Are draws rigged?

First topic message reminder :

Just desperate to know, how on earth Nole ALWAYS ends in the same half as Federer in slams....I mean, what are "they" going to do once Fed retires

Come on you guys the media being present to witness a draw that has already been decided, the media was present when it was announced. Oversight is something like this. And independent body (law firm, accounting firm is selected and kept confidential) they are given the criteria and then they announce the draw to everyone. No one within the tournament or broadcasters even knows who is doing the draw, and their findings are released at the same time to everyone. And their fee is prepaid into an escrow or trust account before the time of the draw.

I listened to the draw happening live on the radio, and from the press reports on twitter it was obvious they were present there.
How can you fix a draw when it is names/balls coming out of bag?

Jubbahey wrote:Its not done behind closed doors is it ?

I thought there was Media there and camera's recording the event.

It certainly sounded like that on the radio this morning.

But how can it be a conspiracy across the whole globe socal, there would have to be a conniving body of people over-seeing every event.

Wrong Jubba, this is no way a global conspiracy. It needs no more than a few interested and powerful people in each and every grandslam to favor the money over fairness and integrity.Its not like these people are in cahoots they are just capitalists being guided by the invisible hand acting independently of each other with no oversight or control. Ask the broadcasters and the tournament directors of every grandslam which final they would prefer to see:

A. Federer v. nadal
B Fed v. Murray
c. Murray v Nadal
d. murray v. Djoko
e. Djoko v. Fed
f. Djoko v nadal

If every single one of them doesn't select A then i will ride to wimbeldon on a donkey.

YI man, are you really convinced by little white balls coming out of the shoot, do you really believe that a magician cuts a lady in half on the stage?

ok, lets say the draw is rigged so that people can make money from a Rafa Fed final.
There is no guarantee that they will be in the final.
Murray could beat Rafa and Nole could beat Fed in the semis.

Y I Man wrote:ok, lets say the draw is rigged so that people can make money from a Rafa Fed final.
There is no guarantee that they will be in the final.
Murray could beat Rafa and Nole could beat Fed in the semis.

Of course they cannot guarantee a Federer v Nadal final, but they can do their best to make it happen. Obviously by keeping them in separate sides of the draw when seeded 1 & 3. And by giving them 'easier' draws for the semi finals. Not that Djokovic or Nadal is an easy draw, but I would say Federer would prefer to play Djokovic and Nadal would prefer to play Murray.

Money talks louder than pretty much everything else, especially fairness.

Well, this was how it was done in 2009, public draw with cameras and media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afeW8gMVtS4

So can we all acknowledge that we have no substantional proof whatsoever that the draw is rigged? Can we now move on from 'rigging' theories as it is getting tedious and no matter how much you look at statistics it doesn't change how a draw is conducted. If it really bothered the players that much, I am sure they would voice their opinions. I am not a fan of questioning the moral compass of tournament organisers that allow tennis fans like me to enjoy the sport. Tennis for me is one of the, if not the cleanest sport around. Drug cheats are dealt with now with more scrutiny through recent high profiled player who highlighted the weaknesses within the ITP.

Tennis as a whole should be proud with recent debacles that have hampered the reputation of sports such as Football, Cricket and Rugby to name a few. So please stop with the un-necessary bashing of this sport and it's organisers.

legendkillar wrote:So can we all acknowledge that we have no substantional proof whatsoever that the draw is rigged? Can we now move on from 'rigging' theories as it is getting tedious and no matter how much you look at statistics it doesn't change how a draw is conducted. If it really bothered the players that much, I am sure they would voice their opinions. I am not a fan of questioning the moral compass of tournament organisers that allow tennis fans like me to enjoy the sport. Tennis for me is one of the, if not the cleanest sport around. Drug cheats are dealt with now with more scrutiny through recent high profiled player who highlighted the weaknesses within the ITP.

Tennis as a whole should be proud with recent debacles that have hampered the reputation of sports such as Football, Cricket and Rugby to name a few. So please stop with the un-necessary bashing of this sport and it's organisers.

It is a whole lot cleaner than most, if not all other sports to be fair.

Guest82 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Drug cheats are dealt with now with more scrutiny through recent high profiled player who highlighted the weaknesses within the ITP.

It is a whole lot cleaner than most, if not all other sports to be fair.

Who is/was the high profile player?

Talatonian wrote:

Guest82 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Drug cheats are dealt with now with more scrutiny through recent high profiled player who highlighted the weaknesses within the ITP.

It is a whole lot cleaner than most, if not all other sports to be fair.

Who is/was the high profile player?

Andre Agassi, who confessed in his autobiography that he avoided punishment and potential ban by lying in a letter he wrote to the ITP who accepted his explaination and didn't pursue the matter further. When Richard Gasquet was found guilty of having cocaine in his urine test, he was banned before he was able to prove his innocence by offering an 'explanation'

Thanks

To be absolutely sure of any kind of misdemeanour's regarding the draw apparatus and its workings, we would have to exhaust the records and show each slam draw from all 4 events and illustrate just what kind of process has been going on, whether its kosher or not.

Its only fair to the bodies concerned that anybody who questions their trustworthiness should provide proof of conduct unbecoming to the sport of tennis.

Until I see such proof, its only speculation and as such can not be taken seriously.

If anybody wants, they can go collate the stats and show just how much the decks have been stacked, but in my book, they are innocent until proven guilty and I would not want to go out on a limb and make accusations like this based on a flimsy idea that came about because I was a bit suspicious of something.

Simple question - why would organising committees for any slam RISK rigging the main draw?

How could they ensure the rigging was confidential and never got out? Can you imagine the damage to Wimbledon's reputation IF that happened. They have over 100 years prestige to defend...why risk it?

Sorry, I just buy any of the possibility whatsoever. Like all conspiracy theories you have to ask - what if they were found out?

Oh dear, this has gone all defensive....My original question was just my frustration with the fact that Novak ALWAYS gets the short straw with his draws whatever his ranking are, it was nothing "to do with Wimby it's just the succession of ALL 4 slams....

lydian, if they were found out, no doubt Wimbledon would be stripped of it's Grand Slam status and no doubt that players would boycott playing there.

But like I stressed before, there is no proof and it would be stupid for the organisers to take such a risk.

It doesn't change the fact that the eventual winner will have to play 7 matches to win the title.

noleisthebest wrote:Oh dear, this has gone all defensive....My original question was just my frustration with the fact that Novak ALWAYS gets the short straw with his draws whatever his ranking are, it was nothing "to do with Wimby it's just the succession of ALL 4 slams....

NITB, Novak's draw is not that bad. Nadal's looks more difficult out of the 'big 4'

I can understand the frustration, but the article could've been worded slightly better

Did people honestly say that tennis was 'a cleaner sport than most'?

Nothing to do with draws, but with match fixing and doping, they're right up there with the best.

I feel the draws are fine, the people who complain about that are generally bitter because someone they like got a bad draw.

First of all there is plenty of hard proof, the odd statistical anomaly of 5 straight heads coming up in a row, is an evidentiary basis in fact. It is not like others have made it conjecture or theory or speculation. The fact is that at least for the last 5 straight grandslams the 2 and 3 players have been put in the same half of the draw and that conveniently keeps Roger and Rafa out of the same half. People want to keep claiming that I produce proof, how is that possible? Should i hire a team of private investigators to bug the houses and hack the computers of wimbeldon tournament directors? Numbers don't lie, and when some statistical anomaly keeps occurring that benefits the pockets of people who directly control the process well in my mind there is a rational basis for discussing the issue.


Lydian makes a good argument that wimbeldon or other grandslams wouldn't want to risk there prestige, or image. That is possible but this would actually be very easy to keep secret and that is part of the reason people would be tempted to do something like that. Its just funny, that if you look at what would be the better semifinal matchup for Nadal it would be murray. Coincidentally, he gets murray almost everytime. What would be a better draw for Fed, Djokovic or Nadal? Djokovic, so he gets Djokovic almost everytime. And when Fed was #2 and not #3 who would he have preferred Novak or Andy in the semi, well up until six months ago clearly he would have preferred Novak, and he gets novak everytime. How fortunate for Roger, Rafa, the international broadcasters, most tennis fans, and tournament officials. Isn't it wonderful how this totally random statistical anomaly benefits the pocketbooks of those who control the process?

Do people really believe GS draws are being fixed to prevent Murray from winning a slam? Didn't stop Novak!

hawkeye wrote:Do people really believe GS draws are being fixed to prevent Murray from winning a slam? Didn't stop Novak!

I don't think the draws are fixed to prevent Murray, Djokovic or anyone else from winning a slam. I think it is possible that they are fixed to make the tournament the most lucrative final each time, which is without doubt Federer v Nadal.

As socal1976 says up there ^ of course it is not possible for anyone to provide any proof of this and it would be easy enough for them to do.

First off let me clear I am not implying match fixing, I am implying that the draw could be tampered with in order to keep Fed and Nadal on opposite sides of the draw to give the tournament a chance at a Federer Nadal final. Lets remember that there TV contracts are based in part on the ratings of the final. And a federer Nadal final will be viewed by maybe twice as many participants therefore pushing up the ratings of the whole event and putting the tournament in a stronger position to negotiate TV, broadcasting, and sponsorship deals. The USO final featuring Djoko and Nadal all though I felt it was a high quality match had one of the poorest tv ratings of a final in years.

socal, there is no showing of tampering. It is the luck of the draw. Is it tennis purists that watch the final of any Grand Slam event? I doubt it. I would say 70% of the audience that watch the final of any GS final, haven't watched the matches leading up to it.

Wimbledon know that the biggest draw at the event isn't the Federer's or Nadal's, it is Murray and before him it was Henman. The interest in Wimbledon is finding that elusive British winner. I think you need to be here socal to witness that.

The Australian Open more than any other event would need to rely on Nadal and Federer being strong throughout the tournament.

I don't deny that TV ratings are down, but that is due to competition and commercial success of other sports. It is no guarantee that Nadal and Federer are going to reach the final of all the Grand Slam events which seems to be implied in this thread.

I am sure if Djokovic won Wimbledon, the suggestion of draw tampering or unfavourable draws would not be uttered.

legendkillar wrote:socal, there is no showing of tampering. It is the luck of the draw. Is it tennis purists that watch the final of any Grand Slam event? I doubt it. I would say 70% of the audience that watch the final of any GS final, haven't watched the matches leading up to it.

Wimbledon know that the biggest draw at the event isn't the Federer's or Nadal's, it is Murray and before him it was Henman. The interest in Wimbledon is finding that elusive British winner. I think you need to be here socal to witness that.

The Australian Open more than any other event would need to rely on Nadal and Federer being strong throughout the tournament.

I don't deny that TV ratings are down, but that is due to competition and commercial success of other sports. It is no guarantee that Nadal and Federer are going to reach the final of all the Grand Slam events which seems to be implied in this thread.

I am sure if Djokovic won Wimbledon, the suggestion of draw tampering or unfavourable draws would not be uttered.

The biggest draw for Wimbledon worldwide is still Federer v Nadal. Only in the UK are people that interested in Murray getting to the final. As I would guess Serbia would prefer Djokovic in the final an so on.

There is no guarantee that both Nadal and Federer will make the final, but there is a guarantee that they cannot play before the final.

have to agree with guest there legend, the UK represents a fraction of the market for wimbeldon. Remember it is the global tv watching audience that really want the Fedal final. Whether the fans at the stadium are a little more reved up doesn't have the same fiancial reward as getting a couple of ratings points more viewership which could represent tens of millions of people when you look at it globally. The Murray and Novak ratings for the AO were awful, and the USO ratings were down. Of course that has to do with more competition, but we are talking about a drop off in ratings of a mere 12 month period. I mean has the amount of channels and events increased so much over the last 12 months? Not really in the states we have had 1000 or more channels for about 8 or 9 years.

Of course they aren't fixing the matches, they just are gently tweaking the draw to at least preserve the chance of a Fed/Nadal final.

I don't agree that the draws are fixed but I do agree that a Federer Nadal Final would get the biggest TV ratings worldwide.

The ratings for this years AO were I believe a disaster. We as tennis enthusiasts are in no doubt about how good Djokovic is and in this country Murray in the final would be a huge draw but a final between them doesn't capture the general publics imagination.

The ratings for this years FO were high. I wonder why? But it isn't only the general public who are enthusiastic about the Nadal Federer match up. Its most sports fans. The draw wasn't fixed but I'm sure if it could be put to the vote this would be the final that most would want.

Personally I'm sick of Nadal Federer matches (read finals) they are plain boring because Nadal beats Federer at will.

This made me laugh

http://www.ubitennis.com/english/sport/tennis/2011/06/19/527616-three_goat_saying_nothing_fourth.shtml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Here, here Nitb, it hasn't been much of a rivalry since 2009 frankly, its almost like we are watching the same match over and over again. Nadal hits to Fed's backhand eventually federer starts hitting a lot of errors. Nadal plays better on the big points with Roger tightening up on said big points. Nadal serving everything to Fed's backhand and Roger chipping the return back, and Nadal cranking the next ball forcing Fed to chase. In my mind the best days of this great rivalry are over, maybe Roger stuns us all and pulls out something special in the final. I think it is clear at least in my mind that something fishy is going on with these grandslam draws and the big 4. It is just too convenient and too much of a statistical anomaly that Roger and Rafa are in the opposite end of every draw, and that even when they were #1 and #2 that each player would get the less dangerous matchup in terms of either Nole or Murray in there half.

Why dont they organise it for once where all the top players are drawn against each other in the first round... that should make it interesting
sort the men from the boys

hawkeye wrote:This made me laugh

http://www.ubitennis.com/english/sport/tennis/2011/06/19/527616-three_goat_saying_nothing_fourth.shtml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Brilliant!

i doubt the draws are rigged tbh, the best thing and fairest to everyone was when they had the seedings at wimbledon in line with the world rankings whereas before the organisers at wimbledon did the seedings themselves based on past performances, no. of titles for each player so there is less chance of the draw being 'rigged'

That was very funny link, 13 out of 17 times getting into Roger's side of the draw, I am having an even harder time buying that this is coincidence. Rafa matches up better with Andy he gets Andy. Roger up until six months would have preferred Novak, and he gets Novak. And now that Novak is #2 and would obviously prefer Andy he gets guess what Roger again, two straight slams.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why dont they organise it for once where all the top players are drawn against each other in the first round... that should make it interesting
sort the men from the boys

i doubt they would ever do that in case a high ranked player got to the final on the basis that the top 4 met each other early on, you could have a very one sided final

"Are draws rigged?" - noleisthebest

------------------------------------------------

Of course they are ! They just call it seeding.

I am amazed at how many posters believe there is some sort of fix going on. From 19 random draws the chances of #3 being drawn against #2 can be broken down as follows:

0/19 or 19/19= 0.0000019
1/19 or 18/19 = 0.0000362
2/19 or 17/19 = 0.0003262
3/19 or 16/19 = 0.0018482
4/19 or 15/19 = 0.0073929
5/19 or 14/19 = 0.0221786
6/19 or 13/19 = 0.0517502
7/19 or 12/19 = 0.0961075
8/19 or 11/19 = 0.1441612
9/19 or 10/19 = 0.1761971

So, even being drawn together, say, 9 times which is a pretty equal split has only a 17.6% chance of occurring. As I read somewhere else, 19 is a small sample. If this trend was in evidence over 100 draws then that might suggest something.

Grassy knoll anyone?

daraghj82 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why dont they organise it for once where all the top players are drawn against each other in the first round... that should make it interesting
sort the men from the boys

i doubt they would ever do that in case a high ranked player got to the final on the basis that the top 4 met each other early on, you could have a very one sided final

Daragh it wasn´t intended to be taken seriously ... it was tongue in cheek..sorry

legendkillar wrote:

Andre Agassi, who confessed in his autobiography that he avoided punishment and potential ban by lying in a letter he wrote to the ITP who accepted his explaination and didn't pursue the matter further. When Richard Gasquet was found guilty of having cocaine in his urine test, he was banned before he was able to prove his innocence by offering an 'explanation'

Agassi's excuse was acceptable in those days, but he would have been banned under today's rules.