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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Murdoch, I agree but as the #2 player he should not have to beat two goat candidates to win a slam. I'd like to feel like the players of the same rankings are getting a fair shake and frankly I don't feel like this is a fair shake. I do want to see Novak get favored but frankly putting him in Fed's half constantly is starting to get to the point where it is beyond just some oddity. I do see it as an opportunity but frankly did not like to see Kevin Anderson in the second round and I liked it less and less as I got a look at the mugs the other top 4 are playing in the second round.

Emancipator if you don't like this thread don't discuss it, go participate in other threads that you find more to your taste, why do you have to stifle debate?

emancipator,

Like I previously stated, the topic is being 'debated'

The poster is applying logic to their arguement which is the basis that the article is being debated.

Thanks

Legend, here is where you are wrong, if Novak is the #3 seed or #2 seed it makes no difference since in that time frame Roger has been ranked #2. They should still have a 50 percent chance of meeting, but they don't. Switching the rankings between 2 and 3 doesn't make any difference in this argument. For the last two years basically roger and Novak have been 2 or 3 the whole time. If you were going to construct a draw to give you the highest chance of a Fedal final this is what you would do. You wouldn't put Roger and Rafa in the same half would you?

socal1976 wrote: If you were going to construct a draw to give you the highest chance of a Fedal final this is what you would do. You wouldn't put Roger and Rafa in the same half would you?

Classic strawman argument

Tenez, frankly I didn't say Nadal is one of the best servers in general on tour and very few guys win a lot of free points on second serve we don't have too many Pete Sampras second serves on tour. I said Nadal has one of the best second serves and the numbers prove it. If his second serve was awful, then players would jump all over it more effectively and therefore win a higher percentage of points. Really 2 plus 2.

I am not wrong socal. Draws are conducted by seeds, not by name. Ranking has everything to do with it whether you argue or not. I would like to see the stats regarding how 'seeds' have been drawn, not names.

Either way, that is only part of my argument. You are not addressing the quality of the first two rounds, and why exactly is #5 soderling in his quarter? Why exactly does he get a big serving nearly seeded player in the second round? This is a multifaceted argument and you focus on one part of it. And how exactly does the seeding change of Fed from 2 to 3 and Novak from 3 to 2 change anything. If A is seeded #3 and B is seeded #2 and they are supposed to meet 50 percent of the time, how is it any different if B is seeded #3 and A is seeded #2. They are still only supposed to meet each other 50 percent of the time. Switching their rankings makes no difference whatsoever.

2011 - Seeds 1&4 and 2&3 Drawn together
2010 - Seeds 1&3 and 2&4 Drawn together
2009 - Seeds 1&4 and 2&4 Drawn together
2008 - Seeds 1&3 and 2&4 Drawn together

Very fishy indeed

said Nadal has one of the best second serves and the numbers prove it.
If his second serve was awful, then players would jump all over it more effectively and therefore win a higher percentage of points.
-------------------------
They don't prove that. There is a difference between having one of the best second serve and having the worse. Nadal is probably in the middle. It's a serve difficult to attack but not difficult to return.

But that is your flawed logic we see in many of your posts whether you discuss Sampras, pace of courts or balls or now the draw.

said Nadal has one of the best second serves and the numbers prove it.
If his second serve was awful, then players would jump all over it more effectively and therefore win a higher percentage of points.
-------------------------
They don't prove that. There is a difference between having one of the best second serve and having the worse. Nadal is probably in the middle. It's a serve difficult to attack but not difficult to return.

But that is your flawed logic we see in many of your posts whether you discuss Sampras, pace of courts or balls or now the draw.

socal I want to put this to bed as this is dragging on and on and no players on the circuit have complained about the draws and even Djokovic himself has not complained, if it bothered him the quality of his opponents, he can always drop down to the challenger events.

Stop your whinging !

Bearing in mind he's only lost one match all year to a Federer playing out of his skin; Which of those two matches do seriously expect Nokak to have problems with ?

Don't forget Rafa got Isner at RG round 1 which he nearly lost in 5 sets and after today he's probably got Raonic and Del Potro in the next two matches.

If you are meant to win it you will beat those in front of you.

Sometimes having a potential "banana skin" in the early rounds is less preferable to having a quality one.

Ask Roger about his first round here last year.

Okey dokey



My opinion:

Without some inside knowledge or observance of the draw, this debate is pure speculation.

Furthermore, speculation could be warranted in trivial matters, however this is a far more serious issue. Implying that the wimbledon draw is rigged suggests a level of corruption that would pervade the entire sport, since wimbledon is the pinnacle of international tennis. Additionally, one would expect such a serious allegation to come laden with factual supporting evidence, instead what do we get? Djokovic has drawn Federer more often than he should and his first few opponents are more highly ranked than the opponents of the other top three payers, therefore the draw must be rigged.

This is a ridiculous premise on which to conduct a debate, because it essentially becomes a statistical calculation of the likelihood of such a draw taking place randomly, as no other evidence has been proposed to back up the initial assertion and thus there is no basis for discussing anything else.

We may as well debate the likelihood of rain falling every day during the championships.

Or if one wants to be controversial, one can suggest that any given result where one player has a resounding over another is as a result of betting irregularities. Particularly if the score is so lop-sided that one would not expect such a result from their respective rankings.

Of course it would be ridiculous to debate such a result without further supporting evidence.

Tenez on the ATP tour how many players win a lot of free points or get aces on second serves consitently. The definition of a good second serve is basically a second serve that is tough to attack and puts you into a position where you can win the point from there. Your bias against all things Nadal aside.

Legendkillar, like I said if you want to maximize the chances of a Fedal final this is exactly the draw you would construct. For a time Fed has been ranked #3 how many times did he get put in Nadal's half. And when Nadal slipped to #4 how many times have they been put in each other's half. Last time they were in each other's half was the 05 french open. Mostly that is because they have been 1 and 2. And in the few times they haven't been 1 and 2 they still never get placed in the same half. Plus, Djokovic has been #3 for 4 and half years, that Fed and Nadal have been 1 and 2 and he always gets the Fed half of the draw?

sportslover wrote:If you are meant to win it you will beat those in front of you.

Sometimes having a potential "banana skin" in the early rounds is less preferable to having a quality one.

Ask Roger about his first round here last year.

Absolutely agree

Emancipator please tell me what facilities are available to investigate the draw process? Should I hack their computers or hire private investigators to tap their phones, put them under surveillance and sift through their garbage?

When you look at the totality of the statistical facts it is very easy to draw the conclusion i have drawn. Whether you choose to make the inference is up to you. It is a serious allegation and one that frankly should be examined in light of the oddities of Federer and Nadal getting exactly the draw that would maximize their chances of playing the final almost every time. It is not statistically random that for 5 straight draws (during the whole time) Fed has been either 2 or 3 and Novak has been either 2 or 3 that Novak gets Fed's semi every time. Go flip a coin five times and see what your odds are of getting heads five times in a row. And during this period in time legend, Fed and Novak have always been 2 and 3.

Socal,

Nole did practise with Raonic a couple of days ago, so worry not

For anyone who keeps bellyaching about unfair draws, here is the list of players please arrange them into a fair draw for us all to see:-

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/draws/ms/r1s1.html

It's a 1 in 16 chance. Not exactly astronomical

Thank god for that, I also heard he practised with Tomic as well. I hope Raonic does well this year and gives Rafa a run for his money. (Actually I hope he beats him then our man would be #1. )

Also, I remember that last year Nole had the most horrendous draw by a long, long mile, but it somehow opened up brilliantly for him, with Roddick and Federer being knocked out, so mega gutted and annoyed he lost to Berdy , ah , well.....

Wrong Davie it is a 1 in 32 shot. Multiply 1/2 five times and see what you get. It is a big time long shot.

Yeah, Nitb, but that was Novak pre-the reemergence of the serve. i would really like to see what would happen if he plays Nadal in the final, I think he would break his grandslam duck.

socal1976 wrote:Wrong Davie it is a 1 in 32 shot. Multiply 1/2 five times and see what you get. It is a big time long shot.

Wrong yourself .. it is actually akin to getting 5 heads OR 5 tails in a row - so the odds are halved. No long shot

Davie, if you flip a coin 5 times and have a 50 percent chance of getting heads on each flip its 1/32.

How are your odds halved

5 events. Have to get heads everysingle time.

That equals .5x.5x.5x.5x.5=.03125 probability or 1/32.

I explained above. The scenario you describe is akin to tossing 5 heads OR 5 tails in a row. So the first toss is irrelevant as you will get either head OR a tail. The process then boils down to the subsequent FOUR tosses all matching the first throw .. i.e .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 or one in sixteen

Wrong Davie it is a 1 in 32 shot. Multiply 1/2 five times and see what you get. It is a big time long shot.


Wrong yourself .. it is actually akin to getting 5 heads OR 5 tails in a row - so the odds are halved. No long shot





that is what socal is saying, 0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5, which is 0.03125 in other words 1 in 32 not 1 in 16

socal, for the sake of your credibility, please listen to what people are saying. To allude that draws are deliberately "fixed" to the detriment of Novak Djokovic is ridiculous to the extreme. And rather than hoping that the likes of Raonic do your guy a favour to get him to Number 1, how about him doing what he has to do. Paying his dues, working hard to improve and having to beat whoever is put in front him ... regardless of their ranking. Its what Rafa and Roger have been doing for years.

So what if he's been drawn against Roger in the semi's so many times? As a Rafa fan, I have despaired at the number of times he's drawn Andy. Why? Because he's beaten him twice in Slams and the other alternative is that their matches are so hard fought that they essentially rough each other up for whoever is waiting for them in the final. And what of the alternative? A man in Djokovic who on hardcourts has a record against Rafa that only Federer can dream about. But to be the best, its what the top players have to do. And if Novak wants to be a credible Number 1 and wants to be a regular Slam champion, then he is going to have to learn and cope with beating the top guys time after time, along with all those hit and hope wonders that on their day can give anyone a game. And its just plain daft to suggest there is any draw fix going on.

Davie wrote:I explained above. The scenario you describe is akin to tossing 5 heads OR 5 tails in a row. So the first toss is irrelevant as you will get either head OR a tail. The process then boils down to the subsequent FOUR tosses all matching the first throw .. i.e .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 or one in sixteen

The way to explain this is by saying there is a chance in 32 to have any order "wanted" or "not wanted".

There is a chance in 32 to have

H,T, H, H, T
or
T H TT H
or
HHHHH
or
TTTTT
or
THTHT
etc....

The one socal points to is just one of the 32 available.


Having said I can easily entertain the thought that draws can be rigged. It would not surprise me if the AE were to throw a Isner v Mahut match in the first round to entertain the crowds. Let's not forget that for us it's sport but for the organisers it's a business....and we are constantly reminded of it despite trying to brush it aside.

socal1976 wrote:Emancipator please tell me what facilities are available to investigate the draw process? Should I hack their computers or hire private investigators to tap their phones, put them under surveillance and sift through their garbage?.

Thankyou for just making my point. As you have no additional information and no way of getting any, it renders your speculation pointless and unfair to the organisers.

Maybe I should speculate about Rafa taking peds?

well said Wooffie, i'm surprised that others haven't understood these points.

Well, this has descended into a bit of a ridiculous discussion!

Is it a bit odd that Federer and Djoko keep getting drawn together? Yes.

Are the first 2 rounds massively unfair towards Djokovic? Not really. If he doesn't win both relatively easily i'll eat my foot.

Is Nadal better off for drawing Murray in the semis, assuming they both get there? No. Murray is the only member of the top 4 to have beaten Nadal in a slam in the last 3 years (twice). I doubt he's celebrating!

Basically, it sounds like Murray is being talked about as a virtual walkover in the semis and Federer an impossible task!

I am not sure where Socal was when for two years and a half the number 2 Rafa and number 3 Nalbandian never had the opportunity to meet in the semi while some of us knew that Rafa would be troubled by Nalbandian as it proved to be correct when they met.

Those things happen. As rare as they are...if you multiply the chance of weird things to happen....those weird things actually happen and logic will tell you that it would be even weider if no weird event never happened.

Wooffie, I respect your opinion and enjoy interracting. But frankly, I like to believe in the integrity of the sport. But in so many different avenues and in so many different areas we have been let down by players and organizations doing whatever it takes to maximize their profits. I honestly believe that Novak is not getting a fair shake with the draws, and a 1/32 long shot coming in and constantly having Fed put in his half preserving the Fedal final is very worrying. It is just too convenient for the financial interests of those that control the process. Maybe there needs to be more independence and transparency in the process because this has honestly shaken my belief in the integrity of the process. Unfortunately, what I have learned is that when there is no oversight, and money is involved those that stand to benefit take advantage of the situation. I don't want to think what I think, but I do, and its not in an attempt to diminish any particular person, I don't think Rafa or Roger are tampering with the draw. The numbers though are worrying quite frankly.

Danny

Only point I would disagree with is regarding the semi finals, given that this is at Wimbledon (would defend your argument if it was a HC tournament, as I think there's little to choose there between the top 4).

You can be drawn against:
Player X - 6 time winner of the tournament plus a losing finalist once. Has the longest winning streak on the surface and generally recognised as one of the greatest players ever.

or

Player Y - Career best at this tournament is two semi-finals. Is a world class player but has not (yet?) taken a Grand Slam title.

Which one would you pick?

As others have pointed out though, this is a grand slam event, you should have to beat some good players to win it. If Djokovic is in as good form as earlier in the year, I don't see his draw as being any worse than anyone elses.

I agree Tenez, longshots do sometimes come in, who would have predicted Buster Douglas knocking out mike tyson, and he did. But when there is no oversight or transparency of the process. And you have a statistical oddity that takes place that benefits the pocketbooks of those that control the process, then I think there is a rational basis to be suspicious. I admit I don't have the smoking gun, there is no way for me to possess that smoking gun. But, this trend is deeply troubling for the reasons I mentioned above. A longshot coming in that benefits the financial interests of those in control, it could happen, but it starts to raise some red flags. And lets consider this my raising of the red flag. If it keeps happening I bet you a lot of other people will start talking about it.

Also I never claimed Murray is a walkover, but from Novak's prespective would you rather play 6 time wimby champion Roger Federer or Andy murray both can beat him. But what guy is certainly more dangerous.

From Nadal's point of view would you rather play Federer who you haven't lost to in a slam for the last last 4 years.... Or the only member of the top 4 to have beaten you in slam in the last 3 years (twice)?

I would argue that not only has Djoko got his least favoured semi final draw, but so has Rafa !

Well Danny, I think Andy would prefer to be in Novak's half as opposed to Nadal's as well. But Roger, I think likes the draw just the way it is. And certainly this is a very convenient draw for the tv broadcasters as well.

Danny come to think of it I don't think Rafa wants Fed in the semi either and would prefer murray. We are still talking about Roger federer on grass and Roger has beaten him at this event twice and lost to him once, barely.

Danny
Rafa didn't have too many problems seeing off Andy in their last 2 SF encounters in slams - here last year and RG this. OK, both were competetive matches and could have turned with a few points going the other way, but Rafa was never really in big trouble.

By comparison, the previous Nadal v Federer matches on grass have been epics, and a SF encounter would really eat into either's reserves for the final afterwards.

Let's be honest, both Nadal and Djoko would have preferred Murray in their half. Andy would almost certainly have preferred Djokovic (and that the draw didn't pan out this way suggests to me the Wimbledon committee were entirely honest and scrupulous, because if they were going to manipulate for anyone it would have been to favour Murray).

the draw is fair

socal, there is no question whatsoever that from a worldwide passive tennis watching point of view, meaning those that will tune in just to watch the Wimbledon Men's final, simply because its ... The Wimbledon Men's final ... will feel mostly comfy cosy to be watching Nadal/Federer because that match up has become one of the biggest and most talked about draws in men's tennis. Equally, from a TV broadcaster's point of view, I am sure they will look for that match because it sells itself and guarantees the most viewers. But I do not for one minute think there is any sort of conspiracy out there to make it happen. And I feel it ludicrous to suggest so.

In May of this year, the draw for the Men's singles at the French Open was made by Ana Ivanovic. She put her hand into the French Open trophy and pulled out discs to make the draw. Why didn't she do something about it to help her pal and fellow Serb, Novak, avoid Federer? Or is she part of the conspiracy too??

Dummy, why would they manipulate it in favor of murray. You must remember that wimbeldon is a global event that gets its money from tv broadcasters in a 100 countries. In every country other than the UK they would prefer a federer and Nadal final. Britain represents a tiny percentage of their revenues. The fans would attend the final regardless, maybe with murray they would be more amped up, but that doesn't provide the ratings boom of a Fedal final in 99 out of 100 of their markets.

I think from Andy's point of view it would be quite close in terms of whether he'd prefer Rafa or Djoko. But yeah, maybe he'd just have preferred Djoko as its grass.

I honestly think Rafa thinks he can take down the Federer backhand on any surface now, something which he can't do with Murray. He'd pick Murray on clay, but i'm not sure on any other surface.

Regardless of slams won, if i was Rafa I'd rather beat the guy who i seem to always beat in the majors rather than the only guy to have beaten me twice in majors in the last 3 years....

But then again, its grass i guess..... Oh I don't know!

Either way, I actually fancy Murray to take down Nadal in the semis this year (if he can get there... obviously).

Oh, and Murray will always lose to Rafa on clay in my opinion.... But in terms of last years semi, that may be the closest straight sets match i've ever seen. I remember a stat midway through the third set (which was level) saying Murray was ahead on points, but was 2 sets down!! It was 3-0, but incredibly close.

Danny

On past form, there is barely a fag paper between Nadal and Federer on gras if both play to their level. By comparison, Murray was a bit further away from Rafa in last year's SF (and yes, I watched the match and Andy could easily have taken at least one of the sets, and there was not much between them, but it was still straight sets).

Oh, and I agree with your assessment that Rafa perhaps isn't in quite such good form this year - with the exception of the RG final, he seems to have been less effective at winning the big points and especially at closing out sets and matches (he still manages, but he seems to be making life harder for himself than in the past by making UEs or double faults when looking to finish off sets). I'd give Andy a better chance this year than last of getting past him, especially if Rafa's draw pans out as being as hard as it looks in theory.

sorry but this is rubbish. Admittedly Murray's draw for the first two rounds was marginally easier than Djokovic's (though Gimeno-Traver played far far better than Chardy), but after that Murray has a MUCH tougher draw than Djokovic.

Not sure there is such a thing as an easy draw. Admittedly it is hard to look outside the top 4 for an outright winner but there are plenty of dangerous floaters in all sections just waiting to pounce.

there is no garbage in the draw