How does that SARS and Bird flu feel now Roddick? And of course more draw discrimination for Novak by the olympic draw committee

First topic message reminder :

I will say it I am generally not a big fan of the ROD, his game or his bullying mentality towards officials and umpires. Not a fan of his big comedy routine at Novak's expense at the USO. What is comedy for me is how attrocious Roddick's returning is and remains and his movement at this age is worse than it has ever been. Oddly Roddick had won 2 out of the last 3 tournaments against weak fields with one grass court title before this match. Glad to see one of my least favorite players and frat boy impersonator Andy Roddick get breadsticked on Grass and have his vaunted serve crushed.

Now on to the subject of the now laughable anti-Novak draws that the brits are now getting in on the act as well. Not only does Novak draw the goat 15 of 17 slams. This will now be the 3rd time this year in a row that when Novak and 2 other top 4 players enter the tournament (ie Nadal is out) that Novak's half magically gets the other top 4 guy in the semi. In Dubai only Murray, Novak, and Fed in the draw Novak gets Murray in his half and fed gets a big 4 free half. In Monte Carlo only 3 of the top 4 showed up. And guess who got Murray in their half Nadal or Djokovic? Bingo Djoko again. And now the olympics only 3 of the big 4 show up again, guess which of the top players draws murray in their
half? Bingo Djokovic. Not to mention getting 3 times finalist Rodddick as a second round match Tsonga and milos in your half at the outset as well. Now we have the 15 out of 17 thing with fed add this to the odd list of coin toss streaks that Novak has been drawing up the short straw over and over and over again. When 3 big 4 show up Novak will always be the top 2 guy that will be forced to play a big 4 opponent in the semi? How much more protection does fedal need, frankly it is getting laughable at how the draw committees are protecting and pumping these guys up with the draw. (this is my personal opinion and not the opinion of the website founders or owners and is just meant as speculation)

lags72 wrote:socal - the guy who "overreacted" (in your eyes) to a rule violation was ATP Supervisor Tom Barnes. He made it clear in his carefully-worded statement after the event that the rules obliged him to declare an immediate default, saying quote - "once I saw the line judge was injured, I didn't have any other option"

Tom Barnes happens to be 100% American.

I still have no idea what you mean about "brits getting in on the act" (a sense of paranoia is the only explanation I can think of) ; but apologies gladly accepted, thanks, re the IOC.

ps JHM - just crossed with your own post

So now a DQ for kicking a board a few inches in front of official into him and drawing blood is an 'overreaction'?

Oh how we've missed this quality stuff!

A typically American overreaction perhaps?

HM Murdoch wrote:I think I'd prefer to see Novak with Rafa rather than Murray at USO.

I think Novak has Rafa's number on a hard court but Murray looks to be in something like the form of his life right now.

Factoring in Rafa's injury issues too, I'd be pleased to avoid Andy!

Precisely.

So what will constitute a draw to knock Novak? Can they get the #1 and #2 seeds into the same half, do you think?

Say what you like about Socal (and many of you do!), he makes his first post in almost a month and the responses are onto a second page in ninety minutes!

The guy's got something!

HM Murdoch wrote:Say what you like about Socal (and many of you do!), he makes his first post in almost a month and the responses are onto a second page in ninety minutes!

The guy's got something!

Very true, but there's medication for it these days.....

Come now BB, just as Fed's legacy needs an antithesis rival in Nadal, you as a poster need a Socal on the forum!

HM Murdoch wrote:Come now BB, just as Fed's legacy needs an antithesis rival in Nadal, you as a poster need a Socal on the forum!

Can't argue further .

After all we were deprived of controversial threads on v2 for quite a while now, Socal's thread are fun as usual.

Bring back Amritea, Saint seppi, Tenez, and that one big controversial guy [die hard Federer fan] forgot his name,

HM Murdoch wrote:Come now BB, just as Fed's legacy needs an antithesis rival in Nadal, you as a poster need a Socal on the forum!

Sure, robust debate is great. Socal certainly doesn't put up articles to attract ho hum responses. If they're handled with kid gloves then they have no point.

Welcome back, SoCal.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Come now BB, just as Fed's legacy needs an antithesis rival in Nadal, you as a poster need a Socal on the forum!

Can't argue further .

After all we were deprived of controversial threads on v2 for quite a while now, Socal's thread are fun as usual.

Bring back Amritia, Saint seppi, Tenez, and that one big controversial guy [die hard Federer fan] forgot his name,

I know man. If even one of these few were posting it would be great

laverfan wrote:Welcome back, SoCal.

Come on LF you can contribute better than that to this thread.

Answer some of Socal's questions

invisiblecoolers wrote:

.....................................................................................

After all we were deprived of controversial threads on v2 for quite a while now, Socal's thread are fun as usual.

..................................................................................................

hmm ..... except I'm not sure socal would be happy for these threads to be seen as "fun as usual"

After all, there are theories to be explained, dastardly goings-on, and a whole host of evil, discriminatory happenings

No player in tennis history has ever been affected by such wrong-doing as Novak Djokovic.

Novak himself seems remarkably untroubled by it all ; hardly surprising - he's way too tough for that (certainly judging by all that chest-pumping, shirt-ripping and scary primeval shouts)

Nonetheless, something MUST be done about those draw committees .......

Olympics Draw

1984 Arias-Edberg (1-3), Cash-Sanchez (2-4); Winner - Edberg
1988 Edberg-Mecir (1-3), Mayotte-Leconte (2-4); Winner - Mecir
1992 Courier-Ivanisevic (1-4), Edberg-Sampras (2-3); Winner - Rosset
1996 Agassi-Enqvist (1-3), Ivanisevic-Washington (2-4); Winner - Agassi
2000 Safin-Hewitt (1-4), Kuerten-Norman (2-3); Winner - Kafelnikov
2004 Federer-Moya (1-3), Roddick-Henman (2-4); Winner - Massu
2008 Federer-Davydenko (1-4), Nadal-Djokovic (2-3); Winner - Nadal
2012 Federer-Ferrer (1-4), Djokovic-Murray (2-3); Winner - ??

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

implies 50-50 breakdown.

laverfan wrote:Olympics Draw

1984 Arias-Edberg (1-3), Cash-Sanchez (2-4); Winner - Edberg
1988 Edberg-Mecir (1-3), Mayotte-Leconte (2-4); Winner - Mecir
1992 Courier-Ivanisevic (1-4), Edberg-Sampras (2-3); Winner - Rosset
1996 Agassi-Enqvist (1-3), Ivanisevic-Washington (2-4); Winner - Agassi
2000 Safin-Hewitt (1-4), Kuerten-Norman (2-3); Winner - Kafelnikov
2004 Federer-Moya (1-3), Roddick-Henman (2-4); Winner - Massu
2008 Federer-Davydenko (1-4), Nadal-Djokovic (2-3); Winner - Nadal
2012 Federer-Ferrer (1-4), Djokovic-Murray (2-3); Winner - ??

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

implies 50-50 breakdown.

According to Socal it's being rigged against Djokovic. In that case Socal would argue that the rigging only start around 2006 (when Djoko was known threat) and since that time Djoko has got the 'harder' draw each time and also a repetition of '2-3' permutation has happened against Djokovic.
Just saying

HM Murdoch wrote:Say what you like about Socal (and many of you do!), he makes his first post in almost a month and the responses are onto a second page in ninety minutes!

The guy's got something!

Thank you murdoch very nice of you indeed. I am beyond the point in my life where I need everyone's approval. If that was the case I would talk only about rosey subjects that people agree with me on, what afterall is the fun in all of that.

lags72 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

.....................................................................................

After all we were deprived of controversial threads on v2 for quite a while now, Socal's thread are fun as usual.

..................................................................................................

hmm ..... except I'm not sure socal would be happy for these threads to be seen as "fun as usual"

After all, there are theories to be explained, dastardly goings-on, and a whole host of evil, discriminatory happenings

No player in tennis history has ever been affected by such wrong-doing as Novak Djokovic.

Novak himself seems remarkably untroubled by it all ; hardly surprising - he's way too tough for that (certainly judging by all that chest-pumping, shirt-ripping and scary primeval shouts)

Nonetheless, something MUST be done about those draw committees .......

Interesting you mention this lags, you have no idea what is or is not going on inside the mind of Djokovic. Let me tell you he can't come out and attack on this point. He would probably get fined by the very people doing the draws or possibly suspended. His PR would take a big hit as the media and fans would portray him as a sore loser, anyone time he has ever done anything controversial or that Roger hasn't liked the media and online critics have torn into him.

The funny thing is that the only one piece of evidence I have seen is that Novak is A. Aware of the streak and B. Is not very happy about it.

I remember after the 5 or 6th time in a row he got Roger he was asked about it last year, and he sarcastically in his manner said something basically like "oh what a surprise I have Roger again in my semi" he half chuckled but the look on his face and the uncomfortable tense attitude of his sarcasm, it wasn't sarcasm funny it was more like sarcasm to make a point especially when he can't say what he really thinks. I saw the video of the interview and I was struck by his body language and by the obvious look on his face that said even though I am laughing trust me I don't find it amusing. That one clip proved to me that A. he is aware of the streak and B. Is not happy about it. Contrary to the portrait you are trying to paint of being able to read Djokovic's mind with no evidence.

Do you have evidence that the 'brits' had anything to do with the Olympic draw? Was it not the IOC and the ITF?

laverfan wrote:Welcome back, SoCal.

Boy I just took a post wimby hiatus glad you guys missed me. Nice to see u to Laverfan.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Do you have evidence that the 'brits' had anything to do with the Olympic draw? Was it not the IOC and the ITF?

Would you like me to edit the headline to make it the olympics gets in on draw discrimination Julius? Ok I will.

You've lost me completely here socal as regards the rationale behind your line of reasoning.

We both have access to the same 'evidence' as each other. Unless by chance you happen to know Novak personally (and I somehow think you would have revealed that little nugget to us by now if it were indeed the case).

In other words, I can watch the same matches as you, assess the same body language, the same media conferences, the same broadcast & print interviews.

And yet you imply that none of this enables - or even allows - me to come to any legitimate conclusion of my own on the matter of Novak's potential views or thoughts on draws. In which case let's accept that what I'm saying on that issue is pure speculation or - at best - an informed guess.

And since you have access to the very same material as I do, then your own theories and ideas as to Novak's thoughts are equally speculative or based on guess-work.

To summarise, one thing we can be 100% sure of (and hopefully agree on) is this : your views may well be different from mine. But they are no more valid, conclusive or definitive than mine.

I just thought it looked a bit odd accusing the brits of something, if they had nothing to to with it. Nothing wrong with trying to ascertain the facts and then post accordingly, I'm sure you'll agree

It Must Be Love wrote:According to Socal it's being rigged against Djokovic. In that case Socal would argue that the rigging only start around 2006 (when Djoko was known threat) and since that time Djoko has got the 'harder' draw each time and also a repetition of '2-3' permutation has happened against Djokovic. Just saying

We are looking at names, rather than the statistical probabilities. Djokovic is one of several players. I have provided many examples in the past of similar (not identical) occurrences. "Tom___" did the 2-sigma and 5-sigma test.

Should Djokovic have changed his name to Ferrer or Nadal to get a better draw? .

No lags what I stated quite clearly is that the one time I have seen video of him on the subject he did not look happy when asked about it even though he did try to laugh it off. That was my honest impression of it from watching his answer to the question I wish I had the youtube link.

So Djokovic moans about the luck of the draw? Big news.

Everyone does know that this has nothing to do with statistics don't you? This draw nonsense is a central plank of the "but for the way things are Novak would win everything" line of thinking; the one that gave us the Fognini fiasco, which he still endorses by the way.

When the need is this great the mind will plasticise logic to achieve satisfaction.

So Murray is a more scary prospect than Nadal?... and Nadal stuggles with Murray in slams? But hasn't everyone forgotten that until recently it was Federer that stuggled with Murray hence Murray's positive H2H with Federer. In fact prior to Wimbledon Federer had been written off.

Is the road now clear for Murray to become a multi slam winning all time great... I'm sorry but IMO there is quite a lot of wishful thinking going on here. Murray's game hasn't changed and at 25 he is in his peak therefore it is unlikely that he can make any significant improvements. What you see is what you get. He always has found any in the top three a very difficult match up and chances are this will continue particularly in slams.

Whatever the rankings of the top three the draw will continue to be unbalanced because one of the top three will have to play another member of the top three in the semi... and the other will get what is the easier option of Murray in the semi's (if they all make it that far).

Hm in the first paragraph you go on about how rubbish Roddick is and then in the second about how unluckly Djokovic was to play him! Well, which is it, hm?

Fognini and Roddick and Hewitt is not a bad draw for Djokovic. I will grant you getting Murray instead of Ferrer was bad luck.

Henman bill on a grass court Roddick is better still than Niemennen or Bennetteau, a pretty tough second round matchup. In comparison to the top players he is rubbish. But is still a tougher 2nd round matchup than the equally old and weaponless duo Murray and Fed played.

Henman Bill wrote:Hm in the first paragraph you go on about how rubbish Roddick is and then in the second about how unluckly Djokovic was to play him! Well, which is it, hm?

Fognini and Roddick and Hewitt is not a bad draw for Djokovic. I will grant you getting Murray instead of Ferrer was bad luck.

Or getting Tsonga in the quarter easily the toughest quarter and the toughest semi, how surprising.

fellow Djokovic fans are a rare breed but have fine taste.

<troll smiley>

Surely a slightly tougher, but still very easy, 2nd round draw will benefit Djoko, to ensure the Fognini effect doesn't creep in?

Julius sadly your attempts to goad me with the whole foggy thing is not original and played out. But good try anyone. I mean it is a given that Novak will always get the hardest semi draw at the outset available to him, this is now an established pattern over several years. But now we see evidence of a more far reaching campaign. 3 straight events this year that only 3 of the top guys show up. In these 3 events Novak should have again 50 percent chance of drawing the lone top 4 player into his half, again oddly all three times he has drawn the other big 4 guy in his half. Another one of those odd 50/50s that almost always go against Djokovic.

Careful socal, you've bigged up 'one-weapon' Roddick, you'll be bigging up 'no-weapons' Hewitt next

Listen here Socal.

Roddick v Federer Miami 2012 win for Rod.

Djokovic v Federer Wimby win for Fed.

I see Djokovic is struggling to keep up with legendary frat boy.

socal1976 wrote:Julius sadly your attempts to goad me with the whole foggy thing is not original and played out. But good try anyone. I mean it is a given that Novak will always get the hardest semi draw at the outset available to him, this is now an established pattern over several years. But now we see evidence of a more far reaching campaign. 3 straight events this year that only 3 of the top guys show up. In these 3 events Novak should have again 50 percent chance of drawing the lone top 4 player into his half, again oddly all three times he has drawn the other big 4 guy in his half. Another one of those odd 50/50s that almost always go against Djokovic.

Socal in 2008 Beijing Djokovic got Nadal rather than Federer. According to you Fed was the harder draw at the time.
So therefore Djoko got the easier draw in Beijing Olympics, no?

socal, I do believe you're being far too hasty to dismiss the 'whole foggy thing' by saying that it's 'not original and played out.' References to it by Julius as a potential factor are surely as valid today as ever, and not merely some frivolous attempt to goad.

Personally I'm in no doubt that the Fognini effect will stand the test of time in the future of tennis, and indeed sport in general. Students of sports pyschology will still be learning about it for many years to come.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Surely a slightly tougher, but still very easy, 2nd round draw will benefit Djoko, to ensure the Fognini effect doesn't creep in?

Now come on, this time Fogini did show up fearing Socal's anger even though he was clearly unfit, Fog knows very well Socal was not happy with him last time around and hence decided not to mess with her in Olympics.

So no way Fog factor could have creeped in this time around.

socal1976 wrote:Julius sadly your attempts to goad me with the whole foggy thing is not original and played out. But good try anyone. I mean it is a given that Novak will always get the hardest semi draw at the outset available to him, this is now an established pattern over several years. But now we see evidence of a more far reaching campaign. 3 straight events this year that only 3 of the top guys show up. In these 3 events Novak should have again 50 percent chance of drawing the lone top 4 player into his half, again oddly all three times he has drawn the other big 4 guy in his half. Another one of those odd 50/50s that almost always go against Djokovic.

I'm desperately trying to believe you're playing this for laughs but there's a warning voice in my head saying "he's back, and crazier than ever".

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Listen here Socal.

Roddick v Federer Miami 2012 win for Rod.

Djokovic v Federer Wimby win for Fed.

I see Djokovic is struggling to keep up with legendary frat boy.

Like Rome where Djoko beat federer, you did watch the match Josiah or are you smoking more of south america's finest again? Everyone's least favorite frat boy got demolished.

lags72 wrote:socal, I do believe you're being far too hasty to dismiss the 'whole foggy thing' by saying that it's 'not original and played out.' References to it by Julius as a potential factor are surely as valid today as ever, and not merely some frivolous attempt to goad.

Personally I'm in no doubt that the Fognini effect will stand the test of time in the future of tennis, and indeed sport in general. Students of sports pyschology will still be learning about it for many years to come.

Well I am the author of the most famous and thread in 606v2's young history. lags I don't look to agree with people, I have a great deal of very conventional ideas about tennis and life but I don't want to discuss that stuff. I am not scared of a controversial position if i think it is adequately supported by the facts and logic. As you say lags the Foggy incident or as I like to call it the Italian Job Paris edition has gained a life of its own and has become the battle cry of many of detractors. Julius or anyone else is more than welcome to bring up the issue and joke about it, I am not the overly sensitive type.

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:socal, I do believe you're being far too hasty to dismiss the 'whole foggy thing' by saying that it's 'not original and played out.' References to it by Julius as a potential factor are surely as valid today as ever, and not merely some frivolous attempt to goad.

Personally I'm in no doubt that the Fognini effect will stand the test of time in the future of tennis, and indeed sport in general. Students of sports pyschology will still be learning about it for many years to come.

Well I am the author of the most famous and thread in 606v2's young history. lags I don't look to agree with people, I have a great deal of very conventional ideas about tennis and life but I don't want to discuss that stuff. I am not scared of a controversial position if i think it is adequately supported by the facts and logic. As you say lags the Foggy incident or as I like to call it the Italian Job Paris edition has gained a life of its own and has become the battle cry of many of detractors. Julius or anyone else is more than welcome to bring up the issue and joke about it, I am not the overly sensitive type.

Socal its good that you are not that sensitive type , but say me this what facts supported the Fog theory, honestly speaking we all felt it as a joke thread more than controversial thread, its understandable a diehard fan will defend his/her hero's failure and you did it too, but the manner in which you did the Fog theorem made everybody to take part in it coz it was funny and logic less.

Saying all that I do love your articles and did miss your presence in v2, after all Tennis section needs variety and you bring in one.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Careful socal, you've bigged up 'one-weapon' Roddick, you'll be bigging up 'no-weapons' Hewitt next

Roddick's one world class weapon is one more world class weapon than Federer or Murray's hapless opponents in the second round possess. Look Roddick is a very good pro but I do consider him boring, one dimensional, and kind of a Tinkywinky. Roddick is a weak number 1 and slam winner but the man has been to 3 wimbeldons finals and won 30 plus tournaments. He did give Novak fits when Novak's serve went south for a while he racked up wins against him during that 18 month period, but lets just say as a Djoko fan I am not worried about any rematchs with the rod, I just hope Novak gets another crack at him before he retires. As for Hewitt Julius I think Hewitt is probably the best two slam winner of the bunch or among the best of the guys with 1 or 2 slams. But again I don't see him as a strong number 1. I will say that it is unfair to say hewitt doesn't have any weapons he does have a great return. As many great artists do I was waxing poetic there just is a rhyme to one weapon Andy, no weapon lleyton, and fat Dave. But in actuality I would rate Hewitt as a worthy slam champion and top 5 guy in any era but a weaker number 1. Dave isn't really fat either lets just say compared to a world class athlete he is carrying an extra few lbs. Again it is a matter of relatively speaking.

Socal you were COMPLETELY wrong to accuse the British of 1) ruining Queens (it was some silly American) and 2) rigging the Olympic draw.

You owe these fair isles an apology!

socal, you tell us you’re not the "overly-sensitive type" but with respect your many unproven theories on the alleged rigging of Djokovic’s draws paint a somewhat different picture.

I do feel you might want to take a step back and and get a better handle on all this. A reality check is needed here, because for some time now all indications are that you’re not only very sensitive but perhaps tipping towards chronic paranoia.

Your latest worry is that Djokovic has been dealt a raw deal on the Olympics. Ironically, many might say that he actually got the kindest draw out of all the top 3 players :

Murray had Wawrinka, Nieminen and next Baghdatis : three top 50 guys (combined ranking = 112)

Federer had Falla, Bennetteau and next Istomin : two top 50 guys there + one ranked 51 (combined ranking = 118)

Djokovic had Fognini, Roddick and next Hewitt : just one top 50 guy (combined ranking = 246)

So, another example perhaps of allowing your emotion to override hard fact, and thus casually dismissing opponents of Federer and Murray as “hapless” when they’re actually higher ranked than those faced by Djokovic.

Back to the infamous Fognini effect : again, much confused thinking I’d say, because you seem to have convinced yourself that the impressive number of posts it generated is evidence of just how "controversial" it was. But I think you’re being a bit naughty there, because I know that deep down you’re very aware that it was more about comedy than controversy. Amongst all the serious and heavy articles, most members welcome a bit of a break with light-hearted, fun stuff now & then - hence their ready enthusiasm for contributing on Fognini, and why it will be talked about for many years to come. You have undoubtedly left your mark there and all credit to you for that ; it’s more than many of us will ever manage in our time on the Forum.

And finally ….. if dear Foggy had not made that fateful withdrawal at RG 2011, it’s a little dangerous to assume that Djokovic would have sailed past him, all perfectly tuned up, battle-ready to tame Roger, and march into the Final. You really never know what to expect with lower-ranked players, and nothing can be taken for granted these days. (in fact I’m sure I heard Rafa saying something very similar when asked about a certain Mr. Rosol …...)

lags, I used to hope the Fognini thing was a joke but it very much wasn't.

Like I said earlier, when the mind needs something very badly it'll find a way to believe it.

The BBC commentators actually talked about how Djokovic may be rusty as he has had a week's gap before the FO semi.
Does that mean he would have won if he had played the QF? No, not necessarily.
Also we have to consider that Fognini could have won the match, or even took Djokovic to 5 sets which meant Djokovic would have been slightly fatigued. However considering the form Djokovic was in FO 2011 it is unlikely Fognini would have even won a set.


I do think Federer fans have done well to make this into a 'comical' point rather than a serious one. This probably wasn't helped by the title of Socal's thread 'Fogniniii' which isn't the most serious.
But nevertheless it is a point. If you do have a sudden week's break it may mean you are a bit rusty, this isn't a comical point it's a serious one. Alternatively it can also be argued that if it does to 5 sets you would be slightly fresher.
I remember Murray had a few withdrawals in a row in Miami this year and the media reported that this may affect him negatively.

Just like fans of a certain player who think he's a tennis great without winning a slam you mean?

reckoner wrote:Just like fans of a certain player who think he's a tennis great without winning a slam you mean?

No, nothing like that.

My response was to BB, IMBL.

lags72 wrote:Your latest worry is that Djokovic has been dealt a raw deal on the Olympics. Ironically, many might say that he actually got the kindest draw out of all the top 3 players :

Lags, your point, which takes the first three rounds as a whole, is accurate but I think you are being a little selective in your parameters and interpretation. On the same basis one could make the equally valid point that Djoko had to face a higher ranked opponent in round 2 than Fed or Murray will face in any of their first three rounds.

Taking the draw as a whole though, I don't think anyone could argue that Fed's likely QF and SF opponents, Tisparevic and Ferrer, are much less dangerous than Novak's (Tsonga and Murray).

If we avoid any talk of conspiracies etc, surely the basic facts that Novak has a rotten draw and Fed has a pretty comfortable one are not in dispute?