Why does the rest of the big 4 have garbage players for the first two rounds and Novak doesn't?

Really, i think this draw rigging thing with Djokovic is now getting a bit amusing. After giving him del po in the third round at RG, and constantly getting put into Roger's half now 13 out of 17 grandslams and 5 in a row, then compound that with Murray, Nadal, and Federer getting the easiest of first two round opponents; while conveniently Novak doesn't. Novak is probably the guy in terms of ratings that the organizers would least like to see make it to the finals. His first round opponent is 53 in the world, and his second round opponent is ranked #36 and has one of the top 10 serves on tour. While Djokovic gets a dangerous, huge server in the second round, Andy Murray gets number 83 ranked virtual walkover Tobias Kamke.

Federer average ranking of first two round opponents: 58th in the world (add round 1 and 2 ranking divide by half
Nadal Average ranking of first two round: 79.5 in the world
Murray average ranking of first two round opponents: 71 in the world
Djokovic average ranking of first two round opponents: 45 in the world

Things that continue to make you say hmmm. Novak should have a 50 percent chance of drawing Roger gets Roger 13 out of 17 times and 5 times in a row. Gets Del Po and the worst scheduling at the french open playing as late as possible. Now at wimby has by far the toughest draw of the big 4. And his draw is even tougher as number 36 kevin anderson is most certainly much better than his ranking on a grass court as he has one of the best serves in the world. While Murray and Fed get two clay courters who are actually weaker on grass than their rankings would indicate.

I know people are tired of me raising these issues. But these are the hard facts. Everyone wants to see a Fed nadal final, and if not that everyone would love a fed murray final at least as far as the british public is concerned. Just funny how all these coincidences are going towards the more marketable players and against Novak.

To make things even worse Robin Soderling the #5 ranked player actually has a lower ranked first two rounds than Novak playing #67 pentschner and Hewitt who isn't even in the top 100 anymore. And by the way guess whose quarter Robin Soderling the next best player after the top 4 is put into? You guessed Novak Djokovic. By the way Kevin Anderson #2 on the ATP tour right now in aces, and #8 in terms of service games held.

Shame that the organizers would sully the reputation of this fine tournament but these unfortunate occurrences all occurring for the least marketable of the big 4, is beyond the standard deviation. When the 2 player in the world has a tougher draw than the #5 player in the world and he also gets the highest ranking opponent in his quarter as well!

I think the whole draw rigging theory is getting beyond amusing.

There were 5 places between Chardy and Gimeno-Traver and then 7 places between Chardy and Kukushkin.

That is hardly the gulf in class that is being insinuated. The 2nd round it is not as straight forward. You saying about Anderson being a tougher opponent, even though he hasn't started his first round match, more than favours Djokovic in the second round whomever wins, than someone who recently got to the quarter finals at Queens and defeated Del Potro in Mannarino.

If Djokovic is a great player, beating the rest of the field shouldn't be a problem

i did the math legendkillar, lets see all the unfortunte coincidences Djokovic gets at this years beyond reproach wimbeldon:

1. For the fifth straight time he draws federer, and 13 times out of 17
2. Gets the highest ranked and most dangerous quarterfinal opponent
3. Gets the highest ranked and most dangerous first and second round opponent.

I guess you are right Novak has to beat two goat candidates, the rest of the tour, and the tournament organizers in order win this trophy. Roger and Rafa never had so much opposition.

although after the 2nd round nadals quarter is very difficult

the defending champion probably will have a harder 3rd and 4th round than soderling does

he'll probably play 2 of raonic, delpo and simon

whereas soderling after hewitt probably gets 2 of tomic, mayer and melzer

Outside of Raonic there is nothing scary about Nadal's draw in my opinion. Delpo and simon are not good grass court players. Del Po has never even been in the 3rd of wimbeldon and if Simon was playing on clay or hardcourt I would agree with you.

I agree socal about Delpo. He hasn't got a slice shot which is important on Grass and seeing it used by Nadal to great effect shows that Delpo won't have much of a chance.

I think it is harsh to say that Federer and Nadal never had 'problems' in their draw. When Djokovic gets to no.1 will you see a change in his 'fortunes'?

I am a big Murray fan socal and knowing he has to face Nadal and Federer to win any Slam title is painful to watch as I want him to win, like you want Djokovic to win. Djokovic has won 2 Slams and I wish Murray had one of them

Legend, here is the difference Novak has earned the #2 ranking and Murray has nothing to complain about his draw is better than the guy who is ranked 2 spots above him. In fact, even soderling has a better draw than Djokovic in the first couple of rounds. I know you would much rather face David Ferrer at wimbeldon than Robin Soderling and his 140 plus mph serves. Frankly, are you starting to regret claiming that there is no evidence of draw tampering. When the world #2 gets #6 type of draw and has the toughest first two opponents of any of the top 5 and in the second round gets a guy who has one of the top 10 serves in the game. Not to mention how as the #2 ranked player he so conveniently gets Federer once again. They did the same thing to Novak at RG as well. The TV ratings don't like a Novak final as much as a fed or nadal final. This level of coincidence is beyond tough luck.

I don't think there is draw tampering. Djokovic has been the biggest story this year so I couldn't why any tournament organisers would want to look on him 'unfavourably'

I think Novak's toughest draw to date has been the FO no question. He won't get a tougher than that for a long time.

The only suspicious thing for me is how Djoko and Federer always seem to be drawn in the same half. Maybe they want to keep Federer and Nadal apart in the hope they'll play in the final, it would certainly generate the most interest. I don't buy into the rest of it though.

I think Nadal's draw is tougher. Yes, you would still expect him to come through it and reach semis at least but i think Nadal fans have more cause to feel sorry for themselves in my opinion. Plus Nadal has drawn Murray, which on the face of it might look a better draw... Until you realise that Murray is the only one of the top 4 to have beaten Rafa in a slam in the last 3 years (twice).

Murray had a nightmare draw at the Australian open, but the big match ups never happened as they pretty much all fell before he was due to meet them. The semi match ups always seem to be the same which is odd, but i wouldn't read too much into anything else.

Legend, there is just way too many inconvenient statistical anomalies when analyzing this draw to chalking it up to coincidence. Same thing with the French open. He had rudey poo scheduling, a rudey poo draw, and all the fans cheering against him against Roger as well. Actually, for tennis fans yes the hardcore might even like a Djoko-nadal final more than a Fedal final because they have been there and seen that, but for the vast majority of tv viewers its a case of any of the big 4 but Djokovic. Look how is it that murray has a better draw than the guy ranked #2 in the world? How is it that he gets Roger once again? Why does he get a guy in the second round who has hit 400 aces this year?

Seriously now ... this is getting beyond a joke. Any one of us who support "the Big 4" can have something to say about their draw. But do you know what? its ridiculous and immaterial. You get who you get - there is no rigging, there is no far-fetched conspiracy theory. The whole purpose of a Slam is to separate the wheat from the chaff and a title of this nature has to be earnt. To be the best, you have to beat the best ... sorry socal, but just get over it.

Im not sure how you can call any of them garbage players.. I didn´t think that Kukushkin looked half bad in that first set against Federer...
He played well. Chardy didn´t play any better against Nole so whats the probem. With the strength and depth we have in today´s men´s tennis I think any of the early players can be potential banana skins.

And remind yourself of the "rubbish" qualifier who at 17 yrs old won Wimbledon..

I agree with Wooffie... they enter the competition they take their chances ...and if Djoko is as good as he and everyone else thinks he is he should be able to beat them all and will have to sooner or later.

Danny, how is nadal opening with michael russel and Sweeting the equivalent of Chardy and a guy who has hit 400 aces and is ranked number 36 in the world? How do we explain away this coincidence and the fact that again even as the #2 player Novak must play 6 time wimbeldon champion Roger federer and not Andy Murray in the semi if the draw plays out. Frankly, the evidence of draw tampering is pretty much overwhelming. Novak also had a brutal FO draw that due to some upsets in his half didn't pan out, playing Del Potro in the third round and again getting Roger as opposed to Andy.

Wooffie that is easy for you guys to say as Nadal keeps getting Andy every time and Novak gets Roger everytime. And the fact that the first two round opponents of Nadal have an average ranking of 79 as opposed to 45 in the world. I won't get over it because all of these unfortunate little coincidences that keep benefitting Rafa and Roger in slams is beyond the standard deviation, sorry gals the numbers don't lie. The fix is in.

Haddie, its seems that Djoko has to beat his competition and the tour organizers as well, Rafa and Roger never had it so tough.

O come on socal Chardy was a walkover for Nole.and noiw he has Kevin Anderson... thats no big deal.
Rafa Russell & Sweeting he then faces Raonic.

Life at the top.. thats what it gets like socal when you are one of the big four... and there are so many young prentenders out there who may well see that your boy doesnt even meet Federer. And even if he does if he wants to be called the best then he has to beat the best in SLAMS

Socal, I'm a big fan of Djokovic and I do agree that him always being in Federer's side of the draw is, statistically, very suspicious.

I simply don't see why anyone would take the time to make his whole draw tougher though. Yes, facing players ranked 53 and 36 is perhaps a little tougher than the others are facing but, for the top player of 2011, who has only been beaten once all season, it doesn't really constitute much of trap. Djokovic is way better than these players and, although I'd love to see him win Wimbledon, if he can't beat these guys, he doesn't deserve to get to the later stages.

As a side note, I wonder how Nadal feels about the draw. I have a feeling he may view Murray as a trickier semi final than Federer, simply because I think he has mastered the art of how to play Federer. Although Nadal's h2h against Murray is very good, Murray's game can get under Nadal's skin. I think a semi final / final combination of Murray / Djokovic is just about the toughest scenario for Nadal.

Haddie, like I said if my favorite player kept getting Andy as opposed to Roger maybe I wouldn't be upset with it either, but I am quite frankly more than upset with this. They did the same thing to him at the French open. Just answer me one question if you flip a coin how many times does it take you to flip a coin to have it land on heads 5 straight times? The probability of Djokovic getting Federer 5 times in a row is 1 out of 32. Funny how these coincidences keep benefitting the pocket books of those who directly control the process. That is the whole point haddie he isn't getting treated like the rest of the big 4, he is being discriminated against to favor the other more marketable players, that is the whole point. If he got Tobias Kamke all the time in the second round or michael russel in the 1st round we wouldn't be talking about it.

Murdoch, I disagree, the Anderson match is a big scare match on grass, one or two bad service games and you are out of the tournament if your opponent hits a high percentage of 1st serves. And on top the first couple of rounds you get soderling in your quarter and Federer as opposed to murray in your half.

Socal you are missing the point... If your boy is to win anything of any consequence he will never be classed as the best unless HE CAN beat Federer.Nadal and the best If the coin was coming down the other side repeatedly would you be complaining ----- would you . ??? I think not. How can you say that Nole is not a Marketable player he has been the talk of the tennis world the whole year by virtue of his wins over Nadal. alone let alone his unbroken streak.. So he has to come up against Federer (if he gets that far) he has to beat Roger at sometime otherwise his position is untenable. I really think you are on a hopeless cause with this line socal.. I normally support you in mostly all you say but I think on this one you are disillusioned and misguided. Take your complaint to those in higher places but I dont think you will get much sympathy here

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Do you REALLY think that the organizers would open themselves up to the sort of scandal that would arise if a whistle-blower let leak the fact that the draw was rigged?

Out of interest, what was the average OWR of the first two rounds opponents for the big 4 at the FO?

Haddie, he isn't as marketable as fed or Nadal, and at wimbeldon Murray is certainly more marketable. Either way the facts don't lie. Too many coincidences that favor Fedal finals taking place for the math to add up. Here is where I disagree with you as the #2 ranked player he shouldn't have to beat Fed and Nadal both every single grandslam. Even when he was #3 he kept being put into Fed's half because up until a few months ago he was seen as the lesser threat to Federer than Murray who actually has a winning record against Fed. Frankly, its not sympathy or acceptance i am looking for, the facts I have raised are indisputtable. If this continues it will be a black eye for tennis.

Davie, thanks for the mark twain reference, he is the first one to come up with that great line. There are liars, damned liars, and then statisticians. But despite Twain's wit these are the facts. I don't know about the french open, but he certainly wasn't cut any slack getting a hot del potro in the third round and again for the one thousandth time in a row getting Federer in his half as opposed to murray.

Then Ill leave you with the last word

Popularised by Twain, but not necessarily the first to use it. Nor will he be the last.

Interesting though that while you'd like to see the Wimbledon draw as "evidence" of your conspiracy theory, you won't go back and do the same exercise with the FO to see if it backs up your theory or not. That is known as discriminate use of statistics

Cheers haddie, thanks for the support, always nice of you to drop by.

The facts are the facts Davie, you can go onto Atpworldtour.com and see for yourself who gets the toughest first two round draw. And you don't find it funny that Novak has a 50 percent chance of getting Roger but has been placed in Roger's half 13 out of 17 times? Frankly, Murray might as well be ranked #2 in the world because he has a better draw than the current world #2. All I am saying is that when all these unfortunate statistical anomalies keep popping up that benefit the pocket books of those who control the process, well it makes you say hmmmm. And I will go back and look at RG 2011 if that makes you happy, I am bit lazy right now.

Can we now drop the subject of draw tampering as it is taking away from the other 64 players left in the draw that have a chance of winning the title. It isn't just about 4 players. If their is no evidence to support the case for tampering, can we move past this subject

Thanks

french open 2011 first two rounds analysis:

Based on May 23 rankings


For first two rounds:
Nadal: average ranking of opponents: 43.5
Murray average ranking of opponents: 110.5
Federer average ranking of opponents: 111
djokovic: 65.5

Now again this time Novak has the second highest average for ranking of his first two opponents. But compound this with getting Del Po thrown at him in Round 3, if you look beyond the first two rounds his draw is much tougher, not to mention again being put into Roger's as opposed to Andy's side of the draw. A couple of upsets occurred like Berdych in his quarter that made his draw in effect easier till the semi. But if you look from start to finish he had a tougher draw than any one once you factor the semi and his third round match. Murray and Roger the usual darlings of the grandslam committees.

Legend what else do you consider evidence, there is plenty of evidence, people are sitting in jail right now with less evidence than this. The numbers breakdown as provided is plenty of evidence. 13 heads out of 17 tosses of the coin and 5 in a row is evidence. And I agree this takes away from the luster, then the tournament organizers shouldn't play with the integrity of the event in order to maximize their chance of a fedal final and the ratings boon that would occur for them.

So in fact at the FO, Nadal was the one being victimized. In fact according to those figures, Djokovic had a 50% higher average OWR opponent than Nadal. It's a fix I tell ya!

Davie, like I said you have to look at the totality of the draw. In round 3 Novak got a red hot del potro, plus he would have had berdych as well if the draw had played out but berdy was upset. And again for the hundredth time in a row he got Fed and not murray in his half. Are you claiming that Andy murray is a better clay court player than Roger Federer?

socal comparing someone in jail and a tennis draw in terms of evidence is a bit far fetched. A draw is a lottery socal, I could dig up stats for which lottery numbers appear the most and cry fix for the ones that appear the most.

Statistics are not evidence to be used in 'accusations' tell me a sport or crime case by where an outcome was determined by statistics?

Get a life duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude,

n stop whining about the draw, already.

If the joker can't beat players barely ranked in the top 50, then he doesn't deserve to be W champ.

These players are newbie nobodies.

Rafa will destroy him in any case, even if he gets to the final.

Stastics are evidence of an argument, I am not trying to convict anyone in a court of law. And by the way dna evidence is a form of statistical probablity that can and do convict people in criminal cases. And statistics in product liability cases are used to bring in multi million dollar judgements against corporations. Therefore statistics are a part of evidence even in a legal sense.

Sure emancipator, you do understand that grass court tennis has a lot to do with a serve. Anderson is easily one of the top ten servers on tour, so if he was playing anybody on a grass court he would be trouble for them. In fact, he is a much more dangerous opponent on grass than even his ranking would indicate. I guess Novak should just get used to having to beat his opponents and the tournament directors to lift a grandslam trophy.

Sure emancipator, you do understand that grass court tennis has a lot to do with a serve.
------------------

Yes that's why Nadal won it twice!

And jimmy connors also won it in the 70s, in the socalled fast court era. By the way Nadal has one of the best second serves on tour by the numbers for the last few years.

DNA is statistically 95% correct. Hard to judge against that, unless there are twins involved then you are buggered. The statistics you have provided are 'the likelyhood' of players being drawn in certain sections. If the top 4 seeds are in different pots and are drawn into the 2 sections, then the odds are 1/2 chance of being drawn in a certain half. The odds are then 1/3 of being drawn against another member of the top 4. Short odds wouldn't you say?

By the way Nadal has one of the best second serves on tour by the numbers for the last few years. .
------------------
what numbers?

In that case Socal, I guess it wasn't just that the organisers rigged the draw, but they actually went out of their way to line up a big server for Novak in the second round.

Darn, they are soooooooooooooooo corrupt; they really must hate the joker.

legendkillar wrote:DNA is statistically 95% correct.

If it was it could not be used in court...or just as a support case. I think it depends on the case studied and other factors but paternity can be proven to one 1 in 10million chance to be wrong. so many 9s after 99.9.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:DNA is statistically 95% correct.

If it was it could not be used in court...or just as a support case. I think it depends on the case studied and other factors but paternity can be proven to one 1 in 10million chance to be wrong. so many 9s after 99.9.

I stand corrected

I knew it was something ridiculously high.

Socal - You shoudl check Berdych's draw....Clearly the organisers favour him! Must be his charisma!

Moderators,

this is a ridiculous topic, with nothing but speculation based on one poster's disgruntlement.

It is also implying some serious misconduct by the organisers, without any factual supporting evidence.

It is one thing to complain about the luck of the draw, but another thing entirely to allege rigging.

Moderators, please can you lock this thread.

Why? I am enjoying it! I like to see Socal digging down!

Socal, see the draw as an opportunity. We know Djokovic can beat both Federer and Nadal. His h2h against both this year is significantly in his favour.
If he wins Wimbledon, beating Federer and Nadal along the way, he will not only top the rankings, he would have beaten his two closest rivals to achieve that. There would be no caveats to that achievement. It will be a more rewarding win than if he'd got an easy draw.
And if he beats Roger in the semis, then he will also have the chance to wag his finger in a 'number 1' gesture and get some sweet payback!

legendkillar wrote:DNA is statistically 95% correct. Hard to judge against that, unless there are twins involved then you are buggered. The statistics you have provided are 'the likelyhood' of players being drawn in certain sections. If the top 4 seeds are in different pots and are drawn into the 2 sections, then the odds are 1/2 chance of being drawn in a certain half. The odds are then 1/3 of being drawn against another member of the top 4. Short odds wouldn't you say?

Ok the odds of Novak being drawn into Roger's half 5 straight times (the current streak) is 1 in 32 legend. So lets throw all this talk of 95 percent accuracy, we are talking about really odd statistics here.

Tenez, the statistics are based on the percentage of points won on second serve as reported by the ATP website, certainly not by the statistics that you make up in your own head. If Nadal is such a horrible server why did Roger Federer win such an abysmal percentage of break points against him in the 08 wimby final, and his serve is better now than it was then. Aces aren't everything when measuring serving.

emancipator,

The thread is being discussed in a constructive manner. The poster has been asked to provide 'evidence' to back their arguement. The poster is questioning 'transparancy' of draws.

As fas as I am aware no-one has been insulted in this post. The debate is being carried out in a 'respectful' manner.

If it begins to get heated I will act accordingly.

Thanks

Tenez, the statistics are based on the percentage of points won on second serve as reported by the ATP website, certainly not by the statistics that you make up in your own head.

You see Socal, this is why statistics are dangerous in your hands. YOu don;t know how to read them! Does it say he wins losts of free points on his second serve? NO! It says that when the rally is engaged, Nadal wins more points than his opponents....nothing new there!

LK,

The poster is alleging serious misconduct, by saying that the draw is rigged.

He did not mention anything about the draw needing to be more transparent.

He did not discuss how the draw was conducted, only the results.

This is slanderous and potentially libellous. It doesn't matter if the discussion is carried out respectfully or not, the point is that the subject matter is innapropriate.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:DNA is statistically 95% correct. Hard to judge against that, unless there are twins involved then you are buggered. The statistics you have provided are 'the likelyhood' of players being drawn in certain sections. If the top 4 seeds are in different pots and are drawn into the 2 sections, then the odds are 1/2 chance of being drawn in a certain half. The odds are then 1/3 of being drawn against another member of the top 4. Short odds wouldn't you say?

Ok the odds of Novak being drawn into Roger's half 5 straight times (the current streak) is 1 in 32 legend. So lets throw all this talk of 95 percent accuracy, we are talking about really odd statistics here.

Tenez, the statistics are based on the percentage of points won on second serve as reported by the ATP website, certainly not by the statistics that you make up in your own head. If Nadal is such a horrible server why did Roger Federer win such an abysmal percentage of break points against him in the 08 wimby final, and his serve is better now than it was then. Aces aren't everything when measuring serving.

So we can agree we move onto odds and yes the 1/32 number is 'slightly' long, but like I said we are talking about 'odds'

I know you are using the statistics for the case of isn't this strange. If we take last year, Seed 1 and 4 were drawn together and Seed 2 and 3 were drawn together. 2009 we saw seeds 1 and 3 drawn together and seeds 2 and 4 drawn together. If we look past the names, the rankings that are drawn are different.