Do you think draws are ever rigged? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Do you think draws are ever rigged?

Pages : [1] 2 3

jonathancrane
05-22-2009, 11:25 AM
Djokovic on Fed / Nadal's half:

2008
AO - Fed
FO - Nadal
W - Fed
US- Fed

2009
AO - Fed
FO - Fed



Discuss

Black Adam
05-22-2009, 11:28 AM
Nadal has faced too many rigged draw over the years, this is simple payback time.

Black Adam
05-22-2009, 11:30 AM
Also if Nadal was still number 2, it would mean that the last 4 draws would have Djokovic in his half. Rafa overcame it, so move on. See you next tuesday.

l_mac
05-22-2009, 11:38 AM
Djokovic on Fed / Nadal's half:

2008
AO - Fed
FO - Nadal
W - Fed
US- Fed

2009
AO - Fed
FO - Fed



Discuss

2008
AO Seed 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4
FO Seed 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3
W Seed 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4
US Seed 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3

2009
AO Seed 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3
FO Seed 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4

:shrug:

«Ivan»
05-22-2009, 11:47 AM
rafa got hell,what do you want from him?nole too 'n roger not to play to the finals?no,he'd cry like a pus*y.

oz_boz
05-22-2009, 11:48 AM
Djokovic on Fed / Nadal's half:

2008
AO - Fed
FO - Nadal
W - Fed
US- Fed

2009
AO - Fed
FO - Fed



Discuss

Nole has been ranked either 3 or 4 and Rafa/Fed 1&2 during this time. Regarding that, I get the chance for exactly 1 Nole vs Fed out of 6 opportunities to 6/64=9,4%. Far from a significant indication that the draws are rigged.

Fed Express
05-22-2009, 12:00 PM
Nadal has faced too many rigged draw over the years, this is simple payback time.

I hope you mean rigged draws as in: way to easy to make it to the final...

Nadal has been given some EASY draws in the last few years.

HeretiC
05-22-2009, 12:36 PM
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r22/LetMeIn_2007/ConspiracyTheory.jpg

hcfoo
05-22-2009, 02:46 PM
I hope you mean rigged draws as in: way to easy to make it to the final...

Nadal has been given some EASY draws in the last few years.

Define easy... with concrete evidence... or else your statement is insignificant.

finishingmove
05-22-2009, 03:00 PM
well done nole, strategically losing your rank to the haggis has paid off :yeah:

mr_burns
05-22-2009, 03:04 PM
Therefore Rafa has the harder QF


However, rigged or not...I prefer a Nadal djokovic SF, but maybe next time

philosophicalarf
05-22-2009, 03:27 PM
Define easy... with concrete evidence... or else your statement is insignificant.

Part easy draws, part luck in the real opponents are off form/lose early. Check out his hard court route to the semis last year....

US Open 2008: Phau, DeHeart, Troicki, Querrey, Fish
Aus Open 2008: Troicki, Serra, Simon (before he was any good), PHM, Nieminen

Johnny Groove
05-22-2009, 03:37 PM
Check where Djokovic was in most TMS draws since 2007.

Manila ESQ
05-22-2009, 04:05 PM
Djokovic on Fed / Nadal's half:

2008
AO - Fed
FO - Nadal
W - Fed
US- Fed

2009
AO - Fed
FO - Fed



Discuss


But in the 2008 US Open, for example, the bigger threat at that time was Murray compared to Novak. Murray was in Nadal's half. It would have been easier for Nadal to get Novak at that time.

I think you should also include the 2007 slams when Nadal was ranked No. 2.

SaFed2005
05-22-2009, 05:23 PM
But in the 2008 US Open, for example, the bigger threat at that time was Murray compared to Novak. Murray was in Nadal's half. It would have been easier for Nadal to get Novak at that time.

I think you should also include the 2007 slams when Nadal was ranked No. 2.

Federer pretty much dominated Murray in the final whereas Djokovic was much tougher in the semis. So I am not sure how Murray was a bigger threat. I know he was great all summer but he has yet to prove himself in grandslams unlike Djokovic who won the AO. And please I don't want to hear the excuse that Murray was exhausted in the final and so on. When you lose, you lose and that's all there is to it.

As for your second point there is really no point in including the draws prior to 2008 because before 08, Murray and Djokovic were not the same players they are today. They were not really much of a threat before 2008.

Anyways, I don't think the draws are rigged. Sometimes you get a little lucky with your draw, other times you don't. If you are good enough you will win. You can never really count luck out. It's a part of everything. You always need a little bit of luck in order to be successful at anything really.

rocketassist
05-22-2009, 05:33 PM
It would only not be rigged against Nadal if they decided to put Djokovic AND Murray in Fed's half and put an LL in the 3/4 position on Rafito's side.

sawan66278
05-22-2009, 05:34 PM
I'm starting to believe the draws are rigged. My brother and I joked about how, given the groundswell of support for Federer to win RG, that we could already predict the draw:

Federer would get Blake and Roddick
Rafa would get Verdasco and Ferrer

Novak in Rafa's sections would have been too obvious.

The powers that be want Federer to win RG...I pray it doesn't happen (at least under these circumstances).

LinkMage
05-22-2009, 05:35 PM
Nadull always gets cakewalk draws at Australia, Wimbledon and the US Open.

Commander Data
05-22-2009, 05:41 PM
I'm starting to believe the draws are rigged. My brother and I joked about how, given the groundswell of support for Federer to win RG, that we could already predict the draw:

Federer would get Blake and Roddick
Rafa would get Verdasco and Ferrer

Novak in Rafa's sections would have been too obvious.

The powers that be want Federer to win RG...I pray it doesn't happen (at least under these circumstances).

You and your brother both suffer from paranoia, hence likely a genetic defect.

BTW: Roddick is a thougher matchup then Ferrer. Ferrer is out of form.

sawan66278
05-22-2009, 05:45 PM
Nadull always gets cakewalk draws at Australia, Wimbledon and the US Open.

Um...right the AO was a breeze...and so were the last two Wimbledons...:rolleyes: And you had to love the way Rafa was treated at last year's U.S. Open (and Andy too).

jonathancrane
05-22-2009, 05:45 PM
I'm starting to believe the draws are rigged. My brother and I joked about how, given the groundswell of support for Federer to win RG, that we could already predict the draw:

Federer would get Blake and Roddick
Rafa would get Verdasco and Ferrer

Novak in Rafa's sections would have been too obvious.

The powers that be want Federer to win RG...I pray it doesn't happen (at least under these circumstances).

If Djoko is in Fed's half -> rigged
If Djoko is in Nadal's half -> rigged

Vamos

Sunset of Age
05-22-2009, 05:46 PM
If Djoko is in Fed's half -> rigged
If Djoko is in Nadal's half -> rigged

Vamos

:lol: - that's about the Long and Short of it. :worship:

sawan66278
05-22-2009, 05:51 PM
You and your brother both suffer from paranoia, hence likely a genetic defect.

BTW: Roddick is a thougher matchup then Ferrer. Ferrer is out of form.

Let's see, exactly how many clay court matches has Roddick played this year? Forget finals...Ferrer was in the finals of Barcelona. And gave Rafa a tough match in the second set. Andy? More concerned about his wedding plans this clay season.

sawan66278
05-22-2009, 05:55 PM
If Djoko is in Fed's half -> rigged
If Djoko is in Nadal's half -> rigged

Vamos

Not really. You have to look at the road to get there. Novak has a tough draw too...and whenever you get Roddick and Blake...and avoid ANY real clay court players, you have to ask whether the draw is rigged. I would be saying the same thing if Rafa were in Federer's section.

Roddickominator
05-22-2009, 05:57 PM
Not really. You have to look at the road to get there. Novak has a tough draw too...and whenever you get Roddick and Blake...and avoid ANY real clay court players, you have to ask whether the draw is rigged. I would be saying the same thing if Rafa were in Federer's section.

There aren't any good clay courters left. Rafa, Fed, and Novak would all whoop guys like Juan Monaco, Almugro, and David Ferrer right now. The draw is easy for all of them if they play decently.

The draw IS rigged, however, for Roddick. They're making him play on clay in ALL of his matches this tournament....not fair at all.

rocketassist
05-22-2009, 05:59 PM
The law is that out of Djokovic and Murray whoever is in better form must be put on Fed's half or else it's rigged.

Laws of MTF that one.

Commander Data
05-22-2009, 06:05 PM
Let's see, exactly how many clay court matches has Roddick played this year? Forget finals...Ferrer was in the finals of Barcelona. And gave Rafa a tough match in the second set. Andy? More concerned about his wedding plans this clay season.

let me think about it more:


There are certainly many interested parties (players, sponsors, TV-channels etc.) in tennis (especially Slams), but i'm sure these all have no money and are virtually uninterested in the draw and outcomes of the matches anyway. Therefore I'm sure the ATP has chosen a completly obscure und corrupt procedure the determine the draws. One, which could as well be rigged. that may also be the reasons why there are so many lawsuits concerning rigged draws pending and why pro Tennis is generally viewed as a highly corrupt affair, where basically your connections to the guy that rigges the draws decide if you ever reach the top ten.

Yeah, I think that is the ugly reality. Only one guy really has fun these days, the one that gets to do the rigged draws while collecting all those bribes.


or


Maybe, some Amercians have a tendency to a paranoid world view and you are one of those Americans?

MacTheKnife
05-22-2009, 06:32 PM
I need to start a thread, When Was The Last - "NOT RIGGED DRAW"

Sunset of Age
05-22-2009, 07:12 PM
I need to start a thread, When Was The Last - "NOT RIGGED DRAW"

Somewhere in 1935 or so I think. :o

Action Jackson
05-22-2009, 07:43 PM
http://www.exchange3d.com/cubecart/images/uploads/aff252/new95//Monster_rigged_0.jpg

scarecrows
05-22-2009, 07:56 PM
2008
AO Seed 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4
FO Seed 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3
W Seed 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4
US Seed 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3

2009
AO Seed 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3
FO Seed 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4

:shrug:

your post makes no sense

he's talking about rigged draws, meaning putting a player X in the way of player Y. Your posts just shows the randomness of the draw

fast_clay
05-22-2009, 07:59 PM
haggis covers 6 of the 5 important food groups...

madmax
05-22-2009, 08:05 PM
rigged draws...the biggest bull**** which I heard on these boards - all draws are random and chanses for getting 3rd or 4th seed in your half are 50/50...enough of this crap already

superslam77
05-22-2009, 08:11 PM
http://www.exchange3d.com/cubecart/images/uploads/aff252/new95//Monster_rigged_0.jpg

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: a clay monster turd-Nadullturd

:haha: :haha: :haha:

pica_pica
05-22-2009, 08:17 PM
If Djoko is in Fed's half -> rigged
If Djoko is in Nadal's half -> rigged

Vamos
A good summary to this thread. Now we can close it.

luie
05-23-2009, 03:12 AM
It obvious the powers that be wants only grinders to hold up GS trophys from now on ,that why they constantly put fakervic against federer while leaving nadull to roam free.

«Ivan»
05-23-2009, 05:15 PM
It obvious the powers that be wants only grinders to hold up GS trophys from now on ,that why they constantly put fakervic against federer while leaving nadull to roam free.

fixed.:secret: on purpose

mark73
05-23-2009, 05:37 PM
Take a quarter and flip it six times. Would you claim the quarter is rigged if it comes up heads five times? Of course not. Flip the quarter 1000 times and it will come up heads about 500. Djokobic(representing heads) came up 5 out of 6 times on federers side because its a small sample. If this situation were to occur 1000 times you can bet that djokovic would turn up( like the quarter) in federers draw about 500 times.

mark73
05-23-2009, 05:41 PM
Some Nadal fans are complaining that nadals draw is too hard but federer has too play djokovic in the semis!! Some Federer fans are complaining nadals draw is too easy but naqda has too face verdasco in the quarters. Funny how both sides that believe in rigged draws take different facts from the same draw too support there belief.

marcRD
05-23-2009, 09:38 PM
Take a quarter and flip it six times. Would you claim the quarter is rigged if it comes up heads five times? Of course not. Flip the quarter 1000 times and it will come up heads about 500. Djokobic(representing heads) came up 5 out of 6 times on federers side because its a small sample. If this situation were to occur 1000 times you can bet that djokovic would turn up( like the quarter) in federers draw about 500 times.

Stop right there or you will get banned from this site. Dont you know logic is not allowed here?

Some heads could explode reading this.

fast_clay
05-23-2009, 09:45 PM
your post makes no sense

he's talking about rigged draws, meaning putting a player X in the way of player Y. Your posts just shows the randomness of the draw

the red print in your sig is a superior piece of work, both informing the masses and being open and accepting of the rather large noob element here at mtf...

thread closed game over...

MrChopin
05-24-2009, 04:09 AM
Take a quarter and flip it six times. Would you claim the quarter is rigged if it comes up heads five times? Of course not. Flip the quarter 1000 times and it will come up heads about 500. Djokobic(representing heads) came up 5 out of 6 times on federers side because its a small sample. If this situation were to occur 1000 times you can bet that djokovic would turn up( like the quarter) in federers draw about 500 times.

Those are redundant statistics given that this is MTF, otherwise known as Vulcan. Given 1 or 10,000 tournament draws, the only 100% certain truth is that, for every draw, members from every tard base will simultaneously conclude that the draw has been fixed.

n8
06-17-2011, 04:49 AM
In my opinion they are completely random as we are told they are.

Strange things like Hewitt getting tough draws a lot of the time are due to variance. Some players will be luckier than average over time and some players will be unlucky. Of course we focus on the extremes, but some extremes are bound to happen with the amount of draws and players there are.

Same goes for the same players ending up in the same section of draws a lot. If we just focus on this then it seems unusual but when you consider many draws on the whole, you'll see that it's not strange to have some draw combinations repeated regularly.

Your thoughts? It's a public poll by the way.

bleu_cheese
06-17-2011, 05:03 AM
Nope, totally random. I just don't see what the point would be, and it would take some good acting to rig some of the draw ceremonies,

abraxas21
06-17-2011, 05:07 AM
some times

i dont think they rig the entire draw but simply place a selected number of players in selected positions. for example, i'd be extremely surprised if federer ends up in nadals half in tomorrow's draw. it's just not good for business if that were to happen. then again, it might happen and i could end up looking like an idiot but i highly doubt it.

Pirata.
06-17-2011, 05:17 AM
Hewitt's RG draws were extremely rigged for a while. Three or four straight third round meetings with Rafa :o

Topspindoctor
06-17-2011, 05:18 AM
Hewitt's RG draws were extremely rigged for a while. Three or four straight third round meetings with Rafa :o

And all on clay :superlol:

I also find it very suspicious how Mugray is always in Nadal's semi.

General Suburbia
06-17-2011, 05:57 AM
I'm sure we can do some kind of statistical analysis on these so-called "suspicious" draws and come to a non-idiotic conclusion. Too bad I don't have SPSS.

Clydey
06-17-2011, 06:25 AM
Nope. Pure paranoia.

Topspin Forehand
06-17-2011, 06:36 AM
Definitely. Fed gets draws catered to him all the time.

eclecticist
06-17-2011, 06:38 AM
If you flip a coin 5 times and get 5 heads in a row, is the coin rigged? It's just one rare occurrence out of a large sample space. people read more meaning into things than there actually is

n8
06-17-2011, 06:47 AM
If you flip a coin 5 times and get 5 heads in a row, is the coin rigged? It's just one rare occurrence out of a large sample space. people read more meaning into things than there actually is

Exactly. To further your example, if you flip a coin 200 times and at one stage heads comes up 5 times in a row, is the coin rigged?

People obviously focus on the outliers (understandably). A pattern in the draws in just like focusing on that sequence of five heads, when overall it's not an abnormality.

MaxPower
06-17-2011, 07:25 AM
Yeah people generally have little understanding of probability. I'm sometimes a bit wtf when a player happens to be drawn against another in the same tournament like 4 times in a row, but the way the seeding works and the fact that some players have stayed in the top10 for many years now actually makes it very likely that there would be a few of those situations. It would equally strange if there wasn't.

Basically the seeding/ranking system is what makes it seem more rigged than it is. The tournaments aren't that big really and if some people have are in the same seeding group like 1-2, 3-4, 5-8 etc for years then sure it will seem like there are patterns.

In fact I think many people in reality want a draw that is less random. Like if seed 3 was drawn into seed 1's half next time he should be drawn into seed 2's half etc for "fairness". Thing is that randomness doesn't have and shouldn't have any memory, doesn't work that way. Every draw is a new one and past draws can't affect the new draw even if some ppl would like that!

careergrandslam
06-17-2011, 07:58 AM
i believe they are rigged.

how did nadal get such a horrible draw in the french open this year?
rigged!

im expecting another rigged draw at wimbledon to make sure rafa fails.
bastards!

Foxy
06-17-2011, 08:24 AM
Of course they are rigged. It is plain stupid to say otherwise. Just see how many times the same very players play each other. Also see how many times 2 of the top players are in the same SF bracket. It is ridiculous.

MIMIC
06-17-2011, 08:44 AM
Considering the fact that the seeding procedure at Wimbledon can be done on a subjective level, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the draws were predetermined rather than completely random. There are way too many peculiar outcomes.

I mean, if I flip a coin 20 times, odds are that I'm going to get at least 1 heads and 1 tails. With these draws, we're supposed to accept that the occurrence of 20 straight heads is perfectly normal.

If they rigged Wimbledon this year (just for fun), I expect Fed, Djoker, Hewitt, Wawrinka, del Potro, Raonic, and Troicki on one half and Murray, Nadal, Verdasco, Lopez, Granollers, Robredo (etc. :p), Monfils, Berdych, and Gasquet on the other.

EDIT: If I'm completely honest, no....I don't think tournaments actively RIG draws or go out of their way to pair certain players with one another. It always LOOKS suspicious but deep down, I never think that there was any collusion. It's still irritating, nonetheless :rolleyes:

But if Federer and Nadal can draw each other in a slam but NEVER do, then I will probably change my mind.

Time Violation
06-17-2011, 09:04 AM
Of course they are rigged. It is plain stupid to say otherwise. Just see how many times the same very players play each other. Also see how many times 2 of the top players are in the same SF bracket. It is ridiculous.

:haha:

xdrewitdajx
06-17-2011, 09:12 AM
no, they are not rigged. People who think they're rigged either don't understand certain basic statistical concepts, the process of how draws are created, and/or are abandoning all objectivity, and/or are delusional/paranoid.

I'm sure in smaller tournaments it has happened that certain things have been slightly manipulated, to ensure a more competitive or entertaining tournament. I don't think it happens frequently but it'd be naive to think it never has or does. But for the bigger tournaments, absolutely not

IMO

elessar
06-17-2011, 09:34 AM
Hewitt's RG draws were extremely rigged for a while. Three or four straight third round meetings with Rafa :o

And all on clay :superlol:

Shockingly.


Admittedly Dubai 2008 1st rounds made me a tad suspicious once:

(1)Federer vs Murray

(WC) Al Baloushi (UAE) vs (Q) Ledovskikh

ZaZoo)
06-17-2011, 09:55 AM
Of course, I can bet my grandma on Fed not being in Rafitos half of the draw. :o

Renaud
06-17-2011, 10:19 AM
Would have said never rigged, but this Mahut - Isner made me change my mind :angel:

MIMIC
06-17-2011, 10:19 AM
Isner vs. Mahut @ Wimbledon again

Uhhhhh......

navy75
06-17-2011, 10:26 AM
Lol...I swear that when I saw this thread before the draw that I thought to myself that I would pit Isner vs Mahut again if I were going to rig the draw, as well as put Nadal and Fed on opposite halves. There's a less than .5% chance that both could occur, but of course that doesn't mean that these draws are rigged for certain.

n8
06-17-2011, 10:28 AM
OMG that draw gives the affirmative side so much ammunition. I'm sticking to my guns but I admit that Isner-Mahut is freaky!

Beforehand
06-17-2011, 10:31 AM
I can't see any useful reason to want Isner/Mahut to happen again. I guess just for story, certainly not for it to take tha tlong again.

MIMIC
06-17-2011, 10:32 AM
I want to change my answer. This is so fucking ridiculous.

How in the FUCK can that happen again?

Kat_YYZ
06-17-2011, 10:32 AM
I can't see any useful reason to want Isner/Mahut to happen again. I guess just for story, certainly not for it to take tha tlong again.

the match will probably be horribly anti-climactic and muggy. :o

Puschkin
06-17-2011, 10:34 AM
Would have said never rigged, but this Mahut - Isner made me change my mind :angel:
me too.

the match will probably be horribly anti-climactic and muggy. :o
My thoughts exactly.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 10:53 AM
federer/djokovic, nadal/murray
nadal/sweeting
tsonga/dolgopolov
isner/mahut

get out of here.

Beforehand
06-17-2011, 11:08 AM
the match will probably be horribly anti-climactic and muggy. :o

In all fairness, the first meeting only lasted so long due to an abundance of mugginess.

Certinfy
06-17-2011, 11:09 AM
Rigged, always have been probably.

Taz Warrior
06-17-2011, 11:13 AM
No I don’t think draws are rigged – it seems that a lot of people (on MTF) don’t actually understand probability and the concept of random draws. It seems that a lot people think that just because Federer and Djokovic were in the same half at RG then a random draw can only mean that they’re not in the same half at Wimbledon.

Nole fan
06-17-2011, 11:18 AM
No I don’t think draws are rigged – it seems that a lot of people (on MTF) don’t actually understand probability and the concept of random draws. It seems that a lot people think that just because Federer and Djokovic were in the same half at RG then a random draw can only mean that they’re not in the same half at Wimbledon.

Oh I understand too well probability and the concept of random draws, but Djokovic and Federer are always in the same half every f*cking time! It's not just one slam, but all slams since 2007 except RG where Nole landed in Rafa's side. Highly improbable.

philosophicalarf
06-17-2011, 11:19 AM
Fed-Djoko, Murray-Nadal ....................again.

tennisgolfguru
06-17-2011, 11:22 AM
And all on clay :superlol:

I also find it very suspicious how Mugray is always in Nadal's semi.

They are NOT random and it's silly to believe so - go do the math - go look at the number of times Murray and Nadal are on the same side of the draw in a Slam event and then do the math and you will learn that the odds of Murray and Nadal being randomly drawn in the same half is less than 0.1% chance - if you don't believe me then do the math for yourself.

BK123
06-17-2011, 11:23 AM
Rigged like a muthafucka.

Yes, Federer v Nadal is the title match the ATP/ITF love so that's why it's always made that way. But, even ignoring that, fucking Isner V Mahut, again? When the fuck has that ever happened(same two in the same tournament with 1/127 x 1/127 chance)?

RIGGED RIGGED RIGGED

/end trolling

navy75
06-17-2011, 11:24 AM
No I don’t think draws are rigged – it seems that a lot of people (on MTF) don’t actually understand probability and the concept of random draws. It seems that a lot people think that just because Federer and Djokovic were in the same half at RG then a random draw can only mean that they’re not in the same half at Wimbledon.

I love statistics and you're hitting on the typical gambler's fallacy: That if a ball has landed on red 20 straight times in roulette, then the ball must be "due" to land on black (when in actuality the past is irrelevant and the odds remain split between the two options, barring green).

That said, I disagree that draws are never rigged. I have personally been made privy to draw rigging on the challenger circuit (and we won't even get into USTA juniors), and believe that it has taken place time and again on the ATP main circuit as well. This includes giving local WCs favourable draws, creating more compelling matchups, favouring likable/better crowd drawing players, etc.

n8
06-17-2011, 11:31 AM
I love statistics and you're hitting on the typical gambler's fallacy: That if a ball has landed on red 20 straight times in roulette, then the ball must be "due" to land on black (when in actuality the past is irrelevant and the odds remain split between the two options, barring green).

That said, I disagree that draws are never rigged. I have personally been made privy to draw rigging on the challenger circuit (and we won't even get into USTA juniors), and believe that it has taken place time and again on the ATP main circuit as well. This includes giving local WCs favourable draws, creating more compelling matchups, favouring likable/better crowd drawing players, etc.

Wow. Interesting. That's almost as bad as match fixing in my opinion.

alter ego
06-17-2011, 11:32 AM
no, they are not rigged. People who think they're rigged either don't understand certain basic statistical concepts, the process of how draws are created, and/or are abandoning all objectivity, and/or are delusional/paranoid.


IMO

The only delusional peopele, IMHO, are those who believe that a bilione dolar business like tennis is left opened to randomness.

BORO77
06-17-2011, 11:33 AM
A lot of sports happenings are fixed and there is no exception in making a draw for every tournament.
Top players ask for easier draws when coming to micky mouse tournaments. Local players get an advantage also if possible. The more popular players get a better draw so they stick around for a few rounds because noone wants empty stands..

I cant stop laughing when i read the comments here. Strange how many people believe that everything is random:eek::eek:probably these guys also think that Qatar didnt pay for the WC, that the topplayers dont get $$$ for showing up at tournaments and that the Americans really were on the moon:)

Kat_YYZ
06-17-2011, 11:36 AM
Rigged like a muthafucka.

Yes, Federer v Nadal is the title match the ATP/ITF love so that's why it's always made that way. But, even ignoring that, fucking Isner V Mahut, again? When the fuck has that ever happened(same two in the same tournament with 1/127 x 1/127 chance)?

RIGGED RIGGED RIGGED

/end trolling

interesting how StatRacket made this thread before the draw... and then a weird thing like Isner/Mahut happened :eek:
What are the odds of that? It's like he knew.... :aplot:

WhiteShadow
06-17-2011, 11:55 AM
A quick recap of each of the current's top4 halfs on the last 3 years Slams gives the following:

2011
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2010:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2009:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko

In 11 Slams, Fed and Djoko have been on the same half 10 times! In 10 slams (Nadal has not played Wimbledon in 2009), Rafa and Murray were in the same halfs 9 times! Note that this happened even when there were differences in who were the 1-2 and the 3-4.

For example, in 2009 on US Open, Murray as #2, but he still got Nadal as #3 in his half. In AO 2010 and 2011, Murray as #5, and always ended up on Nadal's quarter. And now, in Wimbledon 2011, Djoko is #2, but still gets Fed as #3.

For the record, I do not believe Slams's draws are rigged, but that this is statistically interesting and not probable... it is!

n8
06-17-2011, 12:00 PM
^
Nice post. You should post more.

It seems the only way for Fed/Djokovic to avoid each other is if they can both become top 2, or drop to 3 and 4.

Mjau!
06-17-2011, 12:03 PM
I have no reason to believe tennis authorities are anything but disingenuous and corrupt.

Do you think drug(assi) tests are ever covered up? :tape: And that's probably more challenging than rigging a draw.

Kat_YYZ
06-17-2011, 12:24 PM
Djokovic and Troicki face each other early quite often:

2010 Cincinnati: Rd 2
2010 US Open: Rd 1
2011 Aussie Open: Rd 3
2011 Indian Wells: R16
2011 Miami: R16

and now 2011 Wimbledon: possible rd 3

They were also in the same half (can meet in semis): 2010 Basel (actually did meet); 2011 Dubai, Madrid and Rome.

my dad calls this an anti-Serbian conspiracy :p

stebs
06-17-2011, 12:24 PM
I don't believe the slam draws are rigged but the fact that Djokovic and Federer have been in the same half 10 slams out of 11 is a mind boggling coincidence. It's also irritating as a tennis fan, would be nice to see variety.

romismak
06-17-2011, 12:29 PM
Really don´t know what to think, that Djoko-FED and NAD-MUR together in draws 90% of the time is really weird, if it is clear the draw than it is hell of a coincidence. Also Troicki in Djoker´s part of the draw all the time, Wawrinka in Fed.. i don´t know really. Also Isner-Mahut rematch the chance was i don´t know 1:1000? both were unseeded so could end in everywhere.

philosophicalarf
06-17-2011, 12:31 PM
10+ of 11 chance is about 1 in 170.

Not really surprising that the one exception it was at Roland Garros, where Murray is much less of a threat.

zlaja777
06-17-2011, 12:36 PM
Djoko/Fed last 12/13 times (11/11 at non-clay slams since 2008). I'm sorry but that's rigged my man.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 12:38 PM
10+ of 11 chance is about 1 in 170.

Not really surprising that the one exception it was at Roland Garros, where Murray is much less of a threat.

djokovic is much more of a thrat in GS to federer than murray

philosophicalarf
06-17-2011, 12:39 PM
Djoko/Fed last 12/13 times (11/11 at non-clay slams since 2008). I'm sorry but that's rigged my man.

Oh, ok that's a lot worse. 12+ of 13 = 0.18% (aka 1 in 585)

Arakasi
06-17-2011, 12:44 PM
2011:
WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3
2010:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4
2009:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: X/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

Hopefully this should shut people up. I've used the seedings in each tournament. This doesn't prove the draw isn't rigged but it proves there is no statistical basis for suggesting so. 4 of #1/#3 and 8 of #1/#4. In other words, very probable.

zlaja777
06-17-2011, 12:51 PM
2011:
WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3
2010:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4
2009:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: X/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

Hopefully this should shut people up. I've used the seedings in each tournament. This doesn't prove the draw isn't rigged but it proves there is no statistical basis for suggesting so. 4 of #1/#3 and 8 of #1/#4. In other words, very probable.

Seedings doesn't matter, people do.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 12:52 PM
2011:
WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3
2010:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4
2009:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: X/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3

Hopefully this should shut people up. I've used the seedings in each tournament. This doesn't prove the draw isn't rigged but it proves there is no statistical basis for suggesting so. 4 of #1/#3 and 8 of #1/#4. In other words, very probable.

except the riggers don't care about the rank, they care about the people who have these ranks... your method is useless to determine if this is rigged or not.

Arakasi
06-17-2011, 12:58 PM
Seedings doesn't matter, people do.

except the riggers don't care about the rank, they care about the people who have these ranks... your method is useless to determine if this is rigged or not.

Statistics have to be based on the seedings. You can't just say Federer and Djokovic have been in the same half x times which is a 1/12312541352436243 chance. That is meaningless because the seeds change.

Anyway like I said what I posted doesn't prove the draw isn't rigged. What it proves is that there is no statistical reason to suggest it is.

For all we know Hewitt and Rochus (hypothetically) have been in the same half of a draw for 20 straight slams but no one notices and so there aren't any screams of conspiracy.

emotion
06-17-2011, 01:00 PM
Good time to make this thread :lol:
Most suspicious draw I've ever seen

Ben.
06-17-2011, 01:01 PM
I can understand why they would rig it now that Fed is #3, because they want the Fedal spectacle to be the final. Why would they have rigged it that way before though?

romismak
06-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Statistics have to be based on the seedings. You can't just say Federer and Djokovic have been in the same half x times which is a 1/12312541352436243 chance. That is meaningless because the seeds change.

Anyway like I said what I posted doesn't prove the draw isn't rigged. What it proves is that there is no statistical reason to suggest it is.

For all we know Hewitt and Rochus (hypothetically) have been in the same half of a draw for 20 straight slams but no one notices and so there aren't any screams of conspiracy.

About that Hewitt-Rochus, maybe there are other players which were in the same half million times in row last x years, but that is more acceptable, because if someone is unseeded and so on it just more common the can be there and there, i think no one cares about them - i mean the people who made draws, it is totally different story if top guys are in the same all the time.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Statistics have to be based on the seedings. You can't just say Federer and Djokovic have been in the same half x times which is a 1/12312541352436243 chance. That is meaningless because the seeds change.

Anyway like I said what I posted doesn't prove the draw isn't rigged. What it proves is that there is no statistical reason to suggest it is.

For all we know Hewitt and Rochus (hypothetically) have been in the same half of a draw for 20 straight slams but no one notices and so there aren't any screams of conspiracy.

not if it is rigged;);)

keroni
06-17-2011, 01:05 PM
There is a fairly easy solution to this debate, and I'm surprised noone has offered it yet. So here it is.

Let's adopt the role of a would-be draw-rigger and have a look at slam draws of the past.

As draw-riggers, we want a few general things to happen:

1. epic rivalries to be on opposite sides of the draw, e.g. Federer v Nadal, Sampras v Agassi, Becker v Edberg, Lendl v McEnroe, Borg v McEnroe. These create crowd interest and raises the profile of the tournament.

2. local hopes to have "easy" draws so it creates public interest in the host country. I would look to see British WCs getting claycourters at Wimbledon mostly, as well as French WCs getting American or Australian players (in recent years) at RG.

3. improbable but interesting match pairings. Isner v Mahut is an obvious example. Another example I would put forward is that of Nishikori v Lu which we saw at RG this year. Asia is obviously a huge market for tennis, one wonders if the draw was rigged to create interest in that part of the world, or whether they wanted Nishikori to win so desperately that they gave him the only real claycourt mug in the entire draw.

4. racist drawing - some mentioned the tendencies for Serbs to be bunched together so as to eliminate each other. I would look to see what happened to Argentinian players at Wimbledon and RG in the last 20 years.

5. boring player and boring player R1 matchup - self-explanatory.

6. extremely old players pitted against young up and comers in R1.

ZaZoo)
06-17-2011, 01:05 PM
Of course, I can bet my grandma on Fed not being in Rafitos half of the draw. :o

Isner vs. Mahut @ Wimbledon again

Uhhhhh......


Surprise, surprise. :o

Arakasi
06-17-2011, 01:06 PM
About that Hewitt-Rochus, maybe there are other players which were in the same half million times in row last x years, but that is more acceptable, because if someone is unseeded and so on it just more common the can be there and there, i think no one cares about them - i mean the people who made draws, it is totally different story if top guys are in the same all the time.

Yeah but my point is that no one will notice those people so they don't care. Everyone notices the top players so every little thing is going to be given a lot of weight. Right now if we knew that a dozen other pairings had been in the same half a tonne of times then no one would complain about this draw because people would just say "it happens". But since everyone can only see the Federer/Djokovic and Nadal/Murray pairings they start all this conspiracy talk.

It's a sort of selection bias. We're only noticing the patterns. No one is every going to say "wow look how random this draw is". People will only ever see the parts which confirm a conspiracy theory.

xdrewitdajx
06-17-2011, 01:11 PM
They are NOT random and it's silly to believe so - go do the math - go look at the number of times Murray and Nadal are on the same side of the draw in a Slam event and then do the math and you will learn that the odds of Murray and Nadal being randomly drawn in the same half is less than 0.1% chance - if you don't believe me then do the math for yourself.



please, pretty please, show your work. would love to see this math.

PROTIP: there are two halves, just in case there's been confusion.

emotion
06-17-2011, 01:12 PM
Interesting points
-Nadal and Federer both have ridiculously easy draws, excepting Raonic
-Djokovic has Troicki again
-Murray has Wawrinka again, which doesn't really fit fixing idea, though Stan sucks atm
-Almost all dangerous players are in Ferrer and Soderling sections, probably the 2 worst crowd draws at Wimbledon

philosophicalarf
06-17-2011, 01:15 PM
please, pretty please, show your work. would love to see this math.


Feed this into excel:

=BINOMDIST(??,13,0.5,FALSE)

0 0.0122%
1 0.1587%
2 0.9521%
3 3.4912%
4 8.7280%
5 15.7104%
6 20.9473%
7 20.9473%
8 15.7104%
9 8.7280%
10 3.4912%
11 0.9521%
12 0.1587%
13 0.0122%



Edit: someone please check, I have toothache and a hangover, not a combo conducive to clear thinking.

Arakasi
06-17-2011, 01:23 PM
Feed this into excel:

=BINOMDIST(??,13,0.5,FALSE)

0 0.0122%
1 0.1587%
2 0.9521%
3 3.4912%
4 8.7280%
5 15.7104%
6 20.9473%
7 20.9473%
8 15.7104%
9 8.7280%
10 3.4912%
11 0.9521%
12 0.1587%
13 0.0122%



Edit: someone please check, I have toothache and a hangover, not a combo conducive to clear thinking.

The four players in question haven't held the same ranking (seeding) throughout the period so the probablility of them being in the same half hasn't been 0.5 consistently. For example on a few occasions Murray fell out of the top 4 so the 0.5 figure is useless.

Your calculations would be right if the rankings had been static for the last 13 slams.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 01:27 PM
The four players in question haven't held the same ranking (seeding) throughout the period so the probablility of them being in the same half hasn't been 0.5 consistently. For example on a few occasions Murray fell out of the top 4 so the 0.5 figure is useless.

Your calculations would be right if the rankings had been static for the last 13 slams.

that's your only good point I think, but it would actually increase the huge imprbability of the whole thing, since the only time I remember murray being number 5 are AO 2010 and 2011, and he got in nadal's quarter in the first case, and half in the second case.
otherwise the seedings 3 and 4 really don't matter at all.

Filo V.
06-17-2011, 01:28 PM
No, and the insinuation is immature at best.

Arakasi
06-17-2011, 01:30 PM
that's your only good point... otherwise the seedings 3 and 4 really don't matter at all.

You don't understand statistics. All these calculations are based on static rankings so if the seedings from #1-#4 have changed in the period (and they have, several times) then that means all these numbers people are throwing about are completely wrong.

yesh222
06-17-2011, 01:32 PM
I think draws are never fixed, but Isner/Mahut coming up this year is just ridiculous.

philosophicalarf
06-17-2011, 01:33 PM
The four players in question haven't held the same ranking (seeding) throughout the period so the probablility of them being in the same half hasn't been 0.5 consistently. For example on a few occasions Murray fell out of the top 4 so the 0.5 figure is useless.


That's not relevant to the stats I quoted, which was not about Murray, but rather for Fed and Djokovic to be in a different half - consistently 50% for all 13.


Anyway, 1 in 585 isn't that unlikely. It's suspicious, sure, but as always: cui bono? They want Fed/Nadal finals, no doubt, but with them 1/2 that was going to happen anyway.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 01:35 PM
You don't understand statistics. All these calculations are based on static rankings so if the seedings from #1-#4 have changed in the period (and they have, several times) then that means all these numbers people are throwing about are completely wrong.

I understand that in YOUR model the seeds are used, but if the draws are rigged, then the model used surely is the players, and not the seedings.

xdrewitdajx
06-17-2011, 01:42 PM
all that just for the odds of Murray and Nadal being randomly drawn into the same half of a draw?

Purple Rainbow
06-17-2011, 01:52 PM
Really don´t know what to think, that Djoko-FED and NAD-MUR together in draws 90% of the time is really weird, if it is clear the draw than it is hell of a coincidence. Also Troicki in Djoker´s part of the draw all the time, Wawrinka in Fed.. i don´t know really. Also Isner-Mahut rematch the chance was i don´t know 1:1000? both were unseeded so could end in everywhere.

The chance of a Mahut - Isner rematch was (3/4) * (1/127) which equals about 0,6%. Odd, but with 64 first round matches, not enough to get a conspiracy theory going.

I don't believe draws are rigged. Randomness has the nice ability to create interesting storylines of its own.

yesh222
06-17-2011, 01:56 PM
I don't believe draws are rigged. Randomness has the nice ability to create interesting storylines of its own.

This.

Raiden
06-17-2011, 02:06 PM
some times

i dont think they rig the entire draw but simply place a selected number of players in selected positions. for example, i'd be extremely surprised if federer ends up in nadals half in tomorrow's draw. it's just not good for business If that happenes then that alone equals rigging.

It may be acceptable and we all want a Fed Nad final, but still, just cuz the arrangement is popular and desirable doesn't mean it doesn't count as rigging.

Making sure that the number 1 ranked player avoids a semi-final encounter with the number 3 means that a non-random and deliberate act has taken place. Full stop.

stebs
06-17-2011, 02:32 PM
Nice example to show how most people fail to understand probability theory is the I-Pod shuffle feature. Apple received many complaints about the shuffle feature because it often threw up several songs from the same album in clusters. To combat this Steve Jobs authorised a revised shuffle feature to be less random so that his consumers would think it was more random. Seemingly unusual patterns emerge out of supposedly random processes, it is not evidence of a rig. In the case of tennis grand slam draws, it is a shame for those who wish to see different matchups in the SF's but there is no good reason to think it more than that.

xdrewitdajx
06-17-2011, 02:38 PM
^ that's interesting about the ipod shuffle, I hadn't heard that. Any more info on that?

Gil&becker
06-17-2011, 02:40 PM
Let me put it like this:
In three (not, one, not two...) consecutive GS, Frederico Gil and Chardy were drawn to face each other. No particular interest or protection can be seen for any of these two players, and still it happened. So, this is randomness. Much, much less probable than two consecutive Wimby match-up with the same two players, and still it happened.
So, I don´t believe this is all fixed, although i would prefer to see in every tournament a live draw, with somebody peeking the name of players from a recipient, something like that. It´s not like that all the time, I´ve seen several times the draw appearing from a computer into a screen...

barbadosan
06-17-2011, 03:23 PM
They are NOT random and it's silly to believe so - go do the math - go look at the number of times Murray and Nadal are on the same side of the draw in a Slam event and then do the math and you will learn that the odds of Murray and Nadal being randomly drawn in the same half is less than 0.1% chance - if you don't believe me then do the math for yourself.

What math? The math that has no memory? -- which means every single different time there is a 50-50 chance of one being in one half of the draw or the other Odds don't look back and say, "OK, these 2 got drawn in the same half the last 5 times, so now we have to make it more probable for them to be drawn in different halves" - it's the SAME 50-50 with each new draw

Sunset of Age
06-17-2011, 03:28 PM
What math? The math that has no memory? -- which means every single different time there is a 50-50 chance of one being in one half of the draw or the other Odds don't look back and say, "OK, these 2 got drawn in the same half the last 5 times, so now we have to make it more probable for them to be drawn in different halves" - it's the SAME 50-50 with each new draw

:secret: Don't bother, most people don't seem to understand the concept of 'independent chances' in statistics. And you'll never be able to convince anyone who wants to believe that draws are rigged. ;)

barbadosan
06-17-2011, 03:28 PM
Nice example to show how most people fail to understand probability theory is the I-Pod shuffle feature. Apple received many complaints about the shuffle feature because it often threw up several songs from the same album in clusters. To combat this Steve Jobs authorised a revised shuffle feature to be less random so that his consumers would think it was more random. Seemingly unusual patterns emerge out of supposedly random processes, it is not evidence of a rig. In the case of tennis grand slam draws, it is a shame for those who wish to see different matchups in the SF's but there is no good reason to think it more than that.

What a marvellous example to show the difference between statistical reality and our own false perceptions

barbadosan
06-17-2011, 03:33 PM
:secret: Don't bother, most people don't seem to understand the concept of 'independent chances' in statistics. And you'll never be able to convince anyone who wants to believe that draws are rigged. ;)

Actually, using their argument, by now I'd have won the lottery at least once. Jeesh, surely the statistical math knows I've been trying for the last umpteen years :p

abraxas21
06-17-2011, 05:10 PM
federer-nadal in different halfs again

nobody saw that one coming

FerrerAndNadal
06-17-2011, 05:25 PM
No but Nadal gets extrememly lucky with seeds usually. Of the last 14 slams both he and Murray have played in they've been in the same half 13/14 times. RG 2010 being the only exception

Priam
06-17-2011, 05:43 PM
I think some of it is. Things like Federer in Nole's half (opposite Rafa), Isner-Mahut redux surely are pretty suspect. The rest of it is probably random imo. It's just these little "concessions" they make for certain players, which will benefit the tournament.

barbadosan
06-17-2011, 05:46 PM
I think some of it is. Things like Federer in Nole's half (opposite Rafa), Isner-Mahut redux surely are pretty suspect. The rest of it is probably random imo. It's just these little "concessions" they make for certain players, which will benefit the tournament.

Why is that suspect? Can you honestly tell me you would have noticed they'd drawn each other again if they hadn't been involved in that epic 5-setter. Had Isner or Mahut won their match in straight sets, most people probably wouldn't even remember they'd played against each other, far less advancing conspiracy theories about their meeting again.

viruzzz
06-17-2011, 05:50 PM
Can I change my vote? After Isner-Mahut it's different my opinion.

Priam
06-17-2011, 05:52 PM
But the thing is they did play that 11 hour match last year. Them playing again (probably on the same court as well) will benefit the tournament. Just sayin.

Sunset of Age
06-17-2011, 05:56 PM
Why is that suspect? Can you honestly tell me you would have noticed they'd drawn each other again if they hadn't been involved in that epic 5-setter. Had Isner or Mahut won their match in straight sets, most people probably wouldn't even remember they'd played against each other, far less advancing conspiracy theories about their meeting again.

Exactly.

The chances of Isner meeting Mahut again is exactly the same as the chance he'd have drawn anyone else from his part of the bracket. The only reason why people think is 'suspect' is because of them remembering the incident happening in the past so well.

I'd like to ask the conspiracy theorists how much $$$ they've lost during the money crisis of the past three years or so. It must be quite a lot. :o

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 05:57 PM
Why is that suspect? Can you honestly tell me you would have noticed they'd drawn each other again if they hadn't been involved in that epic 5-setter. Had Isner or Mahut won their match in straight sets, most people probably wouldn't even remember they'd played against each other, far less advancing conspiracy theories about their meeting again.

but that's the whole goddamn point, the ATP making the draws in order to have better matches. Had they not had this 11 hour match of course it would have been just plain coincidence that they met again because nobody owuld have CARED!
In the end no one of us is able to prove it is rigged, or else we would be floating down a river with a little hole in our heads.
But this probability is not just about some random phenomenom, it's about a sport that generates zillions of dollars. Therefore, any strange things happening ARE suspicious.

Topspin Forehand
06-17-2011, 05:57 PM
Too bad Rafa never gets Federer in his half. Murray is a very tough matchup for Nadal. But should be an interesting tournament no doubt. Weather is looking to be a Fedtard though as Nadal hates rain. And not sure if the draw is rigged but I think it is a possibility.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 06:00 PM
Exactly.

The chances of Isner meeting Mahut again is exactly the same as the chance he'd have drawn anyone else from his part of the bracket. The only reason why people think is 'suspect' is because of them remembering the incident happening in the past so well.

I'd like to ask the conspiracy theorists how much $$$ they've lost during the money crisis of the past three years or so. It must be quite a lot. :o

unless it is rigged:lol::lol::lol::lol:

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 06:09 PM
:secret: Don't bother, most people don't seem to understand the concept of 'independent chances' in statistics. And you'll never be able to convince anyone who wants to believe that draws are rigged. ;)

and you don't understand the concept of dependant chances. The assumption that it is independant exists only if you admit that there is NO WAY AT ALL that the draw is rigged. Anything else and it is dependant chances^^

Snowwy
06-17-2011, 06:12 PM
Interesting thread. Points out intelligence of many posters (or lack thereof). Good read.

Start da Game
06-17-2011, 06:57 PM
of course they are rigged most of the times......particularly at wimbledon where there is hardly any sponsor money flowing into the tournament......

that is one of the reasons to have that crap formula and all sorts of nonsense to protect all the grass performers......

no surprise they have the same nad/mur and fed/djo combo once again.......nadal and fed are the biggest crowd drawers......having them both in one semis is nothing but virtually killing the other semis and killing the tv ratings.......

isner-mahut is another trick to get all the attention possible for the 64 first round matches.......

they also made sure that williams sisters are in opposite halves in the ladies singles, you can watch the WTA tards whining about it on MTF's sister forum.......

pesto
06-17-2011, 07:00 PM
Why on earth does anyone think they would they even bother to fix for Isner-Mahut in R1? Wimbledon is bigger than any given R1 match-up between non-seeded players.

All the seeds in both draws and all the home players are still in the draw, and as many of them as possible need to be accommodated on the televised courts.

With Mahut's recent lack of form, most people would expect the re-match to be a damp squib in any case. But the notoriety of their last match means that somehow the organisers will want to squeeze it onto a biggish court (I guess there'd be a feeling that 18 would be appropriate). Which means a match with bigger names will be bumped.

blank_frackis
06-17-2011, 07:19 PM
and you don't understand the concept of dependant chances. The assumption that it is independant exists only if you admit that there is NO WAY AT ALL that the draw is rigged. Anything else and it is dependant chances^^

Nobody knows whether the draw is rigged or not and it's pointless to make guesses about that which you can then work into some probability formula. The only thing people can do is to look at the draws and make arguments of the form: "that would be unlikely to happen if the draw were truly random, therefore it must be rigged".

As it happens, even that statement is pretty pointless and is largely down to reading trends into things that actually don't have any trend. For example, rather than focusing on "Nadal drawing Murray" if you just focus on the number of the seeds (which is really how a draw is made - with numbers that have names attached to them) it's not particularly lopsided. The 1st seed has played the 4th seed 8 times in the last 13 slams; the 1st seed has played the 3rd seed 5 times in the last 13 slams. Flip a coin 13 times and see if it comes out 8-5 - if it does then I hope you run straight to the government and start complaining about your coin being rigged.

So these things are as much about how you define the terms as they are about anything else. If you go looking for unlikely outcomes then you can find them. The chances of Isner being randomly drawn against Mahut again might be slim, but the chances of any part of the draw, at all, looking a bit "unusual" are pretty good.

Derevko
06-17-2011, 07:22 PM
From 2008, Federer and Djokovic were in the same part of the draw almost always (the only exception are French Open 2008 and 2010). Slams always want a Fedal final, so I think that they control the draw of the top seeds

BodyServe
06-17-2011, 07:31 PM
After what happenned today, its hard to believe it isnt rigged.

BodyServe
06-17-2011, 07:46 PM
Why is that suspect? Can you honestly tell me you would have noticed they'd drawn each other again if they hadn't been involved in that epic 5-setter. Had Isner or Mahut won their match in straight sets, most people probably wouldn't even remember they'd played against each other, far less advancing conspiracy theories about their meeting again.

It is very suspect that it happenned right after their epic enounter.

For me they did it to promote the sport and have a lot of noise about it.

BodyServe
06-17-2011, 07:48 PM
but that's the whole goddamn point, the ATP making the draws in order to have better matches. Had they not had this 11 hour match of course it would have been just plain coincidence that they met again because nobody owuld have CARED!
In the end no one of us is able to prove it is rigged, or else we would be floating down a river with a little hole in our heads.
But this probability is not just about some random phenomenom, it's about a sport that generates zillions of dollars. Therefore, any strange things happening ARE suspicious.

Wouldn't have said it better.

yesh222
06-17-2011, 07:54 PM
When you have a draw this large then there are multiple chances for things that appear strange. What if Fognini/Montanes drew each other instead of Isner/Mahut? People would complain if Isner drew Nadal again (or any top player). Face it, no matter how the draw came out there would have been good/interesting storylines which means that someone would complain about rigging and then others would bandwagon on that.

ballbasher101
06-17-2011, 08:03 PM
After what happenned today, its hard to believe it isnt rigged.

This.

oz_boz
06-17-2011, 08:06 PM
Fed-Djok in SF 13 out of 14 times. Suppose non-rigged draw each time, then the chance for that is 14/16384, somewhat less than 1/1000. Seems rigged IMO, but not with a very high significance; maybe 3 more samples would be needed for me to be fully convinced.

The chance of Isner-Mahut meeting, if draw not rigged, is 1/128, far from a negligible chance. That cannot be taken as a very good indication of "riggedness".

NoFroz
06-17-2011, 08:07 PM
:secret: Don't bother, most people don't seem to understand the concept of 'independent chances' in statistics. And you'll never be able to convince anyone who wants to believe that draws are rigged. ;)

I think people do understand the concept of 'independent chances', but some of the Binomial results in the latest GS are deeply unprobable.

As we can't do infinite successes to prove that a draw is actually "rigged" the only prove to it, would be too see the rigging. Stats won't tell me if someone is lying , they just tell me how much should I trust them :shrug:

Beforehand
06-17-2011, 08:25 PM
Whoever did this based on seedings and got 8 and 4 is correct, because it's literally like, "Who will end up on top, #3 (heads) or #4 (tails)? The fact that the Top 4 shift around a bit among the slams doesn't change the probability. So while we might get a pretty respectable distribution, it's not going to matter if sometimes Fed is 1, sometimes he's 2, sometime's he's 3, etc...

RagingLamb
06-17-2011, 08:25 PM
That's not relevant to the stats I quoted, which was not about Murray, but rather for Fed and Djokovic to be in a different half - consistently 50% for all 13.


Anyway, 1 in 585 isn't that unlikely. It's suspicious, sure, but as always: cui bono? They want Fed/Nadal finals, no doubt, but with them 1/2 that was going to happen anyway.

I don't know....seems pretty unlikely.

And if you were to test the same binomial model for Murray-Nadal as well as Djoko-Fed, then you would have to multiply the two probabilities...and if you factor in Isner-Mahut...then the odds of this being random become very very small.

oz_boz
06-17-2011, 08:30 PM
I don't know....seems pretty unlikely.

And if you were to test the same binomial model for Murray-Nadal as well as Djoko-Fed, then you would have to multiply the two probabilities...and if you factor in Isner-Mahut...then the odds of this being random become very very small.

Murray-Nadal SF is the same event as a Fed-Djoke SF so no multiplication there.

Gagsquet
06-17-2011, 08:31 PM
How could draws be rigged seriously?

abollo
06-17-2011, 08:33 PM
I would have suspected that if the draw was done automatically by computer like in all 3 other slams, but in Wimbledon players will be drawn manually

RagingLamb
06-17-2011, 08:45 PM
Murray-Nadal SF is the same event as a Fed-Djoke SF so no multiplication there.

Yup. Thanks for the correction.

MaxPower
06-17-2011, 08:46 PM
Hmm got to think of it this way. If Federer hadn't slipped down to 3 from 2 the draw would be different. If Isner was around 20-25 in the rankings he wouldn't have gotten Mahut in R1 and so on. Problem is still that ppl watch outliers and take them as proof of something being rigged.

And as already pointed out multiple times in this thread: historic draws does not affect a new draw. It's not that hard to get into the brain. It's the same principle casinos make millions of every hour. People think that the odds are changing like "Oh I've had bad luck 100 times now, surely the 101th time will be different", While in reality it's fixed probabilities.

tennizen
06-17-2011, 08:52 PM
What if they pick Federer, say oops, drop it before anyone else can see it and pick the other slip with Murray's name?

MaxPower
06-17-2011, 09:10 PM
the problem wouldn't be "how" to rigg it. There are multiple options. Like marked slips, fake draw like above or use a computer that in reality gives a predetermined draw they decided on beforehand or that uses tweaked probabilities etc

The real problem would be to keep it secret and also the win/lose situation. Say Wimbledon gets discovered rigging the draw? What would that mean for the tournaments future? they would be screwed big time. Why take that chance?

alter ego
06-17-2011, 09:13 PM
How could draws be rigged seriously?

Like this :haha:

YED--sks3mk

ZackBusner
06-17-2011, 09:16 PM
I'm quite sure that the draws at all big events are made in a correct manner. I'm not so sure at some small challengers/futures. I've never done a statistical research but from time to time I think that the draws for some local Wild Cards are a bit too nice.

Sunset of Age
06-17-2011, 09:16 PM
And as already pointed out multiple times in this thread: historic draws does not affect a new draw. It's not that hard to get into the brain. It's the same principle casinos make millions of every hour. People think that the odds are changing like "Oh I've had bad luck 100 times now, surely the 101th time will be different", While in reality it's fixed probabilities.

Maybe this example will finally manage to convince people that there is NOTHING 'strange' about this kind of draw happening multiple times in a row, but I'm not counting on it. :rolleyes:

It's the same stupid reasoning that caused the global money crisis to happen, in fact.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 09:18 PM
Hmm got to think of it this way. If Federer hadn't slipped down to 3 from 2 the draw would be different. If Isner was around 20-25 in the rankings he wouldn't have gotten Mahut in R1 and so on. Problem is still that ppl watch outliers and take them as proof of something being rigged.

And as already pointed out multiple times in this thread: historic draws does not affect a new draw. It's not that hard to get into the brain. It's the same principle casinos make millions of every hour. People think that the odds are changing like "Oh I've had bad luck 100 times now, surely the 101th time will be different", While in reality it's fixed probabilities.

the chance of fed.djoko in this wim was indeed 1/2. The chance of that happening 13 times in a row is not AT ALL 1/2

Gagsquet
06-17-2011, 09:24 PM
yes but the chance is 1/2 before each draw.
It doesn't matter that this happened 13 times in a row.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 09:25 PM
yes but the chance is 1/2 before each draw.
No care about the fact this happened 13 times in a row.

well some of us definitely care:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Gagsquet
06-17-2011, 09:29 PM
And? We care about that ok but it doesn't prove anything.

AND more important, it doesn't make this more suspicious.

tennizen
06-17-2011, 09:33 PM
the problem wouldn't be "how" to rigg it. There are multiple options. Like marked slips, fake draw like above or use a computer that in reality gives a predetermined draw they decided on beforehand or that uses tweaked probabilities etc

The real problem would be to keep it secret and also the win/lose situation. Say Wimbledon gets discovered rigging the draw? What would that mean for the tournaments future? they would be screwed big time. Why take that chance?

So all this talk of probability and 'independent chances' isn't of much help if they did manage to do something like that?

They probably have a lot to lose if they got caught but it would pretty difficult to get caught I think;)

Still I don't care enough to find out about the exact mechanism of draw making.

NoFroz
06-17-2011, 09:45 PM
And? We care about that ok but it doesn't prove anything.

AND more important, it doesn't make this more suspicious.

The thing it that it DOES make things more suspicious. I mean it's still can be 100% true, but it does make things more suspicious.

Ricardo Gouveia
06-17-2011, 09:55 PM
As a Portuguese I am still confused as to how Frederico Gil in 3 consecutive Grand Slams had to face Jeremy Chardy in the 1st round.

Gagsquet
06-17-2011, 09:56 PM
The thing it that it DOES make things more suspicious. I mean it's still can be 100% true, but it does make things more suspicious.

In term of probability no.
I repeat, after each draw the chance are 1/2 again.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 10:00 PM
In term of probability no.
I repeat, after each draw the chance are 1/2 again.

but since there is a probability for everything, then nothing is suspicious right? federer and djokovic could be in the same half for 20 more grand slams, there IS a probabilty for it so it's not suspicious right? :angel:

Gagsquet
06-17-2011, 10:05 PM
but since there is a probability for everything, then nothing is suspicious right? federer and djokovic could be in the same half for 20 more grand slams, there IS a probabilty for it so it's not suspicious right? :angel:

YES dude, it could happen 50 times in a row, we couldn't prove anything with that.
I agree it's looks like more suspicious to us but in term of probability, it's not suspicious.
To prove draws were fixed, you are doing it wrong.

helvet empire
06-17-2011, 10:08 PM
YES dude, it could happen 50 times in a row, we couldn't prove anything with that.
I agree it's looks like more suspicious to us but in term of probability, it's not suspicious.
To prove draws were fixed, you are doing it wrong.

I've never meant to prove they were fixed since it's impossible. I meant to prove it was suspicious.
well anyway let's everyone believe what they want.

MIMIC
06-17-2011, 10:09 PM
YES dude, it could happen 50 times in a row, we couldn't prove anything with that.
I agree it's looks like more suspicious to us but in term of probability, it's not suspicious.
To prove draws were fixed, you are doing it wrong.

At some point during those 50 times, it would be advisable to start thinking independently.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-17-2011, 10:11 PM
Here's another one for the conspiracy theorists. I'm not saying I actually believe this, by the way!

People are quoting isolated examples of Djoko landing in Rafa's half when he was no. 3 - but weren't those all at the French Open? When was the last time Nole landed in Rafa's half at a non-French Open slam? (Wimbledon 07?)

This is entirely consistent with the theory that Slam organizers have consistently tried to engineer Fedal finals. Nole has clearly been the most dangerous player on clay to Fed and Rafa since 2007 - much more dangerous than Murray, who has been relatively weak on clay until arguably this year.

If you were a Slam organizer trying to engineer a Fedal final, you would use the stronger clay player from the Fedal duo to take out the biggest threat to a Fedal final. Hence Nole landing in Rafa's half at the FO. Until this year, Rafa owned Nole on clay. By contrast, even in 2008 Nole had an overwhelming record vs Rafa on hard courts. So for a hardcourt Slam organizer trying to engineer a Fedal final, it would be too dangerous to put Nole in Rafa's half. I can't remember a single hardcourt Slam, EVER, when Nole hasn't been in Fed's half. :devil:

MIMIC
06-17-2011, 10:24 PM
Considering the fact that the seeding procedure at Wimbledon can be done on a subjective level, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the draws were predetermined rather than completely random. There are way too many peculiar outcomes.

I mean, if I flip a coin 20 times, odds are that I'm going to get at least 1 heads and 1 tails. With these draws, we're supposed to accept that the occurrence of 20 straight heads is perfectly normal.

If they rigged Wimbledon this year (just for fun), I expect Fed, Djoker, Hewitt, Wawrinka, del Potro, Raonic, and Troicki on one half and Murray, Nadal, Verdasco, Lopez, Granollers, Robredo (etc. :p), Monfils, Berdych, and Gasquet on the other.

EDIT: If I'm completely honest, no....I don't think tournaments actively RIG draws or go out of their way to pair certain players with one another. It always LOOKS suspicious but deep down, I never think that there was any collusion. It's still irritating, nonetheless :rolleyes:

But if Federer and Nadal can draw each other in a slam but NEVER do, then I will probably change my mind.

Let's see what I got right:

Fed, Djoker, Hewitt, Troicki on one half
Murray, Nadal, Verdasco, Chela, Lopez, Granollers, Monfils, Berdych, Gasquet on the other.

It's like I'm a fucking psychic. :rolleyes: Seriously. Out of the 16 predictions, I got 13 of them right, and NONE of my choices were random.

Gotta love Wimbledon :o

ultros8
06-17-2011, 10:40 PM
I don't know....seems pretty unlikely.

And if you were to test the same binomial model for Murray-Nadal as well as Djoko-Fed, then you would have to multiply the two probabilities...and if you factor in Isner-Mahut...then the odds of this being random become very very small.

This is a ridiculous approach to take - I could easily take the Wimbledon draw, pick 3 interesting R1 matches and say "wow, the chances of Cilic drawing Ljubicic, Karlovic drawing Tipsarevic AND Dologopolov drawing Gonzalez was < 0.00001%, the odds of that being random are tiny!", but that would be to completely misunderstand the application of hypothesis testing - if you apply it to events that have ALREADY HAPPENED it's completely meaningless because people will just pick out the unlikely events. When he was the England cricket captain Nasser Hussain once lost the toss 10 times in a row, and everyone picked up on it and referred to him as somehow "unlucky", but in the 130-year history of Test cricket that was bound to happen at some point! The only reasonable way to make a study of this would be to decide a hypothesis NOW (i.e. "the probability of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half is >50%"), then evaluate the likelihood of that over future draws, not past ones.

nobama
06-17-2011, 10:59 PM
I don't believe in rigged anything but if a slam was ever rigged it was probably 2002 or 2003 USO. Not the draw per se, but the organizers got the results they wanted.

RagingLamb
06-17-2011, 10:59 PM
This is a ridiculous approach to take - I could easily take the Wimbledon draw, pick 3 interesting R1 matches and say "wow, the chances of Cilic drawing Ljubicic, Karlovic drawing Tipsarevic AND Dologopolov drawing Gonzalez was < 0.00001%, the odds of that being random are tiny!", but that would be to completely misunderstand the application of hypothesis testing - if you apply it to events that have ALREADY HAPPENED it's completely meaningless because people will just pick out the unlikely events. When he was the England cricket captain Nasser Hussain once lost the toss 10 times in a row, and everyone picked up on it and referred to him as somehow "unlucky", but in the 130-year history of Test cricket that was bound to happen at some point! The only reasonable way to make a study of this would be to decide a hypothesis NOW (i.e. "the probability of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half is >50%"), then evaluate the likelihood of that over future draws, not past ones.


Well, Fed-Djoko is a matchup of interest, and it's exactly where the suspicions are, so why not look at that? The approach taken by some here is perfectly reasonable; assuming a 0.5 odds of a player ending up in this half of the draw or the other, what is the probability of a the same outcome in x many consecutive draws?

Im not near a computer (using phone), but you could easily test the hypothesis that the odds are 0.5 and set up a rejection region, etc. Not very difficult.

No one is advancing any crazy ideas here.

Pirata.
06-17-2011, 11:23 PM
Too bad Rafa never gets Federer in his half. Murray is a very tough matchup for Nadal.

Murray a tough matchup for Rafa on "grass" that is worn down dirt by the second week :haha:


Hmm got to think of it this way. If Federer hadn't slipped down to 3 from 2 the draw would be different.

Doubt it. Novak would still be in Roger's half, Murray in Rafa's.

Sunset of Age
06-17-2011, 11:30 PM
Is it a coincidence that all who seem to believe that the draws are rigged are either tards or haters (and most usually, those two categories are one of the same) of a certain player?

I think not. :wavey:

helvet empire
06-18-2011, 12:02 AM
Is it a coincidence that all who seem to believe that the draws are rigged are either tards or haters (and most usually, those two categories are one of the same) of a certain player?

I think not. :wavey:

is it a coincidence that those who fail the most horribly at math are the most arrogant and refuse the debate? :confused::confused:

velikikomsa@gmai
06-18-2011, 12:10 AM
If someone think draw is random, then he need to rethink.
You just need to pay attention on situation when two player have great match, very interesting match.
Almost always they are setup to play on next tournament.
Example for Wimbledon is second round Nadal vs Andujar. We all know about their match on RG.
Then Bellucci when he put awesome effort in his match against Novak in Madrid he was setup to play Nadal next week in Rome in round 3.
And poor Del Potro, because of his ranking, he's always aiming on Novak or Nadal in early rounds.
After DJokovic vs Troicki match at US 2010, Troicki is always on Djokovic side.
Federer vs Djokovic, they are always on same half of draw when it comes to GS.(someone need to remind me how many times they were on different half on GS in last four,five years).
All organisers want great matches on their tournaments.

You people just need to pay attention on this kind of situation, especially when some players have great match against each other and then about draw on next tournament they both play, and you'll see my point.

velikikomsa@gmai
06-18-2011, 12:16 AM
some times

i dont think they rig the entire draw but simply place a selected number of players in selected positions. for example, i'd be extremely surprised if federer ends up in nadals half in tomorrow's draw. it's just not good for business if that were to happen. then again, it might happen and i could end up looking like an idiot but i highly doubt it.

Exactly.

156mphserve
06-18-2011, 12:16 AM
Fed-Djok in SF 13 out of 14 times. Suppose non-rigged draw each time, then the chance for that is 14/16384, somewhat less than 1/1000. Seems rigged IMO, but not with a very high significance; maybe 3 more samples would be needed for me to be fully convinced.

The chance of Isner-Mahut meeting, if draw not rigged, is 1/128, far from a negligible chance. That cannot be taken as a very good indication of "riggedness".

Rigged like a muthafucka.

Yes, Federer v Nadal is the title match the ATP/ITF love so that's why it's always made that way. But, even ignoring that, fucking Isner V Mahut, again? When the fuck has that ever happened(same two in the same tournament with 1/127 x 1/127 chance)?

RIGGED RIGGED RIGGED

/end trolling

There are 96 spots a non seeded player(Isner) could have been, 64 of those he could face another non seeded player, so 64/96 chance Isner could be drawn into one of these spots, or 2/3. Now, there would be 95 other spots which another non seeded player(Mahut) could be drawn into, 1 of these spots Mahut would face Isner, so 1/95, now 1/95x2/3 is 2/285 roughly 0.7017 % chance that it happens, not totally unlikely

Let's see what I got right:

Fed, Djoker, Hewitt, Troicki on one half
Murray, Nadal, Verdasco, Chela, Lopez, Granollers, Monfils, Berdych, Gasquet on the other.

It's like I'm a fucking psychic. :rolleyes: Seriously. Out of the 16 predictions, I got 13 of them right, and NONE of my choices were random.

Gotta love Wimbledon :o

16 different people, 50/50 odds for each, that's 65536 different ways they can be arranged(2^16). However there are 684 ways you can get 13 or more correct randomly. 684/65536 or roughly 1.0437 %, not as unlikely as you make it seem.

Some people here are really moronic, past results don't affect new draws

BTW, for those of you are interested I just flipped a coin 10 times because I was bored, got 10 straight heads, I'm going to flip it again, anyone want to give me 10/1 odds that I'll get another head? I mean 11 straight heads has 2048/1 odds so chances are a tail will come next I mean that chances on 11 straigth heads are 0.0488 %, you're bound to win. Anyone interested in giving me those 10/1 odds?

156mphserve
06-18-2011, 12:21 AM
^That being said this draw does look suspecious but saying it is because of repeated 50/50 occurances makes no sense, each draw is supposed to be independant of another, but as I have read many people have tried to explain to you and have failed, and I have better this to do with my time

n8
06-18-2011, 12:36 AM
There are 96 spots a non seeded player(Isner) could have been, 64 of those he could face another non seeded player, so 64/96 chance Isner could be drawn into one of these spots, or 2/3. Now, there would be 95 other spots which another non seeded player(Mahut) could be drawn into, 1 of these spots Mahut would face Isner, so 1/95, now 1/95x2/3 is 2/285 roughly 0.7017 % chance that it happens, not totally unlikely


Nice post. For the record, that's exactly what I calculated as the chance of two unseeded players meeting in round one.

Also, the chance of a certain seeded player meeting a certain unseeded player in round one is 1/96.

An interesting head-to-head showing that stranger things happen and go largely unnoticed. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=G717&oId=CA12

bouncer7
06-18-2011, 12:37 AM
Of course is rigged, STATISTIC say that, less than 0.1 %, If djoko and fed encounter 13 of possible 14 times that is obviously rigged.

Hey people, everyone here need 13 lifes throwin coins every second to get 13 heads of possible 14 and imagine now how they succeed here that at FIRST ATTEMPT :) that's funny thing. Does anybody even need to think again about it.

Game.Petzschner
06-18-2011, 12:39 AM
Does seem very weird how mahut draws isner again wouldnt be surprised at all if it was rigged because already all the public hearing about it are already getting excited by it and thats what the organisers want.

Also seems weird to me how in the qualifying draw there were 2 separate matches of british players playing against each other to guarantee 2 british players into the 2nd round of qualifying the lta are always defending what they are doing even though its clear to everyone they arent coming up with any results possibly this could have been rigged aswell not to forget ward v cox in 1st round queens last week.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-18-2011, 12:40 AM
Looking at Murray's cakewalk draws,it's prety obvious.

bouncer7
06-18-2011, 01:02 AM
I calculate this. It is 14 / 16384 = 0.085 %

no way its rigged :lol: :lol:

Capuccino
06-18-2011, 01:05 AM
I just knew that Federer and Nadal would't be in the same half. It was rigged not to happen.

Game.Petzschner
06-18-2011, 01:07 AM
I just knew that Federer and Nadal would't be in the same half. It was rigged not to happen.
yeah i thought so too...

bouncer7
06-18-2011, 01:11 AM
yeah i thought so too...

its all about money and that is where story ends

Sunset of Age
06-18-2011, 01:13 AM
is it a coincidence that those who fail the most horribly at math are the most arrogant and refuse the debate? :confused::confused:

You misunderstood me.

Mjau!
06-18-2011, 01:16 AM
BTW, for those of you are interested I just flipped a coin 10 times because I was bored, got 10 straight heads, I'm going to flip it again, anyone want to give me 10/1 odds that I'll get another head? I mean 11 straight heads has 2048/1 odds so chances are a tail will come next I mean that chances on 11 straigth heads are 0.0488 %, you're bound to win. Anyone interested in giving me those 10/1 odds?

^That being said this draw does look suspecious but saying it is because of repeated 50/50 occurances makes no sense, each draw is supposed to be independant of another, but as I have read many people have tried to explain to you and have failed, and I have better this to do with my time

God, this constantly repeated argument is so annoying and :cuckoo: It's nothing but a straw-man! When will you and other :stupid: like you realize that the issue isn't this Wimbledon draw in isolation, but the extremely unlikely series of 13 encounters in 14 draws! Again, what's strange isn't that Fed and Nole ended up in the same half at this years Wimbledon, but that they have been drawn in the same half in 13 of the last 14 slams. It's about the big picture, get it? :rolleyes:


No, this doesn't constitute proof of a fixed draw at all.

Beforehand
06-18-2011, 01:20 AM
It doesn't.

leng jai
06-18-2011, 01:26 AM
They probably are rigged, anyone who thinks otherwise are pretty naive.

MIMIC
06-18-2011, 01:32 AM
16 different people, 50/50 odds for each, that's 65536 different ways they can be arranged(2^16). However there are 684 ways you can get 13 or more correct randomly. 684/65536 or roughly 1.0437 %, not as unlikely as you make it seem.


I don't get it. How is a 1% chance of something occurring not considered as "unlikely".

If the weather guy says, "There is a 1% chance of rain", isn't it "unlikely" that it will rain?

It's funny because my 1% chance scenario was based what I thought the Wimbledon committee would like to see. And it turned out to be true.

abraxas21
06-18-2011, 02:04 AM
Is it a coincidence that all who seem to believe that the draws are rigged are either tards or haters (and most usually, those two categories are one of the same) of a certain player?

I think not. :wavey:

is it a coincidence that all who seem to believe that this era is just dandy and lovely are either gloryhunters or fangirls (and most usually, those two categories are one of the same) of federer and nadal?

i think not as well :wavey:

Topspindoctor
06-18-2011, 02:05 AM
is it a coincidence that all who seem to believe that this era is just dandy and lovely are either gloryhunters or fangirls (and most usually, those two categories are one of the same) of federer and nadal?

i think not as well :wavey:

Yeah, I am sure era where mugs like Safin, Hewitt and Roddick made #1 and Baldenko and Fatbandian made #3 is so much better :rolleyes:

abraxas21
06-18-2011, 02:09 AM
Yeah, I am sure era where mugs like Safin, Hewitt and Roddick made #1 and Baldenko and Fatbandian made #3 is so much better :rolleyes:

did i say that tennis was so much better 5 years ago or so?

and davydenko is a great player. at his best, davydenko would be in the top 5 easily in this era. you just dislike him because he's owned your hero too many times.

Topspindoctor
06-18-2011, 02:09 AM
A Fedal final is the best thing that can happen to this sport after the AO fiasco.

careergrandslam
06-18-2011, 02:14 AM
i so want a fedal final.
so rafa can own that other guy again.

Topspindoctor
06-18-2011, 02:17 AM
did i say that tennis was so much better 5 years ago or so?

and davydenko is a great player. at his best, davydenko would be in the top 5 easily in this era. you just dislike him because he's owned your hero too many times.

Actually... I dislike him because he's done jack shit in slams over the years. He doesn't care about the game, only money. I will never respect a player like that.

By the way, I hope you're not a nostalgiatard who thinks tennis was so good in the 90's where Sampras had to struggle through titans like Piolin and Woodbridge on his way to Wimby title and Agassi had to overcome Andrei "Borg" Medvedev for his RG.

EliSter
06-18-2011, 02:20 AM
A Fedal final is the best thing that can happen to this sport after the AO fiasco.

lol not rly :rolleyes:

Clay Death
06-18-2011, 02:24 AM
did i say that tennis was so much better 5 years ago or so?

and davydenko is a great player. at his best, davydenko would be in the top 5 easily in this era. you just dislike him because he's owned your hero too many times.


clay warrior is as superior to davydenko as the living are to the dead.

numbers are as cold as death itself. look at the russian shrimp`s numbers and then examine nadal`s numbers.


and i do not mean any disprespect for davydenko. he achieved a lot with the cards he was dealt.

it is what it is.

octatennis
06-18-2011, 02:33 AM
the article is probably a summary of the 'wimbledon draw thread', is fedal a common term use in the media? i thought we were the only ones that use it. the writter is probably a member of this place.

abraxas21
06-18-2011, 02:33 AM
Actually... I dislike him because he's done jack shit in slams over the years. He doesn't care about the game, only money. I will never respect a player like that.

well, if money was his ultimate goal, he'd tried with all his efforts to perform better in GS. After all, GS offer much more money than the ATP tourneys...

By the way, I hope you're not a nostalgiatard who thinks tennis was so good in the 90's where Sampras had to struggle through titans like Piolin and Woodbridge on his way to Wimby title and Agassi had to overcome Andrei "Borg" Medvedev for his RG.

in the '90s grass was grass, clay played like clay, carpet existed and the hard courts played a lot faster than nowadays, like they should. in the current era, the courts are slower 'than ass' which brings one-dimensionality to the game. serve and volley as a tennis style is dead and everyone play from the baseline. as for expectations, there's not much either. the top 4 get to the SF in pretty much every freaking tournament which is again explained by the homogenization of the surfaces. all in all, it's boring. perhaps the players today aren't worse talent-wise than in the nineties but the conditions have made the game look boring and less attractive to someone who values variety. in this sense, nadal is the epitome of everything thats wrong about tennis today. that a player like him can thrive today can only be explained by the muggy circumstances in which tennis is at the moment.

abraxas21
06-18-2011, 02:36 AM
clay warrior is as superior to davydenko as the living are to the dead.

numbers are as cold as death itself. look at the russian shrimp`s numbers and then examine nadal`s numbers.


and i do not mean any disprespect for davydenko. he achieved a lot with the cards he was dealt.

it is what it is.

by that logic, i guess you'd agree that federer is superior to nadal as the living are to the dead too.

Topspindoctor
06-18-2011, 02:46 AM
You can't say "Nadal is everything that is wrong with today's tennis". Every player is a product of their time. It's not Nadal's fault grass is slower, RG is faster and more courts play the same. It's not his fault there are modern Babolat racquets with poly strings. What annoys me most is people saying "Nadal would be mug in era X" when we don't have any idea how he would develop had he been born in an earlier time. Maybe he'd have been a mug, maybe a second Borg, we'll never know.

Secondly, if the surfaces are so homogenized and you don't need to change your style to win on them, why is Nadal the only one taking advantage. Surely, other players could benefit as well? For some reason "one dimensional Nadal" is the 4th guy to hold slams in double digits in open era... if he's so bad why hasn't anyone stopped him?

Lastly, the previous champions didn't have as much variety as you'd have us believe. Sampras and McEnroe S&V'd on clay, ffs. Where is the adaptability? At least Nadal changes his game for Wimbledon. Seeing these S&V clowns fail again and again on red clay with zero change in tactics was painful to watch. So please, don't complain about lack of variety Nadal displays on his way to titles because guys like Sampras were way more one dimensional and clueless once their usual game stopped working.

SerialKillerToBe
06-18-2011, 02:49 AM
This article depresses me. Someone has to save tennis...and soon.

octatennis
06-18-2011, 02:51 AM
nobody can denied that. ^ (abraxas comment that is)

156mphserve
06-18-2011, 02:57 AM
I don't get it. How is a 1% chance of something occurring not considered as "unlikely".

If the weather guy says, "There is a 1% chance of rain", isn't it "unlikely" that it will rain?

It's funny because my 1% chance scenario was based what I thought the Wimbledon committee would like to see. And it turned out to be true.

unikely yes, inconcevieble no

I'm not saying draws aren't rigged, I never did think they were, but this draw has put doubt in my mind, but I don't think something that's a 1% possibility proves anything

bouncer7
06-18-2011, 03:04 AM
Obviously only StatRacket thinks its not rigged even though statistic claims opposite. Or he will write a denial in 1st post.

bouncer7
06-18-2011, 03:11 AM
unikely yes, inconcevieble no

I'm not saying draws aren't rigged, I never did think they were, but this draw has put doubt in my mind, but I don't think something that's a 1% possibility proves anything

its almost 13 times less than 1% - for djok/fed and nad/mur semi - it not proves anything too

Silvester
06-18-2011, 03:16 AM
the only thing I find Very odd, is that even though rankings change, the draws are always the same. When Federer was #1, he would almost always have Novak in his draw so it was #1 & #3, Nadal has Murray (#2 and #4) now that the rankings have changed a little, we are still having the same players in the same halfs all the time except its now #1, #4 and #2,#3.

abraxas21
06-18-2011, 03:16 AM
You can't say "Nadal is everything that is wrong with today's tennis". Every player is a product of their time. It's not Nadal's fault grass is slower, RG is faster and more courts play the same. It's not his fault there are modern Babolat racquets with poly strings. What annoys me most is people saying "Nadal would be mug in era X" when we don't have any idea how he would develop had he been born in an earlier time. Maybe he'd have been a mug, maybe a second Borg, we'll never know.

but i didnt say that exactly (bolded part). i said nadal was the epitome of all thats wrong with todays tennis, something which is explained by the homogenization of the courts, the slower conditions, and possibly even the technology in the rackets. to word it in another way, nadal's success is the product of the muggy conditions of the present era.

Secondly, if the surfaces are so homogenized and you don't need to change your style to win on them, why is Nadal the only one taking advantage. Surely, other players could benefit as well? For some reason "one dimensional Nadal" is the 4th guy to hold slams in double digits in open era... if he's so bad why hasn't anyone stopped him?

everyones taking an advantage. you see the top 4 getting to the SF in most tourneys, regardless of weather it's clay, grass or hardcourts. many other players seem to play nearly the same irrespective of the surface.

Lastly, the previous champions didn't have as much variety as you'd have us believe. Sampras and McEnroe S&V'd on clay, ffs. Where is the adaptability? At least Nadal changes his game for Wimbledon. Seeing these S&V clowns fail again and again on red clay with zero change in tactics was painful to watch. So please, don't complain about lack of variety Nadal displays on his way to titles because guys like Sampras were way more one dimensional and clueless once their usual game stopped working.


the variety im talking about aint in the players themselves but in the surfaces. in that sense, it is only expected and logical that players who thrived on grass wouldn't have been that good on clay (because they were so very different back then). nowadays players can change from clay to grass to hardcourts with virtually no changes in their game and still get almost the same results.
as for nadal, he hardly changes anything from surface to surface. at most he can hit the ball slightly flatter (something i'm not very sure tbh) and misteriously add 20 miles per hour to his service right before a GS and that's what im talking about because it's similar for most players. even federer doesnt have to change much at all to make the transition from clay to grass or hardcourts. it's ridiculous.

Silvester
06-18-2011, 03:17 AM
the only thing I find Very odd, is that even though rankings change, the draws are always the same. When Federer was #1, he would almost always have Novak in his draw so it was #1 & #3, Nadal has Murray (#2 and #4) now that the rankings have changed a little, we are still having the same players in the same halfs all the time except its now #1, #4 and #2,#3.

Johnny Groove
06-18-2011, 03:19 AM
Did LinkMage write this?

Or maybe JMPower (-calimero-)?

icedevil0289
06-18-2011, 03:21 AM
Is it a coincidence that all who seem to believe that the draws are rigged are either tards or haters (and most usually, those two categories are one of the same) of a certain player?

I think not. :wavey:

+1

MIMIC
06-18-2011, 04:01 AM
Just to add to the conspiracy of the draw modifications that were being reported earlier, ESPN is still reporting that Nadal and Federer are on the same side (and the same for Murray & Djokovic):

I think it's still on ESPN's website but I made a YouTube video of it anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9u5yPGnzzA

Pirata.
06-18-2011, 04:30 AM
Did LinkMage write this?

Or maybe JMPower (-calimero-)?

ORGASMATRON ;)

Just like heaven
06-18-2011, 07:55 AM
This article depresses me. Someone has to save tennis...and soon.

There is no article. That's just a piece of trash written by a rabid and frustrated Fedtard. :)

Goldenoldie
06-18-2011, 09:40 AM
I would be very surprised if any major tournament has a rigged draw, but I can't say the same for Challengers.

If for example an Italian challenger has 20 Italians and 12 non-Italians in the qualifying draw, I am never surprised to see at least 10 of the 12 overseas players drawn against home players. No idea how statistically probable that is!

n8
06-18-2011, 09:45 AM
MTF is undecided. 50 say no, 59 say yes (some of the time or more), 5 unsure.

After reading most responses I'm inclined to agree with you Goldenoldie. I'm pretty sure it happens at at least some Challengers but I doubt at Grand Slam level.

FlameOn
06-18-2011, 09:56 AM
I think that they sometimes would be. :shrug: I highly doubt that they're totally random every single time. :lol:

MIMIC
06-18-2011, 10:02 AM
the only thing I find Very odd, is that even though rankings change, the draws are always the same. When Federer was #1, he would almost always have Novak in his draw so it was #1 & #3, Nadal has Murray (#2 and #4) now that the rankings have changed a little, we are still having the same players in the same halfs all the time except its now #1, #4 and #2,#3.

This.

FREAKING THIS!!!!

Seems like the only way to prevent these shenanigans is for Djokovic and Federer to be ranked 1 & 2 and Nadal and Murray 3 & 4. That way, they are guaranteed to always be on opposite sides. But even this way, there's ALWAYS going to be a potential Fedal final :o

velikikomsa@gmai
06-18-2011, 10:56 AM
Djoko/Fed last 12/13 times (11/11 at non-clay slams since 2008). I'm sorry but that's rigged my man.

Thanks of reminding us all for that fact.

velikikomsa@gmai
06-18-2011, 11:05 AM
Would have said never rigged, but this Mahut - Isner made me change my mind :angel:


two players play great match in any view...they are going to play on next tournament or on the same tournament next year.

velikikomsa@gmai
06-18-2011, 11:15 AM
Really don´t know what to think, that Djoko-FED and NAD-MUR together in draws 90% of the time is really weird, if it is clear the draw than it is hell of a coincidence. Also Troicki in Djoker´s part of the draw all the time, Wawrinka in Fed.. i don´t know really. Also Isner-Mahut rematch the chance was i don´t know 1:1000? both were unseeded so could end in everywhere.

Coincidence doesn't exist.

velikikomsa@gmai
06-18-2011, 11:27 AM
Statistics have to be based on the seedings. You can't just say Federer and Djokovic have been in the same half x times which is a 1/12312541352436243 chance. That is meaningless because the seeds change.

Anyway like I said what I posted doesn't prove the draw isn't rigged. What it proves is that there is no statistical reason to suggest it is.

For all we know Hewitt and Rochus (hypothetically) have been in the same half of a draw for 20 straight slams but no one notices and so there aren't any screams of conspiracy.

This guy is trying to be smart and prove something but it doesn't work that way pal.
First two players on the world (except on Wimbledon), or two best players that entered tournament are best two seeded.Everyone else are either on 1. seeded half or 2. seeded half. So if someone is ranked #3 or #4, still it's same probability for both of them to be either on 1. seeded half or 2. seeded half, and that means (50:50).So if Federer is ranked #1 and Djokovic #3 their chance to be on same half are 50:50.
If Djokovic is #2 and Federer #3,chances for them to be on same half are 50:50 again.
So your point with showing us ranking is useless.

buzz
06-18-2011, 11:44 AM
I always thought the draws were not rigged. But Federer and Djokovic over and over in the same half and therefore also Murray an Nadal in the same half is getting more and more suspicious. And now with the Isner-Mahut that is a second very unlikely thing to happen.

I guess by now it feels more likely that they rig the draws than not.

This is a really bad thing for a sport I think. The rules should be equal for everybody. I'm thinking about writing a letter to the ATP and informing them about the unlikelyness of these draws, and asking to do some investigation or so.

ZaZoo)
06-18-2011, 01:55 PM
Stop rigging draws! They're not even trying to hide it these days. :o

tangerine_dream
06-18-2011, 08:06 PM
I don't believe in rigged anything but if a slam was ever rigged it was probably 2002 or 2003 USO. Not the draw per se, but the organizers got the results they wanted.
Eight long years later Fedtards are still bitter about Roddick "stealing" the No. 1 rank from Rogie. :crying2:

Lopez
06-18-2011, 08:42 PM
Eight long years later Fedtards are still bitter about Roddick "stealing" the No. 1 rank from Rogie. :crying2:

I don't think Fedtards have a lot to be bitter about :D

tangerine_dream
06-18-2011, 08:50 PM
I don't think Fedtards have a lot to be bitter about :D
You're right, but many Fed "Stans" still are. :shrug:

Aenea
06-18-2011, 09:14 PM
I always thought the draws were not rigged. But Federer and Djokovic over and over in the same half and therefore also Murray an Nadal in the same half is getting more and more suspicious. And now with the Isner-Mahut that is a second very unlikely thing to happen.

I guess by now it feels more likely that they rig the draws than not.

This is a really bad thing for a sport I think. The rules should be equal for everybody. I'm thinking about writing a letter to the ATP and informing them about the unlikelyness of these draws, and asking to do some investigation or so.

And what exactly do you expect from ATP to do? ATP has no power in GS as GS are not ATP members. So?

abraxas21
06-18-2011, 09:19 PM
write letters to the atp to demand them to enforce the rules of tennis when it comes to time-wasting and also to get some proper drug-testing cause right now it's a joke

write letters to the itf to demand them to stop rigging the freaking GS draws. it's a joke too

basically, the entire organization is corrupt

oz_boz
06-18-2011, 10:00 PM
There are 96 spots a non seeded player(Isner) could have been, 64 of those he could face another non seeded player, so 64/96 chance Isner could be drawn into one of these spots, or 2/3. Now, there would be 95 other spots which another non seeded player(Mahut) could be drawn into, 1 of these spots Mahut would face Isner, so 1/95, now 1/95x2/3 is 2/285 roughly 0.7017 % chance that it happens, not totally unlikely


Thanks for the correction - I forgot seeds, duh :rolleyes: And also thanks for pointing out Mimics prediction as not so unlikely as it may seem, I was about to do the same.

mark73
06-19-2011, 03:16 AM
Probability distribution will explain all the variation within a small margin of error. You can never completely erase the possibility that some draws are rigged but you can certainly show that it rarely if ever happens. So I would say the draws are not rigged but it is certainly possible that it occurs on rare occassions.

mark73
06-19-2011, 03:40 AM
I don't get it. How is a 1% chance of something occurring not considered as "unlikely".

If the weather guy says, "There is a 1% chance of rain", isn't it "unlikely" that it will rain?

It's funny because my 1% chance scenario was based what I thought the Wimbledon committee would like to see. And it turned out to be true.

One million people buy a lottery ticket. Only one can win. If John wins, the correct answer is not Wow that is so unlikely (1:1,000,000) the lottery must have been rigged. The answer is that it is expected because one million people played.

Likewise, in a draw 2 people might be in the same half 10/10 times but that is to be expected because in a draw of 128 there are about 128 times 127 two player combinations (in terms of being on the same half of the draw). Like with the lottery some will be placed in the same half 10/10 a higher number 9/10 more at 8/10 and so on. 5/10 is most likely then you will have a few less at 4/10 less at 3/10 and so on. The sheer number of players and draws ensures that this WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY HAPPEN.

This DOES explain "weird" things in the draw, but it certainly does not disprove that on rare occasions their are some rigged draws. However I think their would be a lot of people who are concerned and would make sure this is very unlikely to occur.

cocrcici
06-19-2011, 08:10 AM
:smoke::smoke:

Dougie
06-19-2011, 09:07 AM
If Isner and Mahut had played a regular match last year, no one would even notice the coincidence that they´re playing again. Those who would notice, would be like "that´s kind of funny, but it happens".

I don´t really see what the organisers would gain by setting this up. They´re not big stars, they´re not that charismatic guys, they will most certainly not play a match they did last year, and even if they did, it would be the organisers worst nightmare, because that kind of match is murder to the whole schedule.

So no conspiracy here, these kind of things happen all the time, but no one pays any attention to them.

MacTheKnife
06-19-2011, 01:23 PM
"Ever rigged" is the part that gives me pause. It would be a pretty bold statement to say that draws are "never" rigged.

tennizen
06-19-2011, 01:34 PM
I don´t really see what the organisers would gain by setting this up. They´re not big stars, they´re not that charismatic guys, they will most certainly not play a match they did last year, and even if they did, it would be the organisers worst nightmare, because that kind of match is murder to the whole schedule.



After the draw came out, both Wimbledon website and the ATP had a big headline about this rematch. A lot of newspaper articles mentioned it. That match got a lot of people who normally don't care about tennis interested. Now many of those will be curious to see if a repeat will happen( they are due for a huge disappointment).

I don't know if the draws are rigged or not for sure (although I would hardly find it surprising if they are) but it's pretty easy to see what apparent benefit such a rematch will possibly have.

MIMIC
06-19-2011, 02:11 PM
If Isner and Mahut had played a regular match last year, no one would even notice the coincidence that they´re playing again. Those who would notice, would be like "that´s kind of funny, but it happens".

I don´t really see what the organisers would gain by setting this up. They´re not big stars, they´re not that charismatic guys, they will most certainly not play a match they did last year, and even if they did, it would be the organisers worst nightmare, because that kind of match is murder to the whole schedule.

So no conspiracy here, these kind of things happen all the time, but no one pays any attention to them.

ESPN is already running an ad on TV promoting this single match, with the words "CAN IT HAPPEN AGAIN?" in it. :spit:

It's obvious that there is much to gain from this match, otherwise they wouldn't be promoting a match between the No. 31 and the No. 99 players.

sanshisan
06-19-2011, 02:51 PM
Oh I understand too well probability and the concept of random draws, but Djokovic and Federer are always in the same half every f*cking time! It's not just one slam, but all slams since 2007 except RG where Nole landed in Rafa's side. Highly improbable.

Yes. 2 years running and Troicki is always in Novak's quarter. Not just at GS but at all Masters events.

The Draw Meisters do not want one country to dominate the finals. This is not good for business. Like most sports tennis is nationalistic, if one country, dominates Wimbledon - people lose interest. Therefore top players from the same country are pitted against each other earlier in the draw.

Players from the same country are reluctant to beat their country's #1, fearing that they will be acting as a spoiler. Furthermore pitting players of the same country against each other creates frustration and breaks up the unity among the players of team competition, Davis Cup for example. (which Serbia won last year)

We know that the draw is at least partially rigged, because #1 and #2 are always on opposite sides of the draw. This is de rigeur. So why shouldn't the rest of the draw be partially rigged? It's good business. Isner vs Mahut again out of 128 possibilities? The crowd liked an 11 hr match in 2010 so? Keep the rivalry going. Who will win this go round?

Nole fan
06-19-2011, 07:57 PM
Yes. 2 years running and Troicki is always in Novak's quarter. Not just at GS but at all Masters events.

The Draw Meisters do not want one country to dominate the finals. This is not good for business. Like most sports tennis is nationalistic, if one country, dominates Wimbledon - people lose interest. Therefore top players from the same country are pitted against each other earlier in the draw.

Players from the same country are reluctant to beat their country's #1, fearing that they will be acting as a spoiler. Furthermore pitting players of the same country against each other creates frustration and breaks up the unity among the players of team competition, Davis Cup for example. (which Serbia won last year)

We know that the draw is at least partially rigged, because #1 and #2 are always on opposite sides of the draw. This is de rigeur. So why shouldn't the rest of the draw be partially rigged? It's good business. Isner vs Mahut again out of 128 possibilities? The crowd liked an 11 hr match in 2010 so? Keep the rivalry going. Who will win this go round?

As unlikely as most Spanish players falling into the same half. But it happens all the time.

Priam
06-20-2011, 03:01 AM
If Isner and Mahut had played a regular match last year, no one would even notice the coincidence that they´re playing again. Those who would notice, would be like "that´s kind of funny, but it happens".

I don´t really see what the organisers would gain by setting this up. They´re not big stars, they´re not that charismatic guys, they will most certainly not play a match they did last year, and even if they did, it would be the organisers worst nightmare, because that kind of match is murder to the whole schedule.

So no conspiracy here, these kind of things happen all the time, but no one pays any attention to them.

A possible 71-69.

allpro
06-20-2011, 03:04 AM
only frauderer's.

sanshisan
06-20-2011, 02:23 PM
If Isner and Mahut had played a regular match last year, no one would even notice the coincidence that they´re playing again. Those who would notice, would be like "that´s kind of funny, but it happens".

I don´t really see what the organisers would gain by setting this up. They´re not big stars, they´re not that charismatic guys, they will most certainly not play a match they did last year, and even if they did, it would be the organisers worst nightmare, because that kind of match is murder to the whole schedule.

So no conspiracy here, these kind of things happen all the time, but no one pays any attention to them.


You cannot take just one example such as Mahut and Isner AGAIN in the first round at Wimpy and call it coincidence. You have to look at the entire picture: in repeating GS and Masters: Djokovic always playing Federer. Nadal always playing Murray. Troicki #2 Serb always in Djokovic's quarter, etc etc etc.

Look for the REPEATING PATTERNS - then call it coincidence.

Don't be naive. Look at the BIG PICTURE.

sanshisan
06-20-2011, 02:25 PM
As unlikely as most Spanish players falling into the same half. But it happens all the time.

That's right.

xdrewitdajx
06-20-2011, 02:32 PM
lol