The Luck Of The Draw

Getting to the semi of a slam is a big achievement. It is rewarded not only with prize money but with enough ranking points to keep a player ranked in the 60's for an entire year even if that is the only tournament played (720 points). But how difficult is it to do? Well that depends on the luck of the draw.

How many players in the top 100 would be capable of beating Haase, Souse, Berank, An injured player/bye and Chardy or Seppi?

Probably quite a few more than could beat Paire, Davydenko, Tomic, Raonic and Gasquet or Tsonga.

But the funny thing is we have to pretend that both tasks are equal. Ha ha!

Wait, why do you think we have to pretend both tasks are equal?

Sometimes you get tough draws, sometimes you don't.

Murray fan CC said earlier that Murrays draw has opened up, while it has been acknowledged that Federer has a tough draw.

It Must Be Love wrote:Wait, why do you think we have to pretend both tasks are equal?

Sometimes you get tough draws, sometimes you don't.

Murray fan CC said earlier that Murrays draw has opened up, while it has been acknowledged that Federer has a tough draw.

Exactly IMBL. I fully expect a similar article from Hawkeye if and when Nadal's draw opens up favourably in a future GS.

Personally I believe that Murray performs better under pressure so the draw opening up is not necessarily a good thing.

Hmm like this draw opening for Rafa to guide him through to the Wimbledon Final in 2006 you mean?

1st Round Alex Bogdanovic (Wild Card)

2nd Round Robert Kendrick (Qualifier)

3rd Round Andre Agassi (No.25 seed) (on decline by this time)

4th Round Irake Labadze (Qualifier)

QF Jarko Niemenen (No. 22 seed)

SF Marcos Baghdatis (No.18 seed)

F Roger Federer (No.1 seed)

Sorry all you decent Rafa fans out there as you know I have a lot of time for him but this poster needs taught a tennis lesson that draws open up for everybody....yes even Rafa.

The truth is that the early rounds of a slam draw are usually pretty str8 forward for the top four. Federer has been given a slightly tougher one this year, that's all.

Murray will likely still have to go through Fed and Screech, so if he is to win it, he will certainly have to earn it.

emancipator wrote:The truth is that the early rounds of a slam draw are usually pretty str8 forward for the top four. Federer has been given a slightly tougher one this year, that's all.

Murray will likely still have to go through Fed and Screech, so if he is to win it, he will certainly have to earn it.

Exactly.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

emancipator wrote:The truth is that the early rounds of a slam draw are usually pretty str8 forward for the top four. Federer has been given a slightly tougher one this year, that's all.

Murray will likely still have to go through Fed and Screech, so if he is to win it, he will certainly have to earn it.

Exactly.

CC, I agree that Rafas draw in 2006 Wimby was easy.

Nevertheless at the time, I don't think it was even possible for Nadal to get a really difficult match before the finals, such was the state at the time.

Just proving how draws open up for everyone whereas we know the OP has an anti-Murray agenda. How many posts in the last few days have been laced with anti-Murray sentiment?

I wouldn't mind if she had the common decency to amend her biased posts like this one with a line to admit that all top players have had the draw open up for them but she neither has the morals or the scruples.

Wow that Rafa draw was easy.

I remember when he lost to Murray at the USO semi final 2008 I think he had still in his career to beat a seed at that event. Stunner.

Classic Hawkeye article

Don't recall seeing such articles 4 years ago, when Nole and Andy were getting all the heatwave day games with Rafa and Roger getting the cooler night games

Has anyone look at Rafa's first four rounds of Wimbledon 2010, when he struggled to beat, yes you've guessed it - Robin Haase!!! This in the second round!! His first round was against a young Nishikori - who was a wild card!!!

Or his first Major?

Or Roger's first Major

What's that saying about people in glass houses??

It Must Be Love wrote:CC, I agree that Rafas draw in 2006 Wimby was easy.

Nevertheless at the time, I don't think it was even possible for Nadal to get a really difficult match before the finals, such was the state at the time.

Oh dear!! This could lead to another weak era debate and why Tommy Haas is the best No.2 ever

Ha ha! I'm only saying what everyone who knows about tennis is thinking. Obviously not the more dumbed down British Press who describe all Murray's draws and opponents as "tough".

It's funny how Nadal is thrown in every discussion even when he isn't playing. Although even with injured knees and a stomach upset he could probably have managed a few rounds of Murray's draw.

Yes his draw has opened up. And that must annoy HE so much. I personally prefer it when he has a tougher draw, it's better to watch and I think he plays better....

Then again, it's a delight to see HE so agitated.

Delpo has a really easy draw - Chardy in round 3 - piece o' cake!

hawkeye wrote:It's funny how Nadal is thrown in every discussion even when he isn't playing. Although even with injured knees and a stomach upset he could probably have managed a few rounds of Murray's draw.

Unless Rosol had been in there.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Delpo has a really easy draw - Chardy in round 3 - piece o' cake!

Yet he made a mess of it.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Delpo has a really easy draw - Chardy in round 3 - piece o' cake!

Yet he made a mess of it.

Exactly - so when people say Delpo is a tough draw, but Chardy is an easy draw, perhaps they should pause for thought.

I've yet to see any serious tennis follower attempt to give 'marks out of 10' for the difficulty of the draw for the eventual winner of every Open Era slam - and with good reason. It would be a pointless, worthless and stupid thing to do. Ah, but giving 'marks out of 10' for the difficulty of the draw for the player you don't like, or to boost the player you do like - now that's really, really sensible.

It Must Be Love wrote:CC, I agree that Rafas draw in 2006 Wimby was easy.

Nevertheless at the time, I don't think it was even possible for Nadal to get a really difficult match before the finals, such was the state at the time.

And yet he managed to lose to Hewitt, Muller, Blake, Youzhny, Gonzalez and Ferrer at the slams between 2005 and 2007, all of those matches were before the semis.

Internet forums rarely offer an opportunity such as that which emancipator just took.

Take it like a man, Amrit.

You gotta admit, you sleep-walked into that one IMBL.

Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valour ........!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

I've yet to see any serious tennis follower attempt to give 'marks out of 10' for the difficulty of the draw for the eventual winner of every Open Era slam - and with good reason. It would be a pointless, worthless and stupid thing to do. Ah, but giving 'marks out of 10' for the difficulty of the draw for the player you don't like, or to boost the player you do like - now that's really, really sensible.

Well that's sort of what I'm saying. Draws are different in terms of difficulty and in some case very different. It would actually be possible to give some sort of numerical score to them in terms of ranking, h2h, past slam success etc. But no one suggests this. We have to pretend that they are all equal not because it would be "pointless, worthless" or a "stupid thing to do" but because to do so would mean we would have to attempt to put a value on slam wins and it would undermine the whole way that tournaments are played. It's just best not to even think about it and as I said just pretend that all draws are equal.

Did I mention Rafa? No. Federer's and Murray's contrasting draws at these years AO do however illustrate my point.

No one needs to pretend all draws are equal and no one does. However, a slam win is a slam win. Are Sampras' wins at Wimbledon in 1997 and 2000 less valuable because he didn't have to face anyone ranked above 18? Should Federer's win at Wimbledon 2012 count for less as he faced no one in the top 20 until the semi-final? Of course not. At the end of the day a slam win is a slam win.

Born Slippy wrote:No one needs to pretend all draws are equal and no one does. However, a slam win is a slam win. Are Sampras' wins at Wimbledon in 1997 and 2000 less valuable because he didn't have to face anyone ranked above 18? Should Federer's win at Wimbledon 2012 count for less as he faced no one in the top 20 until the semi-final? Of course not. At the end of the day a slam win is a slam win.

Well, Pete's wins in1997 and 2000 are a bit dodgy, but we just roll with it and accept that if you win 14 or 17 you must have had the stuff.

Maybe if they were his only Slams it would matter, at least a bit.

Roger has a tough draw this time around, and Murray's has opened up for him. Can't question that. But in terms of lifting the trophy, it's not always a bad thing to have a tricky time.

Murray's draw in New York actually wasn't too bad in the end, but his form was really up and down the whole way through and he had several battles to reach the final. Lots of big moments that he had to come through, and did.

Novak's run was fairly routine in comparison, he was on court 5 hours less... And i think that played a big part. In the final Murray won more of the big points, and I think it was an advantage that he'd played (and won) numerous big points in reaching the final. Novak hadn't really.

As a Murray fan I'd prefer him to have bigger matches before meeting Federer (if the both get there). Partly because its better to watch, but also because being 'battle hardened' is always good going into a huge match.

Another flaw in the OP's post is the past history. Now if Murray had, for so long been exiting slams at the early stages but now suddenly here make a burst into a deep run into a slam it may jave been a relevant point. However, as we all know (even the OP but she still chose to post this) is that off the top of my head Andy has reached the Quarter-Final or better in the last nine consecutive slams no matter the difficulty of the draw. HE has been exposed big time again here.

I always wonder why people get into these arguments with HE.

She is obviously quite smart and knows full well that she is WUMing. I actually kind of like her posts - I think they are often written with a sense of humor and - while obviously WUMy and OTT, they usually are not just plain nonsense - they are usually an extreme caricature of something taken from reality (as a good WUMy post should be).

But why would people bother trying to "prove" to her that she is wrong when she obviously knows that all along? Yet, again and again, in spite of her antagonists claim to the contrary, her posts - as repetitive as they are - attract a lot of attention.

Funny that.

I guess that is why it is called WUMmery; because it works.

SB - I guess it's the same as when anyone criticises Roger on this forum. People leap to his defence. You could say they don't need to, after all he's the greatest player ever and his record speaks for itself. Yet still his corner gets fought.

Same for Rafa and - to a lesser extent on here - Novak. It's kinda the same with all the top players. Launch an attack, their fans will defend them.

I actually enjoy her articles too. They are ridiculous, but funny... Though I think you're giving her too much credit by saying they are deliberately funny.

bogbrush wrote:Internet forums rarely offer an opportunity such as that which emancipator just took.

Take it like a man, Amrit.

Look Emancipator was absolutely spot on.
I really don't think Nadal as a youngster was a fantastic player outside clay.
He showed potential with occasional superb matches, but it was only later on that he was more consistent of clay.
His Wimby 2006 draw was laughable, as for Federers to be frank.

lags72 wrote:You gotta admit, you sleep-walked into that one IMBL.

I didn't sleep-walk into anything.
Emancipator just listed some Nadal losses early on in his career, I could do that in my sleep. I'm fully aware of every single defeat and win Nadal has encountered in Grand Slams.

Federer faced a 34 year old unseeded Bjorkman in the semis

I wonder how many of the following players thought they had a doddle of a draw back in 1985 Wimbledon when
Q Zuharsky
Q Anger
No.7. seed Nystrom
No.16 seed Mayotte
Us Henri Laconte
No.5. seed Anders Jarryd
and Finally No. 8. seed Kevin Curran

Met the Qualifyer who was just 17 yrs Old. Boris Becker.

I think the title of this thread is spot on THE LUCK OF THE DRAW..
Lets face it it was proven again last year with Rosol.
How can you forecast what will happen on the day.
True the draw looks easy now for Andy and it has been a tricky one for Fed .
But at the end of the day what is a cup cake draw ??
And how would any of you organise what you would consider to be a fair draw for all players.
Its not possible is it .??.. or is it ????

When you keep reaching the tail ends of slams, you do get lucky every now and then.
Saying that top seeds slip up on "easy" draws all the time, it's a different sort of pressure, but one that Murray has dealt with before , and well.

All the top guys have had some, to some extent you earn your luck, and through hard work and consistency all the top 4 have earned some easy draws... in fact you'd expect it in some ways through how many times they get there.
I don;t understand the apparent dislike by the OP, if it IS the case, and you dislike him so intensely that you spend your days making articles on a forum to try and discredit him... is it worth it?

summerblues wrote:I always wonder why people get into these arguments with HE.

She is obviously quite smart and knows full well that she is WUMing. I actually kind of like her posts - I think they are often written with a sense of humor and - while obviously WUMy and OTT, they usually are not just plain nonsense - they are usually an extreme caricature of something taken from reality (as a good WUMy post should be).

But why would people bother trying to "prove" to her that she is wrong when she obviously knows that all along? Yet, again and again, in spite of her antagonists claim to the contrary, her posts - as repetitive as they are - attract a lot of attention.

Funny that.

I guess that is why it is called WUMmery; because it works.

I wouldn't credit HE's trolling with a sense of humour; it's simply obsessive for whatever reason and it's never done with a lightness of touch. I agree with you that it's not worth feeding.

falzy21 wrote:When you keep reaching the tail ends of slams, you do get lucky every now and then.
Saying that top seeds slip up on "easy" draws all the time, it's a different sort of pressure, but one that Murray has dealt with before , and well.

All the top guys have had some, to some extent you earn your luck, and through hard work and consistency all the top 4 have earned some easy draws... in fact you'd expect it in some ways through how many times they get there.
I don;t understand the apparent dislike by the OP, if it IS the case, and you dislike him so intensely that you spend your days making articles on a forum to try and discredit him... is it worth it?

What are you talking about? This is the only article I've ever written about him.

I was actually praising his performance before he came out with this stupid comment about the match being decided by one point.

Even on this thread I've stated that it doesn't bother me if he makes a few noises before the match and that it's probably more the press stirring things up, however I did object to his statement regarding how the match was decided. It sounds a little delusional that's all.

Emancipator what are you on? Lol

You are on the wrong thread me thinks Falzy is talking about luck of the draw.

Have you lost it against Rotapicname??

This is Hawkeyes article, on Murray's draw.

OOps

Sorry Falzy

I need to recharge my emancipator powers.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:OOps

Sorry Falzy

I need to recharge my emancipator powers.



emancipator

Has BOO finally penetrated your defences?

Just a momentary breach..

I am reinforcing as we speak



rotapicname

So assuming Federer & Murray do reach the semis (neither a given), for a place in the final, Federer then has to beat Murray, and Murray has to beat Federer. Which one has the harder task?

Depends who you ask Yvonne. In my eyes Federer is the favourite as Murray has never beaten Fed in a slam but Fed fans will tell you Murray is favourite as Federer is in no physical state to beat Murray.

There's no clear favourite unless subsequent matches show a disparity in form - but even then they are both capable of producing the goods after poor showings in early rounds.

Ordinarily I'd make Murray marginal favourite because the surface is better suited to him than to Fed, but there's talk of it being faster this year so that may be slightly negated.

Is the surface really better suited to him though? I think you'll find Fed has a more impressive record on this surface in Melbourne than Andy.

If they do both get to the semi, it will be at night, so conditions will be slower, I would have thought. But then Federer's got night matches against Tomic & Raonic and probably will against Tsonga (I'd thought Murray-Del Potro would get the evening QF, but that wasn't to be ). So he'll be used to the conditions at least.

I don't know who's favourite, but I want to see it happen cos it should be a great match.

Following really poor scheduling of Murray/Simon match it means Murray will (if he wins) will go into the quarters having played 0% of his matches at night on Rod Laver whilst Roger will have played 75% of his matches on Rod Laver at night.

They couldn't put Murray-Simon on as the night match on Laver though, CC - people who'd paid good money for that session would have been massively short-changed. It's not just about fairness to the players.

Draws & scheduling decisions are just 2 of things that can work for or against you at slams. For instance, Djokovic already has an advantage of his half playing first. So here, Murray gets some luck break in the draw, but Fed has been able to get used to the night match conditions.

They could have put Fed on the day session and Murray on at night. Forget about the draw the scheduling first and foremost has to be fair to the players first of all. Now Gilles Simon finished his match around midnight yesterday and then underwent three hours of physiotherapy. He should have been given the maximum rest time by putting him on at night and to be fair to Murray who hasn't had a night match yet and for all we know may not get one before a potential semi against Roger. Besides the night paying spectators have already seen Roger three times out of four.

CC, sorry, you are being a bit ridiculous there. The night session spectators are not the same every night. The ones who bought tickets for tomorrow do not deserve to see a match which is quite likely to end in a retirement. As it is, they scheduled Simon for 5pm, and I don't think that an extra couple of hours would have made a massive difference to his recovery.

God, this tournament has been brutal to Murray hasn't it?