Rigged Draws, Conspiracy Theories And Getting Things Too Easy

As someone who just wants Nadal and Federer at opposite sides of a slam draw I have to admit I am very happy today. However I can understand why some Djokovic fans may be feeling less than pleased. Getting a 16 slam winning all time great as a potential semi final opponant makes the other side of the draw look easy in comparison.

I don't believe in rigged draws or conspiricy theories but it does appear a little unfair when one side of the draw is randomly loaded. Something needs to be done to make things a little fairer and make the playing field more even.

I propose that any third seed who holds 16 (or 10 or 5...?) slam titles or more has earnt the priviledge to be able to choose whose side to be placed in. The number one seeds side or the number two seeds side. The top two seeds could of course avoid the third seed in the semi's by playing so well that the third seed will want to avoid them.

Of course this would still leave the problem of one of the top two seeds having it too easy. This could be remedied by forcing them to give a one set advantage to anyone they meet in their semi.

Would this solve the problem? Would it be fair? Has anyone got a better idea about how to solve the problem of a dominant top three?

hawkeye wrote:Has anyone got a better idea about how to solve the problem of a dominant top three?

Andy Murray to play better?

hawkeye wrote: Has anyone got a better idea about how to solve the problem of a dominant top three?

1. Make Wimbledon fast again
2. Make Roland Garros as slow as it used to be
3. Bring back Rebound Ace in Australia
4. Bring carpet back to the circuit
5. Have a variety of slow, medium and fast courts generally rather than a preponderance of hard courts on the circuit
6. Bring back 16 seeds, so there can be tougher opening matches for the top seeds

As usual in grandslams and as in most masters Novak again gets Fed. Frankly, the case for some draw jiggling by these committees at some level is pretty overwhelming at this point. Those that want to continue in their fedal myopia and pretend that serious evidence of it doesn't exist are welcome to their fun. Personally, I am beyond caring at RG. I really think Novak will beat Roger if they play at the French, I am much more worried about Nadal. But as usual the french job Djokovic with the draw, just like last year, surprise, surprise. If he does win 4 in a row despite the tennis talents of Fed and Nadal and nefarious actions of the french draw rigging committee then this truely will be an epic accomplishment.

Why would a tournament risk having the number 1 & 2 in SF and 3 & 4 in the other SF? This 1:3 and 2:4 SF look good, and helps bring 1 & 2 into the Final.

There's no rigging at all, and those going on about it not understand statistics. Then again, if you think about the other things socal believes, draw rigging is the least of the problem! .

Actually, Social has calmed down a little since the only other Djoko fan left in the world is out of this forum

yuckety, yuckety from the peanut gallery. I am glad you two haven't gotten over your obsessions. Either way there has been plenty of mathematical analysis of the issue by people infinetly more qualified than Albert Bogbrush Einstein. You know people with degrees in statistics. I don't need to go back and rehash it, credible specialists have looked at the issue and concluded that the draws at some of the slams look to not be random and therefore on some level manufactured.

O dear, there are still people who believe everything is done fair and corruption and fraud doesnt exist in this world. Long live fairy tales.

I knew already before today that Federer was going to be in Djokovic's half, and we'll see the same at wimbledon and us open obviously. But even then people will say:'hey, its still statistically correct, conspiracy theorists dont understand statistics.' Ye right.

Not bothered with rigging conspiracy/wishlist etc, but I don't understand why the No1 and No2 should be in same draw? This way number 3 & 4 have a chance in going to final as well.

socal1976 wrote:yuckety, yuckety from the peanut gallery. I am glad you two haven't gotten over your obsessions. Either way there has been plenty of mathematical analysis of the issue by people infinetly more qualified than Albert Bogbrush Einstein. You know people with degrees in statistics. I don't need to go back and rehash it, credible specialists have looked at the issue and concluded that the draws at some of the slams look to not be random and therefore on some level manufactured.

No, there's been no such proof.

Given the seeds were drawn by hand in public today, did they get Darren Brown in to do it?

That person with degree in statistics who made the rigging claim, was a Serbian professor, probably paid by Serbian government, to play the victim, that they general do so good, for their best sportsman, and prove to the world that despite all the rigging against Djoko, he made it to the top.

Chydremion wrote:O dear, there are still people who believe everything is done fair and corruption and fraud doesnt exist in this world. Long live fairy tales.

I knew already before today that Federer was going to be in Djokovic's half, and we'll see the same at wimbledon and us open obviously. But even then people will say:'hey, its still statistically correct, conspiracy theorists dont understand statistics.' Ye right.

Those cunning guys in Australia, with their separate agenda and oppositely fiddled draw!

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:yuckety, yuckety from the peanut gallery. I am glad you two haven't gotten over your obsessions. Either way there has been plenty of mathematical analysis of the issue by people infinetly more qualified than Albert Bogbrush Einstein. You know people with degrees in statistics. I don't need to go back and rehash it, credible specialists have looked at the issue and concluded that the draws at some of the slams look to not be random and therefore on some level manufactured.

No, there's been no such proof.

Given the seeds were drawn by hand in public today, did they get Darren Brown in to do it?

There's never proof in cases like this, unless you can film that the two pieces of paper in the hat (or whatever they use) used to pick the place in the draw of the 3rd and 4th seed have the same name written on it, either Federer or Murray.

Until then there are only irregularities, which naive people choose to ignore.

bogbrush wrote:

Chydremion wrote:O dear, there are still people who believe everything is done fair and corruption and fraud doesnt exist in this world. Long live fairy tales.

I knew already before today that Federer was going to be in Djokovic's half, and we'll see the same at wimbledon and us open obviously. But even then people will say:'hey, its still statistically correct, conspiracy theorists dont understand statistics.' Ye right.

Those cunning guys in Australia, with their separate agenda and oppositely fiddled draw!

They for once decided to do the opposite of their rigged 'dream draw' (Federer-Nadal final) at AO12, to avoid suspicion. Not surprisingly just a few months after an examination of draw fixing had been done. They had to show that everything was right. Now for the rest of the slams this year we'll see Federer-Djokovic semis, unless ranking changes make this impossible or if they are inconvenient.

Occasionally they have to deviate from their dream draw. Even you (=Bogbrush) would get suspicious after 20 consecutive Federer-Djokovic semis, or at least, I hope so.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:yuckety, yuckety from the peanut gallery. I am glad you two haven't gotten over your obsessions. Either way there has been plenty of mathematical analysis of the issue by people infinetly more qualified than Albert Bogbrush Einstein. You know people with degrees in statistics. I don't need to go back and rehash it, credible specialists have looked at the issue and concluded that the draws at some of the slams look to not be random and therefore on some level manufactured.

No, there's been no such proof.

Given the seeds were drawn by hand in public today, did they get Darren Brown in to do it?

No-one with a degree in statistics has shown anything of relevance about the pairings of the top 4 seeds. Someone with a law degree did a study on it, not a statistician. I have pointed this out before, but socal has never acknowledged that particular fact and continues to refer to the law academic as a statistician.

Conspriacy theorists are called 'theorists' for a reason. The problem is they usually expect to be treated as experts who deal in proven facts.

PS Derren Brown, not 'Darren'

I really wish this whole crap about draw rigging would be put to rest. It was filmed live, oh unless it was done a week ago and made seem to be live. They draw seeds, not players names!

Yes, and guys like Clydremion add to the mix the 'trump' card of the conspiracy enthusiast, that not only are they right but others are somehow stupid or deprived of their insight.

As always, there'll be no facts produced, just nods and winks and faux superior insight.

I better get Panorama on the case at once!

Gut feeling seems to be the new proof for most people

The now-notorious ESPN study exonerated FO from Easy draws and pointed at USO being an anomaly for R1/R2 easy opponents.

The University of Tallinn study by a Law Student also did remove FO to push the 12v12 vs 16-14 (now 17-14).

It is to see this discussion back again, instead of focussing on the history in the making with Djokovic at the doorstep of a GS.

This 'fear' factor just makes Djokovic's achievements in 2011 seem tainted. He is a 'big mature' boy, in his own words, and can handle a tennis racquet (and break a few in the process). Please give him credit for it.

social1976

Like I said I don't believe in draw rigging. In the last slam didn't Nadal have to play Federer?

But I agree it does seem unfair that Djokovic has to potentially play Federer in his semi whilst Nadal will potentially get things a lot easier. But it would be the same the other way round. What do you think of my idea for making it a bit fairer. Let the number 3 seed choose and make the other 1st or 2nd seed forfeit a set in the other semi.

If Federer "chose" Djokovic then Nadal would start his semi from one set down (and of course the other way round). Would that be enough to balance things out? Or should it be two sets?...

Exactly how much of a disadvantage is it to "get" Federer?

laverfan

But Federer is scary!

Wtf Hawkeye?

You are joking, right?

bogbrush wrote:Wtf Hawkeye?

You are joking, right?

Ha ha! Well I'm not sure any of the slams will take up my idea...

But how do you quantify the disadvantage of a potential Federer semi? Is it worth the loss of a set? Two sets? Who would Federer prefer to play? Should it be easier for the number one seed to beat him or the number 2 seed? The top two seeds are the best in the world. Should either really be so scared of the number 3 seed?

Chydremion wrote:O dear, there are still people who believe everything is done fair and corruption and fraud doesnt exist in this world. Long live fairy tales.

I knew already before today that Federer was going to be in Djokovic's half, and we'll see the same at wimbledon and us open obviously. But even then people will say:'hey, its still statistically correct, conspiracy theorists dont understand statistics.' Ye right.

Bravo, a tour de force. I mean how illogical for us to assume that people who stand to directly benefit from tinkering with the draw and who are operating under little or no oversight would possibly want to tip the results a little bit more in their favor. The statistician working for Espn found that 3 of the 8 slam draws for mens and womens had an almost insurmountable statistical probability that these draws were not random when looking at the first two rounds. A second respected stat man looked at his work and stated that his results and methodology were sound. Is everyone on the payroll of the serbian government Jahu? And they call me a conspiracy theorist.

'Tour de force' lol

Fantasy, socal, pure fantasy.

You and Chlamydia need to think things through a bit more.

Should Federer withdraw from RG to allow one less fearsome opponent? Should Melzer also be moved to Nadal's half?

7 matches, each one is crucial.

SoCal... R1/R2 opponents have nothing to do with where the Top 4 end, does it?

Chydremion... Djokovic has beaten Federer in USO 2010/11 and recently at Rome 2012. As a Djokovic fan, you should be saying bring it on, correct?

HE... I need to ask Roddick (who lost to Go Soeda in Dusseldorf on clay) how scary Federer is!

laverfan wrote:
Chydremion... Djokovic has beaten Federer in USO 2010/11 and recently at Rome 2012. As a Djokovic fan, you should be saying bring it on, correct?

I'm not a Djokovic fan. All I want to say is that a Federer-Nadal grand slam final is probably still the most lucrative event in tennis, so it's no surprise that Federer is put in the opposite half than Nadal's. Because of rankings this happens to be Djokovic' half, but if instead of Djokovic, mr Smurf was number one, it would be mr Smurf's half. With current rankings Djokovic is irrelevant as to where they put Federer. Of course Djokovic will have an impact on whether the Nadal-Federer final will occure, but nothing they can do about that I guess.

laverfan wrote:

HE... I need to ask Roddick (who lost to Go Soeda in Dusseldorf on clay) how scary Federer is!

Go on ask him! I can guarantee if you did Roddicks reply would be "very scary indeed".

In fact this whole endless draw conspiricy talk is fueled by how scary Federer is. Well maybe by how scary he is to everyone bar one.

Nadal-Djokovic played in 3 slam finals in 2011. They played MS finals.

You are saying ATP/ITF still consider a Fedal final more lucrative then Nadalovic final despite the 2011 events.

Is it because of the AO 2012 slugfest for ~6 hours?

No one has proven this to be rigging, but mere innuendo and extrapolation has been used so far. Very similar to Nadal-PED accusations from 'theorists', without any proof.

Neither the ESPN study nor the Talinn study provide any proof but just analysis.

BTW, Mr Smurf holds three slams right now.

I believe Federer is still far more popular and well-known than Djokovic.
Also the fedal rivalry has been immensely hyped up in last years, in a way the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry has not. A Federer-Nadal rivalry seems more lucrative to me, not because it is necessarily better, but because it has enjoyed far more marketing. Federer and Nadal are seen as legends, Djokovic not (yet?). If Nadal keeps beating Djokovic this year and wins a couple of slams this year Djokovic 'super 2011' will be seen as a fluke by the wider public, or maybe even forgotten.

Mr smurf is just a random person, I didn't mean Djokovic.

Didn't Tom look @ how many times Djokovic had been drawn in Federer and Nadal's half @ RG and it was more often Nadal's? So actually, it would make sense that Federer is on Djokovic's half. What makes less sense is how Nadal got such an easy route to the final, but that's another matter!

Djokovic is being promoted very well by ATP.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/DEUCE-Roland-Garros-Wimbledon-2012/Novak-Djokovic.aspx

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/Rivalries/Nadal-Djokovic-Rivalry.aspx

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/DEUCE-Roland-Garros-Wimbledon-2012/Shark-Bites.aspx

On this link, if you click on 'Players' tab, you do not see Federer, but Nadalovic. At one point, it used to be Fedal (2011, IIRC around WTF 2011).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/News-Landing.aspx

Chydremion wrote:Mr smurf is just a random person, I didn't mean Djokovic.

My mistake.

A possible Federerman vs Djokerman semi-final. That should be a good match to watch.

hawkeye wrote:... Has anyone got a better idea about how to solve the problem of a dominant top three?...

Scrap the R128 R64 R32 R16 QF SF F format.

Replace with: R96 R48 R24 R12 R6 R3
The final will comprise three players (R3)
Fed v Djok for two games
Fed v Nad for two games
Djok v Nad for two games
Djok v Fed for two games
Fed v Nad for two games
keep repeating until someone has won three sets.

hawkeye wrote:...Has anyone got a better idea about how to solve the problem of a dominant top three?

Whoever gets the easy draw, has to play their semi-final blind-folded.

hawkeye wrote:... Has anyone got a better idea about how to solve the problem of a dominant top three?

The dominant three draw straws (two long one short). Whoever draws the shortest straw plays in the womens tournament.

Nadal-Wozniacki vs Federer-Serena vs Djokovic-Ana Ivanovic till all six retire. All 4 slams.

Hopman Cup to qualify.

I wouldn't mind Serena-Ivanovic giving me some private coaching.

On a serious note, all is left for this monopolizing current top 3 is to retire in next 2-3 years. Fed will go soon, Nadal I think next year will start a rapid decline due to his body crumbling, and Djoko can push another 2y maybe in top form.

Jahu wrote:I wouldn't mind Serena-Ivanovic giving me some private coaching.

On sliding and whacking the balls. (Dirty man )

Jahu wrote:On a serious note, all is left for this monopolizing current top 3 is to retire in next 2-3 years. Fed will go soon, Nadal I think next year will start a rapid decline due to his body crumbling, and Djoko can push another 2y maybe in top form.

Federer 2016+, Nadal 2016+, Djokovic 2017+ is my prediction.

bogbrush wrote:Yes, and guys like Clydremion add to the mix the 'trump' card of the conspiracy enthusiast, that not only are they right but others are somehow stupid or deprived of their insight.

As always, there'll be no facts produced, just nods and winks and faux superior insight.

No facts except the ESpn statistician who determined a very high probability of the US open and RG tampering with their draws. Laverfan, RG was not exonerated in regards to the first two rounds. A significant probability existed in the Espn study that pointed to problems in the women's half. The Espn study exonerated nobody. It looked at a specific issue and found that with an overwhleming percentage the draws of mens and womens for The USO and the women's draw for the french was not a random draw for the first two rounds. The Espn study did not look at other aspects of the draw. Later a second highly respected academic looked at the shocking espn results which by the way I produced first a year ago, and second statistician said that the methodology and conclusions were all supported by the numbers. Those are facts Bogbrush, why am I not surprised that you have an inability in recognizing these facts.

Sadly, sometimes conspiracies actually do happen. See the Iraq WAr intelligence feeding to the media. See the Lincoln Assassination.

I have to say, it does seem very dodgy that fed and djokovic are pretty much always in same half of draw. What is it now, 15 of the past 18 slams, that does seem very odd to me. Would expect djokovic to win that match if they both get that far but nadal draw is certainly far easier. If fed and djokovic are in same side of draw in Wimbledon and us open too, that should certainly prove something is up. It would also be better for tennis to see different match ups at the slams. I was almost in shock at oz open this year when djokovic was drawn with murray in his half of the draw.

If Im correct though, what's pulled out of the hat or whatever it is in the draw is the seed number. So given that Fed has gone from being No.1 in 2007 to mid 2008 and then No.2 and then No.1 again from mid 2009 to mid 2010 and then 2 again from then to March 2011 when he went to 3 and Djokovic has stayed consistently 3 through most of that time until March 2011, then it's not as surprising.

If Fed, Nadal & Djoko has stayed in the same ranking/seeding position for the last 5 years and Fed and Djoko has met in 15 of the past 18 slams, I'd understand a possible conspiracy. But they've fluctuated a fair bit and that might explain slightly better the numerous meeting than you might expect, not rigging conspiracies.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, RG was not exonerated in regards to the first two rounds.

Leo Levin, IDS director of product development, said there is no problem with the program. A week after "Outside the Lines" presented its findings to the USTA, the organization forwarded an email from IDS president Rallis Pappas, in which he said the company simulated 200 draws. The 10-year averages in their sample were indeed random, but neither IDS nor the USTA offered an explanation for the skewed actual draws over the last 10 years, other than to say it had to have happened by random chance.

socal1976 wrote:A significant probability existed in the Espn study that pointed to problems in the women's half. The Espn study exonerated nobody. It looked at a specific issue and found that with an overwhleming percentage the draws of mens and womens for The USO and the women's draw for the french was not a random draw for the first two rounds.

So by extrapolation, the draw for 1-3,2-4 vs 1-4,2-3 is also non-random? Is that what you are implying?


TOP SEEDS' FIRST-ROUND DRAWS
How frequently ESPN's simulated draws came up with average difficulty scores that were at least as low as scores for the actual Grand Slam draws. Percentages closer to 0 indicate a lower likelihood that the actual results are strictly due to random chance.

Men's Grand Slam Percent of draw simula-tions as easy as actual draws

Australian 71.2%
French 69.5%
Wimbledon 37.0%
U.S. Open 0.3%

Women's Grand Slam Percent of draw simula-tions as easy as actual draws
Australian 94.7%
French 99.2%
Wimbledon 30.7%
U.S. Open 0.0%

socal1976 wrote:The Espn study did not look at other aspects of the draw. Later a second highly respected academic looked at the shocking espn results which by the way I produced first a year ago, and second statistician said that the methodology and conclusions were all supported by the numbers. Those are facts Bogbrush, why am I not surprised that you have an inability in recognizing these facts.

When do likelihoods become facts?

socal1976 wrote:Sadly, sometimes conspiracies actually do happen. See the Iraq WAr intelligence feeding to the media. See the Lincoln Assassination.

Equating Slam draws to Iraq War, Lincoln Assassination, yet again an exaggeration. No one dies due to Tennis draws unlike the events you have mentioned.

No one has explained the Bermuda Triangle yet. There are quite a few theories for it as well.

No Lucius, I'm afraid that's a bit of a flawed statement.
Normally I agree with your posts, and you seem to be a very fair minded balanced poster, but you're missing something crucial.
The thing is the people who believe in the rigging theory (I'm not really on either side of the debate here) say that they rig it with the players. This means whatever the seedings they will find a way to make something happen, unless they are seeded 1+2.
The coincidence is that whenever Djokovic is number 1 and Federer is number 3 they seem to face, whenever Djoko is number 2 and Federer is 3 the '2vs3' combination happens, and if Fed is 1 and Djoko is 3 the '1vs3' SF combo appears.. etc.
Now I don't believe in the theory, although the pattern is strange, but I believe this is just luck, these things happen. But I do there is a pattern present which has shown itself to be quite predictable apart from a few exceptions.
But my point is the seedings don't cover up for the fact it is a strange pattern, it could be seen as suspicious that the 1vs3 SF combo comes up whenever that would be Djoko-Fed and then the 2vs3 SF combo which would also result in the same matchup.

However there have been some which have not followed this pattern in the last few years:
AO 2012
FO 2010
F0 2008

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yes, and guys like Clydremion add to the mix the 'trump' card of the conspiracy enthusiast, that not only are they right but others are somehow stupid or deprived of their insight.

As always, there'll be no facts produced, just nods and winks and faux superior insight.

No facts except the ESpn statistician who determined a very high probability of the US open and RG tampering with their draws. Laverfan, RG was not exonerated in regards to the first two rounds. A significant probability existed in the Espn study that pointed to problems in the women's half. The Espn study exonerated nobody. It looked at a specific issue and found that with an overwhleming percentage the draws of mens and womens for The USO and the women's draw for the french was not a random draw for the first two rounds. The Espn study did not look at other aspects of the draw. Later a second highly respected academic looked at the shocking espn results which by the way I produced first a year ago, and second statistician said that the methodology and conclusions were all supported by the numbers. Those are facts Bogbrush, why am I not surprised that you have an inability in recognizing these facts.

Sadly, sometimes conspiracies actually do happen. See the Iraq WAr intelligence feeding to the media. See the Lincoln Assassination.

As expected, just more waffle with an obligatory insult thrown in.

There's certainly nothing random about your posts, they're always utterly predictable.

LF,

That is a stunning post. Though it will fall on blind eyes not wanting to see actual facts.

Yes great post by LF

I honestly believe we do not have sufficient evidence at all to say rigging occurs. We can't actually prove this, but we have to give the benefit.

Exactly IBML. Provide the evidence and I might believe in such things as the tooth fairy and draw rigging

socal1976 wrote:
The Espn study did not look at other aspects of the draw. Later a second highly respected academic looked at the shocking espn results which by the way I produced first a year ago, and second statistician said that the methodology and conclusions were all supported by the numbers. Those are facts Bogbrush, why am I not surprised that you have an inability in recognizing these facts.


When do likelihoods become facts?
laverfan


Ill tell u what laverfan the numbers in the ESpn study where very off the charts. i think they concluded and this off the top of my head but I think they concluded that something like 20 to 1 that US Open mens draw was not random. The problems with the french could have been more easily explained by chance but there was a strong basis of doubt there.

I tell you what longshots like this coming in and then mixed with the fact that Djokovic and fed and their streaks of playing each other these are serious questions. The groundwork is more than laid in terms facts for people to reasonably infer shenanigans. If you wish to draw the conclusion or not that is on you.

But sorry call me cynical and paranoid when I see a series of longshots coming in for the benefit of the financial interests of those controlling the process. And these tournaments have little or no real oversight or transparency involved in the process. When these longshots keep coming in like for example the Isner v. Mahut rematch, the fed-djoko thing and the espn study, and all these longshots are all very convenient for the pockets of the very people controlling the process then i start to wonder. I am sorry, I understand evidence and statistical analysis when a proper foundation laid for it can be as or more powerful than any eye witness account. It just up to each juror lets say to draw the inference or not. In light of the financial interests and their tendencies in positions of unchecked authority I choose not just chalk it up to fortunate coincidences.