Has unlucky (or rigged) draws impeded Djokovic's Grand Slam Count

As the title tends to suggest, I am going to look the effect the draws had on Novak Djokovic, whether this alleged 'draw rigging' (or luck depending on which side of the argument you are on) had a real impact on his Slam Count.

As certain Djokovic fans have brought the validity of the semi-finals into question I am compelled to investigate the slams where Djokovic has reached the Semi-Final but did not win. I have questioned what would have happened if had the different SF draw each time (eg 2v3 sedding combo instead of 2vs4).

Slams:
Roland Garros 2007- Loss at SF to Rafael Nadal- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. Even if he had got past Fed in the SF he would not have beaten Nadal in the Final (he lost to him in the SF!)

Wimbledon 2007- Loss at SF to Rafael Nadal- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. He was doing well at 1-1 set all before he retired but if he had drawn Federer instead I don't think he had any chance of reaching the finals.
USO 2007- Loss at F to Roger Federer- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. He played Ferrer in the SF and won. If he had to face Federer in the SF he would not have reached the final of that tournament- considering he lost to him in the final anyway.
RG 2008- Loss at SF to Nadal- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. See the RG 2007 paragraph for more explanation
USO 2008- Loss at SF to Federer- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. He might have, like Murray, beaten Nadal in the semi but would not have beaten Federer in the final.
USO 2009- See above.
Wimby 2010- Loss to Berdych at SF- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. If he couldn't beat Berdych would he have stood a chance against Nadal?
US 2010- Loss to Nadal in F- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. Nadal was in great form in this tournament and beat Djoko in the Final.
FO 2011- Loss to Fed in SF- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? YES. Had he drawn Murray in the SF he could have gone on to win against Nadal in the final.
F0 2012- Loss to Nadal in the F- would he have won the tournament with a different SF draw? NO. He beat Federer in 3 sets so it didn't really affect his chances for the final negatively at all.

Does anyone notice a pattern? This is of course that when Djokovic lost in the semifinal to a specific player he would have gone on to face the same player in the final if the SF draw was different. This amplifies a point made by Julius and Nore Staat earlier that 'The winner of a tournament is a winner of a tournament. Who you draw in the SF rarely makes a huge difference.'

My point is that in all likelihood Djoko may have won max 1 more slam if he had the different SF combination each time. I think the majority will agree with me on this. And FYI I believe if we go through the majority of the top tennis players across the years we could deduce 1 slam more or less here and there if he/she had different draws.
Therefore this feeling of deep aggravation among certain Djokovic fans is misplaced and I certainly do not agree to the idea that he would have already gone on to become a double-digit Slam Champion like Nadal and Federer if he had different draws.

It Must Be Love

IMBL... Lots of what-if scenarios. It may be worth speculating, but does not help his career. 2011 onwards, he matured and became a better player. He may not have won AO 2008, if Tsonga had continued his form that beat Nadal.

Tough to find alternate time-lines and arrive at a result.

Yes I'm agreeing to that.
But what I am saying is that this is applicable for all players.
If Federer/Sampras/anyone else had different draws they may or may not have won more or less titles.

Hence I do not think Djokovic fans should feel 'aggrieved' in such a way, as if he has had special bad luck.

I have been baffled at this new way of interpreting slam history. That is a certain player would have won if only they could have played player B instead of player A. Or if only they could have played player C, D etc who happened to play in a different era... Maybe as well as keeping tally of actual slam wins we should start keeping tally of mythical ones too?

A fair attempt IMBL at answering socal's question. I can see what the OP is trying to do with this article, of course we can never know if a result would be different if a match took place in a final rather than a SF. I can go along with the premise of approach, and it doesnt seem unreasonable to see that Djokovic's overall slam outcomes havent been particularly overly affected by the draws. We cant say whether he would have beat Nadal at FO11 though...but he had a chance if he got past Fed. But he didnt. Of course we could also apply this same approach to the slams he did win...i.e. what would have happened had he faced a different semi-finalist but that would seem abit bizarre to do that and where do we stop? I agree with HE that we cannot rewrite slam history...and in some respects I guess this thread backs that notion.

I think we have to just go with the draws, the winner is the winner and the guys can only beat who is infront of them. I dont buy into draw fixing either which is the other factor lurking behind this thread.

Well it isn't only about the semis though is it? I mean IF the main premise for draw fixing is to give us a Federer/Nadal final then surely the draws would be 'arranged' to the beest of its ability to ensure Murray and Djokovic are eliminated in early rounds allowing Federer and Nadal as easy a semi as possible but I see no evidence of that.

Good point CC

I mean surely Djokovic would be thrown in against players with good records against him and the same goes for Murray. Why on earth would those supposedly rigging the draw take the chance of Djokovis and Murray even getting to the semis to crush their supposed 'dream final'.

Lydian, CC good points

I think this article is slightly unclear, my apologies.
If we take any top player and go through their draws we can always speculate that they could have won or lost a slam here and their depending on their draws. I think Djokovic falls into this, even more so as in this period the players he did lose to in the semi he would have probably faced (and lost to) in the finals.

But Socal was talking earlier about how Djokovic has been so unlucky with his draws that the era is asterisked and has been brutally stopped by his draws. I was directly debunking this statement, and I think if I have done it successfully here.

Of course Socal was also talking about how he thinks there could be alleged draw rigging and connects the two together. My point is that his draws haven't made that much of a difference to his slam total, rigging or not.

Edit: I have changed the title to clarify things

But even say socal has a point then isn't it just as unfair to other players as well? After all if the complaint is purely on semi draws then it means that the other three's draw has been 'interfered' with and not just Djokovic so they have been affected as well.

No Socal's point is the SF seedings have just been tampered with.
From this he says it creates such really hard draws for Djokovic- which is unfair and stopped him from winning slams.

Meanwhile I do not think the draws are rigged, and secondly I think Socal and other Djokovic fans are grossly overestimating the SF draw importance- considering you would probably have to beat that player anyway. This is what I have covered in detail in the article.

However I do accept there can be a rare occasion when this 'rule' does not apply. This would need 3 different match-ups throwing a triangular result.
The only example of this I can possible see is FO2011.

Yes but what I am saying is if socal were correct with this assumption then other players draws have been affected as well perhaps for the worse.

How so?

Well for example say Djokovic was 'moved' into the draw to face Federer instead of say Nadal then that means Murray ends up facing Nadal instead of Federer or another combination. For Murray I'd say Nadal is a bad match-up as the head-to-heads suggest but you are not hearing this Murray fan complaining.

Ah yes. Murray is the other one.
But actually Murray has never beaten Djoko and Fed in slams, but he has beaten Nadal.

I suppose that is because they have played more times.

But what do the conspiracy theorists say about AO2010. Here Nadal and Murray were drawn together in the Quarter Finals, the hardest possible draw for Nadal (he lost to Murray in the QF), Surely if it was all rigged then that wouldn't be allowed to happen.

Just no.

This whole thing is really childish.

Yes point taken there but in overall player head-to-heads - Murray has fared far better against Federer and Djokovic than he has against Nadal. I just think he is a bad match up. So if socal feels the rigging is going on it doesn't necessarily implicate that Djoko is: A. The only one affected and B. Is affected in a bad way. As we have seen in the past year and a half he has fared very well.

bogbrush wrote:Just no.

This whole thing is really childish.

I agree bogbrush. Just pointing out the whole futility of the point of draw-fixing that is all.

No, not disputing your posts at all.

What-if scenarios are even more problematic compared to justifying the real draws statistically. If the goal of the OP is to address the perceived grievances of Djokovic fans, who feel his career would have been different due to draws being arranged differently, need to rethink the whole sport of Tennis.

Collusion of the highest degree is required to 'manufacture' draws.

laverfan wrote:What-if scenarios are even more problematic ...

The regular response to such questions is, "if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle".

CaledonianCraig wrote:I mean surely Djokovic would be thrown in against players with good records against him and the same goes for Murray. Why on earth would those supposedly rigging the draw take the chance of Djokovis and Murray even getting to the semis to crush their supposed 'dream final'.

Because they announce their rules beforehand Craig that is why they have limit discretion to just tinker around the edges. They can't make Novak or Andy play super hard players they can only give them a certain ranked player in the first round. A certain range player in the second round. Can't give them a seeded player to the third round. And of course no one is going to be stupid enough to make it so overwhelmingly obvious and prejudicial that the two famous millionaires you are fcuking and not buying dinner don't hire investigators and lawyers and PR people to crap on your brand in public. They have limited discretion to tweak around the edges in their favor, and they have pushed the envelope against Djoko and in favor of fedal. What disrection they have had is what is at question and probably needs to be limited even further because I find these draw committees to be coming up with really fishy beyond belief results on a number of fronts and real statisticians have also questioned the randomness of the draws.

Sorry but that doesn't hold up still. I am sure it would be pretty easy to throw a danger to Djokovic and Murray into the early rounds to hopefully see both fall before the semis. That way there is a far greater chance of getting that dream final than just leaving it until all four reach the semis and anything can happen.

IMBL, you see one of your arguments is that well even if Djoko didn't get fed in the semi he still would have gotten beat in the final. You do realize that the difference between advancing to the semi and the final is huge. Advancing that one extra round in a grandslam is the equivalent in points and prize money of winning BAsel or Washington DC. So you don't think it would have mattered to Djokovic's career that if instead of a couple of his semis he had gone and played in the final instead. Just having 2 or 3 more finals apperances on there own would make this a hugely significant problem for Djoko.

However I give you courage in that as a Nadal fan you are taking a well reasoned although flawed approach that doesn't adequately answer the question. But you try to be fair in your approach and you do concede that Novak would have had a very good chance at winning. Some partisans of other players could learn from your solid attempts at equanimity and grace. But you are still wrong about much of it.

First off you claim that other players have experienced the same thing. No they haven't, I can never remember a scenario like this where you had two players so popular and one guy almost seen as the serbian villain trying to beat everyones hero. I have never in my 35 years of watching tennis seen anything, anything like the alleged draw discrimination. Because there has never been this scenario before. And maybe the money is also a bigger influence now and the tv more than it has ever been. (this opinion is strictly that of the poster and not the site and is not meant as a definitive conclusion or factual assertion, are you happy legal people?)

I WILL REPEAT I CAN'T AND NO ONE CAN WITH CERTAINTY PROVE ANY OF THESE HYPOTHETICALS. But what I can tell you for certain is that in an era dominated by the top 3 that are head and shoulders in class above everyone else that having to beat 2 out of 3 instead of one is a huge disadvantage. Monumental my own gut feelings is that he has lost one two slams but who knows we can never know. What we do know without A SHADOW OF A DOUBT AND WHICH IS NOT UP FOR ANY, ANY SPECULATION WHATSOEVER IS AS FOLLOWS. Whether it be by the same sheer Nadalian luck that gave him his good looks and talent or by nefarious design, THAT ONE RAFA NADAL HAS HAD THE EASIEST SEMI DRAW HE COULD GET FOR 8 OF THE LAST 9 SLAMS AND NOVAK HAS HAD THE HARDEST. AND THAT THIS IS A HUGE ADVANTAGE.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but that doesn't hold up still. I am sure it would be pretty easy to throw a danger to Djokovic and Murray into the early rounds to hopefully see both fall before the semis. That way there is a far greater chance of getting that dream final than just leaving it until all four reach the semis and anything can happen.

Also they don't want murray and Djoko to lose in the early rounds. They want all the top seeds to get through to the semi. Why would you want your number one player and third or fourth biggest draw out in the first couple of rounds? Doesn't fit in to their ammoral money making desires.

Sorry socal but do feel you are exaggerating somewhat. Last two slams have seen Djokovic comprehensively beat Roger Federer in straight sets in the French Open. Whilst at the Australian Open he came mightily close to losing to Andy Murray in five sets. Most recent form matters not what went before five years ago.

Not when you are talking about a 5 year long streak Craig. Also Roger nearly beat Novak and was two match points away just 9 months ago at the USO. Maybe this very day Andy would be a tougher draw or maybe he wouldn't. But no one can argue that over the course of the streak Roger has been clearly the player between the two that you wouldn't want to meet in a slam. There really isn't much discussion in the matter.

But it is the most recent stuff that holds the relevance here and the last two slams belittles your point. I mean if you want to go over the last five or six years form then lets call off Wimbledon and give the title to Federer as over that period you'd say Federer is form man and will win. But of course on the more relevant recent form it is a different story hence why Federer is not a red hot favourite as he once was.

Socal: regarding your post.

Firstly: I accept what you say that you can never know what will happen. These are, as I have stated unknown quantities.
What I do have to point out though is that the only way in my eyes that a draw can have a real difference on the winner is if you have a triad of players who match up so that they have triangular results. Thus we can get a different winner if this is the case, and I have only really seen this at the FO 2011.

Secondly: I believe we can do this for all players- go through their draws and say 'what if?' I don't think Djokovic is a special exception. In-fact in this era it is probably even less so. In the HC Grand Slams where most of his losses have come he has lost to Federer, who dominated them for a while. Nadal didn't really reach HC semis when he was younger, infact I believe that by A02008 was his first HC GS semi. So for Djokovic before it was just a question of beating Federer to win the HC Grand Slams and he couldn't simply do it. He actually probably had a better chance in the SF as Federer was unbelievably experienced in GS finals.

Thirdly: Your point about Nadal benefiting shows your viewpoints might be slightly clouded here. Let's split it up into two periods:
2007-2010 (Murray or Djokovic): In this period Nadal could only draw Murray or Djokovic as they were seeds 3 and 4, generally. Well out of these two Murray had a better record against Nadal, especially in slams. As a Nadal fan I always feared Murray in slams more, and these fears are backed up as Murray beat Nadal twice in this period in slams (USO and AO) while Djokovic had an abysmal record against Nadal in Slams before 2011 (0 wins!) So IMHO OK maybe Federer benefited as he had a better record against Murray than Djokovic, but not Nadal. And in HC Grand Slams Nadal needed more 'help' than Federer in this period, so your theory doesn't make sense.
2011-2012 (Murray or Federer): Now these two players were seeded numbers 3 and 4. My point is that these to players were probably both of similar difficulty for Nadal (in grass and HC). These are backed up by the stats as Nadal won his semis in Wimby, AO, and USO all in 4 sets; facing Murray in 2 and Federer in 1. This is all in the period of the last 1 and a half years. If we look at the slams H2Hs we will find Nadal actually has a worse record vs Murray (losing to him in 2008 and 2010). Meanwhile Nadal has not lost to Fed in a slam since 2007. I accept the point about how Fed might have a 'aura' which Murray does not yet have but in my mind these days both Murray and Federer are similar difficulty for Nadal.
So therefore Nadal has not really had 'the rub of the green' in either of the two periods. 2007-2010 he actually had to continuously face a guy who he had a worse record against (do I have to bring out the slam H2Hs again ) while in 2011-2012 Murray and Fed are both generally of similar difficulty, backed up by the fact Nadal has had to go to 4 sets against both Murray AND Federer in Wimby, US and AO.

Overall: I refute your claim that Djoko has been that that hard done by due to the draws and believe your claims are a gross exaggeration of the truth. What (in terms of Slams) are you complaining about?
Well let's see:
Wimbledon- Djokovic has not even faced Federer at Wimbledon so you can't complain there!
French Open- There has been an even distribution of who Djokovic has had to face over the years- he has been in both Federer's and Nadal's side of the draw numerous times.
Hard Court Grand Slams- The majority of Djokovic's losses have come against Federer in semi-finals. As for Nadal, when he was younger he was mainly a clay-courter and was not a real threat in Grand Slams until much later on. IIRC his first GS HC SF was AO 2008! So Federer was on HC Slams Djoko's main threat. Am I the only one who thinks Djokovic might have benefited from drawing Federer in the semi? I think Federer is such a champion and has such great experience he is probably even harder to topple in Finals compared to semis- a young inexperienced Djokovic has a slightly better chance in the semi IMHO. This is shown by the fact he lost to Fed in USO 2007 in the final, but when he drew him in the semi of the AO a few months later he was able to beat him. Not that I think it makes a huge difference, at the end of the day Federer is a tough ask for anyone, in the finals or semi-finals.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well it isn't only about the semis though is it? I mean IF the main premise for draw fixing is to give us a Federer/Nadal final then surely the draws would be 'arranged' to the beest of its ability to ensure Murray and Djokovic are eliminated in early rounds allowing Federer and Nadal as easy a semi as possible but I see no evidence of that.

Like Socal said, they want a Fedal final, but not don't want to lose Murray and Djokovic either. Really that would make no sense. Federer-Fognini and Nadal-Stebe semis are hardly going to be entertaining.


About the article itself, personally I think any alleged draw-rigging has had little influence on who won the slam.

Surely the point in the alleged rigged draws isn't to disadvanatge Djokovic, he is just a victim of his own success.

The point in them would be to give them the best chance of a Federer v Nadal final. The only way to do this when Fed is #3 is to draw him on the opposite side of the draw to Nadal.

Guest82 wrote:Surely the point in the alleged rigged draws isn't to disadvanatge Djokovic, he is just a victim of his own success.

The point in them would be to give them the best chance of a Federer v Nadal final. The only way to do this when Fed is #3 is to draw him on the opposite side of the draw to Nadal.

Precisely guest, IMBL will dance around the mullberry bush but it is as easy as you just made it. For the love of god of course they would prefer a fedal final. And no encantations of lydian or IMBL can dispute that fact. And of course the only way to guarantee it is to put Djoko in Fed's half and away from Nadal's semi. Guess what, that is exactly what has happened and it has happened as a result of a rather large and fishy statistical anomaly. And the people who announce the draws guess what police themselves and don't really report to anyone. Lets just say I can't produce the fire but the smoke is coming over the mountain in waves. (These opinions are the opinions of the poster alone and are not the opinions or conclusions of the site, and in no way are meant as definitive factual assertions or conclusions(

socal1976 wrote:

Precisely guest, IMBL will dance around the mullberry bush but it is as easy as you just made it. For the love of god of course they would prefer a fedal final. And no encantations of lydian or IMBL can dispute that fact.

I have said nothing about them wanting or not wanting a Fedal final either way. Maybe Lydian has.

Anyway Socal you haven't yet responded to my post, the on-topic one

P.S. In that post at 7:38 yesterday I have already covered this in detail. At Wimbledon Djokovic didn't even face Federer while at FO there was even distribution, so you can't complain there. If we look at the HC Slams now let's see your claim that they tried to manoeuvre a Fedal final. Well for majority of time both of these players were at world number 1 and 2. So it was a case of who would get Murray/Djokovic. On Hard Court it was Nadal who needed more help than Federer (Nadal was not yet accustomed to Hard Courts). I have shown in great detail in that post showing how in Slams (especially on HC) Murray troubled Nadal MORE. Meanwhile I feel Fed had the experience to deal with both the youngsters Murray and Djokovic in Slams, as shown by results. So if they wanted a Fedal final, and I'm not saying they didn't, it would have been better to give Nadal Djokovic. btw Djokovic had an absolutely abysmal record vs Nadal in Slams- not even beating him before Wimby 2011! Let's not let Djokovic's amazing run in 2011 cloud our viewpoint of events before that.
As I have said I have already addressed this in further detail in that 7:38 post, in-fact I feel I have debunked your whole point (about the impact of draws, not whether it was rigged); but you have not yet responded to it. Instead you quoted Guest82 and vaguely blamed me and Lydian for a comment which I had never said.

IMBL where are you coming up with this murray troubling Nadal more have you looked at the head to head records on hardcourt prior to 2011? Novak troubled Nadal much more on a hardcourt from the start of their careers on when compared to Murray. Novak's amazing run of 2011 does not in anyway cloud my judgement.

Prior to 2011:

-Novak was still a more dangerous opponent especially on a hardcourt for Nadal than Murray.

-Secondly, Murray was seen as more dangerous for Federer as well. Remember prior to the two grandslam losses especially the 2010 loss Murray had a superior head to head and was seen as tougher for federer also.

That is why to maximize chances of a fedal final the only thing possible is to give Fed his favored matchup of Djoko and Nadal his favored match of murray. AND THE SAME LOGIC HELD PRIOR TO 2011 IN VARYING DEGREES AS WELL.

On Slams I always felt that Nadal struggled more against Murray compared to Djokovic in Slams. AO 2007, USO 2008 were examples early on.

Anyway Nadal was not really accustomed to HC until later on (he reached his first in AO 2008). For most of the time I think it was a case of Djokovic had to beat Federer to win the HC Slam.
For Djokovic a youngster, it was easier for him to topple Federer in a slam Semi compared to a Final where Fed's experience would help him even more.

IMBL, as two your points #2 of your previous post and point #3 I have to say I disagree most vociferously.

Point 2: I have watched tennis for nearly 30 years and I have never seen an aberration like that in my history of following the ATP tour. You keep saying that this statistical anomaly and the fact that NADAL HAS HAD THE EASIER SEMI DRAW FROM THE OUTSET IN 8 OF 9 GRANDSLAMS AND MOST OF THE TIME OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS IS NOT UNUSUAL? And if it is unusual it isn't prejudicial. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. As an astute tennis observer find me any, any open era situation among a top 3 clearly better than the rest and one of the top three always being forced to play two of the others to win and the other top rival getting a route with one top three potential match. Come on you keep saying it isn't unusual. What are you basing that on? Am I just expected to take your word for it. What are you the bible to be acceptted on faith?

Tell me exactly what prejudicial or unfortunate draw luck of the same level Novak has gotten has Nadal gotten. Is it the murderous draws against David Ferrer and Andy Murray in slams where the two hapless opponents have a combined 9-29 record against Nadal? THE SHEER HORROR POOR RAFA HE HAS OVERCOME SO MANY OBSTACLES, YOU ARE MAKING ME LAUGH HE HAS BEEN THE DARLING OF THE DRAW COMMITTEES PRETTY MUCH HIS WHOLE LIFE AND THE LAST 5 YEARS IN PARTICULAR.

As to your point 3 about Nadal prior to 2011 not fearing Djoko and fearing Murray more is pretty laughable. Un until Novak's slump in 2009 and 2010 Nadal had played Djokovic numerous times on hardcourt and Novak had a clear lead. Also for the hundredth time it is not just about Nadal. I have made this point over and over again and it just doesn't sink in. Even prior to 2011 there was an incentive for this arraingement because Federer did better against Djoko than he did against Andy. Andy had a better h2h and still has a better h2h against Roger even with Novak's resurgence. Although Roger in recent years has retaken the initiative. But prior to 2011, MURRAY WAS WIDELY SEEN AS THE TOUGHER DRAW FOR ROGER AS WELL.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE SUCH LONG POSTS I APPRECIATE THE ENTHUSIASM BUT DO NOT WANT TO WRITE TOO MANY OF THESE TERM PAPER LIKE REBUTTALS.

Now Nadal can only draw Murray or Fed in Slams as SF:
Nadal H2H in Slams vs Federer overall: 80% Win ratio
Nadal H2H in Slams vs Murray overall: 75% Win ratio
In Wimby, USO, and AO all Nadal semifinals went to 4 sets against both these players- showing these days they are of similar difficulty for Nadal. This may be due to Fed, a superior player no doubt ageing, and also Murray having a DHBH to deal with Nadal's forehand.

Between 2007 and 2010 Nadal could only draw Murray or Djokovic in SF:
Nadal H2H vs Murray in Slams between 2007 and 2010: 60% Win Ratio
Nadal H2H vs Djokovic in Slams between 2007 and 2010: 100% Win Ratio

Your main point is that Djokovic has been treated brutally unfairly as he has had to beat BOTH Nadal and Federer in Slams. OK Give me one example (apart from USO 2010+2011) that Djokovic has had to face both Nadal and Federer consecutively.
Go on.

Actually come to think of this, your argument now seems hilarious.
You've gone on saying how unbelievably unlucky Djokovic is to face both Nadal and Federer in slams and harped about it for days.
I didn't realise then or we could have stopped the debate ages ago. He has only had to do this thrice. Apart from USO 2010 and 2011, and this FO (when Djoko cruised past a ageing Fed in straights), never.

Ok maybe the draws were rigged, and lets say they were, but in reality he has only had to face them both barely any times.
You might come back on here saying 'OMG THEY WERE MEANT TO FACE EACH OTHER SO MANY TIMES DUE TO DRAW RIGGERS ETC.' but it hasn't happened in reality.

This supports my theory that the majority of HC Slams in the past Nadal wasn't really in the picture. It was just a case of beating Federer for Djoko to win. As Fed has more experience in Slam Finals it would actually be better for Djoko to face him in the semis compared to finals.

What do you base your wild proclamation that it would have been better for Novak to play Fed in the semis as opposed to the slams. The bottom line is the overrall head to head record. Novak was even prior to 2011 seen as a tougher opponent on hardcourt for Nadal. And the same exact thing was true of murray who had a much better record prior to 2011 against Fed than Novak did. So in fact would prefer in 2009 and 2010 to not get murray as well. That is the part of the argument that from start to finish you refuse to address.

socal1976 wrote:What do you base your wild proclamation that it would have been better for Novak to play Fed in the semis as opposed to the slams.

Well Djokovic has a better record against Fed in Semis compared to finals. But they have only played 1 final I suppose. IN USO 2007 he lost a final in straights, but a few months later beat Fed in straights in a semi...
Plus I feel as a youngster it is harder to come out and beat the experienced champion in a final compared to a semi

socal1976 wrote:
So in fact would prefer in 2009 and 2010 to not get murray as well. That is the part of the argument that from start to finish you refuse to address.

You are right in saying this. Novak troubled more in HCs generally but still had an abysmal record against Nadal in Slams. I don't think he was fit enough to play Nadal in Slams at a young age.
Record:
Between 2007 and 2010 Nadal could only draw Murray or Djokovic in SF:
Nadal H2H vs Murray in Slams between 2007 and 2010: 60% Win Ratio
Nadal H2H vs Djokovic in Slams between 2007 and 2010: 100% Win Ratio

I think this balances your point.

Chance No 1 seed goes to top of the draw = 100%

Chance No 2 seed goes to bottom of draw = 100%

Chance of No 3 seed going to top or bottom of draw = 50%

Chance of No 4 seed going to top or bottom of draw = 50%

The allegation that it could only be 32 times out of 10,000 draws that Federer would be drawn against Djokovic is absolute nonsense.

Tails or heads, it's 50% every time, the odds don't change with increasing number of times the coin is tossed. But I guess it gives some people something to do with their time, all the debate.

Crazy idea here - concentrate/enjoy/remark upon - the....TENNIS ITSELF, because regardless of the draw, opponents - a player has to go out and play the tennis that wins them the match. Roll on SW 19!

Nadal and Serena; Federer and Venus: Del Potro and Clijsters? Unlike a toin coss, there are several possibilities, though probably a few less probabilities; let's enjoy how they unfold!

Socal, what is your best estimate of how many more slams Novak would have if the draws had worked out closer to 50/50 over the years?

Summer I think SoCals argument has collapsed now.
The whole argument was based around the fact that Djokovic has continually had to beat Nadal and Federer BOTH consecutively due to the draw to win.
But this has barely happened.

Instead my theory has been proved right that most of Djokos SF losses came against Fed in HC semis in the past, and of he beat him Djoko could have won the titles. Thus facing him in the SF or F does not really matter, in-fact when Djokovic was younger and inexperienced it would have been harder to topple Federer in Finals IMHO.

Answer to the OP - "No".

Djoko's dilemma for much of 2007-2010 was the same as Fed's now. When there are two players at the top of the game much better than anyone else with No. 3 close, but still on a level below, No. 3 is likely to have to beat both of Nos. 1&2 to win a slam.

Which side of the draw No. 3 falls on is not going to affect his chances of winning greatly, but it may make a difference to the No. 1 & 2 seeds. Sometimes No. 1 or 2 will have a worse match-up with No. 3 than with the other top-two player. That is why RG 2011 is the only example of a 'might have been' speculation for Djoko that makes any sense in my view.

It Must Be Love wrote:No Socal's point is the SF seedings have just been tampered with.
From this he says it creates such really hard draws for Djokovic- which is unfair and stopped him from winning slams.

Meanwhile I do not think the draws are rigged, and secondly I think Socal and other Djokovic fans are grossly overestimating the SF draw importance- considering you would probably have to beat that player anyway. This is what I have covered in detail in the article.

However I do accept there can be a rare occasion when this 'rule' does not apply. This would need 3 different match-ups throwing a triangular result.
The only example of this I can possible see is FO2011.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. The espn study said that the first two rounds of the USO and women's draw at the french were also not random. So i am not just making the accusation about the semifinal draw, I just don't one way or the other if these draws are legitimate. They may be, they may not, but I know I don't believe in their integrity anymore not after this anomaly.

No, IMBL we are not grossly exaggerating the importance of the semi match in a grandslam. FOR THE ONE THOUSANDTH TIME, IN AN ERA DOMINATED LIKE NO OTHER BY 3 PLAYERS, HAVING TO BEAT TWO OF THEM AS OPPOSED TO ONE TO WIN A SLAM IS A HUGE STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE.

And how do you know it only impacted RG 2011, I mean that is my problem I think you are looking at this very dimensionally. IMBL you claim that in many of those years Novak would have still had to play Roger and would have lost to Roger in the final like he did in the semi. How do you know? What if Roger playing a tough semi losses a semi here and there and Novak wins his semi and gets a cinderrela in the final like he did against Tsonga at AO 2008. Avoiding the best hardcourt player of that time till the final is itself a huge advantage. By avoiding fed in his peak on a hardcourt till the last round would be a huge advantage for Djoko, unfortunately the exact opposite happened over and over again.

summerblues wrote:Socal, what is your best estimate of how many more slams Novak would have if the draws had worked out closer to 50/50 over the years?

My estimate summer at least one slam possibly as many as two. For sure it has at least cost him one in my opinion. And at the very least it has cost him a couple of finals appearances which he otherwise would have had. Of course I can't prove a hypothetical but having watched religiously the last few years this is my gut instinct.

By the way IMBL you claim that my argument has collapsed I see it as vice versa. You keep focusing on Nadal and ignore my other points. Yes maybe it would impact Nadal hugely to have fed in the semi as opposed to ferrer or murray. But don't you think Djoko would prefer murray or ferrer as opposed to Federer. Again the part of my argument that you have refused to address and have yet to provide an adequate answer. You claim that it doesn't matter if Nadal plays ferrer or murray or fed in the sem. Do you think that Djokovic as well would rather play federer? Of course Novak would prefer Ferrer or murray to Fed in the grandslam. So again back to the original statement that you have been unable to rebut and really haven't tried.

Nadal fears novak, Novak fears Roger, Novak always gets Roger that is a big plus for Rafa.

@yloponom, maybe I would be making the same argument that you are making that it isn't important or prejudicial if my favorite like yours had gotten the easier semi Draw and his main rival gets the hardest semi draw in 8 of the last 9 slams.

socal1976 wrote: FOR THE ONE THOUSANDTH TIME, IN AN ERA DOMINATED LIKE NO OTHER BY 3 PLAYERS, HAVING TO BEAT TWO OF THEM AS OPPOSED TO ONE TO WIN A SLAM IS A HUGE STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE.

And how do you know it only impacted RG 2011, I mean that is my problem I think you are looking at this very dimensionally?

Socal, it's very simple. It only impacts RG 2011 because for every slam before that Djoko was seeded no higher than 3 or 4 and for every slam since that he has either beaten or avoided Fed.

When you are seeded 3 or 4 by definition you will be seeded to meet 1 or 2 in the SF, and 1 or 2 in the final. If 1&2 play to their seeding you can't avoid that. From 2006-RG 2011 Fed failed to meet his seeding on only four occasions:

AO 2008, USO 2010, when Djoko beat him in the SF
RG/W 2010, when Djoko did not face him

Apart from then Fed was effectively unavoidable at a slam for Djoko whatever their respective seedings so long as nobody else beat Djoko first.

It is only a player who is seeded 1 or 2 that can be drawn to meet only one of a dominant top 3, namely when the other two are on the other half of the draw. RG 2011 was the first slam when that happened to Djoko.

Barry that is irrelevant for Novak on the faster surfaces he would want to avoid federer and play Nadal on the hardcourts. AGAIN EVEN WHEN SEEDED #3. Do you think when seeded #3 that Novak would prefer Roger or Rafa at the hardcourt slams barry, well he got Roger everytime when Roger was still the dominant fast court player of his time. Therefore the same slightly different logic also applies to the period Djokovic was ranked #3 in the world. Djokovic during 2008,09,10 would have liked his chances during that period on a hardcourt against Nadal more so than fed. Also Fed would have preferred Djokovic over Murray at that time as well, which is the other part of the equation that people fail to realize.

socal1976 wrote: FOR THE ONE THOUSANDTH TIME, IN AN ERA DOMINATED LIKE NO OTHER BY 3 PLAYERS, HAVING TO BEAT TWO OF THEM AS OPPOSED TO ONE TO WIN A SLAM IS A HUGE STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE.

That's been your only real point, everything you have based your argument on.

So, how many times has he had to face the top two consecutively in slams? How many?

Only 3. In 6 years, only 3 times.

That my friend, is the end of the debate.