Draw Fixing: An Official Study

First topic message reminder :

The link below shows a talk by an Estionian researcher Katarina Pijetlovic, giving an exposition on draw fixing at a Corruption in Sport Symposium in Koln.


Katarina's talk starts at around 13 minutes:

http://www.livestream.com/playthegame_dshs/video?clipId=pla_44809e94-aa04-46c7-9f1e-35b212ba9d46


She examines the pattern of draws at slam tournaments (French Open was not part of the study) between 2007-2011, drawing the conclusion that ITF organised draw fixing on behalf of Nike seeing that Djokovic fell in Federer's half of the draw statistically virtually impossible 12 out of 12 times.

Roland Garros was not taken into the study as it showed a healthy 50/50 pattern.



Interesting facts, e.g. I didn't know that seeds 3 and 4 are drawn by hand unlike all the other seeds/players that are computer drawn.
Draws are apparently public and televised, but not really accessible anywhere on Youtube.

To me, the most blatant example of draw fixing was the Isner Mahut match played in the first round last year ON COURT 18, just like at the record breaking match the year before!!!


Katarina did the research hoping it would interest sports journalists and encourage them to contact the players and ITF.


So far nothing came out of it.

Have a look with an open mind and share your thoughts.

legendkillarV2

Please don't talk about shooting it makes me feel a little nervous...

Lydian there are two issues under discussion in this thread; both relating to the lecture conducted by Katarina Pijetlovic.

The first is the anomalous proliferation of Nadal vs. Djokovic grand slam semi finals in the past 4 years. The second is the quirky early round draws that the top seeds get.

Could you please tell me whether your post is related to either.

Henman Bill wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

What are your mathematical qualifications? If you could list the ones directly related to statistics and in particular probability in bold that would be helpful.

Anyone who has done a scientific degree at University or was born with a rational logical brain should be able to pick a few holes in these studies. We don't need a stats prof here.

It is common sense (but rather uncommon ).

Tennisanorak wrote:Lydian is abck with the same argument which is patently wrong.

Let me spell it out for you, Lydian.

It is not 6 and 8 occurrences, but a specific pattern of those. Consider only 4 tournaments for simplicity. If a 1-3 occurrence is a head and a 1-4 occurrence a tail, we are talking of something like HHTT. HTHT while having 2 heads and 2 tails is not enough.

It isn't the number of heads and tails that have to match, it is the specific sequence.

Once again, if Fed and Djoker were 1-3 for the first two slams and 1-4 for the second two slams, we would need two heads followed by two tails to make sure they meet in the semis. A head, tail, tail, head will not yield the pattern. There is a world of difference between specifying the number of heads in 12 tosses and specifying the exact order we need the heads and tails.

Think about it. A couple having 2 boys and 2 girls is far more likely than the first child being a boy, the second a girl, the third a girl and the fourth a boy.

Order matters, and you are completely ignoring it.

it's the difference between sets and sequences:
the probability of getting the set {H,H,T,T} (two heads, two tails) in four coin tosses is 3/8
the probability of getting the sequence (H,T,H,T) which gives the same set is 1/16
but that 1/16 is true for any possible sequence of outcomes...

NB,

The Eurovision was such a debacle that it deprived us of smoother than Galaxy chocolate Sir Terry Wogan.

The Eurovision is just neighbouring countries sticking the finger to their western counterparts.

I can only see the Crazy Frog theme restoring GB back to the Eurovision summit.

One problem I have with the draw fixing theory is that there wasn't that much between Murray and Djokovic in 2008 and 2010 anyway. Their head to head was fairly even, and yes Djokovic won the Australian Open and was the better player, but not by much. At Wimbledon Murray went further than Djokovic in 2008 and 2009 and equalled him in 2010.

If they fixed the draw at the US Open 2008 then it rather backfired with Murray beating Nadal in the semi to deny the Federer-Nadal final.

So if they have been fixing the draws they'll have only slightly increased the chance of a Fedal final, at the risk of much of their reputation if it got out.

I give up. The moment I raise an objection based on my knowledge of probability and statistics, it is ignored. The posts have become facetious because people are unable to grasp the point Tenez and I are making. Some people sadly think this is against a particular player whereas it isn't.

HB and Mad against Chelsea would do well to google "Monty Hall problem". It is a problem that I have studied in detail, so I am well- equipped to handle discussions like these on elementary probability. I only wish people would go through these posts carefully and reply to the specific content.

Henman Bill wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

What are your mathematical qualifications? If you could list the ones directly related to statistics and in particular probability in bold that would be helpful.

Anyone who has done a scientific degree at University or was born with a rational logical brain should be able to pick a few holes in these studies. We don't need a stats prof here.

This is the proof you did not do math cause when talking about probablility there are always holes. Here it's a very tiny one: 1/4096th inches small.

HB

yes in fact Murray beat Nadal at two slams long before Djokovic had even beaten him at one, he also had a leading H2H record against Federer, so you could argue that in fact the "fixing" was purely to favour Federer.

Sorry Tennisanorak you've lost me with the Federer Nadal love child analogy. Anyway boys tend to run in certain families and girls in others so maybe we'd better skip that one. There's also the fact that historically boys have died earlier than girls from hunting/wars/accidents ..etc so Mother Nature has skewed the odds usually slightly in favour of a boy, The we have nations where birth control is used as boys are favoured ...etc ...etc ..etc

Regarding which curtain has the car behind it. HMM interesting one. I'll tweet Prof. Hawkins on that.

Mad for Chelsea- ah, thanks for replying to the specific argument. You are right. That IS the difference. Now here, don't you see that it isn't a set but a sequence we are looking for.

Say THTHTHH would have meant that fed and Djoker met 7 times. This is exactly what we got. TTTHHHH with the same number of heads and tails would have meant Fed and Djoker met 5 times out of 7 so no one would have talked about it.

Extend this argument to 12 tosses and you will begin to see what the fuss about getting a specific sequence really is about!

Lydian thanks for digging up the raw data. AO '08 was missing but I guess we all remember Djokovic beating Federer in the semis...

In these 12 non-clay Grand Slams, Nadal was not even once (!) in the same half as Djokovic or Federer. So Nadal has been lucky to say the least.

To prove that this is not absurdly unlikely, would you kindly find us any other example like this in the Open era? You can pick any two players you like, i.e. doesn't need to be a high-profile case like Nadal vs. Djokovic/Federer.

Tennisanorak wrote:I give up. The moment I raise an objection based on my knowledge of probability and statistics, it is ignored. The posts have become facetious because people are unable to grasp the point Tenez and I are making. Some people sadly think this is against a particular player whereas it isn't.

HB and Mad against Chelsea would do well to google "Monty Hall problem". It is a problem that I have studied in detail, so I am well- equipped to handle discussions like these on elementary probability. I only wish people would go through these posts carefully and reply to the specific content.

erm yes, that was the teaser I gave earlier, which HB got right (he said you should switch as switching gives you a 2/3 chance of success). I confess I didn't know it was called the Monty Hall problem, it was just something someone asked me once which I find amusing.

What are you talking about Anorak? Sequences...? Thats not relevant here. You need to look at the bigger picture. What is relevant is seeds and draws - and the way the draw is made. Lets look at potential points of influence on the draw. One point of influence could be the way the seedings are made. However, the seeds are not defined by event organisers or anyone connected to the draw but simply by the number of ATP points the player has throughout the season to that point. It's a fully transparent calculation. Were the seeding committee to deviate from these rankings at any point you could argue they have influenced this but they haven't.

A second point of influence could be the software that produces the draw. The software works numerically and is really the only potential point of fixing. However, this has been shown to produce a roughly normal distribution of numerical results.

Therefore, as the actual numerical draw is random and statistically shown to be normal, and the seedings/numbers that represent the players going into the draw are beyond the control of the people making the draw I don't see how this can be manipulated or a conspiracy of any kind. In short, the element they control (i.e the actual numerical draw) is shown to be random and broadly in line with what you would expect mathematically. The seeding is independent of the draw and achieved via a fully transparent method that only the players control dependent on what they win/lose relative to each other.

Furthermore, Tenez keeps going on about 1 in 4000. He should be asking what's the probability of seeds 1 and 3 in the same half for 12 times in a row....yes that's roughly 1 in 4,000. But that scenario hasn't happened!!!

I want to hear what Carol Vorderman has to say on this matter.

Tennisanorak wrote:Mad for Chelsea- ah, thanks for replying to the specific argument. You are right. That IS the difference. Now here, don't you see that it isn't a set but a sequence we are looking for.

Say THTHTHH would have meant that fed and Djoker met 7 times. This is exactly what we got. TTTHHHH with the same number of heads and tails would have meant Fed and Djoker met 5 times out of 7 so no one would have talked about it.

Extend this argument to 12 tosses and you will begin to see what the fuss about getting a specific sequence really is about!

yes, but the sequence DMMMDDDMDDMD had exactly the same probability of occurring, that is 1 in 4096. ANY specific sequence should cause a fuss by this logic, and once again, the omission of the FO is a shocking bit of cherry-picking. Maybe I'm looking at this from too much of a scientific viewpoint, but their theory has wayyyyyyyy too many holes in it for me. Dress it up any way you want, it's cherry-picking, and disgusts me.

Would anyone who thinks draws are fixed care to make a prediction for the remaining slams for this year? Or do you think the fixing is over now?

Exactly, prostaff 85! But I do disagree that it can be any two set of players. If you consider 4096 player pairs, this is likely to happen since the probability is 1/4096. It's like if you keep tossing coins, you'll eventually get this pattern maybe after hundreds of years. What makes it interesting in this case is that it is such a high profile pair of players. I will be happy if someone can show a similar trend for any two players who have won more than 2 slams.

To elaborate, if Federer and Nadal were unseeded but met each other in the first round 4 times in a row, we would be intrigued. If Tsonga and Gulbis met 5 times in a row, there would be less hinging in it. Surely?

You can focus on the names of the players as much as you like and how they have come together to meet each other in a pattern...but it all hinges on SEEDS (not names) placement in TOP and BOTTOM halves of draws...and the placing of seeds has not been unusual.

Henman Bill wrote:Would anyone who thinks draws are fixed care to make a prediction for the remaining slams for this year? Or do you think the fixing is over now?

Yes! Also the question I keep asking is (if the draws are all fixed) how and why is Nadal allowed to do the fixing?

Mad for Chelsea- NO! That is where you get it wrong. ANy speficic sequence would NOT cause a fuss. If Federer and Djokovic played each other say 8 times out of 12, it would be within the realms of probability . But not if it had to be the sequence that would lead to them playing 12 times in a row!

There was only one sequence that would have created a fuss. And it happened. The probability of this was 1/4096.

These are the facts and you can't argue with them. What you can argue with is the interpretation, but not these facts themselves.

newballs wrote:Sorry Tennisanorak you've lost me with the Federer Nadal love child analogy. Anyway boys tend to run in certain families and girls in others so maybe we'd better skip that one. There's also the fact that historically boys have died earlier than girls from hunting/wars/accidents ..etc so Mother Nature has skewed the odds usually slightly in favour of a boy, The we have nations where birth control is used as boys are favoured ...etc ...etc ..etc

Regarding which curtain has the car behind it. HMM interesting one. I'll tweet Prof. Hawkins on that.

historically childbirth, resulting infections and complications caused a much higher mortality rate amongst females so I am surprised that M Nature has skewed it the other way, if She has!

The car was interesting - I would have stayed put on the basis that odds had reduced from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2

because he's good looking and charms the organisers

exactly TP....now we just seem to get more PID and ectopics...seems probabilistically unreasonable but a fact nonetheless. I blame too many holidays taking place in Faliraki or Magaluf!

Tennisanorak wrote:Mad for Chelsea- NO! That is where you get it wrong. ANy speficic sequence would NOT cause a fuss. If Federer and Djokovic played each other say 8 times out of 12, it would be within the realms of probability . But not if it had to be the sequence that would lead to them playing 12 times in a row!

There was only one sequence that would have created a fuss. And it happened. The probability of this was 1/4096.

These are the facts and you can't argue with them. What you can argue with is the interpretation, but not these facts themselves.

ah but when you say that you're no longer talking of sequences but of sets, and as lydian points out if you consider this from the seed# rather than the player's name (which is how the draw works) you get a perfectly reasonable split. My point is that from a purely mathematical viewpoint the sequence of 12 H is as likely as any other.

And still no one's answered my point about RG being left out but Wimbledon left in...

hawkeye wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Would anyone who thinks draws are fixed care to make a prediction for the remaining slams for this year? Or do you think the fixing is over now?

Yes! Also the question I keep asking is (if the draws are all fixed) how and why is Nadal allowed to do the fixing?

Tenez answered this question more than once on this thread. Why do you keep asking the same question? Are you expecting a different answer, because if you are, you're waisting time: there's only one answer.

Big business edging their horse a bit. Nothing new. I wish they didn't.

Lydian, I put it to you that the placement of seeds HAS been unusual. It has been exactly the same placement every time that would lead to Federer and Djokovic playing.

For some reason, you only tend to think of all 1-3 meetings in 12 tournaments as unusual. If I told you that it had to six 1-3 meetings the first six tournaments and six 1-4 meetings the second six tournaments, and it happened exactly that way, it is equally strange in spite of the 1-3 pairing happening 6 times and the 1-4 pairing happening 6 times.

This is the point you seem to have trouble grasping. Or look at it this way. Federer and Djokovic are drawn together the first time. From then on, every time their seedings change, the draw changes and every time their seedings don't change, the draw doesn't change. In short, the draw follows their seedings 12 times in a row. How on earth is this not bizarre?

I would recommend that you ask this question to any mathematics professor. He he would agree that it is an unlikely situtation.

Things are getting a little laboured here aren’t they?

The issue is not with the statistics; it is whether we can conclude anything from Federer and Djokovic constantly being drawn in the same half. Would it be advantageous for Nike and their partners to arrange the draw in this way?

Some people on here have pointed to the fact that Murray recorded wins over Nadal in grand slam play during this period, while Djokovic tended to flounder against Nadal when under the most intense of scrutiny. Recently Djokovic has been beating everybody so it renders the alleged draw fixing pointless anyway.

As I said earlier I find the analysis done on the top players’ early round draws far more compelling.

[quote="time please"]

newballs wrote:Sorry Tennisanorak you've lost me with the Federer Nadal love child analogy. Anyway boys tend to run in certain families and girls in others so maybe we'd better skip that one. There's also the fact that historically boys have died earlier than girls from hunting/wars/accidents ..etc so Mother Nature has skewed the odds usually slightly in favour of a boy, The we have nations where birth control is used as boys are favoured ...etc ...etc ..etc

Regarding which curtain has the car behind it. HMM interesting one. I'll tweet Prof. Hawkins on that.

historically childbirth, resulting infections and complications caused a much higher mortality rate amongst females so I am surprised that M Nature has skewed it the other way, if She has!

tp for you (from the truth about gender selction)-

The 51/49 Boy/Girl Ratio

The ratio of 51% boys to 49% girls seen here is representative of overall US birth rates. There are many hypotheses about why there are slightly more boys born each year than girls, but no one knows for sure why this is so. Here are a couple of the theories:
Males are more fragile (male infants are less likely to survive their first year, and a man's expected lifespan is less than a woman's). The slightly higher conception rate of males is nature's way of evening out the balance.
As Shettles contents, Y-bearing male-producing sperm may have a speed advantage over X-bearing female-producing sperm, more often winning the race to fertilize the egg and resulting in more male conceptions.
Regardless of the reason, the 51/49 ratio remains constant year to year throughout the US population.

Admittedly this is for the US but I'd predict similar stats for the UK. Like the idea of our Y chromosomes being speedier than their X counterparts though no doubt because they are slightly lighter starts to sound like the old head vs. tail argument)

I must say, I never though it would be so difficult to understand how hard it is to have s 12 out of 12 coincidence for so many people.

It's not the end of the world if the draw got fixed to help Fedal finals...just a bit depressing to accept how much big business and money has ruined tennis: firstly by fixing draws and then slowing down playing conditions.

It would be great if somebody could get hold of VALID study of how much courts have actually REALLY been slowed down, also WHICH courts have been slowed down and when.

On second thoughts, what's the point of finding out now, all that needs to be done is revert it to 2007.

If there's a precise 50/50 chance on each of 12 separate draws between seeds 3 & 4, the probability of any series of results is (1/2) to the power of 12, i.e. a very small number.

I've not read the paper, but as others have said, the following facts tend to make a 'rig' up unlikely on the face of it:

* Djoko and Fed's seedings have changed over the sample
* the draw is between seed nos. 3 & 4 and there is a fairly even distribution of the picks when you look at numbers
* the sample does not include RG for whatever reason

It's the US Open which looks oddest, with Fed vs. Djoko matches an annual feature from 2007-2011 including 4 SF's in a row, but (from memory, so excuse errors) the pattern of draw permutations is not at all suspicious (Fed mentioned first):

2007: F between No. 1 and No. 3
2008: SF between No. 1 and No. 3
2009: SF between No. 1 and No. 4
2010: SF between No. 2 and No. 3
2011: SF between No. 3 and No. 1

I am sure that there are plenty of ways in which the biggest crowd-puller with the sharpest elbows can gain advantages in terms of venue, conditions, and schedule across the two weeks of a slam, or is even offered such advantages without the need to ask, but I don't think it arises from mucking about with the draws.

If you want to influence a slam result mucking about with draws has the poorest risk/reward profile anyway - even the toughest looking draws can fall open with one or two freak results and to achieve it you need to take into your confidence a few individuals who could call you on a black-and-white cheat at any time. Much better to make subtle changes to the balls or surfaces or with scheduling.

TA, you're starting with the names and working backwards...thats the problem with your analysis. It doesnt needs a Maths professor - BTW...you know "Prof." means head of dept. for 5 years...not a reflection of ultra high intelligence, I work with enough of them
This starts with the seeds and ends with the seeds. Their placement has been shown to be not unusual...and the draws are made with seeds, not names...everything else in the discussion is by-product, including the names that are merely labelled to the seeds.

lydian wrote:You can focus on the names of the players as much as you like and how they have come together to meet each other in a pattern...but it all hinges on SEEDS (not names) placement in TOP and BOTTOM halves of draws...and the placing of seeds has not been unusual.

Like Newballs you don;t understand it. Watching a draw live looks fine from the outside. But as the student mentions there is no recording of those draws on youtube or else....for some reasons. That's strange.

Mad for Chelsea- sigh! The "split" doesn't matter! It is the specific order that matters.

Once again, it was NOT enough to have a split of eight 1-3 and four 1-4 in twelve tournaments.

These eight 1-3s and four 1-4s had to occur in a specific order. To be precise, it had to be 1-3 when Fed and Djoker were 1-3 and it had to be 1-4 when they were 1-4.

Even if you interchanged a 1-3 and a 1-4, the "split" between 1-3 and 1-4 would remain the same, i.e. eight 1-3 and four 1-4 among 12, but Fed and Djokovic would have played each other only 10 times out of 12. Do you get it now?

It isn't about the split. It is about the order.

Say you needed 1000 1000 1000 to win a lottery where each 0 or 1 is drawn randomly with a 50% chance . You need that sequence. Another sequence like 111000000000 which has the same number or "split" of zeros and ones (i.e. 3 ones and nine zeros) is not enough.

noleisthebest wrote:I must say, I never though it would be so difficult to understand how hard it is to have s 12 out of 12 coincidence for so many people.

In saying that you havent grasped the subtlety of the subsequent argument...the basis of the 12/12 is important here...seeds...for that there hasnt been a 12/12 run of seed placement which, yes, would be unusual

Tenez wrote: Like Newballs you don;t understand it. Watching a draw live looks fine from the outside. But as the student mentions there is no recording of those draws on youtube or else....for some reasons. That's strange.

I understand the argument fully and have countered it.
You're now moving goalposts to draw selection...which in any case has resulted in normal seed placement distribution!

Lydian, probably NITB hasn't grasped it because it is a wrong argument. If you want to know why, I've elaborated it enough times above.

Tennisanorak wrote:Mad for Chelsea- sigh! The "split" doesn't matter! It is the specific order that matters.

Once again, it was NOT enough to have a split of eight 1-3 and four 1-4 in twelve tournaments.

These eight 1-3s and four 1-4s had to occur in a specific order. To be precise, it had to be 1-3 when Fed and Djoker were 1-3 and it had to be 1-4 when they were 1-4.

Even if you interchanged a 1-3 and a 1-4, the "split" between 1-3 and 1-4 would remain the same, i.e. eight 1-3 and four 1-4 among 12, but Fed and Djokovic would have played each other only 10 times out of 12. Do you get it now?

It isn't about the split. It is about the order.

Say you needed 1000 1000 1000 to win a lottery where each 0 or 1 is drawn randomly with a 50% chance . You need that sequence. Another sequence like 111000000000 which has the same number or "split" of zeros and ones (i.e. 3 ones and nine zeros) is not enough.

I know, but you're the one who said "if Fed had been in the same half as Djoko on 8 of the 12 occasions there would have been nothing unusual", in this case you were talking of the split.

Once again, the sequence of results is no more (un)likely than any other sequence of results.

barrystar wrote:If there's a precise 50/50 chance on each of 12 separate draws between seeds 3 & 4, the probability of any series of results is (1/2) to the power of 12, i.e. a very small number.

I've not read the paper, but as others have said, the following facts tend to make a 'rig' up unlikely on the face of it:

1 Djoko and Fed's seedings have changed over the sample
2 the draw is between seed nos. 3 & 4 and there is a fairly even distribution of the picks when you look at numbers
3 the sample does not include RG for whatever reason

Barry - 1 and 2 are not reasons cause if rigging a draw, it'd be done based on who plays who and not who is seeded what...unless the draw was done weeks in advance as TA mentioned. And here it's FEd/Djoko 12 in a row!

SO we are left with your point 3. why the FO was left out. Here it's pretty simple, that's the slam where the TD was not keen to have another Fedal final. If anything they wanted anyone but Nadal or Fed at all cost so it would be very unlikely they would bend to Nadal and his sponsors pressure.

noleisthebest wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Would anyone who thinks draws are fixed care to make a prediction for the remaining slams for this year? Or do you think the fixing is over now?

Yes! Also the question I keep asking is (if the draws are all fixed) how and why is Nadal allowed to do the fixing?

Tenez answered this question more than once on this thread. Why do you keep asking the same question? Are you expecting a different answer, because if you are, you're waisting time: there's only one answer.

Big business edging their horse a bit. Nothing new. I wish they didn't.

I didn't see that as an answer.

Why is Nadal a "big horse". How did he get to be one? Isn't Federer a "big horse"? Isn't Djokovic a "big horse"? If Federer and Djokovic are not "big horses" how do they get to be one? Clearly it's not by winning slams... IMO Murray is the "biggest horse" of all so why don't draws get fixed for him?

Also technically how do they go about fixing a draw? If "they" are going to go to all that bother why not simply pay off a few opponants? It must be a bit annoying to do all this fixing and then lose a player early on...

I like Henman Bills question too.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:If there's a precise 50/50 chance on each of 12 separate draws between seeds 3 & 4, the probability of any series of results is (1/2) to the power of 12, i.e. a very small number.

I've not read the paper, but as others have said, the following facts tend to make a 'rig' up unlikely on the face of it:

1 Djoko and Fed's seedings have changed over the sample
2 the draw is between seed nos. 3 & 4 and there is a fairly even distribution of the picks when you look at numbers
3 the sample does not include RG for whatever reason

Barry - 1 and 2 are not reasons cause if rigging a draw, it'd be done based on who plays who and not who is seeded what...unless the draw was done weeks in advance as TA mentioned. And here it's FEd/Djoko 12 in a row!

SO we are left with your point 3. why the FO was left out. Here it's pretty simple, that's the slam where the TD was not keen to have another Fedal final. If anything they wanted anyone but Nadal or Fed at all cost so it would be very unlikely they would bend to Nadal and his sponsors pressure.

Why don't they "fix" the draw for Murray at Wimbledon? "They" certainly don't want Nadal rather than Murray in the final there.

hawkeye wrote:

Why is Nadal a "big horse". How did he get to be one? Isn't Federer a "big horse"? Isn't Djokovic a "big horse"? If Federer and Djokovic are not "big horses" how do they get to be one? Clearly it's not by winning slams... IMO Murray is the "biggest horse" of all so why don't draws get fixed for him?

Funny coming from you. You keep saying all year long that people are only interested in seeing Fedal matches and once we prove you that the slam organisers are totally in agreement with you, you reject the very solid proof.

hawkeye wrote:Why don't they "fix" the draw for Murray at Wimbledon? "They" certainly don't want Nadal rather than Murray in the final there.

As far as we know Slam organisers know that Murray can beat Nadal in slams. Murray beating Federer as yet to happen.

And we are not saying that for a 12/12 to happen all tosses have to be rigged but by rigging a few, one would increase strongly the chance of having a 12/12.

There is a fine line difference to proof and circumstantial statistics.

Like everyone has said that the data has gaping holes in it. As far as I am concerned the data is corrupt. Why not collect all the data from the Slams in the 21st century. Why were Womens data missing from the Slams? If they were far more random than the Mens, that could be quantitified that statistics are overwhelmingly in favour of 'controlled, planned' draws.

legendkillarV2 wrote:There is a fine line difference to proof and circumstantial statistics.

I said solid proof. Yes there is a chance it;s down to chance. By calling a 1 in 4k chance a "gaping hole" is laughable.

prostaff85 wrote:In these 12 non-clay Grand Slams, Nadal was not even once (!) in the same half as Djokovic or Federer. So Nadal has been lucky to say the least.

This is another way of putting TA's 'sequence' point.

The draw is made up of two inputs, the (I believe) random element of picking Nos. 3 & 4 out of a hat and the non-random element of particular player's seedings. If you combine a random element with a non-random element surely the overall result is not likely to be random.

@Tenez - are you saying that at RG they'd put Djoko in Nadal's half to try and stop Nadal making the final?

I still don't buy it - when there are grey areas of being able to influence outcomes which have a better chance of the desired result than black and white fraudulent ones I'd expect officials to go for grey every time because the risk of someone involved calling them out for the black and white cheat is far too great.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:There is a fine line difference to proof and circumstantial statistics.

I said solid proof. Yes there is a chance it;s down to chance. By calling a 1 in 4k chance a "gaping hole" is laughable.

Missing other Slam events in the year is gaping and yes laughable.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Why don't they "fix" the draw for Murray at Wimbledon? "They" certainly don't want Nadal rather than Murray in the final there.

As far as we know Slam organisers know that Murray can beat Nadal in slams. Murray beating Federer as yet to happen.

Tenez

So your theory is that the draws are fixed to benefit both Nadal and Federer? But not at the FO as your "evidence doesn't cover this slam... And also not at Wimbledon... Because here they want Murray to win and not Nadal so they put Murray in Rafa's half...?

I hope these draw fixers concentrate because it would be very easy to put Federer and Djokovic in the same half for all the wrong reasons and then they would go and spoil everything...