Rigged Draws, Conspiracy Theories And Getting Things Too Easy

First topic message reminder :

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?

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Why must we give them the benefit of the doubt? When money is involved I more often than not in life find that the honor system just doesn't work with a great number of people. Suspicious numbers, coupled with longshots coming in to the favor of the very people controlling the process and who stand to benefit, and the little transparency with no accountability; this is basically a recipe for disaster. And this is completely different than PEDS. There actually is a police force charged with a systematic process of oversight of the players and what they ingest. No such established framework of accountability exists to police draw tinkering, especially if they do it around the edges and don't make it look too conspicous.

Pardon my typographical correction, SoCal.

My quote is from the same article by Alok Pattani and Paula Lavigne, that started this discussion. The table of slams comes from that following link. Notice where Wimbledon is. It is next in line for suspicious behaviour after USO for both Mens and Womens side.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn-analysis-finds-top-seeds-tennis-us-open-had-easier-draw-statistically-likely

Perhaps my experiences in life colour my faith in humanity, while yours strengthen the suspicious side.

If Djokovic is good enough to win 4 slams in 2011-2012 and plays well, it does not matter if he faces Murray or Federer in the SFs.

Apart from Isner-Mahut, I read that on 7 other occassions since the mid-70s, the same 2 players have been drawn together in the first round at consecutive Wimbledons. Yet no-one raised an eyebrow.

Yes it does Laverfan, I know it has probably cost him a slam in the past frankly. Especially, bad on clay because murray often will lose earlier and then Nadal will have an even easier semi final match. And it also especially means a lot because both players are going to have to be fresh, if it happens its going to be a blood letting. It is going to be the tennis equivalent of the thrilla in manilla. You just know that one guy is going to get hurt physically or emotionally, or that most likely both guys will be. Not saying they will be badly hurt or injured but that this thing 5 sets at one of the slowest tourneys on the circuit will extract a real physical price from both players. In my mind the two best groundstrokers in history if you look just at forehand, backhand, speed, and fitness it is a frightening matchup.

Ironically, the only way the FO could have avoided accusations of draw rigging by some posters would be to actually rig the draw to ensure the 50/50 random possiblilty of Djoko/Fed being the in same half didn't happen.
I.e. rig the draw to ensure no-one accuses you of rigging the draw.

Although I've no doubt that if Rafa/Fed had been in the same half there would be people somewhere accusing them of ensuring the maximum possiblilty of a Fed/Rafa match i.e. the most financially favourable one, in the semi-final.

Boy, those draw-riggers must have had a tough choice. Do we rig it against Djoko because we don't like him, or do we rig it for the most realistic chance of getting a Fedal match.

Although since no-one has ever produced any evidence whatsoever that the FO men's draw is rigged in any way shape or form, maybe they just left it to chance.

All draws are rigged against Djokovic. Haven't you worked out the real agenda behind the draw rigging myth?

I got the impression IMBL that that it wasn't rigged with the players but who the players faced was rigged by the tournament organizers and TV networks? It would be far too risky and rather stupid to be rigging it with the players in on it too.

To be honest, even if they televised the the draw being conducted live (like in football), it would make no difference. Although it might quiet down these conspiracy theorists a bit more. Also, it would make them seem rather silly. In any case, those believe there's a conspiracy in the tennis draw @ slams are a tiny minority, most people wouldn't think that. it's sport for god's sake!

LM I agree, I do not believe there is rigging.
There are some strange patterns though, but strange things happen in life.

Exactly, I think some posters take things too seriously if they think some people would be desperate enough to rig draws. It would take all the excitement out of the game if they did!

Besides, we all know why socal gets so upset when Fed gets put in Djokovic's half of the draw: because Djokovic is not a clear cut favourite as he usually is against every other player. That's only changed recently with Nadal potentially rivaling him too, but even then Djokovic would still be favourite against Nadal on grass and hard court, so about 2/3 of the season and 3/4 of the slams. I can't see why he can't accept it's immensely hard to win all the slams in any case and there will occasionally players who can beat Djokovic (even in slams).

I have an idea that might quieten the conspiricy theorists.

Why not get someone who is unconnected to any of the players to do the draw live and televise it? Just to be on the safe side make sure the person chosen isn't from the same country as any of the players involved. I don't know... maybe a chinese women could do it?

That would be sure to quieten them!

Seriously, sometimes I wonder about all of you. I think generally a good quality of people post on this site BB excluded of course. But at times I view some of the arguments to be the height of naivety. The facts remain: 1. Suspicious numbers 2. limited oversight 3. no accountability 4. The odd draws all seeming to go the tourney's way like Isner v. Mahut rematch. Now if you guys think there is no fire where there is smoke that is fine I can't convince you. But for my part I don't just rely on the honor system where money is involved. I mean it isn't like the largest most quote, unquote respected financial institutions in the world just recently held the world financial markets hostage until they got literally trillions, yes trillions of bailouts or anything like that. I mean there isn't a track record of greedy unregulated capitalists going wilder than a teenage blonde girl on girls gone wild or anything.

socal1976 wrote:But at times I view some of the arguments to be the height of naivety. The facts remain: 1. Suspicious numbers 2. limited oversight 3. no accountability 4. The odd draws all seeming to go the tourney's way like Isner v. Mahut rematch.

Numbers, by very definition, are correlated. Statistically, 1-2, 3-4 vs 1-3, 2-4 sequences happen, even if the probability of such a sequence is lower than some other sequence. It is the very definition of probability you are now questioning. Lydian had provided the nearly 50/50 numbers considering pure seeding numbers. I have provided examples of other players having 'similar' draws. Yet, here we are discussing this subject and repeating the same arguments.

Oversight does not need to be published outside of ITF/ATP/WTA officials. Do you think the US SEC will publish it's investigations publicly when they are in progress? There is a balance between transparency vs organizational behaviour. There is accountability, perhaps, it is not made public to the fans, and does not need to be. I would suggest becoming an ATP official, if such accountability is desired including it's visibility.

Regarding MahIsner, as JHM points out, there are 7 previous instances at W of consecutive years where the same players met in R1. You seem to ignore that, to the beating the drum of conspiracy which seems to drown voices of reason and logic.

socal1976 wrote:Now if you guys think there is no fire where there is smoke that is fine I can't convince you. But for my part I don't just rely on the honor system where money is involved. I mean it isn't like the largest most quote, unquote respected financial institutions in the world just recently held the world financial markets hostage until they got literally trillions, yes trillions of bailouts or anything like that.

The financial markets were held hostage on behalf of investors, who are expecting returns, by traders. Bernie Madoff dug a hole for himself. I wonder how many celebrities attended the parties when he was flying high, and now do not want their photographs with Bernie being published in Tabloids.

socal1976 wrote:I mean there isn't a track record of greedy unregulated capitalists going wilder than a teenage blonde girl on girls gone wild or anything.

Unregulated? What was SEC doing when AIG, JP Morgan, et al. were making money for investors?

Jerome Kerviel could not have made a single penny, without collusion from his superiors. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel

I am pretty certain that you earn your living honestly, so do many others. I assume you rely on your clients to pay you in a reasonable time frame for services rendered and have some trust in you to deliver when they sign a contract/employ you for services. Of course, this is not valid if you are independently wealthy and do not need to earn any money, because it has already been earned for you by your ancestors.

Unsubstantiated accusations, without legal proof, are rumours.

Laverfan, I don't know where to take it from there. Lets just leave it at the fact that a substantial foundation exists for the statistical evidence in question. The bottom line for me at least is that statisticians have looked at the draw and have determined with a verly high likelihood that some portions of the draw at some of the slams are not random or at the least have a very high likelihood of not being random. For me that is plenty of evidence to draw the conclusion from the inference at hand.

Even if thee draws r rigged, u still got 2 win 7 matches, + u playing an in form oppenent in the final, if u win a slam u earnt it, I don't think it rigged, they av a 50 50 chance of meeting each other, if u put a red ball & a blue ball in a bag, give it a shake, stick ur hand in, c what u pick, surley it could keep comming red ir blue, it just luck.

Sure, we can leave it where it stands. If Djokovic holds all 4 slams, it would make very little difference whether he played Federer or Murray to get to the final.

Given Murray played a five-setter at AO 2012, although on HC, getting the 'old man' Federer may be a blessing in disguise for Djokovic.

Socal would garner more interest in this subject if it wasn't so blatantly Djokovic-centric, and simply another way to prepare the ground for an excuse.

The Fognini stupidity has a lasting impact.

Socal, your asumption is there where there is money there must be corruption. I assume the company you work for makes money. Should I therefore assume your company is corrupt? Or am I just being a conspiracy theorist? Come to think of it, I haven't seen any studies that have exonerated you pesonally from corruption. Hmmmm.

Oh, you want evidence? I have just as muich evidence as you so that the men's FO draw as ever been rigged i.e. none.

Frankly, I'm glad you wonder about some of us. It reassures me that I'm probably correct.

I believe they had to rig it to put the tournament onto a more even keel: Fognini-Federer and Murray-Almagro semi-finals, with everyones favorite final to follow: Fognini-Almagro.

laverfan wrote:Sure, we can leave it where it stands. If Djokovic holds all 4 slams, it would make very little difference whether he played Federer or Murray to get to the final.

Given Murray played a five-setter at AO 2012, although on HC, getting the 'old man' Federer may be a blessing in disguise for Djokovic.

In my mind it will be the greatest accomplishment in the history of tennis because he not only beat Fedal to do it but the alleged draw rigging and extra protection offered to his more marketable rivals. Not only would he have won 4 straight slams but would basically have to win 4 straight slams with the harder semi every time. That is almost the equivalent of 8 slams in a row if the alleged draw fixing took place

I have been asked by the forum Admins to edit socal's post above and remind posters that libellous comments, without legal proof, are not allowed on the forum.

Yeah, it's 8 Slams on the run because all the Workd is against him.

I don't think 'childish' says it well enough.