The US Open draw is rigged for sure [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The US Open draw is rigged for sure

i_tan7
08-25-2005, 03:21 AM
I don't understand why the no. 3 seed should be facing the no.1 seed, i know its a draw but it seems to me that it was drawn to favour the US playeres ie. Roddick. I think it should be no.1 seed vs no. 4 seed in the semi-final. It looks like Hewitt gets the bad draw with no.5 seed Safin in his quarter. Hmmmm. Seems very suspect this US draw.

rofe
08-25-2005, 03:23 AM
I don't understand why the no. 3 seed should be facing the no.1 seed, i know its a draw but it seems to me that it was drawn to favour the US playeres ie. Roddick. I think it should be no.1 seed vs no. 4 seed in the semi-final. It looks like Hewitt gets the bad draw with no.5 seed Safin in his quarter. Hmmmm. Seems very suspect this US draw.

:worship: :worship:

RodLo
08-25-2005, 03:23 AM
I know...totally. Those damn Americans, they get all the luck.

Merton
08-25-2005, 03:29 AM
Let me rephrase the argument so as to make it impersonal:

You suspect that a coin is not fair, (that is, it is not equally likely to show heads and tails when flipped) and, in particular, you suspect that it always turns heads. You toss the coin once and it turns heads. You conclude that the coin is not fair.

Would you ever agree with this conclusion?

star
08-25-2005, 03:31 AM
This thread had to happen. :lol: :lol:

Merton
08-25-2005, 03:33 AM
This thread had to happen. :lol: :lol:

Did something like this appear on this board on other occasions?

alfonsojose
08-25-2005, 03:36 AM
:yawn:

jmp
08-25-2005, 03:44 AM
Did something like this appear on this board on other occasions?

Discussions were VERY heated during the 2003 US Open.

uNIVERSE mAN
08-25-2005, 03:45 AM
Let me rephrase the argument so as to make it impersonal:

You suspect that a coin is not fair, (that is, it is not equally likely to show heads and tails when flipped) and, in particular, you suspect that it always turns heads. You toss the coin once and it turns heads. You conclude that the coin is not fair.

Would you ever agree with this conclusion?

what coin? and who tossed this coin? where is the evidence that a coin was ever tossed and this draw reflects this supposed coin? was there even ever a coin involved? if so, where is this coin now? The conclusion is, there is no coin involved at all, we've all been told that there was one, but have no irrefutable, concrete proof of it.

Experimentee
08-25-2005, 03:52 AM
If you've been following tennis for more than a year you'd know that 1 does not necessarily have to play 4! Its completely random whether 1 gets 3 or 4.

Merton
08-25-2005, 03:53 AM
what coin? and who tossed this coin? where is the evidence that a coin was ever tossed and this draw reflects this supposed coin? was there even ever a coin involved? if so, where is this coin now? The conclusion is, there is no coin involved at all, we've all been told that there was one, but have no irrefutable, concrete proof of it.

The coin is a statistical idealization. We only got one realization of the draw in a public ceremony. Your last sentence says that since the coin turned heads, there is no proof it was not rigged to begin with. Yet, the burden of proof lies with those claiming that the draw was rigged.

Paul Banks
08-25-2005, 03:56 AM
Probability of Roddick being at the bottom half: 50%.

Probability of idiots lurking on MTF: dangerously close to 100%.

fenomeno2111
08-25-2005, 03:58 AM
what coin? and who tossed this coin? where is the evidence that a coin was ever tossed and this draw reflects this supposed coin? was there even ever a coin involved? if so, where is this coin now?
1. a 1978 penny
2. lost
3. yes, well i've found plenty of pennies in New York City especially in subway stations...it could be one of them

fenomeno2111
08-25-2005, 04:16 AM
Corrected Q's and A's:
1. a 1978 penny
2. A fat and old guy who has never played tennis in his whole life
3. All evidence is lost
4. yes, well i've found plenty of pennies in New York City especially in subway stations...it could be one of them

Winston's Human
08-25-2005, 04:39 AM
I-tan 7:

If you are surprised by a 1 v.3 2 v. 4 seeding, you clearly have not been following tennis draws for much time.

Of the past forty grand slam tournaments, a 1 v. 3 2 v. 4 seeding has occurred twenty times.

Australian: 2003, 2002, 2000 & 1997.

French: 2003, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1997 & 1996.

Wimbledon: 2005, 2004, 2000, 1999, 1998 & 1997.

U.S.: 2005, 2004, 2003 & 1998.

I don't think your conspiracy theory holds water in light of the historical facts.

LoveFifteen
08-25-2005, 04:47 AM
Yes, the US Open draw is totally rigged! Every other tennis tournament in the history of the world has arranged the draw so that the Semi-finals are #1 vs. #4 and then #2 vs. #3. It's amazing how the USTA can flout the international tennis regulations so brazenly without international condemnation! It must be all the nuclear weapons in the US that keep the rest of the tennis world from protesting too much. If Andy Roddick wins the US Open, his victory will be so tainted as to be undeserved! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Here are some pictures that a spy took of the clandestine cheating that took place when the draw was made. Zimbabwean United Nations guide Elenora Chikuhwa is actually an American secret agent! Bush sent her to rig the draw.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/tennisfan1981/TennisDraw2.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/tennisfan1981/TennisDraw.jpg

P.S. Why didn't you write about Wimbledon being rigged this year when seeds #1 and #3 were scheduled for the Semi's? I suppose poor Tony Blair was again forced into doing Bush's bidding so it didn't count? :rolleyes:

Chloe le Bopper
08-25-2005, 05:11 AM
Thanks for making me lol @ a public internet kiosk. That was almost as awesome as the payphone beside my head continually ringing.

Should I answer?

star
08-25-2005, 05:20 AM
I-tan 7:

If you are surprised by a 1 v.3 2 v. 4 seeding, you clearly have not been following tennis draws for much time.

Of the past forty grand slam tournaments, a 1 v. 3 2 v. 4 seeding has occurred twenty times.

Australian: 2003, 2002, 2000 & 1997.

French: 2003, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1997 & 1996.

Wimbledon: 2005, 2004, 2000, 1999, 1998 & 1997.

U.S.: 2005, 2004, 2003 & 1998.

I don't think your conspiracy theory holds water in light of the historical facts.

Please don't ever bring facts into this discussion.

Skyward
08-25-2005, 05:38 AM
Of course, it is. They even did not have to come up with the draw, they borrowed it from Wimbledon. ;) Just have a look at the top quarter. Federer had the same players at Wimbledon- Minar, Kiefer, Ferrero, Gonzalez. :eek:

LoveFifteen
08-25-2005, 05:46 AM
It looks like Elenora Chikuhwa's devious power grip has reached much farther that we ever could have imagined!

i_tan7
08-25-2005, 10:00 AM
nar beh !!!!!!!!!

Purple Rainbow
08-25-2005, 10:22 AM
The evil Zimbabweans have secretly taken over the USTA and rigged the draw so that Kevil Ulyett will win the US Open this year.
In other news, Robert Mugabe has secretly removed Bush from power and has crowned himself Master of the Universe.

*leaves thread started by 1_tan7 forever*

Mrs. B
08-25-2005, 10:30 AM
deja vu thread

PamV
08-25-2005, 12:40 PM
I don't understand why the no. 3 seed should be facing the no.1 seed, i know its a draw but it seems to me that it was drawn to favour the US playeres ie. Roddick. I think it should be no.1 seed vs no. 4 seed in the semi-final. It looks like Hewitt gets the bad draw with no.5 seed Safin in his quarter. Hmmmm. Seems very suspect this US draw.

Yeah it does seem rigged because the draw came out like we predicted. Everyone knew that Roddick would be in the bottom half and that Safin would be in the top half. This is the same draw set up as in Wimbledon.

For some reason Federer always draws Kiefer in his section. Is it just a coincidence that Nadal gets 3 Americans in his first 3 rounds? I don't know but Roddick gets lucky draws and that helps him keep his ranking where it is.

PamV
08-25-2005, 12:42 PM
Of course, it is. They even did not have to come up with the draw, they borrowed it from Wimbledon. ;) Just have a look at the top quarter. Federer had the same players at Wimbledon- Minar, Kiefer, Ferrero, Gonzalez. :eek:

That is too freaky. Couldn't they have Mrs. Roddick do a separate draw for the USOpen?

PamV
08-25-2005, 12:47 PM
P.S. Why didn't you write about Wimbledon being rigged this year when seeds #1 and #3 were scheduled for the Semi's? I suppose poor Tony Blair was again forced into doing Bush's bidding so it didn't count? :rolleyes:

Well even when Hewitt is the #2 ranked player he is still seeded 3rd and put in Roger's half. Hasn't he been in the same half at Wimbledon with Roger since 2003? No wonder it's Roddick making it to the Finals.

I don't care what the seeding numbers are.....what I notice is that Roddick gets the easy draws. Safin could have been put in Roddick quarter.....but NO that would have made Roddick nervous, so they gave him Coria. :p

The Pro
08-25-2005, 12:56 PM
Thanks for making me lol @ a public internet kiosk. That was almost as awesome as the payphone beside my head continually ringing.

Should I answer?

I wish you would. :D

Jimnik
08-25-2005, 12:58 PM
Looks like we're due to have the same semi-final line-up as Wimbledon:

Federer v Hewitt and
Roddick v T Johansson

I have every confidence in Thomas's ability to beat Nadal and Agassi. ;)

jenanun
08-25-2005, 01:15 PM
let's wait and see if all the top 4 will go through to the semi....

andy does have an easy draw compare to the rest of them....
he is lucky.....

but why people not allow to have luck then?

PamV
08-25-2005, 01:35 PM
let's wait and see if all the top 4 will go through to the semi....

andy does have an easy draw compare to the rest of them....
he is lucky.....

but why people not allow to have luck then?

Because Roddick never gets an unlucky draw, and we all predicted this scenario before they even did the draw. Any way isn't the draw done by pulling out tokens.....not by flipping a coin?

Geniey2g
08-25-2005, 01:52 PM
I have to say, I was a little suspicious about the draw yesterday; the American players got a damn good draw...

Billy Moonshine
08-25-2005, 02:11 PM
All grand slam draws should be done as follows:

A blindfolded mute wearing a red velvet shroud and black catsuit is bought into the auditorium and seated beneath a blue light.
A bald witch (sent by the tennis God) dressed in retro Bjorn Borg wimbledon kit enters and places their hands on the mute's head and wails the national anthem backwards in Latin.
The mute opens it's mouth and utters the names of the players in the order that the cosmic universe has decided is right.

Thus all nonsense talk of rigged draws would end and all would be happy in tennisland.

Mistaflava
08-25-2005, 02:12 PM
:haha:


same story every year...

dylan24
08-25-2005, 02:30 PM
i've never liked the way they do the draws in tennis.
it should be the same way they do the ncaa basketball draws.
in top 1/2
it should be
1 vs 8
4 vs 5

lower 1/2
2 vs 7
3 vs 6

LoveFifteen
08-25-2005, 03:21 PM
They don't do it that way because then people would purposefully try to manipulate their rankings! HELLO! :wavey:

If every single tournament quarterfinal was #1 vs. #8, you can bet your sweet ass that every player would do everything in his power (rearrange his schedule and/or throw lesser matches) to avoid being the #8 tennis player in the weeks before the Grand Slams. Who wants to play against Roger?

Same logic ... if you know you dominate a certain player, you most certainly want your ranking to match up to where you always meet him in the quarter finals.

Enough of this utter nonsense about rigged draws. The drawing out of names from the cup is done by non-Americans. This year it was done by a bunch of non-Americans at the United Nations (one of the most anti-American organizations in the world).

Amazing how the draw is rigged for Americans, yet Venus and Serena are in the hardest quarter of the draw ... and are set to meet each other in the Round of 16. Oh wait, Davenport's draw isn't that tough ... maybe they do rig the draw, but just for white Americans? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Purple Rainbow
08-25-2005, 03:23 PM
Geez, what is with Americans thinking the UN is an anti-American organisation? :rolleyes:

Angle Queen
08-25-2005, 03:25 PM
I want to know where the "B" sample is.

wcr
08-25-2005, 03:28 PM
I don't understand why the no. 3 seed should be facing the no.1 seed, i know its a draw but it seems to me that it was drawn to favour the US playeres ie. Roddick. I think it should be no.1 seed vs no. 4 seed in the semi-final. It looks like Hewitt gets the bad draw with no.5 seed Safin in his quarter. Hmmmm. Seems very suspect this US draw.


Time to do your research. Look up past draws and take note where the seeds were placed. Typically the tournaments are consistent year after year. The 4 slams do differ in terms of placement. Some put #1 and #4 at the top, some put #1 and #3 at the top.

Winston's Human
08-25-2005, 04:51 PM
Time to do your research. Look up past draws and take note where the seeds were placed. Typically the tournaments are consistent year after year. The 4 slams do differ in terms of placement. Some put #1 and #4 at the top, some put #1 and #3 at the top.

As I posted earlier, in each of the four slams, there is a 50/50 chance that #1 will be seeded against #3. In fact, of the past 40 grand slam tournaments (1996-2005), it has happened 20 times -- half the time to be exact.

It has happened in six of the last ten Wimbledons and French Opens, and in four of the last ten US and Australian Opens.

LoveFifteen
08-25-2005, 09:47 PM
It has happened in six of the last ten Wimbledons and French Opens, and in four of the last ten US and Australian Opens.

Oh my gosh! How did the vile Americans manage to rig Roland Garros and Wimbledon TWO more times than their own US Open? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

star
08-26-2005, 02:12 PM
As I posted earlier, in each of the four slams, there is a 50/50 chance that #1 will be seeded against #3. In fact, of the past 40 grand slam tournaments (1996-2005), it has happened 20 times -- half the time to be exact.

It has happened in six of the last ten Wimbledons and French Opens, and in four of the last ten US and Australian Opens.

You are crying in the wilderness.

I think it is very nice of all these tournaments around the world to give Andy easy draws all the time. I think it is downright neighborly. :hatoff:

nobama
08-26-2005, 06:57 PM
If Andy's draws are so damn easy how come he only has 1 GS to his name? Unless you're suggesting he's not that good....

ExpectedWinner
08-26-2005, 07:22 PM
If Andy's draws are so damn easy how come he only has 1 GS to his name? Unless you're suggesting he's not that good....

1. What is a hard draw at GS for a top player? IMO, someone has a tough draw at GS if

a. a player meets a hot player, or a young player on the rise in the early rounds (that is before qf)

b. a player meets a former top player who's coming back from the injury ( Example- Safin at the last year AO) in the early rounds.

c. a player meets someone against whom he(she) had a lot of trouble in the past( Example- W. Ferreira for Sampras, Santoro for Safin) in the early rounds.

The draw is supposed to be hard at GS starting from QF.

2. Aside from Pim, Roddick has been losing only to top players at GS. He's not losing early, he's been living up to his ranking at every GS, except for RG ( but it's a different story). Thus, his inability to win a GS has very little to do with his draws, and everything to do with his troubles against top players.

nobama
08-26-2005, 07:37 PM
1. What is a hard draw at GS for a top player? IMO, someone has a tough draw at GS if

a. a player meets a hot player, or a young player on the rise in the early rounds (that is before qf)

b. a player meets a former top player who's coming back from the injury ( Example- Safin at the last year AO) in the early rounds.

c. a player meets someone against whom he(she) had a lot of trouble in the past( Example- W. Ferreira for Sampras, Santoro for Safin) in the early rounds.

The draw is supposed to be hard at GS starting from QF.

2. Aside from Pim, Roddick has been losing only to top players at GS. He's not losing early, he's been living up to his ranking at every GS, except for RG ( but it's a different story). Thus, his inability to win a GS has very little to do with his draws, and everything to do with his troubles against top players.Ok fine, but then Roddick's not the only one to get "easy" draws. I don't think Fed's draw is that tough this year, of course that doesn't mean he can't be taken out early.

ExpectedWinner
08-26-2005, 07:48 PM
Ok fine, but then Roddick's not the only one to get "easy" draws. I don't think Fed's draw is that tough this year, of course that doesn't mean he can't be taken out early.

I guess it's a question to another poster because I didn't say a word about the USO draw. My point is that Roddick's being a one slam wonder has nothing to do with his draws.

revolution
08-26-2005, 07:51 PM
No it isn't. You'll find Fed (1) was to play Hewitt (3) in Wimbledon semis so that proves your 'theory' wrong.

blosson
08-26-2005, 10:58 PM
Roger is the real lucky one ;)

Tennis_Passion
08-29-2005, 04:26 PM
What's the point of arguing....even with a good draw, it's not like Roddick is a sure bet for the semi's, and even if he reaches the final.....he is gonna be slaughtered, and even better, on Prime TV:).