PDA

View Full Version : Anybody notice the ridiculously easy draws Mr. Andy Roddick always seems to get!!!


davey25
02-15-2005, 06:47 AM
At the Australian Open Roddicks draw to the semis was a joke beyond jokes. It gave him a great chance to be in the finals despite being the weakest of the top four at the time, given that Hewitt who had a much tougher draw was physically spent. Ultimately he couldnt even take advantage of his opportunity and the superior Hewitt went through. In San Jose his draw again was a joke, his near loss to Enquist gives you an idea how he would do under a tougher draw.


It is just coincidence he always gets such easy draws. Given that the USTA gift-wrapped his U.S open title and year-end 1 ranking with bogus scheduling, assigning, and officiating, throughout the U.S open I suspect not.
Obviously it is important to have somebody perceived as a sex symbol(though he really is not that attractive at all), dates various people from the entertainment bizz(wonder were he gets the time to have been at so many premieres when he is supposably practicing so hard), and has tantrums on court(hey tennis is entertainment right)on top of the sport.

Andy Hewitt
02-15-2005, 07:02 AM
yeah..........

Cfidave
02-15-2005, 07:09 AM
Yeah, How can you not notice. But many people on these boards claim that any number one or two seed gets an easy draw, or that it is the luck of the draw. There is no question in my mind that this guy is being " handled carefully ". He is apparently the chosen one, as far as American mens' tennis goes. What bothers me more then the easy draws, is the constant gushing over this guy, by just about every network announcer out there. Even when he has total meltdowns, as at the AO, all you hear is either silence or " Andy's just not himself, or Andy should have stuck to his game plan". Anyone else that hides in the locker room, or tanked the 4th set in a major would get a verbal assault from the same announcers. I think there would be a lot less controversy over Andy, if the powers to be were a little more objective. Anybody that can stay in the top 5 tennis players in the world, has very special talent, he doesn't need the type of help he is getting.

rhubarb
02-15-2005, 07:13 AM
Yawn. If you have evidence that the draws are not random, please let us all know. It would be very interesting indeed.

By the way, in your opinion(s), what exactly would constitute a tough draw to the semis for Roddick?

Camilio Pascual
02-15-2005, 07:20 AM
It is just coincidence he always gets such easy draws.

That is the one statement I agree with.

joe sch
02-15-2005, 07:22 AM
Except for seeding, the draws are random ! Ever heard the phrase "luck of the draw" ?
Why would there be draw conspiracies for Roddick in tournaments like the AO, FO & W and 1/2 of the other tour events or is it just in America ?

norcal
02-15-2005, 07:29 AM
I agree all draws are fixed. C'mon look at Sania Mirza winning her first title, where??? India! And did you see her draw??? Bunch of no-names! Rumor has it Serena was gonna play in the tourney, kind of a cross-promotion with her budding Bollywood career but that Ramesh Krishnan talked her out of playing so Sania could win it all.

Something must be done about all this draw rigging!

jonas-the-ball-basher
02-15-2005, 07:33 AM
Agassi got some easy draws, but he still managed to loose to Melzer :confused:
If he's not even getting past Melzer, how is Agassi going to win another title :confused:
It really worries me, cuz I'm still a great fan of Agassi!

bigserving
02-15-2005, 08:10 AM
Learn the game boys and girls. Tournament draws are done in a random fashion and, by rule, are done in public. The next time that you attend a tourney, ask the referee when and where the draw will be done and you may attend and watch for yourself.

It seems equally uninsightful to say that someone who got beat, had an easy draw.

Quit whining and stop embarrasing yourself with your obvious lack of knowledge.

RoddickRulez
02-15-2005, 08:24 AM
I agree with all of you that think the draws are random
just because roddick got an easy draw a few times doesnt mean their doing it purposefully. Anyways why do you think he gets good draws. hmmmmmmm maybe cause he worked his way up to the top through winning in hard draws.

Chadwixx
02-15-2005, 09:02 AM
he has been playing nobody since he came on tour. his first year on the tour when he won all those matches he only played like 5 top 10 opponents all year.

u can see how good he is in the davis cup and the year end round robin where u cannot fix the draws.

he gets easy draws for one reason, he puts asses in the seats. same with agassi, if u can sell out the arena then ur gonna get to the finals.

RoddickRulez
02-15-2005, 09:03 AM
please ur kidding right

splink779
02-15-2005, 10:16 AM
It's just because there are so many Roddick haters here that you focus on him and are so critical. If he gets a few easy draws, all of a sudden its 'Roddick ALWAYS gets an easy draw.' If it were a case of easy draws, WHY WOULD THE AUSTRALIANS GIVE ANDY AN EASY DRAW AND NOT HEWITT!!?? Hewitt would put way more 'asses in the seat' than Andy at the AO. Of course all of this is irrelevant because it is random. Please stop the hating.

Max G.
02-15-2005, 11:08 AM
u can see how good he is in the davis cup and the year end round robin where u cannot fix the draws.


In the Masters Cup over the past two years, he's had three losses - to Schuettler, Federer, and Hewitt, respectively. He's had 5 wins - over Safin, Henman, Coria, Moya, and Coria again.

In Davis Cup, he's undefeated on hardcourts and grass, but has a 1-5 record on clay.

I'd say I agree, those two are a pretty good indicator of how good he is.

Chadwixx
02-15-2005, 11:10 AM
roddickrulz and splink779, did u see any favortism in the 2003 us open?

The Franchise
02-15-2005, 11:30 AM
Uh oh, the crybabies are at it again.

IOP
02-15-2005, 12:37 PM
Any ATP/WTA player will tell you that draws are manipulated in some ways, however they are done, however public the draws were made.

Look at the US Open draws, those hot up and coming Americans (who US tried to promote and make a big fuss about) always met somebody extreme popular in the first rounds. E.g., Jenkins vs Roddick, Kim vs Agassi, etc (many more). Don't tell me those were coincidences.

RoddickRulez
02-15-2005, 12:50 PM
IOP i think im gonna tell you somthin
hold on tight
this might hurt
well its just a coincidence

court_zone
02-15-2005, 01:03 PM
I bet they do manipulate some draws but just to see some popular players meet as IOP posted. I don't think that they are doing this to make the draws easier for Andy. Even if they manipulated the draw a bit, I really don't see them making one player have an easier draw than another on purpose. Andy's run at the USO was not without bumps in the road, he had Henman in the first round, Ljubicic in the second, and Malisse and Schalken before the semis. Compared to the other finalist, Ferrero who's higher ranked players challenges before the semis were Chela, Martin, and Hewitt.

Free_Martha
02-15-2005, 01:23 PM
Yawn. More whining from the peanut gallery.

RoddickRulez
02-15-2005, 01:24 PM
you guys are so dumb
they dont manipulate the draws period.

davey25
02-15-2005, 02:32 PM
Any ATP/WTA player will tell you that draws are manipulated in some ways, however they are done, however public the draws were made.

Look at the US Open draws, those hot up and coming Americans (who US tried to promote and make a big fuss about) always met somebody extreme popular in the first rounds. E.g., Jenkins vs Roddick, Kim vs Agassi, etc (many more). Don't tell me those were coincidences.

I couldnt agree more. It is quite easy to manipulate draws, saying the thought of people manipulating draws is outrageous is like saying manipulation
of judging in figure skating is outrageous. Then again there probably are some naive happy-pappies that think tennis draws cant be manipulated, figure skating judging is not rigged, and there are no steroids in baseball, LOL!
Sorry to those folks, awaken to something called the real world.

davey25
02-15-2005, 02:35 PM
Lastly I did not I know draws are fixed or which ones are fixed, just the thought that they sometimes could be arranged is possable in my view. I was curious to see if anybody else noticed the interestingly easy draws Roddick seems to get, just one of many players who seem to get draws situated a certain way. Obviously some have. :p

tykrum
02-15-2005, 03:57 PM
If the draws are "quite easily" manipulated, maybe you would care to share exactly how this happens under the public's nose? As bigserving has said, draws are done in public in a random fashion. It would take a lot of work to arrange a draw so that all the seeds in, say, Roddick's portion of the draw will lose before they get to face him, or so that all the seeds (which are arranged at least partially due to their number) would not be the ones that are a 'threat' to beat him. It would be extremely impressive they could pull all that off while performing a public randomized draw. This unsubstantiated arguement of fixing draws is really ridiculous. And how exactly does a process that involves some level of objectivity, like figure-skating or gymnastics judging, have anything to do with randomized tennis draws?

splink779
02-15-2005, 04:03 PM
And how exactly is ones opinion that a process that involves some level of objectivity, like figure-skating or gymnastics judging, has anything to do with randomized tennis draws?

I was wondering the same thing

Chadwixx
02-15-2005, 04:07 PM
Uh oh, the crybabies are at it again.

if i wanted to bash roddick i would point out all his losses to top 10 players. remember the stat federer had before playing safin, was like 25-0 vs top 10 players or something. take a look at roddicks record vs top 10 opponents, its laughable.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity/default.asp?year=2004&query=Singles&player=R485&x=13&y=2

go there and look at the players he faces

Chadwixx
02-15-2005, 04:13 PM
I was wondering the same thing

can u link me to how the public draws are done? i would assume they dont let fans get very close to the tournament directors table. can u even see what is drawn?

is like like lotto where a ball pops up with no one touching it and the camera zooms in on what is drawn?

goober
02-15-2005, 04:26 PM
if i wanted to bash roddick i would point out all his losses to top 10 players. remember the stat federer had before playing safin, was like 25-0 vs top 10 players or something. take a look at roddicks record vs top 10 opponents, its laughable.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity/default.asp?year=2004&query=Singles&player=R485&x=13&y=2

go there and look at the players he faces

Yawn this has been beaten to death ad nauseam. Yeah this has been looked up already.

Roddick vs top 10

Fed 1-8
Hewitt 1-5
Safin 3-2
Coria 4-0
Moya 3-1
Henman 2-3
Gaudio 0-0
Nalbandian 3-1
Agassi 1-5


He has a losing record to only 4 players in the top 10 and Henman and Roddick are basically a wash. Only 3 players consistently beat him #1Fed who beats everybody, #2Hewitt and Agassi. If you look at the winning % of other players in the top 10 vs other top 10 players you have Coria at 42% which basically the same as Roddick and Gaudio at 37% may be you should rag on them to?

Chadwixx
02-15-2005, 04:52 PM
those stats show his record vs the current top 10. i was referring to top 10 players when the match takes place.

RoddickRulez
02-15-2005, 05:07 PM
i dont get you guys why do you pick on roddick all the time look at gaudio coria etc etc etc
goodpost though by goober

VamosRafa
02-15-2005, 07:08 PM
Andy was the No. 1 seed in San Jose, right? How was he going to get a super-tough draw with that field? It's not exactly a Masters event, where all the top players had to sign up.

He did have Haas and potentially Agassi to contend with. Haas did his part, Agassi didn't. Don't understand why there's an issue there. As noted above, it's not as if Agassi had a particularly tough draw either. He lost to who???

All these smaller events (as well as the larger events) try to arrange the draw (with seeds) so that the top-seeded players are around for as long as possible. Andy was treated no differently than Agassi. He just won his matches.

I don't have the time to do this, but I recall Andy having some pretty tough draws over the years (Queen's a couple years ago, comes to mind, where he beat Agassi and Hewitt for the first time).

But if you want to test this argument, you should review all of Andy's draws over the past few years, at all events he has played, and then show, statistically speaking, how he gets easier draws than others in the Top 5ish. (Of course, that also would entail an analysis of the draws of those other players during that period.)

Perhaps this analysis will show us that, indeed, there's some conspiracy to give Andy favorable draws that no one else gets.

Until I see those stats, I'm going to continue to believe that draws aren't rigged. That yes, some players get the luck of the draw more than others. But no player is lucky all of the time.

Vlad
02-15-2005, 07:26 PM
In today's match, Roddick has lost only 5 points on his serve (first or second) against Lee. Once again, his matches seem to be so easy just because he breezes through them with his serve. Opponents feel it and typically play at less than they are capable of and losing their serves because of all the pressure.
Strange thing is that his serve seems to be always there when he is playing non-clay events. It is not only fast but it has better placement now and serving at an incredible serve %.
So, here is my question, where is the depth of men's tennis when it seems to me there are a handful of guys on tour who CAN return his serve? He has been on tour for 4 years now, but almost all of non top 10 players still are having a difficult time putting his serves in court...

VamosRafa
02-15-2005, 07:32 PM
Well, let's look at his opponent, H-T Lee.

Andy is now 8-1 against Lee.

I do feel sorry for Lee, as if anyone gets a bad draw, it's he. As he always has to face Roddick in tourneys, often in the early rounds.

They tend to play many of the same events.

Many of you think Andy is Roger's whipping boy; well, Andy has a few of them himself. Lee is one of them.

That win by Lee in Sydney likely was the high point in his career -- but even that was surrounded by controversy.

But let's not go there. Lee does know he can beat Andy, if the wind is blowing in the right direction. *lol*

Which won't happen on an indoor court. ;-)

Dedans Penthouse
02-16-2005, 06:56 AM
I'm going to continue to believe that draws aren't rigged.

(dedans lying on a psychatrist's couch):

"Gulp!Doc, as if it weren't bad enough, I actually had to agree with Susan!"

(in Valley-Girl voice): I'm...LIKE....TOeTiLLY tramatized!" )

Seriously, I suspect that it's the personal dislike of Andy Roddick that usually (not always, but usually) prompts these "crabby" kind of threads. You know the ones wherein you take every little picayune "feature" of Andy-Delicadandy and nit-pick it to death:

**Roddick's got such a geek vibe going! (like he's the only "geek" on the ATP tour)

**Roddick wears a stupid-looking visor! (well, he did look dumb wearin' that 'Croupier' lid on his noggin')

**Roddick's girlfriend (Mandy Moore) isn't so hot.

Yet if those same "Andy Agenda" detractors DIDN'T know Mandy Moore
from a hole-in-the-wall or her one-time connection to Andy Roddick,
they'd be the 1st in line to buy
"Mandy Moore's Used Bottled Bathwater"

** "So what if he won the U.S. Open!....the draw was rigged and he got
ALL the benefits of lousy line calls against ALL of his opponents. That's
the only reason why he won the United State Open!!
(btw, was it me or did it look like J.C. Ferrero didn't exactly have
Roddick on the ropes?)

** Roddick this....Roddick that.

Rigged draws? Back it up.

And those same people in the next breath will also tell you with a straight face that Roger Federer would take a set off
Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Budda (YOUR GOD HERE) in a "best-of-3 sets" match ....

Fed's the man, BUT the Fed worship (and the Roddick bashing) sometimes gets a bit out of hand . Take for instance, this one post I very recently read that in effect said:

"Federer is poised to render Sampras and Agassi's career accomplishments INSIGNIFICANT."

WHOA!, hold the phone, Einstein!
Even if Fed won 20 slams, would that render Sampras' 14 slams, Emerson's 13 slams, ROD LAVER'S CAREER (period!) as "INSIGNIFICANT?"
Seek professional help!

paintjob
02-16-2005, 07:45 AM
Lots of sports are rigged. Just look at Cal Ripken the year he broke consecutive games played record. He hits hr in all star game, wins mvp for game, Chan Ho Park serves up a 60mph fastball down the middle. The game he breaks the record, his first at bat hits a hr. Same situation, pitcher throws super slow fastball down the middle. Now, sports can't be rigged 100%, Cal might not have hit those hr, but it was made much easier for him to do so. Same for draws, I noticed the same thing with Agassi, it makes it easier for player to win matches and do better in tournaments which translates to more people showing in the later rounds of the tournament. Show me the money!!!

rhubarb
02-16-2005, 07:58 AM
Same for draws, I noticed the same thing with Agassi, it makes it easier for player to win matches and do better in tournaments which translates to more people showing in the later rounds of the tournament. Show me the money!!!

Can't comment on the other sport as I know nothing about it...but it strikes me that there's a big difference between a particular game and the claim that certain tennis players get persistently easy draws.

Certainly, money might be a big motivating factor to rig draws, but motivation doesn't equal proof it's happening.

RoddickRulez
02-16-2005, 08:12 AM
you guys are wrong they dont rigg the draws

davey25
02-16-2005, 08:13 AM
Yawn this has been beaten to death ad nauseam. Yeah this has been looked up already.

Roddick vs top 10

Fed 1-8
Hewitt 1-5
Safin 3-2
Coria 4-0
Moya 3-1
Henman 2-3
Gaudio 0-0
Nalbandian 3-1
Agassi 1-5


He has a losing record to only 4 players in the top 10 and Henman and Roddick are basically a wash. Only 3 players consistently beat him #1Fed who beats everybody, #2Hewitt and Agassi. If you look at the winning % of other players in the top 10 vs other top 10 players you have Coria at 42% which basically the same as Roddick and Gaudio at 37% may be you should rag on them to?

So you are pointing out his winning % against top players is equal to Coria, and only slightly better than Gaudio, that is your argument? You may be trying to defend Roddick but instead you are just proving the point others are making. Why dont people rag on Coria and Gaudio the same way? Duh, because they did not end the last two years #1 and #2 in the world, the only occupy the bottom area of the top 10 for the most part(Gaudio often out of it altogether)!!! A year-end #1 and year-end #2 in back to back years should have MUCH better head to heads with top tenners than that. Pointing out his is comparable to Coria just demonstrates everything those who point out Roddick's record against top tenners is true. If Roddick was year-end #5 or #7 I doubt anybody would find anything unusual about his record against top tenners, but he isnt.

rhubarb
02-16-2005, 08:16 AM
Please can someone tell me how Roddick's head-to-head record versus other top ten players has *anything* to do with the accusations of draw-rigging?

davey25
02-16-2005, 08:23 AM
I was not the one who brought up his head to head with other top tenners, I am pointing out my views on another's accessment.

rhubarb
02-16-2005, 08:46 AM
I was not the one who brought up his head to head with other top tenners, I am pointing out my views on another's accessment.
Sorry davey25, didn't mean to get at you, it was more directed towards the people who used the argument in the first place :)

RoddickRulez
02-16-2005, 08:53 AM
please tell me how his vs. top ten players has anything to do with easy draws

Chadwixx
02-16-2005, 11:45 AM
it was me who brought it up. someone said i was trying to bash roddick by saying he gets easy draws, and i pointed out that if i wanted to bash him i would point to his head to head record vs players in the top 10, and goober linked to me his head to head record vs "current" top 10 players. when i was speaking of his head to head matches with players who were ranked in the top 10 when the match was played.

go to page 2 and and learn to read, it was a sub topic.

Kevin Patrick
02-16-2005, 11:56 AM
Roddick had an easy draw in San Jose because it's a very minor tournament. Everyone has an easy draw in San Jose. I looked up Federer & Roddick's draws for the last 2 majors, nothing too fishy about them. Roddick may have had some easy opponents, but not easy draws. Safin lost early at US Open & Henman lost early in Australia, they were both in Roddicks sections at those tournaments.

These were the seeds in each player's section:
Roddick Australia '05
3rd Round-Melzer
4th Round-Massu,Grosjean
QF-Henman,Canas,Spadea,Davydenko
SF-Hewitt,Nalbandian,Coria,Youzhny

Federer Australia '05
3rd Round-Srichaphan
4th Round-Ljubicic,Pavel
QF-Johansson,Lopez,Dent,Agassi
SF-Safin,Haas,Gaudio,Moya

Roddick US Open '04
3rd Round-Canas
4th Round-Safin,Robredo
QF-Ferrero,Johansson,Spadea,Schuttler
SF-Hewitt,Nalbandian,Grosjean,Gonzalez

Federer US Open '04
3rd Round-Santoro
4th Round-Ljubicic,Pavel
QF-Massu,Dent,Novak,Agassi
SF-Moya,Henman,Srichaphan,Gaudio

One last thing. Many of you seem to be under the impression that Roddick is some big star in the US & that his success provides a boost to the sport in the US(hence the conspiracy theories). I assure you that is not the case.

Here are some facts:
The '03 US Open Final (which Roddick won) was the lowest rated men's final since ratings have been kept. That means Rafter-Rusedski '97, Lendl-Mecir '86 generated higher ratings. The highest rated US Open finals in the last 15 yeas have all involved Andre Agassi.

This is Roddick's 5th fulltime year on tour, he has yet to crack the Forbes top 50 list of highest paid athletes in the world. Agassi cracked that list his first year on tour & has been in the top 10 for the last 10 years.
Clearly, Roddick is not a big enough celebrity to be important to the advertising world. Agassi & the Williams sisters have been from day one.

Roddick may be a big source of discussion among hardcore tennis fans, but no one else really cares.
I follow the US media's coverage of tennis, Agassi & the sisters have generated far more discussion on espn's shows & sports radio over the years than Roddick ever does.
None of my friends are big tennis fans, but huge fans of other sports. They've all heard of Roddick, but probably couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Anytime we have a discussion about tennis, Agassi & the sisters are the only players they have the slightest interest in.

splink779
02-16-2005, 01:07 PM
Here are some facts:
The '03 US Open Final (which Roddick won) was the lowest rated men's final since ratings have been kept. That means Rafter-Rusedski '97, Lendl-Mecir '86 generated higher ratings. The highest rated US Open finals in the last 15 yeas have all involved Andre Agassi.


Well, wasn't this final what made Roddick truly famous in America? If Agassi is or was in a final people know how good he is and will watch it, where as in 2003 probably not as many people even knew or cared who Andy Roddick was.

Kevin Patrick
02-16-2005, 01:32 PM
splink,
2003 was Roddick's 3rd year on tour, he had already made enough of an impact on tour in '01 & '02 to be known outside tennis circles, clearly no one cared enough to tune in.
Agassi didn't win a Grand Slam until 1992. Regardless, from 1988 to 1992 he was by far the most famous tennis player in the world & his endorsements reflected this, as I mentioned Nike & Cannon were paying him huge money from '88 on. If Roddick is so well known, how come he can't crack the Forbes top 50? Even today, how many Agassi commercials do you see & how many Roddick commercials do you see?
I'm not trying to put down Roddick, it just amuses me to see how passionate the fans are on this board about him(so much that they think he's famous enough that draws would be rigged for him), when he is clearly a very minor blip on the sports radar in the US, esp. compared to AA at any age, 18, 34, whatever.
Also the ratings of Roddick's 2nd slam final(Wimbledon '04) were pretty paltry as well.
I've attended tournaments with Agassi in the draw in the '80s & I've been to events with Roddick in the field. The amount of fan frenzy surrounding Agassi was amazing, he needed several bodyguards to get to & from anywhere. Roddick draws a crowd, but Agassi is on a whole other level of celebrity.

devila
02-16-2005, 02:23 PM
Since Federer is winning every other tournament he plays (as he describes it), why not bring up the easy draw "ARGUMENT?"
Nalbandian and Ferrero lost again. Poor Henman is a loser in Rotterdam.
Guess who will win the dog crap tournament?

Thanks for the laughs.... I wasted my time doing an impression of bait eating.

pound cat
02-16-2005, 03:04 PM
To show how easy it does get for Roddick, this from livescore.com



R. M. Keegan Championships, Memphis Women's Singles
00:01 GMT February 17

00:30 A. Roddick

A. Clement

The Franchise
02-16-2005, 03:31 PM
Kevin Patrick's posts have been the most informative in this thread. All others, I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about.

Pushmaster
02-16-2005, 04:23 PM
You ought to play one of those "ridiculously easy" players sometime, and find out how easy they really are. Not every pro has top 10, or even top 50 talent, but these supposed bums are still at the 7.0 level, and would bagel anyone here on their worst day. As far as draws being rigged, I don't know, but if Roddick wants to beat even anyone in the top 200, he'll have to play good tennis. Anyone remember the Sampras/Bastl match?

Superior_Forehand
02-16-2005, 08:16 PM
The draws are not fixed, they are random. Roddick is a top ten player who has his ups and downs. I dont see how anyone can really argue with that.

joeman957
02-16-2005, 08:53 PM
Yes I agree, unless a person is obviously better than everyone else, they won't be able to beat everyone all the time. Even Federer who is considered ahead of the pack loses occasionally.