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.

Henman Bill wrote:As for Nadal "has said that he found Djokovic most difficult to play (and recent 7 losses prove that he knew what he was talking about" I think we need to clarify that to begin with Nadal was racking up win after win against Djokovic. Djokovic has become a better player now. Most players have worse records against him now.

Since we are keen to avoid clay, I bet if you take Murray and Djokovic's ranking points for 2008, 2009 and 2010 excluding clay, that they would be about the same. Apart from clay, they were on a par in those years.

those wins were very very, veeeeery close:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=D643

TA...

Federer vs Soderling

2010 USO Q Robin Soderling (SWE) 5 W 6-4, 6-4, 7-5
2010 FO Q Robin Soderling (SWE) 7 L 6-3, 3-6, 5-7, 4-6
2009 USO Q Robin Soderling (SWE) 12 W 6-0, 6-3, 6-7(6), 7-6(6)
2009 W R16 Robin Soderling (SWE) 12 W 6-4, 7-6(5), 7-6(5)
2009 FO W Robin Soderling (SWE) 25 W 6-1, 7-6(1), 6-4
2008 W R64 Robin Soderling (SWE) 41 W 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(3)


Discrete points, at the Slams, Soderling ranked (5,7,12,12,25,41) 6 matches.


Federer vs Roddick...

2009 W W Andy Roddick (USA) 6 W 5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14
2009 AO S Andy Roddick (USA) 9 W 6-2, 7-5, 7-5
2007 USO Q Andy Roddick (USA) 5 W 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-2
2007 AO S Andy Roddick (USA) 7 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-2
2006 USO W Andy Roddick (USA) 10 W 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2005 W W Andy Roddick (USA) 4 W 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2004 W W Andy Roddick (USA) 2 W 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2003 W S Andy Roddick (USA) 6 W 7-6(6), 6-3, 6-3

Discrete points, at the slams, Roddick ranked (6,9,5,7,10,4,2,6) 8 matches.

So what do you think?

PS: Roddick has never played Federer at FO, how strange, correct?

noleisthebest wrote:

OK.
This study has a completely different focus and a more thorough one. It attempts to show how business has been ruining tennis, firstly by creating a financially lucrative rivalry, then propping it up to such an extent that 2 year reanking was at stake, draws fixed, courts slowed down and one player (happens to be my favourite one ) had to had it extra hard to overcome it all.
A few other bits and bobs, but these are the main ones. You have to agree, pretty serious stuff with far-reaching consequences.

The question I am almost scared to ask is: if and how much players knew about it and had their say in it all. I suppose that's the bit we never get to find out unless they chose to unburden their consciences like Agassi did with his drug abuse.

You really can be fairly hard-headed about this - dishonesty follows temptation.

Take Wimbledon - they are a private club, they are not beholden to TV money in anything like the same way as any other slam, that's absolutely clear from their schedule, including the absence of a middle sunday or a first sunday and the fact that they have Men and Women only days from the QF onwards - which is obviously not the best way of making money. They clearly fix their schedule in a way which they consider provides integrity for the competition or merely just because they've always done it. What possible motive could they have for fiddling their draws? It just makes no sense. If they wanted more money they'd do something different first before they bothered cheating with the draws. I accept that they have changed the conditions, but not really with the aim of helping one player and boosting one rivalry since it started way before 2008.

If you can take Wimbledon out of it, and I really think you can for the above reasons, then you are left with two slams and the sample becomes even less convincing and more partial.

There are so many more things a slam organiser can do to help a player like Nadal (for it is he) with a particular way of playing than persuading several employees to lie. People say that they are 'unaccountable' - my experience of life and business is that being accused of being a fraud is something that nobody takes lightly, and the vast majority of people you meet if asked to do something downright dishonest will just say 'no', or if they do say 'yes' in a moment of weakness that will eat away at them and they'll spill the beans later.

laverfan wrote:TA...

Federer vs Soderling

2010 USO Q Robin Soderling (SWE) 5 W 6-4, 6-4, 7-5
2010 FO Q Robin Soderling (SWE) 7 L 6-3, 3-6, 5-7, 4-6
2009 USO Q Robin Soderling (SWE) 12 W 6-0, 6-3, 6-7(6), 7-6(6)
2009 W R16 Robin Soderling (SWE) 12 W 6-4, 7-6(5), 7-6(5)
2009 FO W Robin Soderling (SWE) 25 W 6-1, 7-6(1), 6-4
2008 W R64 Robin Soderling (SWE) 41 W 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(3)


Discrete points, at the Slams, Soderling ranked (5,7,12,12,25,41) 6 matches.


Federer vs Roddick...

2009 W W Andy Roddick (USA) 6 W 5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14
2009 AO S Andy Roddick (USA) 9 W 6-2, 7-5, 7-5
2007 USO Q Andy Roddick (USA) 5 W 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-2
2007 AO S Andy Roddick (USA) 7 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-2
2006 USO W Andy Roddick (USA) 10 W 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2005 W W Andy Roddick (USA) 4 W 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2004 W W Andy Roddick (USA) 2 W 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2003 W S Andy Roddick (USA) 6 W 7-6(6), 6-3, 6-3

Discrete points, at the slams, Roddick ranked (6,9,5,7,10,4,2,6) 8 matches.

So what do you think?

PS: Roddick has never played Federer at FO, how strange, correct?

I am sure there is a logical conspiracy that explains this though LF

barrystar wrote:

You really can be fairly hard-headed about this - dishonesty follows temptation.

I am hard-headed for having an opinion those who disagree - aren't. Nice.


As for dishonesty and temptation, not sure what you meant by them in the same sentence.

noleisthebest wrote:

barrystar wrote:

You really can be fairly hard-headed about this - dishonesty follows temptation.

I am hard-headed for having an opinion those who disagree - aren't. Nice.


As for dishonesty and temptation, not sure what you meant by them in the same sentence.

I did not mean to suggest you are being soft-headed, but responding to your suggestion that it is all about money by suggesting that it is just as hard-headed to identify good reasons not to get into dishonesty which are not about money.

I don't get your second point - temptation leads to wrong-doing, especially dishonesty, if there's an absense of temptation, i.e. no sensible upside compared to a big downside, dishonesty is usually the wrong explanation.

TA...

Here is another example of manufactured data fitting a hypothesis...

Federer vs Del Potro

2012 AO Q Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 11 W 6-4, 6-3, 6-2
2009 USO F Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 6 L 6-3, 6-7(5), 6-4, 6-7(4), 2-6
2009 FO S Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 5 W 3-6, 7-6(2), 2-6, 6-1, 6-4
2009 AO Q Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 6 W 6-3, 6-0, 6-0
2007 W R64 Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 56 W 6-2, 7-5, 6-1

Discrete points, at the slams, Del Potro ranked (11,6,5,6,56) 5 matches.

I have not picked Nadal at slams yet. A similar pattern would show up for him as well.

All this conjecture begs the question why bother anyway?

If the aim is to ensure Djokovic and Federer get play well have a reasonable chance of playing each other in the final if they avoid one another in the semis and surely not everyone wants to fiddle draws to make it more likely Nadal gets through. Or am I showing my naivety here?

If the idea is to make as many Nadal Federer finals as possible well someone ought to tell Roger to get his act together and improve his ranking.

Quite where all this leaves Murray i'm not sure but maybe Wimbledon need some tips as to how to fiddle the draw on his behalf. Mahut and Isner being drawn together is definitely the one match though where you had to agree it was a case of "fancy that!"

barrystar wrote:I really need overwhelming evidence to believe that people with so much to lose would behave in such a short-sighted way for such little gain.

There is nothing to lose cause they don't care. They are not placing the the seed 3 and 4 on one side, they just push luck for maximising what people want to see. Exactly like making sure top seeds have cannon fodder for the first rounds (even if USO only). That simple fact shows that they can do it to some extend.

HB, Barry at least recognises it's a pretty strange series. You were not admitting anything on your first posts and failed to grasp the rarity of such event.

As said, it's very strange those draw ceremonies are not recorded in our day and age. Since this story came out, I expect that to change.

newballs wrote:All this conjecture begs the question why bother anyway?

If the aim is to ensure Djokovic and Federer get play well have a reasonable chance of playing each other in the final if they avoid one another in the semis and surely not everyone wants to fiddle draws to make it more likely Nadal gets through. Or am I showing my naivety here?

If the idea is to make as many Nadal Federer finals as possible well someone ought to tell Roger to get his act together and improve his ranking.

Quite where all this leaves Murray i'm not sure but maybe Wimbledon need some tips as to how to fiddle the draw on his behalf. Mahut and Isner being drawn together is definitely the one match though where you had to agree it was a case of "fancy that!"

You would think if it was worth fiddling they would have put Mahut and Isner on centre (or at least a show court) to make the most of it...

I don't think you have been paying attention with regard to Murray. According to Tenez Federer and Djokovic being drawn in the same half at Wimbledon has nothing to do with the organisers wanting a "Fedal" final or wanting to make the draw easy for the "untalented" Nadal! They deliberately put Murray in Nadals half because Murray can easily beat Nadal. This ensures Murray gets to the final.

Tenez wrote:

As said, it's very strange those draw ceremonies are not recorded in our day and age. Since this story came out, I expect that to change.

ESPN records the draw ceremonies for USO.

barrystar wrote:
On the current evidence I'm unimpressed that RG has been excluded, I can't see any reason for keeping Nadal away from Djokovic at Wimbledon,

What happened last time they met? and what happened the time before in 2007 when Djoko was only 20?

there is a feasible explanation that changing permutations in the seedings of the top 3 players have been random for 12 out of 16 slams, and the alternative of officials lying about what they have been doing for a fairly limited gain prospect is far less feasible to me. Remember, there's no room for ifs and buts if the draws were fixed, several people across 3 of the most prestigious tournaments in the game have been acting dishonestly and directly contrary to what they say that they do (a huge downside if they are nailed) against a relatively small upside.

What about not applying the 20s rule? Clearly things have been twicked for years but more so recently as Nadal Federer was the jackpot for tennis organisers. As said earlier, it goes in line with the slowing of courts everywhere to maximise fedal finals. There was no shame in this. They could not care less.

I really need overwhelming evidence to believe that people with so much to lose would behave in such a short-sighted way for such little gain.

Yes, really bizarre really. Isner mahut in 1st round of SW19 in 2011 strange sureley thought it was only 1 in 96 chance. Still very strange. Djoko Fed being 12/12 in 3 slams were Nadal struggles is beyond conspiracy for me, but added to that the first rounds rigging...I am afraid there is nowhere to go.

If people had a grasp of what it means, they should be the ones trying to prove us wrong not the other way around and from what I saw I did not see anything that come close to explaining the normality of such weird events.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

As said, it's very strange those draw ceremonies are not recorded in our day and age. Since this story came out, I expect that to change.

ESPN records the draw ceremonies for USO.

I know they do but I have not seen it on youtube for some reasons.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

As said, it's very strange those draw ceremonies are not recorded in our day and age. Since this story came out, I expect that to change.

ESPN records the draw ceremonies for USO.

I know they do but I have not seen it on youtube for some reasons.

Copyright issues.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

As said, it's very strange those draw ceremonies are not recorded in our day and age. Since this story came out, I expect that to change.

ESPN records the draw ceremonies for USO.

I know they do but I have not seen it on youtube for some reasons.

Copyright issues.

You can see all the matches in HD but not the draw.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

As said, it's very strange those draw ceremonies are not recorded in our day and age. Since this story came out, I expect that to change.

ESPN records the draw ceremonies for USO.

I know they do but I have not seen it on youtube for some reasons.

Copyright issues.

Who exactly is going to copy USO draw?

ooops....forgot about AO and Wimbers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQJRFlkHhfA&feature=related

This is the closest that I can find...

USO - http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/RTV/2011/08/26/RTV2415311/
W - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afeW8gMVtS4
AO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrB3Ao-cCZo

Ah, the nerd in me is happy. What a nice article to chew on. So, here are my thoughts, a lot of it was mentioned already by some posters or others but to summarize from my angle, here goes:

First, the portion that is quite simple and that has attracted much argument and wasted a lot of time:

Suppose we pick three slams, look at each of them for 4 years and we observe either

(a) seed #3 is seeded in seed#1 half 12 times, or
(b) Djokovic is in Federer's half 12 times

It was suggested by some here that if we observed (a) it would be more a cause of concern than if we observe (b). I beg to differ. Both of these have the exact same probability (1/4096).

The only thing that would make (b) more "ordinary" is if we looked through enough pairings of players and were purposefuly trying to find one with an odd pattern. However, it is pretty clear that this is not what is happening here. Nobody is digging through all possible pairings of players just to find the one pair that has the odd pattern.

Second,

On the more general topic of the Djokovic-Nadal study. While the above probabilities are technically correct and it certainly does not look like they were digging through pairs of players to find one odd pair, it also seems to be clear that the study was biased in other respects. Most notably, I am pretty sure that if the study had found that, say, the only tournament where the pattern did not hold was Wimbledon, they would have thrown Wimbledon out.

I think a more resonable study would have said that out of 16 possible cases (including the French), Federer and Djokovic were in the same half 14 times. If I did my math right, the probability of the two of them to be in the same half 14 or more times out of 16 is about 1 in 500. Not nearly 1 in 4,000 but still fairly unlikely.

It should be pointed out, however, that the period of study also appears to be chosen to match the desired outcome. In 2007 Wimbledon and US Open, Djokovic was in Nadal's half of the draw. So the 1 in 500 may in some sense be also overstating the "true" level of unlikelihood of this as a random event.

socal1976 wrote:Excellent post by Tennisanorak and Nitb, it is funny how people want to just pretend that there is no way that those with a vested financial interest and zero accountability would never stoop so low as to tamper with the draw.

So we were better off in the Amateur era, correct? (No money, no corruption. )

socal1976 wrote:At this point there is a strong rational basis for further investigation and changing of the draw process. Handing it to 3rd party with real oversight and transparency. Something that frankly we have literally none of the tennis tour.

Based on mathematically flawed and questionable analysis. (12 slams because FO did not 'fit' their hypothesis).

What happened to the 'Outside the Line' analysis which was publicised by ESPN (at least they used ALL Slams and a 10-year period, but just focussed on the USO)?

Third,

what do I make of it? There are bits and pieces on both sides of the argument. While the Djokovic-Nadal study alone is way too weak to prove anything, there are some overall points that can point in this direction, and the overall argument could go this way:

- The ESPN study seems to give some credence to possible draw rigging
- Once we take the view that slams may not be totally averse to draw rigging, then the 1 in 500 likelihood from the Djokovic-Federer draws may be viewed with suspicion

However, there are also arguments in the opposite direction:
- It was far from obvious at that time that seeding alongside Djokovic would be disadvantageous to Nadal. Murray in fact beat Nadal twice in hard court slams during this period, while there were doubts whether Djokovic could last through five sets against Nadal (funny though it may sound now).
- There are other much simpler ways to favor the player you want to make the final (e.g., scheduling) that will likely have as much or more benefit without running any risk of a scandal.

On balance, I do not see conclusive evidence of any cheating but I see enough oddities to pique my interest, keep the data in mind for future reference and, possibly, try to dig through the draw patterns some more myself on a rainy weekend afternoon.

Fourth (a side note),

Some of the posters here suggest that the draws were rigged to maximize the probability of the most lucrative - i.e., Fedal - final, and therefore Djokovic was being put to Federer's draw because Federer was more likely to make the final anyway.

Some of the same posters are suggesting that this year's MC draw is also rigged by giving Nadal an easy draw. Surely if the same argument as above applied, the draw would be rigged to give Nadal the more difficult draw? Clearly, by far the most lucrative final would be Djoker-Nadal. Also, Nadal has proven over the years that he will be in the final irrespective of the opposition. As good as Djoker is, it is him who must be viewed as the more likely one to slip and so the one in need of an easier draw.

summerblues wrote:Suppose we pick three slams, look at each of them for 4 years and we observe either

(a) seed #3 is seeded in seed#1 half 12 times, or
(b) Djokovic is in Federer's half 12 times

It was suggested by some here that if we observed (a) it would be more a cause of concern than if we observe (b). I beg to differ. Both of these have the exact same probability (1/4096).

Some nice posts summerblues. I think the point others were trying to make is that the draw is constructed on (a), and, a priori, we can expect #1 and #3 to be in opposite sides with proability 0.5. We cannot construct a similar statement before we begin for two players, as their numbers may move around.

summerblues much more rational than some of the hysterics that have preceded you.

The facts (as you so clearly make them) that the 2007 slams and all the French Slams in the 2008-2011 period study point to a fair split of the different pairing possibilities mean basically one thing and one thing only. She (as has previously been pointed out) simply cherry picked a period of time and the appropriate events to support her case.

If you, I or anyone else was to undertake a scientific study for publication and told the publishers in question that we would only be focusing on a narrow time period when data existed for a greater time then ignored within that period 25% of the results because they contradicted what I wanted to conclude then they would take your paper and throw it in the bin.

If debates on the wonderful world of draw fixing are to survive in the years ahead we might need to find some additional new personalities for the equation, other than Djoker and Nadal that is

Despite his public pronouncements to the contrary, I strongly believe that the soon-to-be 31 y.o. family man Federer will choose to call it a day sometime in 2013, and so will no longer be available to feature in any conspiracy theories.

Then again .... even when he goes, it might just be a case of plus ca change ......

lags72 the conspiracy theorists will no doubt still be able to find a "Da Vinci code" like pattern as they trawl around the internet peddling their half-baked ideas to those gullible enough to listen.

It would be interesting though. Any thoughts how they'd be accused with fiddling the draw within this secario?

1. Djokovic.
2. Nadal
3. Murray
4. Tomic

Let's assume that Djokovic is closing in on Federer's tally, Nadal's dodgsy knees aren't playing up too much , Andy's made six slam finals and finally got a set in the last one and Bernard is a serial three time SF loser.

summerblues wrote:
- The ESPN study seems to give some credence to possible draw rigging

This is a gross understatement.

- Once we take the view that slams may not be totally averse to draw rigging, then the 1 in 500 likelihood from the Djokovic-Federer draws may be viewed with suspicion

You have overlooked the reasons why the FO doesn't work. IT has had its share of Fedal finals since 2005 and by 2008 doesn't want Nadal to win. Therefore have no interest to rig.

However, there are also arguments in the opposite direction:
- It was far from obvious at that time that seeding alongside Djokovic would be disadvantageous to Nadal. Murray in fact beat Nadal twice in hard court slams during this period, while there were doubts whether Djokovic could last through five sets against Nadal (funny though it may sound now).

It is a good point but in my view it can be explained by the fact that not all of the 12 slams were rigged....just some and that was enough to get to that weird 12/12...but clearly there is also the point that since 2009 Nadal admitted that Djoko was the one he feared most....but he may have known from before. And if you remember After 2007 and Djoko winning AO08, the one everybody was talking about was Djoko. So your argument is not that good here.

-

There are other much simpler ways to favor the player you want to make the final (e.g., scheduling) that will likely have as much or more benefit without running any risk of a scandal.

They are not simpler and they are not exclusive! In fact they coincide very strangely with the further slowing of pace conds, Nadal getting the better schedule at the USO super saturday whether number 2 or number 1 when they all wanted him to win the career slam etc...

On balance, I do not see conclusive evidence of any cheating but I see enough oddities to pique my interest, keep the data in mind for future reference and, possibly, try to dig through the draw patterns some more myself on a rainy weekend afternoon.

Unfortunately it's too late now, Nadal is beyond help and we will have to wait for another very charismatic player with huge marketing potential before noticing such oddities like Agassi for instance.

summerblues wrote:Some of the same posters are suggesting that this year's MC draw is also rigged by giving Nadal an easy draw. Surely if the same argument as above applied, the draw would be rigged to give Nadal the more difficult draw?

Not really. Nadal is still the people favourite and Nadal has always participated to MC whereas Djoko skipped last yeasr so they owe Nadal a lot cause without him, MC would have dropped serious credibility.

newballs wrote:summerblues much more rational than some of the hysterics that have preceded you.

The facts (as you so clearly make them) that the 2007 slams and all the French Slams in the 2008-2011 period study point to a fair split of the different pairing possibilities mean basically one thing and one thing only. She (as has previously been pointed out) simply cherry picked a period of time and the appropriate events to support her case.

If you, I or anyone else was to undertake a scientific study for publication and told the publishers in question that we would only be focusing on a narrow time period when data existed for a greater time then ignored within that period 25% of the results because they contradicted what I wanted to conclude then they would take your paper and throw it in the bin.

I am afraid Newballs you had a completely different approach than SB. You brushed aside that studies as non-sense whereas SB says it "can" make sense, even if it can also be down to some strange events as they can happen. It's a much more scientific appraoch than yours and HB.

There are rational people on both sides of this view but what surprises me is that none of the sceptic have explained the first round draw oddity which clearly shows that draws can be rigged. And from there the 12/12 becomes an even weirder occurence.

summerblues wrote:Ah, the nerd in me is happy. What a nice article to chew on. So, here are my thoughts, a lot of it was mentioned already by some posters or others but to summarize from my angle, here goes:

First, the portion that is quite simple and that has attracted much argument and wasted a lot of time:

Suppose we pick three slams, look at each of them for 4 years and we observe either

(a) seed #3 is seeded in seed#1 half 12 times, or
(b) Djokovic is in Federer's half 12 times

It was suggested by some here that if we observed (a) it would be more a cause of concern than if we observe (b). I beg to differ. Both of these have the exact same probability (1/4096).

The only thing that would make (b) more "ordinary" is if we looked through enough pairings of players and were purposefuly trying to find one with an odd pattern. However, it is pretty clear that this is not what is happening here. Nobody is digging through all possible pairings of players just to find the one pair that has the odd pattern.

If you think there is nothing in the 12/12 "concidence" find another, even remotely close pattern for the top 2 players. any era.

I can tell you when the next oddity will be. When Federer and Nadal retire...they will want to give them the best draw, the best line judge, the best HE and the best schedule to let the crowd appreciate them as much as possible for the last time.

newballs - interesting indeed - some food for thought there .... ! Not sure what to make of it.

I won't deny that I find some mild amusement in reading about these weird theories. The world of professional sport has always been as much about what goes on off the court, or field, etc etc, as on it. It was ever thus, but - as you suggest yourself - in this internet age, the more wacky ideas can feed on a constant ready supply of oxygen that was never available in the days of (say) Mr R. Laver. There was a hint in an earlier post, I think, that Laver was drawn to play Rosewall a truly remarkable number of times. In fact I quoted some detailed stats myself on that rivalry, on a different thread a few weeks back. However it has since occurred to me that a) the vast majority of those meetings were almost certainly on their home soil of Australia and, b) back in the day there might not have been too many other Aussie players that the public were as keen to watch ... !

All that said, I personally have the bizarre notion that it's far more enjoyable and entertaining to spend time actually watching tennis matches than theorising on draw fixing. But perhaps that's just me.......

OK I'm going to iterate my objecion yet again, since no one seems keen on answering it:

why exclude RG and include Wimbledon? Look at Djokovic's record there! It's very ordinary until last year, in fact in the 08-11 period there is no semi-final between Novak and Roger at Wimbledon (as opposed to 2 and 4 meetings at the AO and US respectively). Once again, until last year Djokovic was a bigger threat to Nadal on clay than on grass (or at least equal), so why include the grass but exclude the clay?

so either you include both of them and end up with a 15/8192 chance (slightly less than 1/500) or you exclude both and get a 1/256 chance. Basically, the 1/4096 is cherry-picked.

Good grief tenez they either fix draws or they don't. If (as sometimes in nature) things are not happening randomly but show certain patterns then you would usually need a large amount of data over a period of time to show this. Statistically speaking a small amount of data from limited study can never be used conclusively to prove something one way or another.

If you therefore take isolated events and look for a pattern then in a limited amount of data you might find one which would not be there in a more extended study. That is why factors like sample size and the time period over which results were collected are (amongst other factors) so important in ensuring the researcher is not introducing an amount of bias into the data in the first place.

That sounds far too rational for a conspiracy theory newballs. Expect to be roundly denounced for that assertion.

newballs wrote:Good grief tenez they either fix draws or they don't. If (as sometimes in nature) things are not happening randomly but show certain patterns then you would usually need a large amount of data over a period of time to show this. Statistically speaking a small amount of data from limited study can never be used conclusively to prove something one way or another.

If you therefore take isolated events and look for a pattern then in a limited amount of data you might find one which would not be there in a more extended study. That is why factors like sample size and the time period over which results were collected are (amongst other factors) so important in ensuring the researcher is not introducing an amount of bias into the data in the first place.

But what yuo don't (want to) realise is that as a scientific you have less ammunition to show it's purely random than it's rigged. Had w had a 1000 years of data to find similar occurence, I'd say fine....though I woudl still be very sceptical it happened to Nadal at the time everything in the tennis world was done for Nadal (soft referees, slower courts, etc..).

You cannot link the falling apple with Newton's theory!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:OK I'm going to iterate my objecion yet again, since no one seems keen on answering it:

why exclude RG and include Wimbledon? Look at Djokovic's record there! It's very ordinary until last year, in fact in the 08-11 period there is no semi-final between Novak and Roger at Wimbledon (as opposed to 2 and 4 meetings at the AO and US respectively). Once again, until last year Djokovic was a bigger threat to Nadal on clay than on grass (or at least equal), so why include the grass but exclude the clay?

so either you include both of them and end up with a 15/8192 chance (slightly less than 1/500) or you exclude both and get a 1/256 chance. Basically, the 1/4096 is cherry-picked.

I can't believe you still haven't got the answer:
Wimbledon: because Fed is a miles better grass court player than Nadal
RG: Nadal is bettter on clay than on all other surfaces put together, hence no need for the "push"

Tenez wrote:
There are rational people on both sides of this view but what surprises me is that none of the sceptic have explained the first round draw oddity which clearly shows that draws can be rigged. And from there the 12/12 becomes an even weirder occurence.

To be fair I have not looked at the first round bit in detail so I have not offered any explanation for it.

I have often said that men's tennis is too beholden to the 'star culture' and that too much is done to favour the most marketable players to try and ensure that the big 4 reach SF's and in the main that is homogenising conditions. One thing Nadal has said I agree with is that there is too much tennis played on hard for the health of the top players, just because hard happens to be his worst surface I don't think he can fairly be criticised for having said that, but hard is by far the least expensive sort of surface to maintain and that which is available to most players in the world and it is probably the best equaliser of surfaces so it is not surprising that it is most prevalent - not to mention that it is probably the surface on which most fans get to play the most.

It is always possible that some of the 12 occasions when Djoko and Fed found themselves on the same side of the draw were influenced wrongly, but when I look at everything together I consider that to be a far less likely explanation than mere coincidence that the pattern of the seeding has followed the pattern of the random draw selection for those tournaments - I don't believe that an overwhelming mathematical case has been made, more something which sparks the interest. Like I say, there's a difference between (i) changing surfaces and balls to harmonise conditions and giving beneficial schedules to top players and (ii) outright lying that you have conducted a true draw when you have not. I don't like (i), but plenty of people who can live with (i) in their lives would baulk at (ii).

noleisthebest wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:OK I'm going to iterate my objecion yet again, since no one seems keen on answering it:

why exclude RG and include Wimbledon? Look at Djokovic's record there! It's very ordinary until last year, in fact in the 08-11 period there is no semi-final between Novak and Roger at Wimbledon (as opposed to 2 and 4 meetings at the AO and US respectively). Once again, until last year Djokovic was a bigger threat to Nadal on clay than on grass (or at least equal), so why include the grass but exclude the clay?

so either you include both of them and end up with a 15/8192 chance (slightly less than 1/500) or you exclude both and get a 1/256 chance. Basically, the 1/4096 is cherry-picked.

I can't believe you still haven't got the answer:
Wimbledon: because Fed is a miles better grass court player than Nadal
RG: Nadal is bettter on clay than on all other surfaces put together, hence no need for the "push"

yes, Fed's record vs Nadal at WImbledon is what? 2-1? Clearly "miles better". You missed my point though: if you consider their results on the surfaces, until 2011 Djokovic was less of a threat to Nadal on grass than on clay.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:OK I'm going to iterate my objecion yet again, since no one seems keen on answering it:

why exclude RG and include Wimbledon? Look at Djokovic's record there! It's very ordinary until last year, in fact in the 08-11 period there is no semi-final between Novak and Roger at Wimbledon (as opposed to 2 and 4 meetings at the AO and US respectively). Once again, until last year Djokovic was a bigger threat to Nadal on clay than on grass (or at least equal), so why include the grass but exclude the clay?

so either you include both of them and end up with a 15/8192 chance (slightly less than 1/500) or you exclude both and get a 1/256 chance. Basically, the 1/4096 is cherry-picked.

I can't believe you still haven't got the answer:
Wimbledon: because Fed is a miles better grass court player than Nadal
RG: Nadal is bettter on clay than on all other surfaces put together, hence no need for the "push"

yes, Fed's record vs Nadal at WImbledon is what? 2-1? Clearly "miles better". You missed my point though: if you consider their results on the surfaces, until 2011 Djokovic was less of a threat to Nadal on grass than on clay.

O tempora o mores!

this is not about who's better Fed or Nadal, it's about having them play finals....

and still you miss my point. You're the one who said "Fed is a miles better grass court player than Nadal", I was merely answering that.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:and still you miss my point. You're the one who said "Fed is a miles better grass court player than Nadal", I was merely answering that.

oh course he is, count how many times they've each won Wimbledon for crying out loud....

MfC - in fairness to nitb, I guess by 'miles better' he was referring to their respective overall records on grass courts, rather than just Wimbledon h2h.

Federer's W/L ratio on grass is a remarkable 102-15 (Rafa = 48-10), with 11 titles (Rafa 3). Fed is of course best of all time on grass whereas Rafa ranks in (an albeit very respectable) 7th place.

in which case I misunterstood and I apologise, but my point remains. Ignoring RG and including Wimbledon makes no sense whatsoever (with regards to Djokovic), as you can make a decent case for Murray being a superior grass court player to Djokovic upto 2011.

barrystar wrote:One thing Nadal has said I agree with is that there is too much tennis played on hard for the health of the top players, just because hard happens to be his worst surface I don't think he can fairly be criticised for having said that, but hard is by far the least expensive sort of surface to maintain and that which is available to most players in the world and it is probably the best equaliser of surfaces so it is not surprising that it is most prevalent - not to mention that it is probably the surface on which most fans get to play the most.

And I have always said so too and been a strong critics of that endless HC season, including IW and Miami. I want more natural surface to play clay and grass.

I don't believe that an overwhelming mathematical case has been made, more something which sparks the interest. Like I say, there's a difference between (i) changing surfaces and balls to harmonise conditions and giving beneficial schedules to top players and (ii) outright lying that you have conducted a true draw when you have not. I don't like (i), but plenty of people who can live with (i) in their lives would baulk at (ii).

1/250k + 1/4k is a huge mathematical case. There is no way around that. And it coincided stangely with change of conds. The slow conds were not there to help the top 4, they were there to help Nadal, in particular versus Federer. Remember Nadal was nowhere to be seen in the later stages of the USO and AO before 2008.

There is a lack of scientific approach by the critics here. Having 12 out of 12 doesn;t mean all 12 slams have been rigged. Maybe Wimbledon, or the AO are pure coincidence. Even if unlikely. This is why I was the first to be sceptical when Socal came with his theory cause it was not layed as well as that student. Even if you take Wimbledon and the AO out as being "pure coincidence" you would still be left with a chance in 16 that the USO was also a pure coincidence.

People need to grasp what is 1 in 4096 and if they are not convinced with that add it to 1/250k.

The case is beyond reasonable doubt in statiscal terms.

Tenez - I have not looked into the 1/250k, but the 1/4096 is a bit of a nothing statistic as every eventuality of 12 draws with a 1/2 probability is 1/4096 because (1/2)n12 = 1/4096 so any pattern is similarly unlikely.

Your point is, however, that it's not the number selection that counts, but that whatever the seeding and number selection the same two players have fallen on the same side of the draw (this is where we part company, but I can see your point). That leads to the more difficult calculation of how likely it is that the pattern of the actual seeding/ranking between the players would follow precisely a random draw selection based on choosing between Nos. 3 and 4; as far as I am aware nobody has worked that out. Then you'd need to put it into context and see whether it happens to other players where the probability is of the same order - that may be very difficult because it's only with the top 4 that the probabilities work in the same way and I doubt that there's been such a consistent period of the top 4 including the same three players swapping places as there was from 2007-2011.

barrystar wrote:Tenez - I have not looked into the 1/250k, but the 1/4096 is a bit of a nothing statistic as every eventuality of 12 draws with a 1/2 probability is 1/4096 because (1/2)n12 = 1/4096 so any pattern is similarly unlikely.

I am afraid that's not true. I have responded to you about that already. No-one is looking at the sequence (which you are referring too - which is the order of T and H when throwing a coin) as sequences are irrelevant in this case. We are looking at "outcomes" (not sure how to say in English) but in short if you throw the coin 12 times how many chance to have 1T and 11Hs or 12Ts or 6Ts and 6Hs. That is what we are looking at. and that is where the huge discrepancy is: 0.02% (12T) and 50% (6T and 6H). I am not saying it shoudl be 50% but closer to that than .02%, even if there is a possibility that 12T come up. That in itself is already beyond some reasonable doubt. Now you don;t want to look at the 1/250k...fine but that is a huge argument supporting already the 1 in 4k.

Your point is, however, that it's not the number selection that counts, but that whatever the seeding and number selection the

same two players have fallen on the same side of the draw

(this is where we part company, but I can see your point).

Well yes, that is essential to consider in this case cause no one is going to rig a draw cause they care about how 1,2,3 and 4 fall in and nothing to do with Djoko, Nadal, Federer and Murray. If you rig a draw it is purposely to accomodate players and not numbers.

That leads to the more difficult calculation of how likely it is that the pattern of the actual seeding/ranking between the players would follow precisely a random draw selection based on choosing between Nos. 3 and 4; as far as I am aware nobody has worked that out. Then you'd need to put it into context and see whether it happens to other players where the probability is of the same order - that may be very difficult because it's only with the top 4 that the probabilities work in the same way and I doubt that there's been such a consistent period of the top 4 including the same three players swapping places as there was from 2007-2011.

I am not sure I am following you there. How they rig the draw, if they do, is a mistery. But the outcome of those draws are extremely suspicious, in fact when considering the first rounds luck of the top seeds, it's beyond luck really.

I do think this first round rigging is something new and in the past there was no such care taken for the top seeds. This seems a new phenomenon too....which is in line with your star system you already noticed.

Barry is defending the honour of Wimbledon here.