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.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:It seems a bit odd to remove from the study a tournament where the data does not suit. That's precisely what you're not supposed to do with data.

Not as odd as having 12 consecutive outcome in a series.

No serious study would do such a thing. Not odd, but malpractice!

This! I feel mildly ashamed by these students' behavious TBH, they're clearly cherry-picking from results to "prove" their so-called "theory", then wacking some impressive words in, and sadly the general public just laps it up! So they become famous on the back of some lousy, shoddy, unprofessional work, eugh!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:It seems a bit odd to remove from the study a tournament where the data does not suit. That's precisely what you're not supposed to do with data.

Not as odd as having 12 consecutive outcome in a series.

No serious study would do such a thing. Not odd, but malpractice!

This! I feel mildly ashamed by these students' behavious TBH, they're clearly cherry-picking from results to "prove" their so-called "theory", then wacking some impressive words in, and sadly the general public just laps it up! So they become famous on the back of some lousy, shoddy, unprofessional work, eugh!

Absolutely M4C. Anyone who works with data knows this is pretty much the worst thing you can do, far worse than an incorrect but honest analysis. Is your PhD a mathematical one?

lydian wrote:Tenez, clearly my post went straight over your head. Yes the US draw thing is interesting...but the 12/12 thing is completely discountable. You make the mistake of assuming 6 consequetive occurences where the top 4 seeds and their placement in top/bottom half can vary is the same as 6 same tosses of a coin. It isnt.

well that's a different problem. Basically Tenez is supposing that the draws are independent from each other, and that the probability of n°3 seed being in either half of each draw is 1/2. I think these are perfectly reasonable assumptions myself, but of course the ignoring of the FO draws blows this one out of the water anyway.

I will however have a look through the ESPN results: these look interesting, since at first glance they suggest the US Open "rigs" its draws so that the top seeds have easier first round matches. Wimbledon may also be guilty of this, though less so than the Us Open. Lastly, AO and FO have quite large differences between Men and Women's draws which seems odd. Of course, it's only over 10 years, so not much of a sample really, but there is food for thought there.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:It seems a bit odd to remove from the study a tournament where the data does not suit. That's precisely what you're not supposed to do with data.

Not as odd as having 12 consecutive outcome in a series.

No serious study would do such a thing. Not odd, but malpractice!

This! I feel mildly ashamed by these students' behavious TBH, they're clearly cherry-picking from results to "prove" their so-called "theory", then wacking some impressive words in, and sadly the general public just laps it up! So they become famous on the back of some lousy, shoddy, unprofessional work, eugh!

Absolutely M4C. Anyone who works with data knows this is pretty much the worst thing you can do, far worse than an incorrect but honest analysis. Is your PhD a mathematical one?

yep not massively far removed from this sort of stuff either (well it's probability theory with some combinatorics thrown in, or vice-versa). Which makes me very annoyed to see this sort of shoddy work get un-warranted recognition just because it looks good

Every linked article's use of statistics and assessment of probabilities is amateurish in the extreme. Ignoring the French because it doesn't fit and then calculating the odds without it? That is like saying I just threw four heads in a row at odds of 16 to 1 and ignoring the fact that you threw a tail in the middle.

I doubt I'll bother to argue with anyone on this but trust me, the supposed billions to one is an absolute joke as well. Whoever came up with that is either trying to deliberately skew statistics, or is a person of at most middling intelligence. Harsh but true.

Are they saying Federer drew Djokovic 14 out of 16 times then? What about at this year's Australian, Federer played Nadal didn't he? Again, we shouldn't ignore the most recent stat because it doesn't fit. So make that 14 out of the last 17 when we would expect maybe 8 or 10. Unlikely perhaps, but not that much.

Unlikely things happen. Where are all the draw fixing arguments for the masters events, for other sports? If only 3 out of the 50 or 100 tour events show suspicious patterns, and only 1 sport out of many, that could just be an inevitable anomaly.

I also see limited motive to pair Federer and Djokovic together. It doesn't make any great advantage for tournament organisers to have it one way or the other.

I can believe they might fix the draw, but this is hardly compelling evidence.

Unimpressed. Meh.

EDIT: I see in the last ten minutes while I wrote this a wave of common sense has rightly descended.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:sorry, please explain what I've said which is wrong? take a sequence of coin tosses, say of length 12. The probability of getting (say) HTHHTHTTTHHT is exactly the same as that of getting HHHHHHHHHHHH.

Yes, that is correct...but I am sure you can find out what makes the 12 T exceptional.

To the normal person's eye, yes. To the mathematician's eye, there should be no difference. These people are Maths students, they should be ashamed of themselves. 7

So you still don't see why the 12 Hs are a rare if not odd event for the mathematician (unless he repeats that series 4000 times of course)?

Let me give you a clue. there is only one case for having 12 Hs. There are many possibilities of having 6Hand 6T many of having 7H and 5T, many of having 7T and 5H etc....

But I think the task to explain it to you is just too tough and clearly you math teacher thought so too.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yep not massively far removed from this sort of stuff either (well it's probability theory with some combinatorics thrown in, or vice-versa). Which makes me very annoyed to see this sort of shoddy work get un-warranted recognition just because it looks good

Good luck with it. I went down the more statistical route of model-building and data analysis. Let me know what you turn up re the US Open draws, that does look interesting.

HB, welcome to "the voice of reason" club

Now, if you take the last 50 occurrences in slams where the n°3 seed was drawn the same side as the n°1 (conveniently ignore all other cases), and throw in the fact that on 31 of these occasions the n°5 seed was in the opposite half (ignore the other 19 occasions), you get odds of 1 in 2^81, astronomical! Throw in the fact that semi final day was sunny (say 1 in 3 odds of occurring) for 15 of these tournaments (once again, ignore cloudy or rainy days), and you get odds of 1 in 3.5*10^31. Clearly the draws are rigged!

HB the more ou write the less crdibility you get. YOu are pushing aside a study which makes perfect sense cause I guess you don;t understand it. Maybe exactly as proven by M4C who can;t quite see the difference between having 12 heads instead of anything else.

You cannot see either that the FO not being taken into account actually reinforces the idea that the other 3 are rigged. had it been any other slam not following the trend then you may have had a point but the French was actually Nadal's best surface so there was less of a need to rig things there. Besides, The French wanted Fed to win at all cost so the fact the FO is not going along the others makes perfect sense.

Twice you fail to see the logic here. You are losing objectivity and credibility fast.

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:sorry, please explain what I've said which is wrong? take a sequence of coin tosses, say of length 12. The probability of getting (say) HTHHTHTTTHHT is exactly the same as that of getting HHHHHHHHHHHH.

Yes, that is correct...but I am sure you can find out what makes the 12 T exceptional.

To the normal person's eye, yes. To the mathematician's eye, there should be no difference. These people are Maths students, they should be ashamed of themselves. 7

So you still don't see why the 12 Hs are a rare if not odd event for the mathematician (unless he repeats that series 4000 times of course)?

Let me give you a clue. there is only one case for having 12 Hs. There are many possibilities of having 6Hand 6T many of having 7H and 5T, many of having 7T and 5H etc....

But I think the task to explain it to you is just too tough and clearly you math teacher thought so too.

here's one for you. Consider a TV show where the contestant has the chance to win a car. For this he has to choose one of three curtains the car could be behind. The presenter knows which one it is. The contestant makes his choice, the presenter then reveals one of the two other curtains - the one (we know there's at least one) behind which the car isn't. He then offers the contestant the chance to change his choice. What should the contestant do?

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:sorry, please explain what I've said which is wrong? take a sequence of coin tosses, say of length 12. The probability of getting (say) HTHHTHTTTHHT is exactly the same as that of getting HHHHHHHHHHHH.

Yes, that is correct...but I am sure you can find out what makes the 12 T exceptional.

To the normal person's eye, yes. To the mathematician's eye, there should be no difference. These people are Maths students, they should be ashamed of themselves. 7

So you still don't see why the 12 Hs are a rare if not odd event for the mathematician (unless he repeats that series 4000 times of course)?

In a previous post I showed that over three years there are roughly 10^16 possible sequences of 12 tennis tournaments (ATP only). Even allowing for the ones the big four all compete in (say 15 a year) you get 28 billion, so there'll be roughly on average 7 million sequences of 12 tournaments which have that pattern over three years...

Hey if the writers of this paper can cherry-pick their sequences, so can I

I have to agree there's a fair amount of poor methodology being used here and the conclusions then frankly aren't worth the slides they are printed on.

The confusions stem from the facts that one group of results (namely the French open) are completely ignored because (as other posters have pointed out) they don't support the overall conclusion plus even more importantly the researcher also blindly ignored the fact that the seeds weren't always the same players in the same order i.e. she should have simply said how many draws featured 1 vs. 3 & 2 vs. 4 or 1 vs. 4 & 2 vs. 3. Assigning players names rather than the seeded positions they occupied seems a pretty basic error that even an A level student would probably spot.

I would though suggest the evidence of a very easy first round for both top players may be worth another look. Statistically they do almost invariably seem to get some whipping boy rather than a dangerous non seeded floater in the draw as you might otherwise expect from time to time.

it's not like Djoko always fell on Fed's side for one year.
it's not like Djoko always fell on Fed's side for two years.
it's not like Djoko always fell on Fed's side for three years.
it just happened that Djoko always fell on Fed's side for 4 years running on the 3 same slams outside Nadal's garden.

But some don;t see it odd! Really odd!

Add to that the clear rigged draw of the first rounds's top seeds and ....

I give up. If some don't want to see it, fine.

Warm balls.

spuranik wrote:Don't know why you are saying this again and again but it is not for 2007 to 2011... It is for 2008 to 2011 which is 16 slams not 20.

She is not discarding Wimbledon, just FO. That means she is considering 12 out of 16. On all 12 occasions, irrespective of Djoko's ranking (3 or 4), he ended up in Fed's half. That is the point.

Please read the OP again...

noleisthebest wrote: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.

There is nothing in the OP which states that 2007 is excluded, does it? . I also posted the W 2007-2011 (both years inclusive #1-#4 placements).

I gave you examples of how a series is broken, by removing data from samples.

Lydian gave you a practical example of seeds (irrespective of names) and how they are close to being split 1-3, 2-4 vs 1-4, 2-3. Given a large enough data set, it will be 50%. Remember the sigma of an infinite series and limits.

Please read my first post as well.

Mathematically, 12 vs 12 is not accurate.

Regarding the ESPN study, Since the number of players is fixed at 128, #1 and #2 at the opposite ends, with 32 seeds, 96 unseeded players, wildcards, qualifiers, etc. The desire to generate random integers (not real numbers) within these constraints has a finite set of permutations as MfC clearly states and they can repeat.

I would suggest reading some high-school statistics and pseudo-random number generation methods.

I have to agree with Tenez and NITB here. It doesn't matter what the seedings were at all. In each of the instances, there was a 50% chance they would be in the same half and it happened in 12/12 non-clay slams. As for excluding the French Open, there are clearly exdellent tennis grounds for it as the relative strength of the players are very different. As Tenez says, it wouldn't have been credible if any other slam were removed, but French Open being removed, if anything, strengthens the argument.

Think about it- if the argument was that Nadal and Djoker had to be kept apart in slams, which is the one slam where this was least needed? Taht's right- the French Open!

One detail is that at W'11 and USO'11, Nadal and Djokovic were the #1 and #2 seeds, so the probability of them ending up in opposite halves of the draw was actually 100%.

But in both these events, Nadal then avoided Federer (just like he avoided Djokovic earlier). The pattern was finally broken at the AO'12 when Federer was in Nadal's half.

laverfan wrote:I would suggest reading some high-school statistics and pseudo-random number generation methods.

Yes time to reopen your old books.

A series is something we define at will and why we pick a series brings credibilty to the find. It coudl have been the last 10 Wimbledons or the USO between 1920-39. we are free to pick what we want. Here the series picked (2008-11)is credible for the following reasons:
1 - before 2007, we did not know how good was Djokovic and were not sure whether he woudl reach the semis regularly, so clearly in Jan 07 Djoko was as feared as PHM and less than Robredo so no need to work out which side he will be in the draw. However by the end of 2007, we knew he was a very good player as he had reached FO semi, Wimbleodn semi and USO. That is why 2008 makes perfect sense. In fact we coudl even argue that the USO may have fixed the draw as early as 2007 which makes the series, not 12 but 13. hence 1 in 8.2k (huge hazard!)

2 - and most convincing maybe is that it's clearl that before 2008 Nadal's team or Nike (Both most likely) realised that Djoko was the up and coming boy and that Nadal had already trouble with him. Nadal had already experienced his first loss from Djoko and that was on HC! Nadal had only managed to win Djoko outside clay on a RR at the masters in China when clearly DJoko did not try that year and did not win a single match. The WImbleodn match was the clear signal that Djoko was going to be trouble for Nadal and Djoko could only improve from there.

2007 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard RR Nadal, Rafael
6-4, 6-4 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Canada
Montreal, Canada Hard S Djokovic, Novak
7-5, 6-3 Stats
2007 Wimbledon
Great Britain Grass S Nadal, Rafael
3-6, 6-1, 4-1 RET Stats
2007 Roland Garros
France Clay S Nadal, Rafael
7-5, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Rome
Italy Clay Q Nadal, Rafael
6-2, 6-3 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Djokovic, Novak
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Nadal, Rafael
6-2, 7-5 Stats
2006 Roland Garros
France Clay Q Nadal, Rafael
6-4, 6-4 RET Stats

3- in 2007 we were still under the Federer magic spell but more and more fans wanted to see Fedal's final outside clay. Wimbledon in 2007 may have been deprived of that had Djoko not been injured. They knoew Federer could handle Djoko but Nadal was struggling to do it outside clay.

4 - Why leaving the FO out? I suspect the student who did it didn't quite know or did not want to appear so radical to an audience who doesn;t maybe understand tennis as much. But of course by 2008, Nadal had won 3 FOs and the French wanted Fed to win anyway so it is very unlikely they would have made things easier for Nadal. Besides they claim the computer is doing the draw and clearly that brings us closer to a 50/50 rate.

So like it or not the 2008/11 series is a very good one. There is still a chnace it's pure hasard but that chance is 1 in 4k if not 1 in 8k. In probability terms....it's a very small chance. Add the fact they also twick the draw of the first rounds, then the chance it's down to chance is virtualy nil.

And guys, you forgot the funniest thing. The research was presented in October 2011. At the very next slam, the 2012 AO, Federer and Nadal are finally put in the same half as if by magic!

Well-said, Tenez. Sound arguments once again. And do remember that we're talking about two very prominent players here, not somebody like Simon and Fish playing in 4 slams in a row. That would be just looking for patterns in data which one can always find, but in this case, the stature of the players involved by definition means that we're not just looking at random players drawn to play each other.

OK, I'll do the spelling-out (someone has to, and it may as well be me )

the study was obviously done by a Djokovic fan. The researcher observed the strange pattern (I noticed it during the years as well) of Djokovic being in Federer's half 12 about of 12 times during all fast slams.
She went one further and observed that the trend was not applicable to the slow surface, clay, i.e . RG.

She then went one step further to allude/conclude that the draws on fast court slams were fixed in order to guarantee (as much as possible) commercially lucrative Federer Nadal finals.

A little push for Nadal to reach the final in his half on surfaces he was behind compared to Federer. Obviously, no need for the push on clay.

It does make a lot of sense.

I know it's ugly and even I kind of don't want to know it, but we all know what big business are prepared to do in order to increase their profit margins. Draw fixing is child's play compared to the really big ones.


Interesting that at the first slam after the study saw light of day, Federer ended up being in Nadal's half at AO 2012.
Mind you, it doesn't make that much difference now, but watch for FO and who ends up in Nole's half, also Madrid and Rome: Nadal to have easy fellow Spaniards, Nole to have all the banana slips and grinders.
In a perverse way, I can't wait to see RG draw

Yes TA. It's good to see some here can see the weird patter and follow a logic.

Another interesting stat is that 100% of Nadal supporter here don't see that logic or certainly wish to diminish its importance. Statistically weird as stats and logic should be detached of emotions but clearly that's not the case.

noleisthebest wrote:A little push for Nadal to reach the final in his half on surfaces he was behind compared to Federer. Obviously, no need for the push on clay.

Exactly. The 2008 onwards period also coincides with the further slowing down of surfaces. As shown in my other thread the ball was travelling roughly 15% faster in USO 2007 semis than later years. Why? In 2008 that was the first USO where Nadal had reached the USO semi...but yet had to win a seed there (how weird that the great player Nadal was unable to overcome average players and was not even exposed to meet seeds late in the tournaments).

Nadal's legendary luck in draws makes much more sense now. Again, great find NITB.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:A little push for Nadal to reach the final in his half on surfaces he was behind compared to Federer. Obviously, no need for the push on clay.

Exactly. The 2008 onwards period also coincides with the further slowing down of surfaces. As shown in my other thread the ball was travelling roughly 15% faster in USO 2007 semis than later years. Why? In 2008 that was the first USO where Nadal had reached the USO semi...but yet had to win a seed there (how weird that the great player Nadal was unable to overcome average players and was not even exposed to meet seeds late in the tournaments).

Nadal's legendary luck in draws makes much more sense now. Again, great find NITB.

Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense and it all kind of adds up now ...which all makes Nole's 2011 nothing short of heroic!

you see, I have problems with some things here still:

1) you say they're allowed to exclude clay because it's Nadal's dominant surface. In that case, surely they should exclude grass as well?!?! Nadal reached the final in 06 and 07 already remember, and had never been beaten by Djokovic on grass until last year. You could argue in fact that in the 08-11 period Djokovic was in fact closer to Nadal on clay than on grass. Oh wait, that wouldn't support their theory, let's ignore it.

2) this quote from Tenez: "Add to that the clear rigged draw of the first rounds's top seeds and ...." has a lot wrong with it. You're adding two completely different events: one which "shows" semi-final draws favour Nadal over the last 4 years, and another which "shows" first round draws at the Us Open favour the top seeds over the last 10. It's not even the same time frame, and quite frankly you could pick any random sequence of events, add them together and "show" whatever you wanted them to say. Also, "the clear rigged draw" is wrong: you can't prove anything conclusively with statistics, the best you get is that something is very unlikely (as seems to be the case here).

3) does no one want to answer my teaser above?

also, though I may remember this wrongly, in 09 Nadal and Djokovic were 3 and 4 seeds at the US so couldn't have been placed in the same half anyway...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:you see, I have problems with some things here still:

1) you say they're allowed to exclude clay because it's Nadal's dominant surface. In that case, surely they should exclude grass as well?!?! Nadal reached the final in 06 and 07 already remember, and had never been beaten by Djokovic on grass until last year. You could argue in fact that in the 08-11 period Djokovic was in fact closer to Nadal on clay than on grass. Oh wait, that wouldn't support their theory, let's ignore it.

2) this quote from Tenez: "Add to that the clear rigged draw of the first rounds's top seeds and ...." has a lot wrong with it. You're adding two completely different events: one which "shows" semi-final draws favour Nadal over the last 4 years, and another which "shows" first round draws at the Us Open favour the top seeds over the last 10. It's not even the same time frame, and quite frankly you could pick any random sequence of events, add them together and "show" whatever you wanted them to say. Also, "the clear rigged draw" is wrong: you can't prove anything conclusively with statistics, the best you get is that something is very unlikely (as seems to be the case here).

3) does no one want to answer my teaser above?

You seem not to want to see the main point of the study: it was not to prove that Nadal was better/worse than whomever on whatever surface, just to ensure Nadal Federer slam finals.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:also, though I may remember this wrongly, in 09 Nadal and Djokovic were 3 and 4 seeds at the US so couldn't have been placed in the same half anyway...

yes, but guess who ended up in Fed's half....

Everything makes sense to you Tenez where Nadal is concerned. You decided the guy is "guilty" a long time ago and jump on anything that provides a morsel of evidence to back your stance. I mean....look at the energy you've put into this thread, its clear to see the delight this sort of grey-mist information provides you. Why dont you just create your own website http://www.whyIhateNadal.com - you can put all your little thesis points into one nice easy to read dossier, perhaps even email Team Nadal for bedtime reading. Whilst you at it, perhaps you can also outline how the guy is responsible for the global recession, climate change and the Arab Spring.

However...back in the real world if that presentation in Oct 11 had any weight to it there would have been an ensuing media firestorm. The presenter actively aked for journos to follow up on the "story" who were present in the room. They didnt and there hasnt been a firestorm. Why? Because the analysis doesnt stand up to the rigour of stats and significance. The sample size is too small and the way seeds were allocated across top and bottom halves across those slams is nothing usual (6 vs 8)...and they pick seeds, not names. There is no way bias can ever be deduced on that basis...its just a quirk of the run. A good quirk, but a quirk nonetheless...or of course damning evidence if you have always pre-judged Nadal as guilty in being able to influence all outcomes in and around his tennis matches

Scoville Jenkins could have drawn anybody in the 1st round of the USO and got then World Number 2 Andy Roddick,
following year he draws World Number 1 Roger Federer.

Then we have Isner/Mahut rematch...

exactly, and their argument goes as follows:

Djokovic is the tougher semi-final opponent, and certainly Nadal could struggle to beat him, so let's put him in Federer's half. Now I'm suggesting that Nadal in the 08-11 period wouldn't have struggled against Djokovic on grass (how many wimbledon semis did Djokovic even reach in that period) and in fact Djokovic was a bigger threat to Nadal on clay. So once again, if you're ignoring RG you should ignore Wimbledon as well and focus only on the hard-court slams.

As I keep saying, incredibly shoddy research, basically cherry-picking enough that it looks decidedly odd at first glance. When you look in more detail, you see so many things that are wrong with this it's unreal...

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Scoville Jenkins could have drawn anybody in the 1st round of the USO and got then World Number 2 Andy Roddick,
following year he draws World Number 1 Roger Federer.

Then we have Isner/Mahut rematch...

this is different. this is the ESPN study about the (possible) bias of first round draws at least at the US and possibly Wimbledon too. Having said that, if you're Scoville Jenkins (ranked 500+) wouldn't you actually prefer a show-court match against the world n°2 than a match against the world n° 50 or so which you'd very likely lose and would be on an outside court?

than a match against the world n° 50 or so which you'd very likely lose and would be on an outside court?

Wildcards could draw qualifiers... the odds were unrealistic to get the number 2 and 1.

Exactly MfC...it assumes that Nadal wanted to avoid Djokovic at all costs when pre-2011 there was no reason to be afraid of meeting him and this run stretches back to 2008...doesnt make any sense for draws to be rigged so early on to make Nadal avoid Djokovic...and these events are always sell outs anyway - plus when did Nadal ever struggle making it through slams particularly - he wouldnt meet Djokovic until the semis come what may and by then the events have had most of their revenue fill. But most of all the stats dont stand up to scrutiny on their own never mind the other stuff..

Jenkins said himself he was ambivalent about being put against a top 2 player...a blessing and a curse. At the end of the day playing Federer in a slam in R1 was probably the pinnacle of his career.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

than a match against the world n° 50 or so which you'd very likely lose and would be on an outside court?

Wildcards could draw qualifiers... the odds were unrealistic to get the number 2 and 1.

they could, but drawing qualifiers is as unlikely as drawing a decent seed (not sure how many qualifiers/WC are in a draw). I used rank 50 because that's fairly close to the average rank they could expect to meet (we can say 70 if you'd rather).

lydian wrote:Everything makes sense to you Tenez where Nadal is concerned. You decided the guy is "guilty" a long time ago and jump on anything that provides a morsel of evidence to back your stance. I mean....look at the energy you've put into this thread, its clear to see the delight this sort of grey-mist information provides you. Why dont you just create your own website http://www.whyIhateNadal.com - you can put all your little thesis points into one nice easy to read dossier, perhaps even email Team Nadal for bedtime reading. Whilst you at it, perhaps you can also outline how the guy is responsible for the global recession, climate change and the Arab Spring.

You see! As you lack proper arguments to counter this rare event, you go the emotional route. I did not do this study, someone else did. It just confirms again that there coudl be something fishy.

But what it really says to me is that those manipulating draws and court surfaces are right to do it cause fans are blind to details and only want to see that their man wins fair and square...they don't even want to question it.

You clearly cannot look at this study with a detached and open mind. No different that any other arguments we have had when it came to Nadal. That's what I call a real fan but you certainly make a big effort to appear grounded.

lydian wrote:However...back in the real world if that presentation in Oct 11 had any weight to it there would have been an ensuing media firestorm.

Of course not. The media are here to sell a product, not to destroy what feeds them. They would have started with the fact hat Nadal breaks the time rule on every single point and made a mess of that. But they never did.

Wait until Nadal's goes down the ranking and then you will see more truth coming up....but certainly not while there is money to be made.

Tenez wrote:In fact we coudl even argue that the USO may have fixed the draw as early as 2007 which makes the series, not 12 but 13. hence 1 in 8.2k (huge hazard!)

Federer-Djokovic was the FINAL in 2007 at the US Open, so that certainly cannot be used.

Tenez wrote:2 - and most convincing maybe is that it's clearl that before 2008 Nadal's team or Nike (Both most likely) realised that Djoko was the up and coming boy and that Nadal had already trouble with him. Nadal had already experienced his first loss from Djoko and that was on HC! Nadal had only managed to win Djoko outside clay on a RR at the masters in China when clearly DJoko did not try that year and did not win a single match. The WImbleodn match was the clear signal that Djoko was going to be trouble for Nadal and Djoko could only improve from there.

Djokovic beat Federer in a slam long before he beat Nadal (AO 2008 SF) and showed that he could give Federer problems as well as Nadal on hard courts in 2007 (Montreal). You would think the straight-sets semi-final win for Djokovic in AO 2008 might have caused a rethink.

Conversely, Murray was the other up-and-coming guy after 2008 and he had a better record against Federer then he did against Nadal. Wait - it is clear that Federer and Nike realised this and made sure he avoided Murray in slam draws... What have I uncovered?

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Tenez wrote:In fact we coudl even argue that the USO may have fixed the draw as early as 2007 which makes the series, not 12 but 13. hence 1 in 8.2k (huge hazard!)

Federer-Djokovic was the FINAL in 2007 at the US Open, so that certainly cannot be used.

Tenez wrote:2 - and most convincing maybe is that it's clearl that before 2008 Nadal's team or Nike (Both most likely) realised that Djoko was the up and coming boy and that Nadal had already trouble with him. Nadal had already experienced his first loss from Djoko and that was on HC! Nadal had only managed to win Djoko outside clay on a RR at the masters in China when clearly DJoko did not try that year and did not win a single match. The WImbleodn match was the clear signal that Djoko was going to be trouble for Nadal and Djoko could only improve from there.

Djokovic beat Federer in a slam long before he beat Nadal (AO 2008 SF) and showed that he could give Federer problems as well as Nadal on hard courts in 2007 (Montreal). You would think the straight-sets semi-final win for Djokovic in AO 2008 might have caused a rethink.

Conversely, Murray was the other up-and-coming guy after 2008 and he had a better record against Federer then he did against Nadal. Wait - it is clear that Federer and Nike realised this and made sure he avoided Murray in slam draws... What have I uncovered?

Nole has not beaten Federer in a slam until SF at AO 2008 which he went on to win by defeating Tsonga in the final.

So why would one expect Djoko on Nadals half when Djoko was ranked 3'rd? Usually it's 1:3, 2:4 i.e Fed-Djoko, Nadal:Murray. And obviously Djoko at that time did not have any interesting game (neither does now) and surely organizers and sponsors wanted Fed-Nadal finals. I can't blame them.

Thought on the other hand, this rigged draw has helped Djoko to become stronger, I guess he got tired being 3'rd and always loosing to Fed.
Why hasn't it made Murray stronger?

Katarina Pijetlovic is not an Estonian, she is a serbian born in Doboj, serbian part of Bosnia. She works in Estonia. I guess patriotism made her redo the calculations.

This report came last November btw, and was main news on Serbian media for a week.

No its not me being emotional Tenez, indeed I think the emotion concerning Nadal clearly comes from you not me! I have countered the stats and reasons why avoiding Djokovic are suspect...as M4C and now P4St have also countered. Also...with a story like that if true then the press would be all over it as it would sell papers/media-space big time. Thats the way the media works you know - they are paid ultimately by the public...not ATP/ITF. But there has been no mainstream reporting or even mild frenzy...its a non-story because it holds no supportive water under scrutiny.

So yes we see a trend emerging...lol, a trend that applies to you and picking holes into everything Nadal does and stands for! Your arguments never stand up to close scrutiny, you like to weave stories around spurious facts, and coalesce them all into some kind of damning case...but all the constituent parts dont stand up to rigour of analysis or stats work, they never have and this thread is just another example of how you love to jump on anything to prove your long held case against Nadal and his omnipresent influence on the game including being responsible for slowing surfaces. According to you, and some others, Nadal is like some kind of Sauron casting his eye across the tennis world turning organisers, media, TDs into orcs that follow his every command
10/10 for effort though Tenez, you really are a slave to the cause and it adds spice to the forum for sure.

Time to look across to Monte Carlo now...(and its rigged draws of course)

"Usually it's 1:3, 2:4 i.e Fed-Djoko, Nadal:Murray." Well, it's weird to see this kind of an error in this involved a discussion. 1/2 play one of 3/4 randomly. It is NOT 1 Vs 3 and 2 Vs 4.

Lydian, I have to disagree with you here. This is a clear pattern and if you don't see it, it must be because you don't want to.

I'm not saying it helped Nadal because I'm not sure it helped any player to be honest. But to deny the pattern is ridiculous. And it's not a mere quirk- it's a bit more than that. 12/ 12 is really unusual.

Tennisanorak wrote:"Usually it's 1:3, 2:4 i.e Fed-Djoko, Nadal:Murray." Well, it's weird to see this kind of an error in this involved a discussion. 1/2 play one of 3/4 randomly. It is NOT 1 Vs 3 and 2 Vs 4.

Yes, that's the "beauty" of the draw

noleisthebest wrote:Nole has not beaten Federer in a slam until SF at AO 2008 which he went on to win by defeating Tsonga in the final.

Yes, that's what I wrote. He didn't beat Nadal in a slam until Wimbledon last year. My point was that Djokovic's threat to Nadal was not massively greater than his threat to Federer - he beat both of them back-to-back in Montral 2007 if I recall correctly, playing brilliantly I might add. He then lost the US Open final in straight sets, despite playing well and having many chances. If his Wimbledon semi against Nadal was foretelling, then so was this match, as shown by the fact that he dispatched Federer in Australia in the match I originally mentioned. Surely that would have provided food for thought for the 'fixers'?

Positively 4th Street wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Nole has not beaten Federer in a slam until SF at AO 2008 which he went on to win by defeating Tsonga in the final.

Yes, that's what I wrote. He didn't beat Nadal in a slam until Wimbledon last year. My point was that Djokovic's threat to Nadal was not massively greater than his threat to Federer - he beat both of them back-to-back in Montral 2007 if I recall correctly, playing brilliantly I might add. He then lost the US Open final in straight sets, despite playing well and having many chances. If his Wimbledon semi against Nadal was foretelling, then so was this match, as shown by the fact that he dipsatched Federer in Australia in the match I orginally mentioned. Surely that would provided food for thought for the 'fixers'?

C'mon, Fed was the fast courts king, Nadal never even made it to the semis until they slowed them down.

Once in a while a blind squirrel finds an acorn.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Tenez wrote:In fact we coudl even argue that the USO may have fixed the draw as early as 2007 which makes the series, not 12 but 13. hence 1 in 8.2k (huge hazard!)

Federer-Djokovic was the FINAL in 2007 at the US Open, so that certainly cannot be used.

Correct! my mistake. Let's make it 1 in 4k....that's good enough in my book.

Djokovic beat Federer in a slam long before he beat Nadal (AO 2008 SF) and showed that he could give Federer problems as well as Nadal on hard courts in 2007 (Montreal). You would think the straight-sets semi-final win for Djokovic in AO 2008 might have caused a rethink.

Another good point.....except that it is accepted that Federer was not feeling too well in that slam and it took Djoko another 20 months to finally beat Federer in a slam...and a very close one. And this is perfectly why I think it's Nadal's team request in connection with sponsors and TDs cause I think Federer was simply too good to be helped and that is why they slowed the surfaces down. We have to see it beyond the Fedal wars here. It's about money and there was lots of money to grab from Nadal's success. Much more than Federer who had already sold many shirts and racquets.

Conversely, Murray was the other up-and-coming guy after 2008 and he had a better record against Federer then he did against Nadal. Wait - it is clear that Federer and Nike realised this and made sure he avoided Murray in slam draws... What have I uncovered?

Well that certainly could be the case too. It adds to the view that draws can be rigged.

Jahu wrote:
This report came last November btw, and was main news on Serbian media for a week.

It certainly did not make the news here for some reasons.