PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Open Draw Fixed


snapple
08-22-2007, 11:48 AM
Hard to believe that Henin and Serena are AGAIN slated to meet up in the quarters when most people believe this should be the actual finals. I realize that Serena's ranking isn't high enough but come on please. And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals, I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

JLyon
08-22-2007, 12:02 PM
Yawn!!!! If you can do better then by all means please call the USTA and offer your obviously vastly superior draw making experience following all the rules of the ITF/ATP/WTA. :roll:

Moose Malloy
08-22-2007, 12:05 PM
And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals,

She played Venus in the 4th Round of Wimbledon, that was a pretty tough draw. here she has Vaidisova in the 4th round, probably the toughest lower seed after Venus.

I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

They do. I think CBS is still weeping over the ratings for '03/'04/'05 womens finals.

Zaragoza
08-22-2007, 12:11 PM
Well, with Roddick on Federerīs quarter and Serena on Heninīs quarter I guess nobody will say again that USO draws are fixed for americans.

norcal
08-22-2007, 12:13 PM
Well, with Roddick on Federerīs quarter and Serena on Heninīs quarter I guess nobody will say again that USO draws are fixed for americans.Barry will find a way to, you can bank on that.

Zaragoza
08-22-2007, 12:15 PM
Barry will find a way to, you can bank on that.

Who is Barry? Sorry I donīt watch american TV.

norcal
08-22-2007, 12:27 PM
Barry is a poster on these boards who believes Roddick's whole career is based on fixed draws. Oh yeah and Chadwixx too. The tinfoil hat crowd.

DashaandSafin
08-22-2007, 12:52 PM
Barry is a poster on these boards who believes Roddick's whole career is based on fixed draws. Oh yeah and Chadwixx too. The tinfoil hat crowd.

Haha I remeber arguing with them a year or two ago about Roddick's draws...amusing stuff. Barry would never answer the point you presented to him and Chadwixx would always threaten to ignore you. I wonder if they're still here around this board...haven't seen them in awhile.

masha4ever#1
08-22-2007, 01:15 PM
Hard to believe that Henin and Serena are AGAIN slated to meet up in the quarters when most people believe this should be the actual finals. I realize that Serena's ranking isn't high enough but come on please. And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals, I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

anyone jealous?? ;) Not her looks, but her powerful and emotional play.
BTW I think there a lot more people who enjoy watching Maria's play than those of the stuck up and dislikable Williams' sisters.;)

Masha #1 !!!!!!!!!!!

princess bossass
08-22-2007, 01:23 PM
Hard to believe that Henin and Serena are AGAIN slated to meet up in the quarters when most people believe this should be the actual finals. I realize that Serena's ranking isn't high enough but come on please. And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals, I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

They drew numbers. It came up how it came up. Step away from the kool-aid.

phoony
08-22-2007, 08:53 PM
If you feel the draw for Serena was unfair then why not just give her a Bye for all the round till to the Final and so goes for the others except Sharapova. Fair enough........what do you think, happy :confused: ???

AJK1
08-22-2007, 09:50 PM
If you're the best, you should be able to beat everyone, regardless of where they are in the draw.

ninman
08-23-2007, 05:55 AM
Isn't the draw based firstly on the seedings, then the rest is random? Or I am totally mistaken?

poplar
08-23-2007, 07:03 AM
If you're the best, you should be able to beat everyone, regardless of where they are in the draw.

amen to that. this board of idiots will always find sth about complain about the draw. there are no tough draw if you are good enough.

the funny thing is, if federer draws blake or other hard hitter, it's consider a cakewalk draw, if nadal or others draw them, it's a tough draw. what a bunch of cry babies.

mileslong
08-23-2007, 07:36 AM
Hard to believe that Henin and Serena are AGAIN slated to meet up in the quarters when most people believe this should be the actual finals. I realize that Serena's ranking isn't high enough but come on please. And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals, I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

i don't believe the williams should play in the finals, if they want higher seeds then play a full schedule of events and quit crying about it, rankings are rankings...if serena wants a higher ranking then she needs to play more events and quit modeling for cow fancy magazine...

daddy
08-23-2007, 08:57 AM
Does this forum has anyone to erase these threads ? The game of tennis is really not prone to cheating as much as footbal or cycling, especially at this level of slams. It just happened and can happen anytime .. This thread is a vaste of time.

dunlopfan
08-23-2007, 09:03 AM
Serena is seeded 8 because Mauresmo pulled out. That's fair isn't it?

masha4ever#1
08-23-2007, 11:25 AM
If you feel the draw for Serena was unfair then why not just give her a Bye for all the round till to the Final and so goes for the others except Sharapova. Fair enough........what do you think, happy :confused: ???

Well i think he'll like your idea. But it wouldn'Tt keep Masha from winning the US Open:)

West Coast Ace
08-23-2007, 05:49 PM
Isn't the draw based firstly on the seedings, then the rest is random? Or I am totally mistaken?No, that's it. And there are witnesses watching the proceedings. The conspiracy theorists are good for a laugh.

slice bh compliment
08-23-2007, 05:54 PM
No, that's it. And there are witnesses watching the proceedings. The conspiracy theorists are good for a laugh.

Yes, and this is EXACTLY what the establishment wants you think, hahaha!;)

doctorwho
08-23-2007, 06:03 PM
for me , the seedings should reflect the likelihood of winning an event.they are also useful for avoiding daft early round matchups. some people say the draw doesn't matter. if you want to win you should be prepared for any matchup. could those folks justify a federer-nadal R1 matchup?
the us open womens draw shows yet again, in my view, the need for discretionary seedings, not strict computer rankings. for example ,who is more likely to win? venus (seeded 12) or daniella hantuchova(seeded 9), no disrespect to daniella, but even she would admit that venus is much more likely to win title.also henin, jelena, ana, serena,venus, in same half of draw.

jaggy
08-23-2007, 06:15 PM
OK here is how pro sports works. TV pays the money. TV dictates everything else. Dont kid yourself it is fair.

scineram
08-23-2007, 10:17 PM
How the **** do you make up discretionary seedings and likelihood moron?

Alexandros
08-23-2007, 10:35 PM
If you're the best, you should be able to beat everyone, regardless of where they are in the draw.

This is true for the person who goes to win the title. But if say in the extreme example Federer and Nadal were to face each other in an early round match and Federer were to win and then go on to claim the title. No difference for Federer if he had faced Nadal in that round or the last right? Well what about all the other potential opponents Nadal could have had a chance to face if he had been seeded away from Federer? They've all advanced further than they should have and Nadal is the unrewarded for his hard working in getting his ranking.

doctorwho
08-24-2007, 05:33 AM
if you are old enough to remember, dimwit, the seedings committee of wimbledon for example used to allocate 16 seeds using their rankings as a starting point for the seeding and, at their discretion, give players a higher or lower seed according to factors such as ,proven ability on grass.

skip1969
08-24-2007, 11:10 AM
i'm dating myself here . . . but when i was a teen (and my bad for assuming most of the folks on this board are young) and the draw came out for a slam (cos my nerdy-*ss cared even back then) . . . and i talked about the draw with my fellow tennis nerds . . . if someone we liked got a tough draw, we said "bummer, man." if someone we liked got an easy draw, we said "cool!"

but i don't ever remember us sitting around by the back fence (behind the baseline with the big shady tree, takin' a break from the hot summer sun) and saying to ourselves, "man, this sh*t is rigged!"

but then again, what do i know?

these conspiracy threads border on the surreal sometimes, but they ARE good for a few chuckles. thank you, norcal and princess bossass.

Chadwixx
08-24-2007, 12:20 PM
Back then it was a $10,000 sport. Now its a multi-billion dollar business.

Vector
08-24-2007, 12:57 PM
Hard to believe that Henin and Serena are AGAIN slated to meet up in the quarters when most people believe this should be the actual finals. I realize that Serena's ranking isn't high enough but come on please. And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals, I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

It would be fixed if they arranged it so that Henin and Williams met in the final. Get your story straight.

Slazenger
08-25-2007, 01:14 AM
Hard to believe that Henin and Serena are AGAIN slated to meet up in the quarters when most people believe this should be the actual finals. I realize that Serena's ranking isn't high enough but come on please. And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals, I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

It really doesn't matter. Pova is not defending. Her game right now sucks. At present can't beat Henin, Venus, Serena.
She would have to work VERY hard to win against Ana or Jelena.

However, Maria's ultimate motivation is on the line. 2.4Mil. That alone might propel her dismal serve another 10mph.

My prediction is Venus is going to win. I want to see Venus-Henin play.

zorman
08-25-2007, 02:09 AM
US Open Men's Draw: Federer (the golden boy) is drawn together with numbers 4,5,6 and 9. All his regular customer's. Nadal and Djokovic the only player's who present a REAL THREAT to his quest for the title are placed as usually together along with number's 7 and 8.
Now could anyone here please explain to me EXACTLY how the US Open Seeding's Commitee defines the draw?
In last Wimbedon, Djokovic i think was 4th on the ATP list and he was drawn with Nadal as was the case in this year's French Open. In Australian Open he played against Federer in the third round i think but then he wasn't the formidable force he became later on.
If it is left solely to every Commitee's discretion to arrange the tournament's draw, depending on subjective conjectures of the type such as a player's proven abilty etc., then all this should at least cast a doubt on the fairness of the draw, considering the fact that if something happens in succession it is not thought anymore to be a coincidence.

slice bh compliment
08-25-2007, 05:50 AM
So the fix is in. I thought so.

Kidding. The 4,5,6 ... 7,8 deal is done ''randomly''. Seriously, after 1 and 2 are placed, then 3 and 4 are placed randomly either at the top of the second qtr or the bottom of the third qtr. Then 5 - 8 are placed randomly at the tops and bottom of the sixteenths. The 9-16 are placed similarly.
Check it out on just about any related website. Or go play a tournament with fairly large draws and ask the director.

Rpp
08-25-2007, 09:05 AM
Please give me a break....when tournaments draws are done there are player representatives picking the chips or at least watching when it is done.

zorman
08-25-2007, 11:30 AM
So the fix is in. I thought so.

Kidding. The 4,5,6 ... 7,8 deal is done ''randomly''. Seriously, after 1 and 2 are placed, then 3 and 4 are placed randomly either at the top of the second qtr or the bottom of the third qtr. Then 5 - 8 are placed randomly at the tops and bottom of the sixteenths. The 9-16 are placed similarly.
Check it out on just about any related website. Or go play a tournament with fairly large draws and ask the director.

It is very difficult to me to believe that such important things are left to "random". And if it is "random" then we have a repeated coincidence. Thrice in a row. Work out the odds. Let's say however that i stick by your story. Now, how would you explain the following:
Federer's draw up until 1/8 final: Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Isner, Nieminen.
Nadal's draw up until 1/8 final: Jones, Sweeting, Tipsarevic, Hernandez, Tsonga, Henman, Tursunov.
Do these fields of players seem to you as rather equal, or even slightly favorable for the golden boy, reflecting his status as number 1 compared to Nadal's place in number 2?
Or is there a huge difference?
And now look at Djokovic's draw up until 1/8 final: Ancic (CRO! 1st Round), Stepanek, Berlocq, Mahut, Del Potro, Hartfield, Melzer.
And what about this draw? Is it a fair draw for number 3 when number 1 is given such a royal treatment? Not even one qualifier for Federer's rivals?
Is all this again a "random" coincidence?
Some may say these are early matches so it won't matter. I would reply that in a grand slam a player must go in two weeks through seven matches of five sets. Everything does make a difference. That's why a player's total court spend time in the latter stages is considered an important statistical figure.

scineram
08-25-2007, 04:31 PM
All this is again a random coincidence.

Fedace
08-25-2007, 04:32 PM
Hahaha, Scoville Jenkins is playing roger federer in the 1st round. I know Scoville somewhat and he is one of the up and coming US star player who has been a little bit of disappointmet so far. He had been slow to develop, mostly playing in the challengers. But he had a GREAT win in the 1st round of qualies, pulling off a close match in 3rd set and going all the way to the main draw. I hope Scoville kicks fed's butt, i really HOPE.

JW10S
08-25-2007, 04:51 PM
The draws are made in public, not in some dark, smoke filled, back room. They are not fixed. If you look at how the top 16 seeds are distributed in the women's draw this is what you'll see:

Henin's side of the draw has the 1,3,5,8,10,12,14,15 seeds. Sharapova's side of the draw has the 2,4,6,7,9,11,13,16 seeds. That's about as even as it can be.

That the Williams' choose to be part-time players and thus have rankings and seedings lower than they potentially could otherwise is no reason for anyone to assume the draws are fixed or that the rules regarding how the rankings are done and how draws are made should be changed specifically for them.

Max G.
08-25-2007, 06:33 PM
There's always somebody unhappy... when Williams faces top players early people cry "rigged draws!" and when Williams gets an easy draw they say "rigged draw! she's low-ranked, she should've had a tougher one!"

Federer's played through all of them - he's had some horrendous draws in Grand Slams (which he also breezed through because he's way too damn good, and then people in retrospect said "oh, it was easy all along") and he's had some easy ones. Likewise for Djokovic, Nadal, and all the others. Last year, everyone said Nadal got a dream draw at Wimbledon - was that also favoritism? Djokovic will get his share of easy draws, and his share of tough ones (such as this one - this one is pretty brutal), and so will all the others. Actually, at the US Open, the most common accusation is favoritism to Andy Roddick, and he's been put in a pretty bad bind - to face Federer in the quarters, and that's only if he gets past Berdych in the round of 16. So yes, it's all random coincidence.

zorman
08-26-2007, 03:06 AM
Federer's played through all of them - he's had some horrendous draws in Grand Slams (which he also breezed through because he's way too damn good, and then people in retrospect said "oh, it was easy all along") and he's had some easy ones.

I don't doubt that but then again as you said he was too good for the rest of the field for any real concerns regarding his claiming of the title. Just remember the betting odds. But look at the outright winner bets for US Open 2007. He is being given a 1/2 winning odds which is i think much lower than in prior Slams (except the French Open). So he is now in more danger than ever before. Perhaps something had to be done about this.

Likewise for Djokovic, Nadal, and all the others. Last year, everyone said Nadal got a dream draw at Wimbledon - was that also favoritism?

Last year he was not considered to even pose a remote threat. But what about this years Wimbledon? Are you familiar i suppose with Mcenroe's attack on the organizers for bungling the tournament schedule, explicitly naming Nadal as a most vicitmized player. And how this bungling affected his grueling, marathon match against Sonderling. Nadal was forced from then on to play each day until the final. Could this be because of his recognition as a ****** in grass to the boy in the white jacket - having surprisingly challenged him in the previous year's final, or just another random event in a unfolding series?

zorman
08-26-2007, 03:13 AM
Djokovic will get his share of easy draws, and his share of tough ones (such as this one - this one is pretty brutal), and so will all the others.

Djokovic is earmarked as the man to end Federer's dominance at the U.S. Open this year.
Mcenroe said: ""I think the guy who has the best chance (to defeat Federer) is Djokovic - who beat him in Canada in the final up there. "
So i suppose under the light of the above statements, Djokovic's extremely hard draw and Federer's easy one could be considered with a strong dose of blind faith, again as an unlikely coincidence.
Hmmm, too many coincidences this year...

Actually, at the US Open, the most common accusation is favoritism to Andy Roddick, and he's been put in a pretty bad bind - to face Federer in the quarters, and that's only if he gets past Berdych in the round of 16.

If it wouldn't be Roddick in the quarter's against Federer, it would be Blake who is also an american coming from Cincinnati' s final, and who has the same approximately nil chances of beating the swiss as his fellow countryman. So there is no real difference there. Davidenko is number 4 so he can only face Federer in the semis.

slice bh compliment
08-26-2007, 03:37 AM
I think the trouble is that people come to this with the NCAA tournament in the back of their mind. A very sensible system where all teams are seeded and the draw follows a LOT of order. That works.

In tennis it would not because the rankings/seedings could be manipulated weeks before each slam. The random nature of seed placements is actually a good thing.

dukemunson
08-26-2007, 12:04 PM
Djokovic is earmarked as the man to end Federer's dominance at the U.S. Open this year.
Mcenroe said: ""I think the guy who has the best chance (to defeat Federer) is Djokovic - who beat him in Canada in the final up there. "
So i suppose under the light of the above statements, Djokovic's extremely hard draw and Federer's easy one could be considered with a strong dose of blind faith, again as an unlikely coincidence.
Hmmm, too many coincidences this year...



If it wouldn't be Roddick in the quarter's against Federer, it would be Blake who is also an american coming from Cincinnati' s final, and who has the same approximately nil chances of beating the swiss as his fellow countryman. So there is no real difference there. Davidenko is number 4 so he can only face Federer in the semis.


Haha i like how you continue to not believe how the draws are made...good humor. Sorry to ruin your conspiracy theory though but it's random with several players making the draw (via lotto chips they themselves pick). The seeds are made and then randomly drawn (placed of course so the 3 seed couldnt play the 1 seed int he quarters of course). After the seeds are placed then everything is random, meaning you could technically have every single widlcard and qualifier playing each other...its all random...meaning some yes are easier then others...though over the course of a career it of course evens out...

Kobble
08-26-2007, 02:03 PM
If it hasn't been brought up Tursunov and Henman, again. That is fixed.

BigServer1
08-26-2007, 02:10 PM
It is very difficult to me to believe that such important things are left to "random". And if it is "random" then we have a repeated coincidence. Thrice in a row. Work out the odds. Let's say however that i stick by your story. Now, how would you explain the following:
Federer's draw up until 1/8 final: Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Isner, Nieminen.
Nadal's draw up until 1/8 final: Jones, Sweeting, Tipsarevic, Hernandez, Tsonga, Henman, Tursunov.
Do these fields of players seem to you as rather equal, or even slightly favorable for the golden boy, reflecting his status as number 1 compared to Nadal's place in number 2?
Or is there a huge difference?
And now look at Djokovic's draw up until 1/8 final: Ancic (CRO! 1st Round), Stepanek, Berlocq, Mahut, Del Potro, Hartfield, Melzer.
And what about this draw? Is it a fair draw for number 3 when number 1 is given such a royal treatment? Not even one qualifier for Federer's rivals?
Is all this again a "random" coincidence?
Some may say these are early matches so it won't matter. I would reply that in a grand slam a player must go in two weeks through seven matches of five sets. Everything does make a difference. That's why a player's total court spend time in the latter stages is considered an important statistical figure.

Great. Another conspiracy theory spouting poster...I was thinking we needed a few more around here.

Max G.
08-26-2007, 02:38 PM
If it hasn't been brought up Tursunov and Henman, again. That is fixed.

Why fixed? Why would anybody on earth WANT to see those two play in an early round, yet again? It's bad luck for Tim, good luck for Dima...

Roger is Boring
08-26-2007, 03:45 PM
us fixed the draw for federer

tennispro11
08-26-2007, 03:47 PM
us fixed the draw for federer

Yeah sure, go crawl back in your hole.

JW10S
08-26-2007, 04:21 PM
The pro tournament draws are made in public, you can attend the draws--I have. There are often big ceremonies surrounding the making of the draw with media in attendance. As I said earlier they are not made in some dark, smoke filled, back room with Tony Soprano types saying 'where should be put so-and-so'. The term 'the luck of the draw' was not coined for no reason...

Fedace
08-26-2007, 04:23 PM
Soville Jenkins, resurrect your carreer and beat federer at the US open. It will change your life forever.

xtremerunnerars
08-26-2007, 04:32 PM
us fixed the draw for federer

Moron...doesn't the ITF make the draw?

Nadal_Freak
08-26-2007, 04:52 PM
us fixed the draw for federer
I agree. You seem to understand the game.

JW10S
08-26-2007, 05:30 PM
Again, the draw was made in public, this year's draw was made at the Empire State building for all to see--you guys are so naive...

zorman
08-27-2007, 12:34 AM
Haha i like how you continue to not believe how the draws are made...good humor. Sorry to ruin your conspiracy theory though but it's random with several players making the draw (via lotto chips they themselves pick). The seeds are made and then randomly drawn (placed of course so the 3 seed couldnt play the 1 seed int he quarters of course). After the seeds are placed then everything is random, meaning you could technically have every single widlcard and qualifier playing each other...its all random...meaning some yes are easier then others...though over the course of a career it of course evens out...

I never did explicitly say that the draw was fixed. Don't jump to unsupportable conclusions. I said that what we are dealing here is a strange series of unlikely events this year, all favoring Federer. If you had read carefully all my posts and you are truly unbiased you would have acknowledged that fact. Based on this observation i then expressed my opinion that PERHAPS this draw was fixed. I have no solid proof for that, but the evidence point this way.
Now if you want to keep insisting that everything is a random coincidence be my guest. But the chances for all these successive events occurring are really small.
By the way how can you be so certain that the picking of chips during the drawing ceremony is a transparent procedure?
Do you really think that the people who run the show would be unable to fix it if they really wanted to? Well, only a naive person would believe that.

zorman
08-27-2007, 12:44 AM
Great. Another conspiracy theory spouting poster...I was thinking we needed a few more around here.

I never used the word conspiracy. You did. Although i do not accept your labeling, i thank you for your kind comment. I really did not know i was so needed here, but anyway i appreciate it.
By the way, please bring some arguments to the discussion because it seems that up till now i am the only one who has.

lambielspins
08-27-2007, 12:48 AM
It really doesn't matter. Pova is not defending. Her game right now sucks. At present can't beat Henin, Venus, Serena.
She would have to work VERY hard to win against Ana or Jelena.

However, Maria's ultimate motivation is on the line. 2.4Mil. That alone might propel her dismal serve another 10mph.

My prediction is Venus is going to win. I want to see Venus-Henin play.

Yeah but dont forget Maria only would have to beat ONE of those five players you mentioned, including the three you say at present pretty much no way she can beat. If she had to beat 2 or 3 of them I would say no way, however only 1 of them who knows what might happen. Also all those five players you mentioned will have to duke it out and work pretty hard probably to get through to the final, where Maria might have exerted so much less to get there.

Maria is lucky to be in a draw where her biggest competition are the other strong Russians. Not only are the other Russians weaker then the top half players right now, but they have a mental block vs her too. If you have watched Kuznetsova, Petrova, Chakvetadze, Dementieva, play vs her in the past, not that some of those are exactly renowned for mental strength to begin with mind you, it is clear there is a psychological edge Maria has in the matchup with other Russians that goes beyond just being mentally tougher.

Slazenger
08-27-2007, 02:52 AM
Yeah but dont forget Maria only would have to beat ONE of those five players you mentioned, including the three you say at present pretty much no way she can beat. If she had to beat 2 or 3 of them I would say no way, however only 1 of them who knows what might happen. Also all those five players you mentioned will have to duke it out and work pretty hard probably to get through to the final, where Maria might have exerted so much less to get there.

Well this is kind of what happened in Australia.
Serena had to fight off Petrova, Jankovic, Peer and Vaidisova in tough matches.
Maria had her usual cakewalk draw. Her only challenge should've been Clijsters but she was too far gone in nuptials to think on court.
On paper Maria should have destroyed Serena. We all know what happened.

Let me also add that Chakvetadze is the only player in her half I believe can beat Maria. I don't think Vaidisova can. I don't think they've ever played before so that should be interesting.

However, I'm willing to put money on this. Maria is not defending. (unless somehow she miraculously starts serving like she did this time last year).

anchorsteamer
08-31-2007, 12:50 AM
I never used the word conspiracy. You did. Although i do not accept your labeling, i thank you for your kind comment. I really did not know i was so needed here, but anyway i appreciate it.
By the way, please bring some arguments to the discussion because it seems that up till now i am the only one who has.

Because like several people I have been to the draw ceremony and like a few people have actually taken part in making the draw at pro tournaments. The NBA ping pong balls are fixed too of course...

coloskier
08-31-2007, 06:06 AM
Until the Williams sisters start playing a real schedule instead of playing only in the majors, you are going to have this problem. Maybe if they required someone to play in at least 20 tournaments and a minimum of 25 matches in a year regardless of injury before a Slam, it might get rid of the problem. Of course, then you will have even more injury problems.

guygee
08-31-2007, 06:45 AM
U.S. Open Draw Fixed

In other news:


Ghost of Pancho beats Laver in secret 2 AM match
Hidden Hitler clones dominate Boy's juniors
China's Bao Xishun hits 200 mph serve in Olympics Qualies
Sharapova suffers career-ending earlobe injury
Roddick finds key to beating Federer
Blake wins in 5

uhh....wait!

daddy
08-31-2007, 07:27 AM
U.S. Open Draw Fixed

In other news:


Ghost of Pancho beats Laver in secret 2 AM match
Hidden Hitler clones dominate Boy's juniors
China's Bao Xishun hits 200 mph serve in Olympics Qualies
Sharapova suffers career-ending earlobe injury
Roddick finds key to beating Federer
Blake wins in 5

uhh....wait!

Heh ;)

But I do have a question here - why is the bottom half of the draw postponed for today, so they would have to play back to back matches in couple of days if wanting to come to the final, while top half of the draw will play every other day like they were all supposed to ?

David L
08-31-2007, 07:55 AM
It is very difficult to me to believe that such important things are left to "random". And if it is "random" then we have a repeated coincidence. Thrice in a row. Work out the odds. Let's say however that i stick by your story. Now, how would you explain the following:
Federer's draw up until 1/8 final: Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Isner, Nieminen.
Nadal's draw up until 1/8 final: Jones, Sweeting, Tipsarevic, Hernandez, Tsonga, Henman, Tursunov.
Do these fields of players seem to you as rather equal, or even slightly favorable for the golden boy, reflecting his status as number 1 compared to Nadal's place in number 2?
Or is there a huge difference?
And now look at Djokovic's draw up until 1/8 final: Ancic (CRO! 1st Round), Stepanek, Berlocq, Mahut, Del Potro, Hartfield, Melzer.
And what about this draw? Is it a fair draw for number 3 when number 1 is given such a royal treatment? Not even one qualifier for Federer's rivals?
Is all this again a "random" coincidence?
Some may say these are early matches so it won't matter. I would reply that in a grand slam a player must go in two weeks through seven matches of five sets. Everything does make a difference. That's why a player's total court spend time in the latter stages is considered an important statistical figure.If you throw a coin and it lands heads 3 times in succession, do you get suspicious or just put it down to chance? These things are random. Whoever you put in front of Federer, most likely he is going to beat anyway. Federer's draw is no cakewalk as it is. Isner, Gasquet, Berdych, Roddick, Blake. I'm sure if asked, Nadal would prefer to keep his draw. At last years Wimbledon, Federer had Gasquet in the first round, then Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, while Nadal had a comparatively easy draw. Scheduling wise, Federer last year had his first round US Open match on the third day, like Nadal this year. Canas, who has beaten Federer twice this year, was in his half at Roland Garros and this US Open. As for Djokovic, Federer has already faced him 3 times this year and shared the same side of the draw with him more often, most recently at Cincinnati, but Djokovic lost in the second round. With so many tournaments and so many draws, sometimes unusual things will happen, like having qualifiers grouped together. But since when has the unusual automatically entailed conspiracy? Are unusual things not allowed to happen by accident? In any case, whatever your draw, you are going to have to beat good players eventually to win the tournament. If you don't employ selective memory or memory a week old, you will see that everyone gets their good and bad breaks over time.

David L
08-31-2007, 08:10 AM
It is very difficult to me to believe that such important things are left to "random". And if it is "random" then we have a repeated coincidence. Thrice in a row. Work out the odds. Let's say however that i stick by your story. Now, how would you explain the following:
Federer's draw up until 1/8 final: Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Isner, Nieminen.
Nadal's draw up until 1/8 final: Jones, Sweeting, Tipsarevic, Hernandez, Tsonga, Henman, Tursunov.
Do these fields of players seem to you as rather equal, or even slightly favorable for the golden boy, reflecting his status as number 1 compared to Nadal's place in number 2?
Or is there a huge difference?
And now look at Djokovic's draw up until 1/8 final: Ancic (CRO! 1st Round), Stepanek, Berlocq, Mahut, Del Potro, Hartfield, Melzer.
And what about this draw? Is it a fair draw for number 3 when number 1 is given such a royal treatment? Not even one qualifier for Federer's rivals?
Is all this again a "random" coincidence?
Some may say these are early matches so it won't matter. I would reply that in a grand slam a player must go in two weeks through seven matches of five sets. Everything does make a difference. That's why a player's total court spend time in the latter stages is considered an important statistical figure.I should add Alun Jones and Sweeting are less threatening than qualifiers, because their rankings are too low to get into the main draw and, as wild cards, have not had to prove themselves to get there. Players who win qualifying are generally playing the best of those who cannot get direct entry and are confident with a few matches under their belts. Also, Federer was not set to play 5 or 6 qualifiers. They were grouped together, so would play each other before they saw him. He could have played 3 qualifiers at the most, but now will only have played two.

guygee
08-31-2007, 08:13 AM
Heh ;)

But I do have a question here - why is the bottom half of the draw postponed for today, so they would have to play back to back matches in couple of days if wanting to come to the final, while top half of the draw will play every other day like they were all supposed to ?

If all went according to the seeding, this could be the natural advantage earned by the #1 seed over the #2 seed. Also probably an issue: they probably did not want some of the top seeds playing on the back courts last night...a question of spreading out the best matches to improve television ratings and other commercial concerns.

zorman
08-31-2007, 12:43 PM
At last years Wimbledon, Federer had Gasquet in the first round, then Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, while Nadal had a comparatively easy draw.

Both Federer and Nadal faced unseeded opponents in the first two rounds (Gasquet, Henman the first, Bogdanovic, Kendrick the second) the in the third round Nadal faced Agassi and Federer Mahut, in the fourth round Federer beat Berdych and Nadal Fish, in the quarters Federer beat Ancic and Nadal Nieminen, in the semis it would be either Bjorkman or Stepanek fot Federer and Hewitt or Baghdatis for Nadal. So i don't see any overall big difference there and certainly nothing close to this US Open draw.
But you didn't mention anything about this year's Wimbledon.

As for Djokovic, Federer has already faced him 3 times this year and shared the same side of the draw with him more often, most recently at Cincinnati, but Djokovic lost in the second round.

Perhaps, but after Djokovic became dangerous he failed to meet him in the last three Slams.

zorman
08-31-2007, 12:47 PM
Whoever you put in front of Federer, most likely he is going to beat anyway.

Except Nadal of course (9-5).

ACE of Hearts
08-31-2007, 01:23 PM
Fed would cream Nadal if they met in the final here at the U.S Open.

zorman
08-31-2007, 01:51 PM
Fed would cream Nadal if they met in the final here at the U.S Open.

Highly optimistic even for a Fed fan. Perhaps the knowledge of his injured knees, gives you a boost in confidence.
And anyway the record is a record and your wishful thinking is just that.

scholarlyg
08-31-2007, 02:05 PM
i don't believe the williams should play in the finals, if they want higher seeds then play a full schedule of events and quit crying about it, rankings are rankings...if serena wants a higher ranking then she needs to play more events and quit modeling for cow fancy magazine...

they arent crying about posters on this board are. u dont see venus crying about this draw just like she didnt at wimbledon. in fact she was quite excited about facing maria and we all know how that went.

lainey80
08-31-2007, 02:21 PM
Well, with Roddick on Federerīs quarter and Serena on Heninīs quarter I guess nobody will say again that USO draws are fixed for americans.
I agree. I kinda think it was drawn a little easier for Blake, though.

David L
08-31-2007, 05:17 PM
Except Nadal of course (9-5).Actually 8-5, and 4-2 to Federer on non-clay surfaces. I think most recognize Nadal is better on clay at the moment, so the clay head to head comes as no surprise. In any case, here we are talking about the US Open and their respective draws, not their h2h. Simple fact is, Federer's win to loss ratio has been better than anyone elses over the past 4 years.

NamRanger
08-31-2007, 06:12 PM
Both Federer and Nadal faced unseeded opponents in the first two rounds (Gasquet, Henman the first, Bogdanovic, Kendrick the second) the in the third round Nadal faced Agassi and Federer Mahut, in the fourth round Federer beat Berdych and Nadal Fish, in the quarters Federer beat Ancic and Nadal Nieminen, in the semis it would be either Bjorkman or Stepanek fot Federer and Hewitt or Baghdatis for Nadal. So i don't see any overall big difference there and certainly nothing close to this US Open draw.
But you didn't mention anything about this year's Wimbledon.



Perhaps, but after Djokovic became dangerous he failed to meet him in the last three Slams.


Most of Nadal's opponents were qualifiers, and most were out of shape (Labadze, hello?) or just were not grass players. Every single one of Federer's opponents that year were or are considered dangerous grass players.



Federer really would cream Nadal here at the U.S. Open. Federer if he finds his form (like he always does in the semis) at the U.S. Open is pretty much unstoppable. Agassi played the best tennis of his life and still only managed to take a set. Roddick played out of his mind and still only managed to take a set off Federer. Federer pretty much put a stomping on Hewitt in 2004. Nadal may have been able to make in ways at Wimbledon, but this is a FAST surface, something Nadal does not like.

David L
08-31-2007, 06:19 PM
Both Federer and Nadal faced unseeded opponents in the first two rounds (Gasquet, Henman the first, Bogdanovic, Kendrick the second) the in the third round Nadal faced Agassi and Federer Mahut, in the fourth round Federer beat Berdych and Nadal Fish, in the quarters Federer beat Ancic and Nadal Nieminen, in the semis it would be either Bjorkman or Stepanek fot Federer and Hewitt or Baghdatis for Nadal. So i don't see any overall big difference there and certainly nothing close to this US Open draw.
But you didn't mention anything about this year's Wimbledon.To say Gasquet/Henman was equivalent to Bogdanovic/Kendrick, on grass, because none of them were seeded, is clearly not very sensible. But if you are basing your argument on seedings only, not pedigree, Federer will face 3 unseeded players in his first 3 matches at this US Open, as will Nadal if he wins his second round match. Then they will start to meet the seeds, if they win. If you look at the draw, you will see Nadal actually has the lower seeds in his half. So what's the problem?

You want me to talk about Wimbledon? OK. At Wimbledon this year Federer and Nadal both played unseeded players in the first two rounds then met seeds in the third. In fact, Federer's first seeded player, Safin, had a higher ranking than Nadal's, Soderling. Federer's draw: Gabashvili, Del Potro, Safin, Haas, Ferrero, Gasquet, Nadal. Nadal's draw, Fish, Eschauer, Soderling, Youzhny, Berdych, Djokovic, Federer. I don't see any glaring advantage here toward Federer, he just makes it look easy. Give him Nadal's draw and he will make it look equally easy. He's 5-0 against Fish(twice on grass), 4-0 against Soderling (once on grass), 10-0 against Youzhny (thrice on grass), 4-1 against Berdych (twice on grass), and 4-1 against Djokovic. In last year's Wimbledon draw, Nadal would have struggled to get past Mahut, who played an excellent match against Federer and still lost in straights. Mahut has already beaten Nadal on grass.

Perhaps, but after Djokovic became dangerous he failed to meet him in the last three Slams.As I said before, toss a coin. See if at any time you get three in a row. It's unlikely Federer and Djokovic will always be on opposite sides of the draw. A little more perspective and a little less myopia will do you the world of good. Be patient.

r2473
08-31-2007, 07:54 PM
Hard to believe that Henin and Serena are AGAIN slated to meet up in the quarters when most people believe this should be the actual finals. I realize that Serena's ranking isn't high enough but come on please. And what's with Shriekapova always seeming to have a cake walk draw to the finals, I mean do her looks really raise the tv ratings THAT much?

Your title says the draw is "fixed" but your message seems to suggest it is "broken".

zorman
09-01-2007, 01:00 AM
Actually 8-5, and 4-2 to Federer on non-clay surfaces. I think most recognize Nadal is better on clay at the moment, so the clay head to head comes as no surprise. In any case, here we are talking about the US Open and their respective draws, not their h2h. Simple fact is, Federer's win to loss ratio has been better than anyone elses over the past 4 years.

Yeah, whatever. I counted also their next meeting (kidding).
Those who do not recognize Nadal as better in clay must be watching another sport and confusing it with tennis.
Actually it is 2-2 in hard surfaces.

zorman
09-01-2007, 01:10 AM
Most of Nadal's opponents were qualifiers, and most were out of shape (Labadze, hello?) or just were not grass players. Every single one of Federer's opponents that year were or are considered dangerous grass players.

Correct, Labadze had beaten Fish which means he was not out of shape.
What about the pair Hewitt, Baghdatis against Stepanek and Bjorkman?

zorman
09-01-2007, 01:17 AM
To say Gasquet/Henman was equivalent to Bogdanovic/Kendrick, on grass, because none of them were seeded, is clearly not very sensible. But if you are basing your argument on seedings only, not pedigree, Federer will face 3 unseeded players in his first 3 matches at this US Open, as will Nadal if he wins his second round match. Then they will start to meet the seeds, if they win. If you look at the draw, you will see Nadal actually has the lower seeds in his half. So what's the problem?

I was referring to Djokovic's draw, not Nadal's. Because Djokovic is now widely recognized as the most dangerous threat to Federer in this US Open.


You want me to talk about Wimbledon? OK. At Wimbledon this year Federer and Nadal both played unseeded players in the first two rounds then met seeds in the third. In fact, Federer's first seeded player, Safin, had a higher ranking than Nadal's, Soderling. Federer's draw: Gabashvili, Del Potro, Safin, Haas, Ferrero, Gasquet, Nadal. Nadal's draw, Fish, Eschauer, Soderling, Youzhny, Berdych, Djokovic, Federer. I don't see any glaring advantage here toward Federer

You got me wrong again. If you had read my earlier post you would know that i was talking about the bungling of schedule for which Mcenrow himself accused the organizers, explicitly naming Nadal as the most negatively afflicted player.

zorman
09-01-2007, 01:29 AM
As I said before, toss a coin. See if at any time you get three in a row. It's unlikely Federer and Djokovic will always be on opposite sides of the draw. A little more perspective and a little less myopia will do you the world of good. Be patient.

I was referring to an overall combination of propabilities which IMO drops the the odds far below the ratio of 1 to 8 -which is the propability for three successive heads in coin tossing. For instance one should also take into account the propability of Federer having such an easy early draw and Djokovic such a hard one. And also factor in what happened to Nadal in this years Wimbledon. Of course i cannot mathematically express these combined propabilities because i cannot factor in all the parameters, but it seems to be a low number indeed which in combination with the coin toss ratio gives an even lower number. So there is no question of patience. Occurred events already speak for themselves.

Rhino
09-01-2007, 02:04 AM
Now, how would you explain the following:
Federer's draw up until 1/8 final: Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Qualifier, Isner, Nieminen.

Wow, Federer had to beat 6 qualifiers before he played Isner in the third round? I missed that!

zorman
09-01-2007, 02:07 AM
Federer really would cream Nadal here at the U.S. Open. Federer if he finds his form (like he always does in the semis) at the U.S. Open is pretty much unstoppable. Agassi played the best tennis of his life and still only managed to take a set. Roddick played out of his mind and still only managed to take a set off Federer. Federer pretty much put a stomping on Hewitt in 2004. Nadal may have been able to make in ways at Wimbledon, but this is a FAST surface, something Nadal does not like.

If Nadal overcomes Djokovic's obstacle unscathed and is at 100% physically in the final then all you golden boy's optimistic fans may be in for a big surprise.
Nadal is neither Agassi, or Roddick or Hewitt.

zorman
09-01-2007, 02:08 AM
Wow, Federer had to beat 6 qualifiers before he played Isner in the third round? I missed that!

This was the start draw. Pity you've missed it.

David L
09-01-2007, 06:58 AM
I was referring to Djokovic's draw, not Nadal's. Because Djokovic is now widely recognized as the most dangerous threat to Federer in this US Open.

Well, using your logic, Djokovic also faces 3 unseeded players in his first 3 matches. The opportunity was there for him to face the 31st seed in the third round, Jurgen Melzer, but that player lost. The seeds in his little section are also lower than the seeds encountered in Federer's section. So I still do not see the problem.

You got me wrong again. If you had read my earlier post you would know that i was talking about the bungling of schedule for which Mcenrow himself accused the organizers, explicitly naming Nadal as the most negatively afflicted player.

What happened to the schedule was just bad luck, people cannot control or often predict the weather. In Wimbledon it is tradition for the defending champion to open the championships and Christen the grass on centre court, so Federer's matches were always going to be scheduled first. That Nadal was the one worst affected by the scheduling problems is not entirely the fault of Wimbeldon. He had 2 matches go 5 sets before the final, right in the heart of the rain delays. His matches also take longer because he takes a lot of time between points and tends to have longer rallies. By contrast, Federer is a quick player, barely taking any time between points and ending rallies early.

David L
09-01-2007, 07:08 AM
I was referring to an overall combination of propabilities which IMO drops the the odds far below the ratio of 1 to 8 -which is the propability for three successive heads in coin tossing. For instance one should also take into account the propability of Federer having such an easy early draw and Djokovic such a hard one. And also factor in what happened to Nadal in this years Wimbledon. Of course i cannot mathematically express these combined propabilities because i cannot factor in all the parameters, but it seems to be a low number indeed which in combination with the coin toss ratio gives an even lower number. So there is no question of patience. Occurred events already speak for themselves.You're looking for things which are not there. You mention three things, this US Open draw, scheduling at Wimbledon this year, and Djokovic being on the other side of the draw 3 times in Grandslams this year, all of which I have covered. Just to add, Djokovic has been on the opposite side in Grandslams this year, 3 out of 4 times. All it takes is this not to have been the case one further time and the split is 50/50, hardly a heavy weighting of the draw. Also, this is the first time Djokovic has been the 3rd seed in a Grandslam, in the last Grandslam he was seeded 5th and Federer got the 3rd seed, who was Roddick.

slice bh compliment
09-01-2007, 07:16 AM
David L,
Yeah, but, but, the people who make the draw need to look out for important little details like these, so they can keep us true fans happy, see? I mean, it's not our fault that we are total dorks and conspiracy theorists, right?

Look, we're not getting enough attention at home/school/with the ladies/etc, and we just want someone to listen and tell us we're sharp. Is that too much to ask?

Also, complaining about draws is a great way to justify our favorite players not winning. The same goes for scheduling, balls, court speed and media coverage.

God forbid we shut up a little bit and go PLAY some actual tennis.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-01-2007, 07:28 AM
The draw really matters little. Sharapova has inferior skills and a weak mind--which she will eventually pay for as in the other slams this year. That is the gift to all who like real talent to progress.

zorman
09-01-2007, 10:56 AM
You're looking for things which are not there. You mention three things, this US Open draw, scheduling at Wimbledon this year, and Djokovic being on the other side of the draw 3 times in Grandslams this year, all of which I have covered.

If i am looking at imaginable things how can it be that you have coverd them?
By the way did you cover the scheduling in Wimbledon?
And Djokovic's brutal draw? I don't think so.

Just to add, Djokovic has been on the opposite side in Grandslams this year, 3 out of 4 times. All it takes is this not to have been the case one further time and the split is 50/50, hardly a heavy weighting of the draw. Also, this is the first time Djokovic has been the 3rd seed in a Grandslam, in the last Grandslam he was seeded 5th and Federer got the 3rd seed, who was Roddick.

I am getting quite bored to repeat the same stuff again and again. As i said in a previous post purely 'coincidentallly' again Djokovic was placed in Federer's draw in AO when he wasn't widely considered a threat- or you doubt that too? Then purely 'coincidentally' again he was placed on the other side the next three times, when he had already become a force to reckon with (and a win in Miami).
So if you do not come up with some good arguments i don't see any point of continuing this discussion. Of course you may think that you already have but that's the same to me.

zorman
09-01-2007, 11:00 AM
David L,
Yeah, but, but, the people who make the draw need to look out for important little details like these, so they can keep us true fans happy, see? I mean, it's not our fault that we are total dorks and conspiracy theorists, right?

Look, we're not getting enough attention at home/school/with the ladies/etc, and we just want someone to listen and tell us we're sharp. Is that too much to ask?

Also, complaining about draws is a great way to justify our favorite players not winning. The same goes for scheduling, balls, court speed and media coverage.

God forbid we shut up a little bit and go PLAY some actual tennis.

I really sympathize with you fellows. Don't be so harsh on yourselves just because you're lacking any real arguments.

slice bh compliment
09-01-2007, 02:26 PM
Excellent comeback! High five!

David L
09-01-2007, 07:37 PM
If i am looking at imaginable things how can it be that you have coverd them?
By the way did you cover the scheduling in Wimbledon?
And Djokovic's brutal draw? I don't think so.



I am getting quite bored to repeat the same stuff again and again. As i said in a previous post purely 'coincidentallly' again Djokovic was placed in Federer's draw in AO when he wasn't widely considered a threat- or you doubt that too? Then purely 'coincidentally' again he was placed on the other side the next three times, when he had already become a force to reckon with (and a win in Miami).
So if you do not come up with some good arguments i don't see any point of continuing this discussion. Of course you may think that you already have but that's the same to me.Yes, I've already tackled all of these issues. Read my posts. Also, by your own standards, Djokovic does not have a brutal draw because he will meet 3 unseeded players, just like Federer and Nadal, before he begins to face seeds. How do you like Nadal's draw?

DoubleHanded&LovinIt
09-01-2007, 07:54 PM
snapple--What an INCREDIBLE LACK OF FACTUAL OR LOGICAL SUPPORT!

anchorsteamer
09-02-2007, 03:44 AM
I really sympathize with you fellows. Don't be so harsh on yourselves just because you're lacking any real arguments.

How is anyone taking this guy at all seriously? He has absolutely no concept of how a draw is made, making arguing with him like debating with a 9 year old about how to drive a car...your points are utterly preposterous as anomalies occur in any game or situation involving chance (is the net conspiring against someone if 3 straight hit the tape and roll over??? No...it happens and over the course of a career it evens out...except for possibly Derick Rostagno).

slice bh compliment
09-02-2007, 05:09 AM
How is anyone taking this guy at all seriously? He has absolutely no concept of how a draw is made, making arguing with him like debating with a 9 year old about how to drive a car...your points are utterly preposterous as anomalies occur in any game or situation involving chance (is the net conspiring against someone if 3 straight hit the tape and roll over??? No...it happens and over the course of a career it evens out...except for possibly Derick Rostagno).

Stuff you don't learn in Satellties for $300 please, Alex.
anchorsteamer, do us all a favor: put the brew down and go google all of the new technologies that go into net tape and net strap construction, will you? Then come back here and tell us there's no conspiracy.

Dude, you have no idea. Net tapes are almost as manipulated as a Vegas roulette wheel! ANd it's just not fair!

Yeah, man I remember that Becker/Rostagno match in 89. 3rd rd, was it? Then Boris takes that set and the next ... goes on to win the whole tournament. Awesome.

anchorsteamer
09-02-2007, 06:33 AM
Stuff you don't learn in Satellties for $300 please, Alex.
anchorsteamer, do us all a favor: put the brew down and go google all of the new technologies that go into net tape and net strap construction, will you? Then come back here and tell us there's no conspiracy.

Dude, you have no idea. Net tapes are almost as manipulated as a Vegas roulette wheel! ANd it's just not fair!

Yeah, man I remember that Becker/Rostagno match in 89. 3rd rd, was it? Then Boris takes that set and the next ... goes on to win the whole tournament. Awesome.

Alex???

I actually agree with your thoughts on the net though, as it and the wind have certainly done all they can to send me home lately...luckily Im using that $150 first round money well though, namely on stiff drinks...

The Rostagno match was insane...it was over, Rostagno had won...then Becker gets the let and wins the whole tournament...crazy...

slice bh compliment
09-02-2007, 06:43 AM
Alex???

I actually agree with your thoughts on the net though, as it and the wind have certainly done all they can to send me home lately...luckily Im using that $150 first round money well though, namely on stiff drinks...

The Rostagno match was insane...it was over, Rostagno had won...then Becker gets the let and wins the whole tournament...crazy...

Yeah, and the Alex thing was a Jeopardy reference.

What were you like five watching that Becker/Rostagno match?

dukemunson
09-02-2007, 07:05 AM
Yeah, and the Alex thing was a Jeopardy reference.

What were you like five watching that Becker/Rostagno match?

7...but yeah I remember it (admitedly probably more from the tapes then from actually watching it) but yeah I remember it. I actually watched that whole match about a year ago...Rostagno was tough, but fate intervened and Becker did the rest...

Moose Malloy
09-06-2007, 12:34 PM
7...but yeah I remember it (admitedly probably more from the tapes then from actually watching it) but yeah I remember it. I actually watched that whole match about a year ago...Rostagno was tough, but fate intervened and Becker did the rest...

is there anyway I can get a copy of that match?

dukemunson
09-10-2007, 01:12 AM
Im sure my friend still has it...I'll see what I can do...

isuk@tennis
09-10-2007, 01:58 AM
Yeah, whatever. I counted also their next meeting (kidding).
Those who do not recognize Nadal as better in clay must be watching another sport and confusing it with tennis.
Actually it is 2-2 in hard surfaces.

im pretty sure David L said 4-2 on non clay events
are those two matches on grass not considered non clay events or is that grass also considered clay now?