Draw Fixing : A Real World Analysis - Part 1 (The 12 vs 12 Question)

The fall out from Draw Fixing: An Official Study on 606v2 has created a deep divide. This followup article does not intend to cause any further . Please respect fellow posters' opinions and pursue a civilised debate.

Draws from 1974-2000 (post Open Era) for all four Slams were used. The data from 2001-2010 was not used to avoid conflicts with the ESPN study as well as look at an independent data set.

The Top 4 of each slam who were seeded 1 through 4 were considered.

The Top 4 are distributed where each half has seeds 1 and 2 at the opposite ends of the draw (64 or 128 players). Seeds 3 and 4 are placed to yield a 1-3, 2-4 or 1-4, 2-3 combination in each half.

1. There was some contention in the earlier article about the distribution of seeds #3 and #4 across the draws 'randomly'.

a. Australian Open (1974-2000) has 12 occurrences of 1-3, 2-4 (44%) combination, and 15 occurrences of 1-4, 2-3 (56%).

(AO had no 1986 Slam, but had two in 1977 (January and December). AO also had 'BYEs' for the Top 4 from 1983-1987).

b. French Open (1974-2000) has 15 occurrences of 1-3, 2-4 (56%) combination, and 12 occurrences of 1-4, 2-3 (44%).

c. Wimbledon (1974-2000) has 14 occurrences of 1-3, 2-4 (52%) combination, and 13 occurrences of 1-4, 2-3 (48%).

d. US Open (1974-2000) has 11 occurrences of 1-3, 2-4 (41%) combination, and 16 occurrences of 1-4, 2-3(59%).

2. Federer vs Djokovic (12vs12) raised a followup question whether similar scenario has happened before. The answer is yes, it has.

a. Connors vs McEnroe (9 projected meetings)

1979 - USO
1980 - FO, W, USO
1981 - FO
1983 - USO
1984 - FO, USO
1985 - W

b. Connors vs Vilas (7 projected meetings)

1975 - W
1976 - USO
1978 - USO
1979 - FO
1982 - FO, USO
1983 - W

c. Edberg v Lendl (9 projected meetings)

1986 - USO
1987 - FO, W
1989 - AO, USO
1990 - W, USO
1991 - AO, FO

d. Edberg v Stich (6 projected meetings)

1991 - USO
1992 - FO, W
1994 - AO, FO
1995 - AO

e. Edberg v Wilander (6 projected meetings)

1987 - USO
1988 - AO, FO, W, USO
1989 - W

The case of Connors is unique because Connors v Vilas is spread over a 8 year span, as an example. If USO wanted Connors all the time, which is understandable, FO and W also wanted a piece of the 'possibly rigging' pie.

Primary sources of data are ATP, ITF and Wikipedia. Spot validation was done using the AO draws from the official website and ITF. Wikipedia has some issues with specific AO draws, which were checked with the official site. I have not yet looked Sampras closely who was very dominant during his tenure.

Please point out any errors. E&OE (as I always indicate). This will be posted on another website that I visit (for full disclosure).

Yawn....

Maybe you should ONLY post this on that other 606?

HE... I would prefer a reasoned discussion. I am not sure that would be the outcome in the alternate universe of your suggestion. .

Let us not malign anyone.

I'm I right in concluding from your analysis that the Fed-Djoko Slam draws (14
/16 times in the same half during 4 years and 12/12 when excluding the French) is indeed highly unusual, unprecedented and even suspicious?

hawkeye wrote:Yawn....

Maybe you should ONLY post this on that other 606?

Why don't you go over to that other 606 and give them some of your "riveting articles" - Looks like they are a bit short on material - and as you are/were? a big Rafa fan it would also add to the content.

prostaff85 wrote:I'm I right in concluding from your analysis that the Fed-Djoko Slam draws (14
/16 times in the same half during 4 years and 12/12 when excluding the French) is indeed highly unusual, unprecedented and even suspicious?

This is beyond dispute, right? 12/12 very unlikely to happen without a bit of help...

prostaff85 wrote: (14/16 times in the same half during 4 years and 12/12 when excluding the French) is indeed highly unusual, unprecedented and even suspicious.

I am showing that a long string of matchups are possible, without any conspiracy, and including FO in my analysis. Edberg vs Lendl - 9 times in a 5 year span. And in the same span, Edberg v Wilander - 6 times. There is the curious case of Radwanska v Radwanska on the WTA side.

reckoner wrote:This is beyond dispute, right? 12/12 very unlikely to happen without a bit of help...

It is very likely. The longer a group of players are in the Top 4, the more likely it gets. If there was a capability to 'fix' draws and avoid such cries of 'conspiracy', the fixers would have tried to balance it out, correct? Do you think such 'fixers' would want themselves investigated? The 'usual' procedure of drawing the 3/4 seeds is always very public and is usually done by a Tennis player (at the USO, at least).

The challenge with this debate is that, once a conspiracy theory is authored, no amount of rational debate will allow such a theory to be addressed. 9/11 anyone?

sportslover wrote:Why don't you go over to that other 606 and give them some of your "riveting articles" - Looks like they are a bit short on material - and as you are/were? a big Rafa fan it would also add to the content.

Gently, Tiger. . I can understand HE not wanting to participate.

Reminds me of the 'Birth of a Critic' from Mel Brook's 'History of the World' movie.

laverfan wrote:

reckoner wrote:This is beyond dispute, right? 12/12 very unlikely to happen without a bit of help...

It is very likely. The longer a group of players are in the Top 4, the more likely it gets. If there was a capability to 'fix' draws and avoid such cries of 'conspiracy', the fixers would have tried to balance it out, correct? Do you think such 'fixers' would want themselves investigated? The 'usual' procedure of drawing the 3/4 seeds is always very public and is usually done by a Tennis player (at the USO, at least).

The challenge with this debate is that, once a conspiracy theory is authored, no amount of rational debate will allow such a theory to be addressed. 9/11 anyone?

laverfan, I'm not suggesting that every draw is rigged by any means. However I do think the run of 12/12 is very unlikely and accept there is a significant possibility that some draws may have been fixed and there is a ready financial motive for this. I'd also say the USO is a bad counterexample to pick given recent and reasonably credible research suggesting it is far from random!

I'm not sure the a priori events quoted are in quite the same league as the 12/12 being considered, as you are looking at selected criteria (ranking positions, number of meetings) and not at others (same players each time, sequential meetings).

I suspect if you tried to find an exact like for like comparison from historical data it'd be very difficult?

reckoner wrote:I suspect if you tried to find an exact like for like comparison from historical data it'd be very difficult?

I actually have a very well-known example. Laver v Rosewall 79-63 h2h. It pales Federer vs Djokovic completely. I can research slam-specific examples after the Challenge round was abolished. I took 1974-2000. I can go further back, but ATP/ITF data is suspect for lack of accuracy, but I will try.

laverfan wrote:

reckoner wrote:I suspect if you tried to find an exact like for like comparison from historical data it'd be very difficult?

I actually have a very well-known example. Laver v Rosewall 79-63 h2h. It pales Federer vs Djokovic completely. I can research slam-specific examples after the Challenge round was abolished. I took 1974-2000. I can go further back, but ATP/ITF data is suspect for lack of accuracy, but I will try.

So they had a run of meeting 12 consecutive times in slams at the same stage? (You can pick a slam to exclude as the FO has been in the Fedjokovic scenario.)

Also isn't some of this pre Open era, when rules were different? Wouldn't defending champs get to skip all matches before the final, that sort of thing?

sportslover wrote:
Why don't you go over to that other 606 and give them some of your "riveting articles" - Looks like they are a bit short on material - and as you are/were? a big Rafa fan it would also add to the content.


Gently, Tiger. . I can understand HE not wanting to participate.

Reminds me of the 'Birth of a Critic' from Mel Brook's 'History of the World' movie.

laverfan - pft How did you know I was a puss(y) cat

Two words: warm balls.

laverfan wrote:

Gently, Tiger. . I can understand HE not wanting to participate.

laverfan you are so wrong! I would love to participate in draw fixing given half a chance. I am not sure how to do it or if they would let me. There is just one thing (mmm maybe two things) I would like to fix. It's not really much to ask. I would just like Nadal and Federer on opposite sides of the draw for the FO and Wimbledon. Have you any ideas how I could go about it?

Nore Staat wrote:Two words: warm balls.

If I had a pound for every time I heard that I'd be a rich man.

I find it really sad that no one, no one I say, seems to care what side of the draw Murray ends up in .

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Two words: warm balls.

If I had a pound for every time I heard that I'd be a rich man.

Tried Goretex?

Nore Staat wrote:I find it really sad that no one, no one I say, seems to care what side of the draw Murray ends up in .

Commiserations...

reckoner wrote:So they had a run of meeting 12 consecutive times in slams at the same stage? (You can pick a slam to exclude as the FO has been in the Fedjokovic scenario.)

From Slams (and the same side of the draw, actual meetings, not projected meetings)

Federer v Djokovic

2011 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Djokovic, Novak 6-7(7), 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5
2011 Roland Garros France Clay S Federer, Roger 7-6(5), 6-3, 3-6, 7-6(5)
2011 Australian Open Australia Hard S Djokovic, Novak 7-6(3), 7-5, 6-4
2010 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Djokovic, Novak 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5
2009 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger 7-6(3), 7-5, 7-5
2008 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-2
2008 Australian Open Australia Hard S Djokovic, Novak 7-5, 6-3, 7-6(5)
2007 Australian Open Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger 6-2, 7-5, 6-3

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=F324

Connors v McEnroe

1984 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S McEnroe, John 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 6-3
1984 Roland Garros France Clay S McEnroe, John 7-5, 6-1, 6-2
1980 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S McEnroe, John 6-4, 5-7, 0-6, 6-3, 7-6
1980 Wimbledon England Grass S McEnroe, John 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4
1979 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S McEnroe, John 6-3, 6-3, 7-5
1978 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Connors, Jimmy 6-2, 6-2, 7-5
1977 Wimbledon England Grass S Connors, Jimmy 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 6-4

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=C044&oId=M047

Let me know if you see any errors.

reckoner wrote: Also isn't some of this pre Open era, when rules were different? Wouldn't defending champs get to skip all matches before the final, that sort of thing?

This is the Challenge round stuff. It was abolished around 1922, IIRC. Please look here - http://www.tennis.ukf.net/stats3.htm

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Two words: warm balls.

If I had a pound for every time I heard that I'd be a rich man.

Tried Goretex?

Possibly, wasn't Goretex a US Fed Cup player?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Two words: warm balls.

If I had a pound for every time I heard that I'd be a rich man.

Tried Goretex?

Possibly, wasn't Goretex a US Fed Cup player?

Was he known for his pleasantly cooling properties?

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Two words: warm balls.

If I had a pound for every time I heard that I'd be a rich man.

Tried Goretex?

Possibly, wasn't Goretex a US Fed Cup player?

Was he known for his pleasantly cooling properties?

'She', surely?

laverfan wrote:

reckoner wrote:So they had a run of meeting 12 consecutive times in slams at the same stage? (You can pick a slam to exclude as the FO has been in the Fedjokovic scenario.)

From Slams (and the same side of the draw, actual meetings, not projected meetings)

Federer v Djokovic

2011 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Djokovic, Novak 6-7(7), 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5
2011 Roland Garros France Clay S Federer, Roger 7-6(5), 6-3, 3-6, 7-6(5)
2011 Australian Open Australia Hard S Djokovic, Novak 7-6(3), 7-5, 6-4
2010 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Djokovic, Novak 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5
2009 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger 7-6(3), 7-5, 7-5
2008 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-2
2008 Australian Open Australia Hard S Djokovic, Novak 7-5, 6-3, 7-6(5)
2007 Australian Open Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger 6-2, 7-5, 6-3

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=F324

Connors v McEnroe

1984 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S McEnroe, John 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 6-3
1984 Roland Garros France Clay S McEnroe, John 7-5, 6-1, 6-2
1980 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S McEnroe, John 6-4, 5-7, 0-6, 6-3, 7-6
1980 Wimbledon England Grass S McEnroe, John 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4
1979 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S McEnroe, John 6-3, 6-3, 7-5
1978 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard S Connors, Jimmy 6-2, 6-2, 7-5
1977 Wimbledon England Grass S Connors, Jimmy 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 6-4

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=C044&oId=M047

Let me know if you see any errors.

reckoner wrote: Also isn't some of this pre Open era, when rules were different? Wouldn't defending champs get to skip all matches before the final, that sort of thing?

This is the Challenge round stuff. It was abolished around 1922, IIRC. Please look here - http://www.tennis.ukf.net/stats3.htm

That's very comprehensive laverfan... but doesn't quite replicate the 12/12 unfortunately! That's 7 semis over 7 years, quite exceptional in itself, but we're talking about a run of 12 occasions where they've been in the same half in 3 years, resulting in the same number of semis in that time. Much more exceptional given the compressed time period.

Matches are listed for Connors v McEnroe, however we are missing information where they were drawn on the same side but didn't play.

What we need is a run of 16 concecutive slams where two top 4 seeds ended up in the same side of the draw 12 times, with the ability to withdraw one of the slams to keep the run. I took a look at Laver v Rosewall but couldn't replicate it there.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Two words: warm balls.

If I had a pound for every time I heard that I'd be a rich man.

Tried Goretex?

Possibly, wasn't Goretex a US Fed Cup player?

Was he known for his pleasantly cooling properties?

'She', surely?

apologies, yes of course! lol

From 2007-2011

2007 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #14 (R16 meeting)
2007 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2007 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3

2008 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

2009 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2009 W Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2009 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

2010 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

2011 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 W Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 USO Federer #3 - Djokovic #1 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4

1-4, 2-3 = 8
1-3, 2-4 = 6

Again, let me know if you see errors.

reckoner wrote:Matches are listed for Connors v McEnroe, however we are missing information where they were drawn on the same side but didn't play.

Since I took Top 4. If either player was not in Top 4, they could still meet each other.

For example, 1977 W McEnroe was a Qualifier (Similar to Federer #1 and Djokovic #14 in 2007 AO).


Connors v McEnroe (9 projected meetings as Top 4 from the same half of the draw)

1979 - USO (McEnroe won)
1980 - FO (McEnroe lost to McNamee), W, USO
1981 - FO (McEnroe lost to Lendl)
1983 - USO (McEnroe lost to Bill Scanlon)
1984 - FO, USO
1985 - W

PS:

So in this case 1977 W is the exception to the projected meetings as Top 4. McEnroe has 3 losses as Top 4 which leaves 9 - 3 = 6 actual meetings as Top 4.

Total is 7 matches h2h, with 1977 W being added as a non-Top 4 match when in the same half of the draw.

The problem I have with the 12/12 thing (1 in 4096 chance on the initial face of it) is that its following names not seeds. Draws are based on seeds (not names)...and when you look at the seed placement for those past 14 slams from 2011 back you get 1v3,2v4 for 8 times, and 1v2,3v4 for 6 times...which is nearly 50:50%. If the seeds placement was 12/12 then it would be highly unusual but they werent, it was the names that moved around in the rankings that allowed more of a chance of coming together.

This was exacerbated by Federer and Djokovic never being (I think, or rarely) 1 & 2 seeds, or 3 & 4 ... meaning they always had more chance of being placed against each other because if they were 1 & 2 or 3 & 4 in the rankings they would have always been put into opppsite halves. And because they didnt go outside the top 4 they werent put into further bigger chance of missing each other. So I think the 12/12 occurence of names (not seeds) is due to a perfect set of conditions coming into being allowing an unusual run to be possible....after all this is probably the most stable top 4 in the Open Era. But as I say if you look at seed-draw placement it was 8 vs 6.

As the balls are drawn out of a hat by a player e.g. Rafa, Fed, whoever (correct me if I'm wrong on any of this), that player would have to be complicit in order for it to be rigged, unless the warm balls things is some sort of Derren Brown-type trickery.

The poll shows 3 votes who disagree that this article addresses any draw rigging concerns.

Not sure yet LF...can you explain why you think it does?
Any thoughts on what I said above?

JuliusHMarx wrote:... unless the warm balls things is ...

ker...ching! £

lydian wrote:Not sure yet LF...can you explain why you think it does?
Any thoughts on what I said above?

I am doing my level-best to convince with well-reasoned response. You captured the 8 vs 6 split very well.

I want fans and spectators to focus on the sport and the players and enjoy the tennis much more than having this nagging doubt that the sport at the elite level is somehow scripted/staged.

These players give their blood, sweat and tears on the courts. We, as spectators, should appreciate what they bring to the court. Personally, they have given me hours of matches, that I appreciate, and I hope others do, as well.

In one sense, I am trying to defend the honour of Tennis as a sport.

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:... unless the warm balls things is ...

ker...ching! £

OK, but how would it reliably influence the non-corrupt player making the draw?
Or would the player also have to be in on it?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Adding FO to the 8 vs 6 mix...

2007 FO - Federer #1 - Djokovic #6 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2008 FO - Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2009 FO - Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half ) 1-3, 2-4
2010 FO - Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2011 FO - Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

1-4, 2-3 = 3
1-3, 2-4 = 2

Adding FO to the 8 vs 6 distribution (for AO, W, USO), we get

1-4, 2-3 = 8 + 3 = 11
1-3, 2-4 = 6 + 2 = 8.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/bookbeat/how-richard-dawkins-might-explain-a-tennis-coincidence

"In fact, the coincidence of the same two players meeting in the 1st round in consecutive Wimbledons has occurred eight times since 1970."

So confirms the 8v6 further.
I'm pretty sure the players themselves are not involved in any potential draw rigging. The argument from the "other side" might be that its the TDs who have an interest to fix draws as they want Fedal finals...however, this breaks down under scrutiny as pre-2011 Nadal has as much to fear from Federer or Djokovic. At Wimb Nadal (or rather TDs) had no reason to fear him meeting Djokovic. And of course there is the missing FO dataset.

I dont personally believe in draw rigging as the scandal would ruin the sport and specific events would lose so much in future years. Also, many events of the big events are sellouts anyway regardless of who gets to the final.

One could say it is just the luck of the draw - as LF pointed out the split between {1-4, 2-3} and {1-3, 2-4} is pretty unremarkable.

I still can't find an example of two players meeting in a sequence like this in such a short time span so it's a valid opinion to say this is unusual at the least.

I mean it's one of those unprovable things isn't it? Given the research into the USO draw though it's reasonable to think it likely that there is an element of rigging happening.

lydian wrote:The problem I have with the 12/12 thing (1 in 4096 chance on the initial face of it) is that its following names not seeds. ...

I think that's the point - it's as if the "names" were drawn into separate halves, which is as it should be if the tournament organisers were hoping for the "ideal final" in order to help promote their tournie. Of course now we have Djokovic Mark 2 (the egg chamber year(s?)) that has rather upset that apple cart.

lydian wrote:
The problem I have with the 12/12 thing (1 in 4096 chance on the initial face of it) is that its following names not seeds. Draws are based on seeds (not names)...and when you look at the seed placement for those past 14 slams from 2011 back you get 1v3,2v4 for 8 times, and 1v2,3v4 for 6 times...which is nearly 50:50%. If the seeds placement was 12/12 then it would be highly unusual but they werent, it was the names that moved around in the rankings that allowed more of a chance of coming together.

Let me help you with this lydian:
How big is the chance that at the coming French Open, the #1 and #3 will be in the same half of the draw?
How big is the chance that at the coming French Open, Djokovic and Federer will be in the same half of the draw?

Indeed, the answer to both questions is 50%

So it doesn't matter at all whether we look at numbers or names, as long a one is ranked 1-2 and the other 3-4.

You have checked for yourself that the #1 was drawn against number #3 as often as against #4. Where things get suspicious is that every time when Federer and Djokovic held the #1 and #3 positions, the draw was 1v3, and every time they were #2 and #3, the draw was 2v3!

It's not about how often #1 was drawn against #3 (roughly half of the times), but when it happened (every time Federer and Djokovic held the #1 and #3 positions!).

Prostaff85...

Two aspects to consider.

1. Current points held by Top 4 are

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 13,270
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,715
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,880
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 7,860

Before RG, there is a significant gap between 1 and 2. Madrid and Rome can move the seedings a bit...

Djokovic
08.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome W 1,000
01.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid W 1,000

Djokovic losing both Rome and Madrid leaves him around 11,000.

Nadal
08.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome F 600
01.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid F 600

Nadal winning Rome and Madrid gives him 800 additional points, roughly 10,500.

Federer
08.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome R16 90
01.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid S 360

Federer winning both Rome and Madrid gives an additional 1500 points, giving him #2.

Murray
08.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome S 360
01.05.2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid R16 90

Murray winning both Rome and Madrid gives him an additional 1500 points, giving him #3. Nadal defending his SF points at Madrid and Rome leaves him still at #2.

Quite a few permutations possible for Top 4.


2. To look at previous draws and in order we get...

a. Djokovic is not in Top 4 in 2007, so we should consider this a bit different than the regular Top 4 scenario...

2007 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #14 (R16 meeting) 1-4, 2-3
2007 FO Federer #1 - Djokovic #6 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2007 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-3, 2-4 Corrected. Roddick was #3.
2007 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3

b. 50% split in 2008 for the numbers... 2x 1-4, 2-3 and 2x 1-3, 2-4

2008 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 FO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Nadal's half) 1-4, 2-3
2008 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2008 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

c. 50% split here in 2009. 2x 1-4, 2-3 and 2x 1-3, 2-4. Also, Djokovic and Federer change rankings here.

2009 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2009 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half ) 1-3, 2-4
2009 W Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2009 USO Federer #1 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

d. 75-25 split here. 3x 1-3,2-4, 1x 1-4, 2-3. Federer and Djokovic change rankings.

2010 AO Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 FO Federer #2 - Djokovic #4 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 W Federer #1 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4
2010 USO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3

e. 25-75 compared to 2d. 3x 1-4, 2-3 and 1x 1-3, 2-4. Federer (2,3) and Djokovic (1,2,3) change rankings.

2011 AO Federer #2 - Djokovic #3 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 FO Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 W Federer #3 - Djokovic #2 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-4, 2-3
2011 USO Federer #3 - Djokovic #1 (Djokovic in Federer's half) 1-3, 2-4


PS: Correction.

1-4, 2-3 = 10
1-3, 2-4 = 10

prostaff85 wrote:Where things get suspicious is that every time when Federer and Djokovic held the #1 and #3 positions, the draw was 1v3, and every time they were #2 and #3, the draw was 2v3!

2007 USO draw was 1-4, 2-3 while Federer was #1 and Djokovic was #3.

2008 FO draw was 1-4, 2-3 while Federer was #1 and Djokovic was #3.

2009 FO draw was 1-3, 2-4 while Federer was #2 and Djokovic was #4.

2010 FO draw was 1-3, 2-4 while Federer was #2 and Djokovic was #4.

laverfan wrote:

prostaff85 wrote:Where things get suspicious is that every time when Federer and Djokovic held the #1 and #3 positions, the draw was 1v3, and every time they were #2 and #3, the draw was 2v3!

2007 USO draw was 1-4, 2-3 while Federer was #1 and Djokovic was #3.

2008 FO draw was 1-4, 2-3 while Federer was #1 and Djokovic was #3.

2009 FO draw was 1-3, 2-4 while Federer was #2 and Djokovic was #4.

2010 FO draw was 1-3, 2-4 while Federer was #2 and Djokovic was #4.

ah c'mon laverfan, you know what he was getting at...

it is still an unprecedented run as far as I can see - can't see this pattern in other historical matchup even when they have way more meetings like your Laver Rosewall example.

Just saying!

12 out of 12 is by far the worst and most unbelievable of all those statistics you posted. And since now we have had two different statistical analysis that show serious issues of non-randomness and therefore a high probabiltiy of draw rigging by third party experts I don't feel convinced in the least. By the way a 12 out of 12 scenario for projected Djoko v. Fed at the grandslams is statistically at least 8 times as bad as any example you have provided. Your excellent research again Laver fan actually proves my point.

It's only 12 out of 12 if we ignore the FO. If we take the FO and ignore the rest* it's 0 out of 4.

* presumably it's OK to ignore data that doesn't fit our hypothesis

oh socal, tsk tsk tsk

1. there's only one credible study

2. it's not "your" point

must try harder!

laverfan...

While I appreciate your efforts of digging up all this data, I'm afraid it doesn't help keeping the discussion focused.

lydian's point was that, even though Federer and Djokovic were in the same half of the draw 12 times out of 12 (and 14 times out of 16 if we include the French), it's not strange because if we look at the 1v3/2v4 and 1v4/2v3 distribution it looks normal. This is unfortunately nonsense.

Now we can throw in all kinds of distracting data, it is a simple FACT that the statistical probability of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half of the draw during those 12 consecutive non-clay Slams is 1/4096.

We can have a debate on whether draws might have been rigged or not, but let's not argue about that statistical probability of 1/4096 because it's a fact. A fact! No debate needed.

There are only two explanations for what happened:
1. it was a co-incidence (probability 1/4096)
2. it was not a co-incidence

I think it's quite understandable that some people think the second explanation could be valid.

I can understand the Roland Garros statistic - I don't think the organisers have really bought into the Federer - Nadal rivalry (it isn't really a rivalry on clay), much preferring seeing a Frenchman doing well (and they are still waiting for a Frenchman to win after about 30 odd years).

prostaff85 wrote:... same half of the draw during those 12 consecutive non-clay Slams is 1/4096....

This type of classification is what Lydian, JHM and I have objections to. Why is only 'clay' and non-clay classification? Why not grass and non-grass or HC and non-HC, etc.?

prostaff85 wrote:... 1/4096 = (1/2) ^ 12. ... A Fact! No debate needed....

My objection to such correlation of data is that it suits a specific hypothesis (and FO somehow does not ). Each draw is unique, a discrete event, conducted by different sub-governing bodies (under ITF) like AELTC, USTA, FFT and TA . Players' rankings change, albeit not much, due to the consistency and constancy of the current Top 4.

prostaff85 wrote:I think it's quite understandable that some people think the second explanation could be valid.

As Qui Gon Jin would say, your focus determines your reality.

Senora, I served with Qui Gon Jin, I knew Qui Gon Jin, Qui Gon Jin was a friend of mine. Senora, you're no Qui Gon Jin.

This type of classification is what Lydian, JHM and I have objections to. Why is only 'clay' and non-clay classification? Why not grass and non-grass or HC and non-HC, etc.?

My objection to such correlation of data is that it suits a specific hypothesis (and FO somehow does not ). Each draw is unique, a discrete event, conducted by different sub-governing bodies (under ITF) like AELTC, USTA, FFT and TA . Players' rankings change, albeit not much, due to the consistency and constancy of the current Top 4.

We are considering an observed pattern when considering the data within the given constraints (one of these being to exclude RG as we suppose it isn't rigged). As I understand it laverfan (please correct me if I'm mistaken), your contention is that this is such a likely scenario that it is reproducible using historical data - but the only way you've come close to showing something similar is by dropping one or more of the constraints (e.g. by extending the time span).

So would you agree there is some merit in considering such a sequence highly (and perhaps suspiciously) unlikely?

reckoner wrote:oh socal, tsk tsk tsk

1. there's only one credible study

2. it's not "your" point

must try harder!

No there are two, a study by Espn done over several years analyzing the top seed matchups in the first two rounds found with an overwhelming percentage chance that the USO men's and women's draw and the French open Draw were not random and where manufactured.