last time it happened was over two years earlier. Now if I were organisers trying to fix a final and wasn't getting the result I was looking for then I'd make a change (as they would) and have say Djokovic drawing Murray or Nadal instead but they haven't so what does that tell you?

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Guest82 wrote:The draws are clearly rigged, in my opinion, in favour of a Federer v Nadak final. Money talks sadly.

Although if Federer was to lose and, say, Tsonga was to make the semi final against Djokovic, would Murray v Nadal be considered the bigger game and therefore on second?

As I've already pointed out to socal - in 2008 we had exactly the same semi-final line-up as is protracted to happen this year and on that occasion the first match on Super Saturday was Federer V Djokovic followed by Nadal V Murray but suddenly socal is certain it will be different this time. I have pointed out before and will point out again - whoever plays whoever in the semis (if all top four seeds make it through) are going to have a mighty tough match. Now socal I could understand your angst if Federer was in the form of two or three years ago but he isn't and Djokovic is playing on a different level this year to Federer so why the panic - after all you could have drawn the reigning champion Rafael Nadal or Andy Murray who beat Novak last time out.

Wrong Craig, Novak has been getting fed more often now for about 2-3 years for all of that period Fed has been more dangerous than Andy, and this obviously bogus draw rigging has resulted in Novak losing one slam at RG this year. And your point about how Novak could get Nadal is a non-sequiter at this point because as one and 2 they have to be on opposite sides of the draw. There is only one other semi that can take place and that is putting Andy and Novak in the same half and Rog and Rafa in the same half. Well you can't have Rog RAfa grandslam final with all that added attention if they play each other in a semifinal can you. THE ONLY CONFIGURATION THAT MAXIMIZES AT THE OUTSET THE FEDAL FINAL IS ROGER IN NOVAK'S HALF. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ORGANIZERS WANT TO HAPPEN IF THEY CAN HELP IT AND THIS INCREDIBLE 64 TO 1 LONGSHOT HAS COME IN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE TV RATINGS. WHY DOESN'T A 64 TO 1 LONGSHOT COME IN WITH NOVAK GETTING ANDY SIX TIMES IN A ROW? Well because it destroys the chances of a fedal final and doesn't serve the interests of the tournament or their broadcasters.



Prior to AO this year, if you wanted to pick a semi seeding for Nadal to guarantee he gets to the final you would pick Andy. (Prior to AO 2011) Prior to this season if you wanted to give Fed the semi he most would prefer you would give him Novak. Remember that Andy still has a better h2h against fed than Novak does. Now that Novak is playing much better it doesn't change the equation, they can't put him in Rafa's half, and now THE ONLY CONFIGURATION THAT PRESERVES THE CHANCE OF A FEDAL FINAL IS TO PUT ROGER IN NOVAK'S HALF OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Not sure I agree with that socal. I'm pretty sure only one person has beaten Nadal more than once in Slams since August 2008, and that is Andy Murray. So why would he pick the only player to do that as his semi final opponent? Based on that, isn't that exactly who he wouldn't want?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:no doubt the US crowd in NY will hardly know who Djokovic is, much like Wimbledon crowd didn't really know who Djokovic is and were almost bewildered that he could toy with Nadal so easily.

Socal are you a keen advocate of the Moon landing being a hoax?

I don't have info on that before I make an accusation I like to have the requisite facts to back it up, in this particular case I have it in spades. Lets look at the statistical results. In one case Novak gets a 64 to 1 longshot that favors the prospects of a fedal final. In another instance Dr swift states that out of 1000 simulations only 3 of 1000 where as easy as the first round draws that the top seeds actually got. He thus concludes that the US open draws of the last 10 years have a .3 percent chance that the draws are random. What are the chances of both longshots being just statistically random? Both the Djokovic 1/64 longshot and the .3 percent chance that the top seed draws in the first two rounds are random. The odds are infentismal, in fact the evidence is now overwhelming in favor of the principle that the draws are not random.

Socal,

Still though, Novak should be beating a guy who's main priorities is his family, and not tennis, I would argue that Novak wasn't professional enough to win the match. I can't believe he could not finish the serve game out when 6-5 up in the 4th set, if he just wins the game and make it to a 5th, Federer will do what he's been doing for a while, and start missing shots.

Nole had the chance and wasn't big enough to serve it out.

No I''ve proved to you that the protracted semi draw is shown to be unsuccessful at manufacturing a Federer V Nadal final. In all the times you say the draw has been rigged there has been one Federer V Nadal final. Now I am sure if I were 'fixing it' to get that final and had been so unsuccessful I'd alter the match-ups to say Murray V Federer and Djokovic V Nadal but they haven't. Why?

Not sure I agree with that socal. I'm pretty sure only one person has beaten Nadal more than once in Slams since August 2008, and that is Andy Murray. So why would he pick the only player to do that as his semi final opponent? Based on that, isn't that exactly who he wouldn't want? Dany



How many times has Andy played him in a grandslam and how many times has he won? Remember that prior to this magical run Andy had a much better h2h against Roger and still does. Therefore they put him Rafa's half. Both guys have to get through the most dangerous configuration even before this year for the Fedal final would be Andy (with the superior head to head against Rog) getting Roger. And then Novak getting Nadal. Because if one of the two goes no fedal final. They have to in away protect both guys. This year with Roger's ranking falling only one configuration is possible to protect even the prospect of a fedal final and that is novak and Roger. So really, nothing has changed, Roger is basically still treated as the #2 seed eventhough he is the #3 seed.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I''ve proved to you that the protracted semi draw is shown to be unsuccessful at manufacturing a Federer V Nadal final. In all the times you say the draw has been rigged there has been one Federer V Nadal final. Now I am sure if I were 'fixing it' to get that final and had been so unsuccessful I'd alter the match-ups to say Murray V Federer and Djokovic V Nadal but they haven't. Why?

Craig, let me ask you question what are the chances of a fedal final if Rafa and Roger play in the semi? ABSOLUTELY ZERO. This is the configuration that maximizes their chances at the outset of a fedal final. And actually, RG this year was a perfect example of a manufactured fedal final that would not have otherwise occurred if Andy was put into Novak's half. They aren't going to risk the little credibility by totally rigging the thing, they have to maintain some subtlety and cover so people like you who want to believe that nothing below board ever happens can go on believing it.

No like I pointed out, as you are saying the draw is 'fixed' to manufacture a Federer V Nadal final and is why we always get this semi line-up I'd say the fact we've had ONE Federer V Nadal slam final in the last TEN shows the system is flawed and the riggers would have long since altered the match-ups.

I'd say the fact we've had ONE Federer V Nadal slam final in the last TEN shows the system is flawed and the riggers would have long since altered the match-ups

you a moron?

He is talking about Nadal and Federer always being on opposite ends of the draw, i.e they are NEVER on the same half of the draw because they want to boost ratings for an epic finale.

Is that too much logic for your wits??

CaledonianCraig wrote:No like I pointed out, as you are saying the draw is 'fixed' to manufacture a Federer V Nadal final and is why we always get this semi line-up I'd say the fact we've had ONE Federer V Nadal slam final in the last TEN shows the system is flawed and the riggers would have long since altered the match-ups.

Again no they wouldn't it means much more to them to have Fed and Nadal play in a big final with the added attention on sunday then to play friday afternoon in a semi. If Fed gets put into Nadal's half then you have a zero percent chance of them playing in the final. That is a fact CRaig.



JM, i do appreciate your support and your passion but don't call craig a moron he actually makes some good points in most of his posts although he is totally wrong in my opinion on this one. Let the logic and the facts do the talking and so far I think we are taking this one with flying colors.

No need for the insult and socal is also pointing out that the craved final for organisers is a Nadal V Federer final which has been a very rare occurence so their 'fixing' has not been successful.

I've said my piece on the subject and just think Mount Everest is being made of an ant hill. Socal has been saying for ages that Novak is destined for greatness and legend status so can't see why the distress about facing Federer who is in decline and last won at Flushing Meadows in 2008 instead of facing Nadal who won the US Open last year beating Novak or Andy Murray who beat Novak in Cincinnati.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No need for the insult and socal is also pointing out that the craved final for organisers is a Nadal V Federer final which has been a very rare occurence so their 'fixing' has not been successful.

I've said my piece on the subject and just think Mount Everest is being made of an ant hill. Socal has been saying for ages that Novak is destined for greatness and legend status so can't see why the distress about facing Federer who is in decline and last won at Flushing Meadows in 2008 instead of facing Nadal who won the US Open last year beating Novak or Andy Murray who beat Novak in Cincinnati.

Craig, this semi configuration gives them the best chance of a fedal final, it doesn't guarantee that event. However putting them in the same half prevents any chance whatsover of a fedal final. It is quite clear that this discriminatory semi configuration actually impacted greatly the result of RG final and ensured a fedal final that would not have happened otherwise. But let me ask you question if Fed plays Rafa in the semi this year at RG and Rafa gets through to play Novak after what you witnessed at Madrid and Rome who would you take in that match?



Craig Mount everest is not being made out of a mole hill, it is mount everest to have a PHD statistician study 10 years of draws and determine that the draws have been doctored and are not random. In fact, the ho hum response from the media actually tells you all you need to know about their credibility and their value as an independent investigative arm. Outside of match fixing and widespread doping draw rigging is the next mount everest in terms of its impact, ok maybe it isn't mount everest just K2.

On the subject of RG you are barking up the wrong tree. On the clay of Roland Garros Nadal has proven time and again he is untouchable on that surface and he doesn't need the help of any favourable draws to win the French Open as his record there proves.

On the 'rigged' draw thing if you feel strongly enough about it contact the organisers. But I stand by what I say that such is the standard at the top any semi-final draw was going to be a massive challenge and Nadal is defending champion (so Novak got lucky avoiding him) and Murray has a better slam record this year than Federer so you see whatever the draw it was always going to be tough. Like I said I'd understand your angst if this was two or three years ago when Federer was in his pomp but he isn't.

CaledonianCraig wrote:On the subject of RG you are barking up the wrong tree. On the clay of Roland Garros Nadal has proven time and again he is untouchable on that surface and he doesn't need the help of any favourable draws to win the French Open as his record there proves.

On the 'rigged' draw thing if you feel strongly enough about it contact the organisers. But I stand by what I say that such is the standard at the top any semi-final draw was going to be a massive challenge and Nadal is defending champion (so Novak got lucky avoiding him) and Murray has a better slam record this year than Federer so you see whatever the draw it was always going to be tough. Like I said I'd understand your angst if this was two or three years ago when Federer was in his pomp but he isn't.

Well since this streak started 2 years ago when fed was stronger and in his pomp as you so elegantly put the damage has already been done. But don't worry I am sure once Fed completely fades out of the picture and Andy clearly becomes the tougher draw then the draw rigging committees will start putting Andy in Novak half, that will be their sick and sardonic way of quote:"evening" things out. Nadal sure looked like he would have liked Fed instead of Novak at the wimby final, and sure looked like he would prefer fed in Rome and Madrid, and IW and Miami as well. He doesn't need the help of a favorable draw but he certainly got it.

Social

So we may not agree on conspiracy theories. Do you agree that a Federer Nadal final is the US Open final that the magority feel tennis needs?

https://www.606v2.com/t12215-us-open-final-tennis-needs

and wants...

hawkeye wrote:Social

So we may not agree on conspiracy theories. Do you agree that a Federer Nadal final is the US Open final that the magority feel tennis needs?

https://www.606v2.com/t12215-us-open-final-tennis-needs

and wants...

Is that true? The majority wanted Fed v Nadal? How disappointing. I have loads of respect for what Fed has done in his career, but personally I'd much rather any final containing Murray, Djoko, Nadal, Del Potro, Raonic... I want to the new(er) generation start to play some classic finals. I feel Nadal would own Federer, and I can think of many better match ups.

hawkeye wrote:Social

So we may not agree on conspiracy theories. Do you agree that a Federer Nadal final is the US Open final that the magority feel tennis needs?

https://www.606v2.com/t12215-us-open-final-tennis-needs

and wants...

Wait is this a sport or a popularity contest, I personally don't get that excited by fed/Nadal finals that much anymore. Did anyone have any doubt of how miami this year and RG where going to go when Fed played Nadal. Frankly, it just isn't the same. I actually think the best matchup right now for quality of tennis is when the current #1 plays the current #2, the quality of the baseline exchanges and defense is very intense and gripping. Attitudes like yours and quote the majority is what provides the incentive for this type of draw rigging. Not that it is wrong to love fedal matches, but from a tennis purists perspective at this stage in their careers it really isn't a fair fight. Roger just doesn't match up well with Rafa. I want to see great tennis don't care who the names are, but again that probably isn't the attitude of most tennis fans.

I agree with you there socal.

But you see that is another problem with your 'rigging' theory. Do organisers really want a final between two players in a rank run of form?

Yes, they want a fedal final no doubt about it just compare the ratings of the RG final 2011 to what the abysmal ratings were for the Novak/Andy final in melbourne. Tennis is entertainment and box office just like any other media driven activity. Names and brands matter in this modern commercial world and the organizers know that if Fed and Nadal happen to both fall into the final that even a great deal of casual fans who don't care much about tennis and barely even understand the basics of the game are just going to watch because of the names and the historical significance of the matchup. Do you think advertisers and sponsors want to see the best technical tennis or just get the highest ratings? In the past the fedal matches were both the best tennis matches and the biggest name matches, unfortunately that isn't the case anymore. You couldn't pay me to watch a replay of the miami semi this year with Fed and Nadal, it was an awful match.

Well especially in the form both are in at the moment so I'd agree with you on that front.

Am I right in that Nadal and Murray have now been on the same side of the draw 13 times of the last 14 slams?

If so, and if it's rigged and pre-planned, don't you think they would have 'rigged' them being in opposite sides of the draws a couple of times so as not to make it look suspicious?

A Federer v Nadal when they were both playing at the top of their game would probably be desired by most.

However that is not the case now and there must be other exciting match ups in prospect.

Being the USO the fans I am sure would love to see an American reach the latter stages.

Maybe Mardy could grant them their wish as I can't see ARod getting very far.