PDA

View Full Version : Why do people think draws are rigged?


RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:08 AM
It makes me sick reading it, especially when they draw the names in front of plenty of other people not taking part of the tournament. No one has any proof that ANY draws are rigged, so please, shut up

Bartelby
06-17-2011, 07:12 AM
No concept of chance, to put it simply.

Rippy
06-17-2011, 07:13 AM
Well said.

batz
06-17-2011, 07:15 AM
It makes me sick reading it, especially when they draw the names in front of plenty of other people not taking part of the tournament. No one has any proof that ANY draws are rigged, so please, shut up

Because they don't have a basic grasp of probability theory.

Tammo
06-17-2011, 07:16 AM
It makes me sick reading it, especially when they draw the names in front of plenty of other people not taking part of the tournament. No one has any proof that ANY draws are rigged, so please, shut up

it's just a theory I guess.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:19 AM
I was reading the Isner/Mahut thread to hopefully see other people get excited about the match, even though it most likely won't be as good as last year. Instead, I see a whole page of 'rigged draw'. You would think if the draws are rigged, that there would have been a scandal by now, or hell, at least Murray put on Djokovic's side of the draw. These guys have no logical argument

cc0509
06-17-2011, 07:24 AM
Because they don't have a basic grasp of probability theory.

Or, on the other hand, many people do not have a grasp of the businesses are in it to make money theory. Depends on how you look at it.

Mustard
06-17-2011, 07:30 AM
I think it's to do with the fact that Nadal/Murray always seem to be in one half with Federer/Djokovic in the other half. And what were the odds of Isner vs. Mahut being drawn together again?

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:30 AM
Then tell me why no player or commentator or well known journalist has made a big fuss about draws being rigged? That's a pretty bold claim to have, and you have no proof or worthy suspicion

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:33 AM
I think it's to do with the fact that Nadal/Murray always seem to be in one half with Federer/Djokovic in the other half. And what were the odds of Isner vs. Mahut being drawn together again?

It's all chance, a couple of years ago, people were complaining that Djokovic was always on Nadal's side of the draw. And yeah, Isner/Mahut is what caused me to make the topic. But until someone has some hard evidence of fixing draws, it is all just bs

cc0509
06-17-2011, 07:33 AM
Then tell me why no player or commentator or well known journalist has made a big fuss about draws being rigged? That's a pretty bold claim to have, and you have no proof or worthy suspicion

Who needs proof to have a valid discussion on something? Why would a player or commentator come out and say something even if they knew? They are all on the same side aren't they--i.e.the business of tennis.

You don't have any proof that rigging does not occur do you?

Let people form their own opinions. You don't have to agree with it.

batz
06-17-2011, 07:38 AM
Who needs proof to have a valid discussion on something? Why would a player or commentator come out and say something even if they knew? They are all on the same side aren't they--i.e.the business of tennis.

You don't have any proof that rigging does not occur do you?

Let people form their own opinions. You don't have to agree with it.

That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. ;)

cc0509
06-17-2011, 07:41 AM
That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. ;)

Maybe in a court of law but not necessarily outside of it.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:42 AM
I need evidence to prove something is happening without anyone meddling with the draws, as it should be? So do you want me to post every single draw ever?

batz
06-17-2011, 07:45 AM
Maybe in a court of law but not necessarily outside of it.

No, outside out it too mate. Otherwise I have no way of refuting the contention that an invisible flying spaghetti monster orbits our planet.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:50 AM
Exactly, it's like if I said magic was real. I would look quite dumb of you said "prove it is real" and I said "prove it isn't", because mine is a wild claim that needs proof behind it. I'm sure it's a fallacy of some sort

cc0509
06-17-2011, 07:53 AM
No, outside out it too mate. Otherwise I have no way of refuting the contention that an invisible flying spaghetti monster orbits our planet.

Sometimes instead of evidence one has to look at the power of greed. The power of greed is often stronger than any empirical evidence.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:53 AM
Yup, he can't prove it, move along folks...

rovex
06-17-2011, 07:54 AM
Nadal and murray have been in the same half of the draw not once, twice or thrice, up in the double digits.

mellowyellow
06-17-2011, 07:54 AM
I think its funny to think players like Davvy and Fed who stood to make nothing are guilty when tourneys and betting who stand to make hundreds of millions are not guilty. Their is a reason certain players are always on TV, ie He who is faithful in little is faithful in much.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 08:00 AM
Nadal and murray have been in the same half of the draw not once, twice or thrice, up in the double digits.

Again, all chance, and it's not a given either men will make a semi

batz
06-17-2011, 08:05 AM
Sometimes instead of evidence one has to look at the power of greed. The power of greed is often stronger than any empirical evidence.

Can you explain to me why you think the AELTC would frig the draw for money whilst refusing to sell advertising at The Championships? The value of the TV/internet rights would rise considerably if ads were allowed - not to mention the value of the ad revenue itself. I'm not a kid mate - I've started a couple of successful businesses that provide consulting services to FTSE 100 financial services companies - I understand the profit motive quite well - which is why I don't get what additional value the AELTC get by frigging the draw or why they would do that rather than open the tournament up to advertising.

Rippy
06-17-2011, 08:07 AM
I think it's to do with the fact that Nadal/Murray always seem to be in one half with Federer/Djokovic in the other half. And what were the odds of Isner vs. Mahut being drawn together again?

The same odds as Isner drawing another specific player.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 08:10 AM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129. Certainly improbable, but definitely not impossible. That being said, are those claiming to understand probability theory so well, so confident that the probability of the draw being rigged is zero? Who cares if the draw was in public? Wouldn't be any different that any inexplicable illusion by a magician. How hard could it be to rig a draw after all? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I doubt the draw is rigged, but one would have to completely naive to say that without a doubt, the draw is not fixed. Human greed knows no bounds.

Rippy
06-17-2011, 08:15 AM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129. Certainly improbable, but definitely not impossible. That being said, are those claiming to understand probability theory so well, so confident that the probability of the draw being rigged is zero? Who cares if the draw was in public? Wouldn't be any different that any inexplicable illusion by a magician. How hard could it be to rig a draw after all? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I doubt the draw is rigged, but one would have to completely naive to say that without a doubt, the draw is not fixed. Human greed knows no bounds.

The probability of Isner getting Mahut is 1 in 127 (or however many players there are).

batz
06-17-2011, 08:16 AM
The probability of Isner getting Mahut is 1 in 127 (or however many players there are).

Yes, but the probability of getting him twice in a row is 1 in 16129 (127 * 127)

zagor
06-17-2011, 08:19 AM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129. Certainly improbable, but definitely not impossible. That being said, are those claiming to understand probability theory so well, so confident that the probability of the draw being rigged is zero? Who cares if the draw was in public? Wouldn't be any different that any inexplicable illusion by a magician. How hard could it be to rig a draw after all? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I doubt the draw is rigged, but one would have to completely naive to say that without a doubt, the draw is not fixed. Human greed knows no bounds.

True I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the draw is rigged but that said the majority of people do have trouble understanding how probability theory works.I mean one could as well take a dice or a coin and roll/flip it about say 50 times for a test,they might be surprised with the result,any subsequent roll/flip doesn't take into consideration the result of the previous one,it's new game every time.

batz
06-17-2011, 08:21 AM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129. Certainly improbable, but definitely not impossible. That being said, are those claiming to understand probability theory so well, so confident that the probability of the draw being rigged is zero? Who cares if the draw was in public? Wouldn't be any different that any inexplicable illusion by a magician. How hard could it be to rig a draw after all? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I doubt the draw is rigged, but one would have to completely naive to say that without a doubt, the draw is not fixed. Human greed knows no bounds.

I don't think probability theory has anything to say about the likelyhood a draw being rigged as it wouldn't be a random event.

Rippy
06-17-2011, 08:22 AM
Yes, but the probability of getting him twice in a row is 1 in 16129 (127 * 127)

Sure, but say Isner drew Nadal. The probability of the Mahut 2010, Nadal 2011 combination is also 1 in 16129. Naming any 2 specific players will result in the same probability.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 08:23 AM
Yes, but the probability of getting him twice in a row is 1 in 16129 (127 * 127)

But last year Isner was a seed, so you have to knock out 31 from the first number.
Roddick got Gimelstob twice in a row in slams, Wimbledon then the US Open, certainly improbable, but not impossible

batz
06-17-2011, 08:25 AM
Sure, but say Isner drew Nadal. The probability of the Mahut 2010, Nadal 2011 combination is also 1 in 16129. Naming any 2 specific players will result in the same probability.

Agreed - I don't think I said otherwise.

batz
06-17-2011, 08:27 AM
But last year Isner was a seed, so you have to knock out 31 from the first number.
Roddick got Gimelstob twice in a row in slams, Wimbledon then the US Open, certainly improbable, but not impossible

A good point, well made - which makes the probability higher. Two guys drawing each other twice in a row is not a hugely improbable event - far less likely events happen every week when people win the lottery.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 08:27 AM
Can you explain to me why you think the AELTC would frig the draw for money whilst refusing to sell advertising at The Championships? The value of the TV/internet rights would rise considerably if ads were allowed - not to mention the value of the ad revenue itself. I'm not a kid mate - I've started a couple of successful businesses that provide consulting services to FTSE 100 financial services companies - I understand the profit motive quite well - which is why I don't get what additional value the AELTC get by frigging the draw or why they would do that rather than open the tournament up to advertising.

He can't even put together an argument :P and congrats on those businesses, I aim to somehow start one myself, my parents just started one themselves

Gorecki
06-17-2011, 08:29 AM
and all of the sudden i remembered Maximo... not sure why!!!

icazares
06-17-2011, 08:32 AM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129 Wrong, check your math. Tip: read about conditional probability. Probability of both Isner and Mahut of not being picked up to play against a seed is 44.2%. Once all the seeds are drawn, probability of Isner given Mahut= Probability of Isner AND Mahut divided by probability of Isner. It's actually 1 in 144.8.

PSNELKE
06-17-2011, 08:34 AM
They are rigged, no doubt here. There arenīt so many weird hazards.

- Verdasco-Raonic: Nando complains about Raonic, wanna show him some real tennis on clay.
Guess what?? - Rome Round1 = Raonic- Verdasco :lol:

- Mahut - Isner: Epic, most boring match ever SW19 2010.. guess what?? Isner, one year later out of 127 players in the field he draws Mahut. :lol:

- Federer-Djokovic: As always a SF between them, people can say it IS possible itīs like flipping a coin..
But hereīs why - Itīs ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
A possible Federer- Ralpf final is better and easier to merchendise.

Itīs all about the money, this is never going to change, so thereīs no reason to complaing about that crap.
No need to be mad at Ralph or Fed or whoever for those draws. Itīs all about the organizers making as much cash as possible.

BrooklynNY
06-17-2011, 08:34 AM
Pete Holtermann
Wimby draw procedure enabled Isner-Mahut rematch. Here, unseeded players are alphabetical on chip list. Normal ATP events it's by ranking.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 08:45 AM
If it's all about money, then please respond to batz's post about why Wimbledon doesn't accept any advertisements. Until then, all you have are coincidences

batz
06-17-2011, 08:48 AM
He can't even put together an argument :P and congrats on those businesses, I aim to somehow start one myself, my parents just started one themselves

Thanks mate - best of luck to you and your family on your business exploits - I wish you every success.

lendledbergfan
06-17-2011, 08:52 AM
Yes, but the probability of getting him twice in a row is 1 in 16129 (127 * 127)

Doh. Now I have to explain probability to people! Isner/Mahut already happened last year. And last year, it was NOT projected that it would go 70-68 in the fifth. So, probably of Isner/Mahut being clubbed together "intentionally" is zero (well, lets say 0.0000001).

So, the probability of Isner/Mahut happening this year was just 1/127.

batz
06-17-2011, 08:53 AM
Wrong, check your math. Tip: read about conditional probability. Probability of both Isner and Mahut of not being picked up to play against a seed is 44.2%. Once all the seeds are drawn, probability of Isner given Mahut= Probability of Isner AND Mahut divided by probability of Isner. It's actually 1 in 144.8.

I'm always happy to be educated but isn't the probability of them meeting twice 1 in 96 * 1 in 127? Isner was a seed last year, therefore there were 96 possible opponents for him in R1. Isner was not seeded this year, so there were 127 possible opponents for him to face in R1 - multiply the 2 together and you get the probability of them meeting 2 years in a row- have I got that wrong?

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 09:00 AM
Doh. Now I have to explain probability to people! Isner/Mahut already happened last year. And last year, it was NOT projected that it would go 70-68 in the fifth. So, probably of Isner/Mahut being clubbed together "intentionally" is zero (well, lets say 0.0000001).

So, the probability of Isner/Mahut happening this year was just 1/127.

Valid point, no one would have known they would have played such a long match, so last year should be thrown from the perspective of 'profit motive' as these guys are claiming. So only this year should be taken into account

Manus Domini
06-17-2011, 09:02 AM
Nadal and murray have been in the same half of the draw not once, twice or thrice, up in the double digits.

because of their seedings. 1 and 4, and 2 and 3 will always be on the same side of the draw.

Rippy
06-17-2011, 09:04 AM
because of their seedings. 1 and 4, and 2 and 3 will always be on the same side of the draw.

Lol, no they won't.

1 and 2 go in opposite halves, then 3 goes randomly into one half and 4 into the half without 3.

Oceansize
06-17-2011, 09:05 AM
I just wish we'd get some different match ups in the Slams occasionally. Since 2008 the current top 4 have been drawn Murray/Nadal and Fed/Djokovic 12 out of 14 times. It's getting a bit boring now.

Fedex
06-17-2011, 09:05 AM
No, outside out it too mate. Otherwise I have no way of refuting the contention that an invisible flying spaghetti monster orbits our planet.

Sometimes instead of evidence one has to look at the power of greed. The power of greed is often stronger than any empirical evidence.

And that spaghetti monster is very greedy.

Manus Domini
06-17-2011, 09:06 AM
Lol, no they won't.

1 and 2 go in opposite halves, then 3 goes randomly into one half and 4 into the half without 3.

I said 1 and 2 go on opposite halves

Why do you think the Murray'Nadal, and Djokovic'Fed are so often in the SF?

because of 1/4 2/3 seeding

batz
06-17-2011, 09:09 AM
I said 1 and 2 go on opposite halves

Why do you think the Murray'Nadal, and Djokovic'Fed are so often in the SF?

because of 1/4 2/3 seeding

Nope - 3 and 4 are drawn -they can be in either half. 1 can meet 3 and 2 can meet 4 (and vice versa)

Fedex
06-17-2011, 09:11 AM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129. Certainly improbable, but definitely not impossible. That being said, are those claiming to understand probability theory so well, so confident that the probability of the draw being rigged is zero? Who cares if the draw was in public? Wouldn't be any different that any inexplicable illusion by a magician. How hard could it be to rig a draw after all? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I doubt the draw is rigged, but one would have to completely naive to say that without a doubt, the draw is not fixed. Human greed knows no bounds.

Is it as simple as multiplying 127 x 127 = 16129?
Doesn't the seeding process reduce the odds?

Edit: sorry didn't notice this being discussed before.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 09:12 AM
Yeah only 1 and 2 are set in stone to be on opposite sides of the draw, 3 and 4 can be placed in either side, all luck of the draw

abmk
06-17-2011, 09:14 AM
True I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the draw is rigged but that said the majority of people do have trouble understanding how probability theory works.I mean one could as well take a dice or a coin and roll/flip it about say 50 times for a test,they might be surprised with the result,any subsequent roll/flip doesn't take into consideration the result of the previous one,it's new game every time.

indeed, a bit surprised why quite a few people don't get that !

Rippy
06-17-2011, 09:23 AM
I said 1 and 2 go on opposite halves

Why do you think the Murray'Nadal, and Djokovic'Fed are so often in the SF?

because of 1/4 2/3 seeding

3 and 4 are seeded randomly, with one going in each half.

icazares
06-17-2011, 09:23 AM
Is it as simple as multiplying 127 x 127 = 16129?
Doesn't the seeding process reduce the odds?
Batz?

The original statement: "the probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129". Not the same as saying "the probability of Isner meeting Mahut in the first round in two consecutive years is...". So just semantics... now I get what he's trying to say. I believe the magic number is not 127, because all the seeds are drawn first and you need to adjust by the probability of none of the seeds picking up either Mahut or Isner for the first round matches.

Fedex
06-17-2011, 09:35 AM
The original statement: "the probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129". Not the same as saying "the probability of Isner meeting Mahut in the first round in two consecutive years is...". So just semantics... now I get what he's trying to say. I believe the magic number is not 127, because all the seeds are drawn first and you need to adjust by the probability of none of the seeds picking up either Mahut or Isner for the first round matches.

What exactly is the draw process?
All 32 seeds are drawn first so they can't meet each other in the first round, then what happens?

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 09:37 AM
The original statement: "the probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129". Not the same as saying "the probability of Isner meeting Mahut in the first round in two consecutive years is...". So just semantics... now I get what he's trying to say. I believe the magic number is not 127, because all the seeds are drawn first and you need to adjust by the probability of none of the seeds picking up either Mahut or Isner for the first round matches.

How could 'again' not be synonymous with two consecutive years if they met just last year?

Rippy
06-17-2011, 09:52 AM
How could 'again' not be synonymous with two consecutive years if they met just last year?

"Again" to me would imply the probability of them meeting in that particular year, ie 1/127.

Ie, they met last year, so what's the chance they meet "again", with "again" meeting "this year".

jackson vile
06-17-2011, 10:00 AM
Because in a way they are, they are made so that the higher ranked players have easier draws the higher up they are.

Baghdatis Fan
06-17-2011, 10:03 AM
Dont you guys just think it's a little odd. Isner/Mahut had a 0.7% chance of meeting each other in the 1st round. Serena and Venus would likely to have played each other in the 3rd round (seeded 8 and 24) but Kim w/drew. Djokovic has been on Federer's half of the draw for 15/19 slams. Little fishy ...

Lsmkenpo
06-17-2011, 10:10 AM
Obviously rigged, and also obvious the riggers read this forum and hate Soderling , they put most of the players I picked as dangerous floaters in Soderling's quarter. :shock:

CocaCola
06-17-2011, 10:22 AM
It's just very strange, that thing with Fed/Nolito allways in the same half of the draw and I'm sick of it...so to show my frustration I say: RIGGED AS HELL!!!

DjokovicForTheWin
06-17-2011, 10:24 AM
"Again" to me would imply the probability of them meeting in that particular year, ie 1/127.

Ie, they met last year, so what's the chance they meet "again", with "again" meeting "this year".

Wow then you really don't know what 'again' means. I think it pretty clearly means two consecutive times since the last time they played was last year.

Rippy
06-17-2011, 10:35 AM
Wow then you really don't know what 'again' means. I think it pretty clearly means two consecutive times since the last time they played was last year.

That's not how I'd understand it. I'd say if you tossed a coin, and got heads, and you were about to toss it again, the chance of heads "again" would still be 0.5... I wouldn't see "again" as meaning 2 consecutive times, I'd see it as referring solely to the second time.

JustBob
06-17-2011, 11:58 AM
Why do people think draws are rigged?

Because it makes them feel "special". See conspiracy theories.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 12:13 PM
Conspiracy theories are stupid too, and their defense is "quit listening to everything the government tells you!" True, but listening to some stupid theory with lots of evidence to counter wild claims is just as bad.
And no one has brought up any hard evidence as of yet, or explained why no scandal has occurred yet if the draws are rigged. A bunch of people would have to be involved for them to pull it off, and I highly doubt anyone is paying off someone to rig these draws, and there is no incentive to do so

mellowyellow
06-17-2011, 12:18 PM
Just like there is no incentive to have a "grass" seeding system to manipulate the draw?

jms007
06-17-2011, 12:20 PM
and there is no incentive to do so

There's always incentives when it comes to sports and match-ups.

I'm too lazy, but someone should compile stats of the top 4 match-ups in GS, and their respective rankings at the time. Let's say going back to 2008. Then we'll get a clear picture.

mellowyellow
06-17-2011, 12:21 PM
Your claimed evidence of "A bunch of people would have to be involved for them to pull it off" ??? How could you possibly know how many would need to be involved?

timeisonmyside
06-17-2011, 01:49 PM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129. Certainly improbable, but definitely not impossible. That being said, are those claiming to understand probability theory so well, so confident that the probability of the draw being rigged is zero? Who cares if the draw was in public? Wouldn't be any different that any inexplicable illusion by a magician. How hard could it be to rig a draw after all? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I doubt the draw is rigged, but one would have to completely naive to say that without a doubt, the draw is not fixed. Human greed knows no bounds.

This is a straw man argument. Nobody here is saying there is a 0% chance the draw is rigged. What we are saying is that, given that they do the draws in public, given that it's in the tournaments' best interests to maintain the integrity of the sport, the draws probably aren't rigged. The burden of proof falls on all you conspiracy theorists out there to show some hard evidence that it is rigged.

And perceived favorable outcomes do not constitute proof. If I drive home tonight and catch all the green lights, that will be a very unlikely event, but beneficial to me. That does not automatically prove that I rigged all the traffic signals to turn green for me.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 04:20 PM
Your claimed evidence of "A bunch of people would have to be involved for them to pull it off" ??? How could you possibly know how many would need to be involved?

Whoever is supposedly paying them, the tournament directors, the people who draw the names, and investors. But none of this happens anyways, a journalist would have picked up on something suspicious by now, you know, the people that are ACTUALLY THERE at these drawings.

Also, how about the fact that these guys aren't even guaranteed to play? I'm referencing the top guys for this one. Djokovic had a bad couple of years, Federer lost early a couple times last year, Murray is definitely not set in stone since he randomly loses in the lower rounds, and Nadal's been injured the past couple Australian Opens. Someone would have opened their mouth if they weren't getting their money, but no one has said anything, because they don't exist. Quit trying to make up theories.

Tony48
06-17-2011, 04:42 PM
If a man wins a multimillion dollar lottery 10 times, it would be naive to think that he simply defied the odds.

And "conflict of interest" rules exist for a reason: to prevent particular people from winning contests. Otherwise, the boss's son/daughter/wife/cousin would never lose. But we'd all be conspiracy nuts for suggesting shenanigans, right?....because according to the "odds", statistically, nothing prevents them from winning.

Lsmkenpo
06-17-2011, 04:59 PM
Whoever is supposedly paying them, the tournament directors, the people who draw the names, and investors. But none of this happens anyways, a journalist would have picked up on something suspicious by now, you know, the people that are ACTUALLY THERE at these drawings.

Also, how about the fact that these guys aren't even guaranteed to play? I'm referencing the top guys for this one. Djokovic had a bad couple of years, Federer lost early a couple times last year, Murray is definitely not set in stone since he randomly loses in the lower rounds, and Nadal's been injured the past couple Australian Opens. Someone would have opened their mouth if they weren't getting their money, but no one has said anything, because they don't exist. Quit trying to make up theories.

You are viewing it as solely a sporting event and overlooking the business aspect of the sport which unfortunately takes precedence over the integrity of the game. Big business controls most of the media in the world.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 05:11 PM
And yet, no one has answered why Wimbledon doesn't have ads, when they could gain a crapton of money. If you can't answer that, you have no argument. Also, someone would have spoken up by now if they didn't get their money because Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djokovic didn't make the semis, it was just the first time since they have been the top 4 that all 4 of them made the semis of a slam. I am looking at it from a business perspective, but someone would have spilled the beans by now

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:13 PM
Isner vs Mahut R1
Nadal Federer final

nuff said

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 05:14 PM
If a man wins a multimillion dollar lottery 10 times, it would be naive to think that he simply defied the odds.

And "conflict of interest" rules exist for a reason: to prevent particular people from winning contests. Otherwise, the boss's son/daughter/wife/cousin would never lose. But we'd all be conspiracy nuts for suggesting shenanigans, right?....because according to the "odds", statistically, nothing prevents them from winning.

http://www.newser.com/story/101697/man-wins-lottery-twice-in-3-months.html

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 05:16 PM
Isner vs Mahut R1
Nadal Federer final

nuff said

Wimbledon doesn't have ads
Nuff said

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:18 PM
Wimbledon doesn't have ads
Nuff said

It does in my country

Nuff said

PCXL-Fan
06-17-2011, 05:21 PM
I'm afraid you just haven't accepted how many institutions in the world work.

Are you suprised the ATP covered up Agassi's drug use?

Having a Nintendo DS game character as your avatar makes me think you are rather young and inexperienced in the realities of the world.

Lsmkenpo
06-17-2011, 05:25 PM
And yet, no one has answered why Wimbledon doesn't have ads, when they could gain a crapton of money. If you can't answer that, you have no argument. Also, someone would have spoken up by now if they didn't get their money because Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djokovic didn't make the semis, it was just the first time since they have been the top 4 that all 4 of them made the semis of a slam. I am looking at it from a business perspective, but someone would have spilled the beans by now


Wimbledon is a different business model than other tournaments, if you have a product you can price it very high and sell less or price it lower and sell a lot. One is not necessarily more profitable than the other.

I would wager Wimbledon gets more money from broadcast rights than any other tennis tournament. Keeping their notoriety and having great matches is where they see their profit.

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:27 PM
It's all big business.

Nuff said

Tony48
06-17-2011, 05:49 PM
And yet, no one has answered why Wimbledon doesn't have ads, when they could gain a crapton of money. If you can't answer that, you have no argument. Also, someone would have spoken up by now if they didn't get their money because Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djokovic didn't make the semis, it was just the first time since they have been the top 4 that all 4 of them made the semis of a slam. I am looking at it from a business perspective, but someone would have spilled the beans by now

Ads as in promotional advertisement (TV commercials)? Because they most certainly do.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question correctly because MOST things these days (especially things that are broadcast on TV) have ads.

aceX
06-17-2011, 05:57 PM
Ads as in promotional advertisement (TV commercials)? Because they most certainly do.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question correctly because MOST things these days (especially things that are broadcast on TV) have ads.

We're all being brain washed anyway so it doesn't really matter

Rippy
06-17-2011, 06:30 PM
I'm afraid you just haven't accepted how many institutions in the world work.

Are you suprised the ATP covered up Agassi's drug use?

Having a Nintendo DS game character as your avatar makes me think you are rather young and inexperienced in the realities of the world.

But the potential of someone finding out the tournament was rigged would be far too massive a risk for Wimbledon to take. It would completely shame the tournament.

It doesn't have that much to gain from rigging it. Some extra revenue; I'm sure it does OK for money anyway.

cc0509
06-17-2011, 06:40 PM
Can you explain to me why you think the AELTC would frig the draw for money whilst refusing to sell advertising at The Championships? The value of the TV/internet rights would rise considerably if ads were allowed - not to mention the value of the ad revenue itself. I'm not a kid mate - I've started a couple of successful businesses that provide consulting services to FTSE 100 financial services companies - I understand the profit motive quite well - which is why I don't get what additional value the AELTC get by frigging the draw or why they would do that rather than open the tournament up to advertising.

Just because the AELTC does not sell advertising does not mean they don't recoup money in other ways. There are many ways to make a profit in business. No, I have no idea how the AELTC works specifically nor do I need to. But, as a business and one of the biggest and most prestigious businesses in tennis, I can assure you that there are many ways they can stand to make a lot of money. Between the ATP and AELTC I am sure there are many ways to be creative. I too have been in the legal and business worlds for a while now and I see this stuff go on on a daily basis so I am no stranger to this issue.

Bottom line is there are certain match ups that bring in more money and are more popular. Could these match ups be up to random probability time and time again? Sure. Could these match ups be driven by other motives such as money, entertainment and big business? Sure. No, I can't prove that rigging is going on, but I also can't not prove it. I don't have to prove something to be suspicious. Wherever there is big business there is always a money trail. Always.

PCXL-Fan
06-17-2011, 06:47 PM
Remember all those tournaments after- Memphis where Raonic and Verdasco were conveniently zero to one match away from meeting each other?

cc0509
06-17-2011, 06:47 PM
But the potential of someone finding out the tournament was rigged would be far too massive a risk for Wimbledon to take. It would completely shame the tournament.

It doesn't have that much to gain from rigging it. Some extra revenue; I'm sure it does OK for money anyway.

Who is this someone that would find out. Do you think they have 100 people involved in the draw and just invite people in off of the street to participate in how the draw will work? That is a simple-minded way to think--i.e. to think that many people are involved and would find out. Don't you think people that run these things are a little smarter than that? Nobody is going to find out and nobody is going to shame the most prestigious tournament in tennis, don't be silly.

aprilfool
06-17-2011, 07:15 PM
Conspiracy theories are stupid too, and their defense is "quit listening to everything the government tells you!" True, but listening to some stupid theory with lots of evidence to counter wild claims is just as bad.
And no one has brought up any hard evidence as of yet, or explained why no scandal has occurred yet if the draws are rigged. A bunch of people would have to be involved for them to pull it off, and I highly doubt anyone is paying off someone to rig these draws, and there is no incentive to do so

It's just as "stupid" to believe that conspiracies are something special and rare. All that it takes two people agreeing and doing something that is prohibited. It's quite common, actually. Especially in the business world.

RCizzle65
06-17-2011, 07:40 PM
I'm afraid you just haven't accepted how many institutions in the world work.

Are you suprised the ATP covered up Agassi's drug use?

Having a Nintendo DS game character as your avatar makes me think you are rather young and inexperienced in the realities of the world.

>_>

1. I'm not surprised, and that was much easier to cover up, only Agassi, the ATP, and 'slim' who probably didn't care if he did drugs or not. Of course they want to profit, but letting Agassi go for a recreational drug that didn't benefit him at all is different from them allowing matches to get fixed

2. How does my interests have anything to do with this topic? Ad Hominem, stay on topic

3. I'm an economics major, and I understand the 'business' side, but no one has yet to point out anything besides some coincidences. Like someone else stated, they have too much to lose for what would be a little boost in profit, the only significant profit would be a Federer/Nadal final, and NEITHER of them are guaranteed a spot in the final. Too much risk for too little reward

timeisonmyside
06-17-2011, 09:14 PM
This idea that Wimbledon will benefit more from a Fedal final assumes that things like ad ad television contracts are negotiated the day before the final. More likely these contracts are signed several years ahead of time.

martini1
06-17-2011, 09:26 PM
If it is a rigged draw Murray will be playing unseeded players until the SF and Fed, Djoker, and Rafa are all in the same half! :)

rajah84
06-17-2011, 09:28 PM
>_>

1. I'm not surprised, and that was much easier to cover up, only Agassi, the ATP, and 'slim' who probably didn't care if he did drugs or not. Of course they want to profit, but letting Agassi go for a recreational drug that didn't benefit him at all is different from them allowing matches to get fixed

2. How does my interests have anything to do with this topic? Ad Hominem, stay on topic

3. I'm an economics major, and I understand the 'business' side, but no one has yet to point out anything besides some coincidences. Like someone else stated, they have too much to lose for what would be a little boost in profit, the only significant profit would be a Federer/Nadal final, and NEITHER of them are guaranteed a spot in the final. Too much risk for too little reward

Hey RC!

I didn't go through this thread to read every post thank god.

One question though, you have at least considered how much events gain from rigging right? It is possible right?

I don't think people these days consider much the consequenses. Not with all the scandals out there.

JustBob
06-17-2011, 09:39 PM
It's just as "stupid" to believe that conspiracies are something special and rare. All that it takes two people agreeing and doing something that is prohibited. It's quite common, actually. Especially in the business world.


Conversely it's just as stupid to believe that any event that seems odd or unlikely is the product of a conspiracy.

rajah84
06-17-2011, 11:18 PM
Conversely it's just as stupid to believe that any event that seems odd or unlikely is the product of a conspiracy.

I agree with this, but come on, you have to confess, this IsnerMahut thing doesn't look very good.

RCizzle65
06-18-2011, 12:50 AM
Hey RC!

I didn't go through this thread to read every post thank god.

One question though, you have at least considered how much events gain from rigging right? It is possible right?

I don't think people these days consider much the consequenses. Not with all the scandals out there.

Like I said, I think they have too much to lose without too little to gain. I doubt Isner/Mahut is going to shoot up ratings and money too much, and the only thing that will significantly shoot up ratings and money would be a Federer/Nadal final, where they aren't even guaranteed to make the final. They still have to face 6 other people that want the trophy as well. So, too much risk to rig a draw, when nothing us guaranteed. Unless, of course, someone suggests that they rig 6 matches in a row for two men, which would be a totally ridiculous claim.

Bartelby
06-18-2011, 01:06 AM
Yes, conspiracies are very common. The one big conspiracy is based on a myth that unfortunately even governments propagate: world communism and Global War on Terror are two examples.



It's just as "stupid" to believe that conspiracies are something special and rare. All that it takes two people agreeing and doing something that is prohibited. It's quite common, actually. Especially in the business world.

omigod
06-18-2011, 01:15 AM
Isner vs. Mahut

It is a bad joke! :twisted:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/Features/Wimbledon-Draw-Announced.aspx

Both capable of going deep into the draw but made to meet each other in the first round. What a shame.

PCXL-Fan
06-18-2011, 01:18 AM
2011
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2010:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2009:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2008:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Davy - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

12/13 times these players where in the same halves

Draw fixing happens in all sports, world cup soccer is a fine example. Consequences none. The public would rather not believe it, or doesn't care. What are the possible avenues that could be pursued? Prosecution or congressional investigation? No way. No laws are broken. Mafia is only caught red handed in 1% of the non-acknowledged acts they commit, only naive would think they commit only the 1%.

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

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

gpt
06-18-2011, 01:54 AM
that settles it then. if the internet says matches are rigged, then matches are rigged.

i am off to 7 eleven to try and find elvis

PCXL-Fan
06-18-2011, 02:06 AM
that settles it then. if the internet says matches are rigged, then matches are rigged.

i am off to 7 eleven to try and find elvis

I guess you settled it then. Some smart alec comment and arguements are null and void.

Remind me to tell a judge if I'm ever in court she has no right judiciating given the poor choice in judiciating her makeup, attire and earrings.

There I just did the same to you, now yours it null and void.

batz
06-18-2011, 02:31 AM
Just because the AELTC does not sell advertising does not mean they don't recoup money in other ways. There are many ways to make a profit in business. No, I have no idea how the AELTC works specifically nor do I need to. But, as a business and one of the biggest and most prestigious businesses in tennis, I can assure you that there are many ways they can stand to make a lot of money. Between the ATP and AELTC I am sure there are many ways to be creative. I too have been in the legal and business worlds for a while now and I see this stuff go on on a daily basis so I am no stranger to this issue.

Bottom line is there are certain match ups that bring in more money and are more popular. Could these match ups be up to random probability time and time again? Sure. Could these match ups be driven by other motives such as money, entertainment and big business? Sure. No, I can't prove that rigging is going on, but I also can't not prove it. I don't have to prove something to be suspicious. Wherever there is big business there is always a money trail. Always.


Why are you responding to arguments I haven't made? Where have I argued that the AELTC doesn't make money? That's the whole point - the AELTC are absolutely rolling in it - which makes your claim about frigging the draw even less tenable. To repeat, they do not need to compromise their integrity by frigging draws - they are already absolutely loaded - hence them not even having to sell advertising.


You have a very strange view of logic and reason mate. You seem to think that arguments that have no evidence to support them are as valid as arguments that do - just because that's someone's opinion. People are of course entitled to hold all sorts of opinions, but they shouldn't be surprised when other people reject those opinions if there is no evidence to support such a viewpoint. You have provided no evidence to support your contention other than some mumblings about money and greed.

PS if you see corruption every day then you operate in very different business circles to me mate.

MichaelNadal
06-18-2011, 02:40 AM
2011
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2010:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2009:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2008:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Davy - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

12/13 times these players where in the same halves

Draw fixing happens in all sports, world cup soccer is a fine example. Consequences none. The public would rather not believe it, or doesn't care. What are the possible avenues that could be pursued? Prosecution or congressional investigation? No way. No laws are broken. Mafia is only caught red handed in 1% of the non-acknowledged acts they commit, only naive would think they commit only the 1%.

Here is a post from mens tennis forum that has relevance:

It's gotta be rigged, 12/13 is no coincidence.

batz
06-18-2011, 02:44 AM
It's gotta be rigged, 12/13 is no coincidence.

Are you taking the p1ss? Do you really think that flipping 12 heads out of 13 is such an incredible event?

Did nobody do maths beyond primary school on this board? I've only got a GCSE in it myself but bloody hell guys - the tinfoil hattery on this thread is just bonkers.

MichaelNadal
06-18-2011, 02:47 AM
^^12 out of 13? YES. That IS incredible. Why would Wimbledon not benefit from a Fedal final?

ben123
06-18-2011, 02:52 AM
Are you taking the p1ss? Do you really think that flipping 12 heads out of 13 is such an incredible event?

Did nobody do maths beyond primary school on this board? I've only got a GCSE in it myself but bloody hell guys - the tinfoil hattery on this thread is just bonkers.


yes its a very low chance to flip 12 heads out of 13

the thing is u have no idea if the draws are rigged or not so let the ppl have their opinion. if u think they r not rigged fine idc. for me its pretty obviously theres smth wrong if we always see these "special" matchups, i dont think everything is just random. thats just ridiculous

batz
06-18-2011, 02:54 AM
^^12 out of 13? YES. That IS incredible. Why would Wimbledon not benefit from a Fedal final?

It's like groundhog day.

'Wimbledon' make the same revenues no matter who is in the final. The TV and internet contracts are already let, all the tickets are already sold. 'Wimbledon' will make the same amount of money if it's a Fedal final or a Stepanek v Davydenko final.


Can I suggest you spend a couple of hours flipping a coin today and amaze yourself when either 12 heads out of 13 or 12 tails out of 13 appear.

batz
06-18-2011, 03:01 AM
yes its a very low chance to flip 12 heads out of 13

the thing is u have no idea if the draws are rigged or not so let the ppl have their opinion. if u think they r not rigged fine idc. for me its pretty obviously theres smth wrong if we always see these "special" matchups, i dont think everything is just random. thats just ridiculous

Yes - 12 heads or 12 tails out of 13 is reasonably unlikely event to happen - if you call it in advance. But looking backwards at 13 independent events and going 'Look - that means something' is silly.

Legend of Borg
06-18-2011, 03:04 AM
http://api.ning.com/files/vek4H8iRNlMJJbj0nX-AN0Vx7yaEgIGP2LsMpRLJzEQChtqRj6xsl5Iaeq3g2ipp-LdIquRus7KF6tQr633l5i7fWeLNxFURMZk0EhLWzYE_/xfilesbelieve.jpg

PCXL-Fan
06-18-2011, 03:12 AM
Yes - 12 heads or 12 tails out of 13 is reasonably unlikely event to happen - if you call it in advance. But looking backwards at 13 independent events and going 'Look - that means something' is silly.

You are forgetting the elements of human nature, how human instituions are not blatently honest about their activities, draw fixing on other levels of tennis, draw fixing in other sports, instituions not publicly acknowledging acts which are of the utmost intergirty.

Were you suprised when Agassi was protected? Would you be suprised if more encriminating information regarding Lance Armstrong came out?

DragonBlaze
06-18-2011, 03:18 AM
Yes - 12 heads or 12 tails out of 13 is reasonably unlikely event to happen - if you call it in advance. But looking backwards at 13 independent events and going 'Look - that means something' is silly.

I'm with you on this one mate. Honestly, every time the draw is done for a GS, there's a 50% chance that Nole/Fed end up on the same side. The amount of times that they may or may not have ended up on the same side in previous instances has no bearing on when the current draw is done. It's a 50% chance.

batz
06-18-2011, 03:18 AM
You are forgetting the elements of human nature, how human instituions are not blatently honest about their activities, draw fixing on other levels of tennis, draw fixing in other sports, instituions not publicly acknowledging acts which are of the utmost intergirty.

Were you suprised when Agassi was protected? Or that Lance Armstrong may have been protected?

Human nature has no impact on mathematics. Independent events are independent events.

The AELTC have no motive to frig the draw - for the reasons I've already stated umpteen times - mainly because they don't need to take bribes because they are already rolling in it.

I'm not sure what Agassi ,the then ATP and Lance Armstrong have to do with the AELTC.

Tony48
06-18-2011, 03:24 AM
If the Isner-Mahut match is on Centre Court, then it was most definitely rigged and they're not even trying to hide it.

batz
06-18-2011, 03:26 AM
I'm with you on this one mate. Honestly, every time the draw is done for a GS, there's a 50% chance that Nole/Fed end up on the same side. The amount of times that they may or may not have ended up on the same side in previous instances has no bearing on when the current draw is done. It's a 50% chance.


It's amazing how people can't get their heads round this. I was up until 2 this morning debating on here with a good mate and another guy that the probability of winning the lottery with 1 ticket is always 14 million to 1 no matter how many times you play that one ticket. They both maintained that 'overall probability' (?) of winning the jackpot increased every time you played that 1 ticket i.e. that someone who played the lottery for 100 weeks in a row had somehow improved their odds of winning to less than 14 million to 1 at some point during those 100 weeks (I'm guessing at the end?).

Netzroller
06-18-2011, 04:08 AM
I see it like this:

I don't know whether or not the draw is rigged. However, I will not take the occurence of unprobable events as a proof for it.
In the legal system, there is a rule called presumbtion of innocence. Rigging would be a crime. You can believe whatever you want, but if you openly accuse someone of cheating, please bring some prove to the table.


Now let's teach you guys some probability theory, seem's like a lot of you have no clue what you're talking about:

Isner - Mahut happened last year. This has absolutely no effecto on the probablity of it happening this year again. Probability is about future events. Therefore, the chance of it happening this year was 1/127 (or however the drawing works) not 1/16129.

Let me explain this with another example. If I flip a coin, the probability of heads of tail is 50/50, right?
However, the way some of you argue would be equivalent to „Well, you had 3 heads on the previous flips, therefore your chance to get it again is 1/16“. See where you went wrong?
This is different from saying „I am going to flip the coin 4 times now, what is the chance of having heads 4 times?“ (which would be 1/16).


As for the semi final draw: The probability of an event of probability p happening x out of n times is:
(n nCr x)p^x*(1-p)^(n-x) /with p=0.5 you get:
(n nCr x)0.5^n

=> 10 out of 12 times would be ~1.6%
=> 12 out of 13 would be ~0.16%

rovex
06-18-2011, 04:13 AM
If the Isner-Mahut match is on Centre Court, then it was most definitely rigged and they're not even trying to hide it.

I think you mean court 18.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-18-2011, 07:19 AM
The probability of Isner meeting Mahut again in the first round is 1 in 16129. Certainly improbable, but definitely not impossible. That being said, are those claiming to understand probability theory so well, so confident that the probability of the draw being rigged is zero? Who cares if the draw was in public? Wouldn't be any different that any inexplicable illusion by a magician. How hard could it be to rig a draw after all? I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I doubt the draw is rigged, but one would have to completely naive to say that without a doubt, the draw is not fixed. Human greed knows no bounds.


This is a straw man argument. Nobody here is saying there is a 0% chance the draw is rigged. What we are saying is that, given that they do the draws in public, given that it's in the tournaments' best interests to maintain the integrity of the sport, the draws probably aren't rigged. The burden of proof falls on all you conspiracy theorists out there to show some hard evidence that it is rigged.

And perceived favorable outcomes do not constitute proof. If I drive home tonight and catch all the green lights, that will be a very unlikely event, but beneficial to me. That does not automatically prove that I rigged all the traffic signals to turn green for me.

Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove that you actually read my post given your contradictory comments. See bolded.

Weathered33
06-18-2011, 07:29 AM
Don't worry guys, I'm not gonna let these greedy corporations force me to watch another Fedal final. I'll make sure not to watch it and that will show them!

But wait! What if they use their orbital satellites to beam the match directly into my brain? I'll need some kind of protection...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7Se7iswAanA/TPOqmpLbWcI/AAAAAAAANGU/F6WF2yI1ft8/s1600/tin-foil-hat.jpg

Sorted!

cp37070
06-18-2011, 07:41 AM
Well Nadal drawing Murray and Federer drawing Djokovic mroe often than not is plausible and on it's own not suspicious because there is a 50% chance that happens every time. However the chance of Isner and Mahut getting a first round match when both are unseeded is so much smaller. Of course it would raise eyebrows since they met last year and made history. Very strange coincidence indeed. And when it comes to events that involve a lot of money I am very skeptical of coincidences.

sarmpas
06-18-2011, 07:48 AM
Rigged or not a potential Nadal-Murray and Fed-Djoko SF lineup bores me. I'm hoping for two upsets, one in each half.

RCizzle65
06-18-2011, 07:48 AM
2011
Here is a post from mens tennis forum that has relevance:

You are comparing Wimbledon to a challenger event? Challengers don't make a ton of money and I wouldn't doubt it happens in very small events, but you think a huge grand slam would be tempted to do that to get very little money benefit for it?

Also, to those talking about Federer and Nadal being in separate halves, THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO MAKE THE FINAL, how many times does that need to be stated? They may be the favorites, but you really think everyone is just going to let them get through easily? Did Falla and Berdych care last year about a Federer/Nadal Wimbledon final? Did Djokovic and Ferrer care about one at the Australian? Did Djokovic care at the US Open? What if one of them lose early this year, then what, someone doesn't get their money for fixing the draw, and then they go public, and then Wimbledon is shunned to no end. You really think they would risk that?

RCizzle65
06-18-2011, 07:50 AM
yes its a very low chance to flip 12 heads out of 13

the thing is u have no idea if the draws are rigged or not so let the ppl have their opinion. if u think they r not rigged fine idc. for me its pretty obviously theres smth wrong if we always see these "special" matchups, i dont think everything is just random. thats just ridiculous

I'm fine with other opinions if they give logical, hard evidence to prove their statements. No one has given any hard evidence and backed it up with a logical statement yet

tacou
06-18-2011, 07:51 AM
the only thing suspicious is how epic their last match was...

any two given unseeded players meeting in the first round have a .7% chance of meeting up.

countless times over the season you see the same players meet up two tournaments IN A ROW. what about raonic vs verdasco in a final, then 1 day later they are drawn for a first round match...that's TWO MATCHES IN A ROW. that is much less likely than this situation.

I do my own draws for a badminton league, and while the draw pool is much smaller (32-48) I've seen same people get drawn 3 tourneys in a row...math is strange sometimes.

RCizzle65
06-18-2011, 07:59 AM
the only thing suspicious is how epic their last match was...

any two given unseeded players meeting in the first round have a .7% chance of meeting up.

countless times over the season you see the same players meet up two tournaments IN A ROW. what about raonic vs verdasco in a final, then 1 day later they are drawn for a first round match...that's TWO MATCHES IN A ROW. that is much less likely than this situation.

I do my own draws for a badminton league, and while the draw pool is much smaller (32-48) I've seen same people get drawn 3 tourneys in a row...math is strange sometimes.

The draws were done for Memphis before Raonic/Verdasco met in the San Jose finals. But yes, good point, for the naysayers, this person makes his own draws and has gotten it 3 times in a row.

Also, I put this example out in I think the second page, Roddick/Gimbelstob met in two grand slam first rounds consecutively, Wimbledon and the US Open, surely they didn't fix Gimelstob >_>
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=R485&oId=G354

gpt
06-18-2011, 10:15 PM
I guess you settled it then. Some smart alec comment and arguements are null and void.

Remind me to tell a judge if I'm ever in court she has no right judiciating given the poor choice in judiciating her makeup, attire and earrings.

There I just did the same to you, now yours it null and void.

Woah!! Nothing personal intended, remind me not to log into TT after having a few beers and trying to amuse myself

However, I have not read a decent argument for the practice of match rigging in this entire thread, your post included.

mellowyellow
06-18-2011, 10:30 PM
The draws were done for Memphis before Raonic/Verdasco met in the San Jose finals. But yes, good point, for the naysayers, this person makes his own draws and has gotten it 3 times in a row.

Also, I put this example out in I think the second page, Roddick/Gimbelstob met in two grand slam first rounds consecutively, Wimbledon and the US Open, surely they didn't fix Gimelstob >_>
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=R485&oId=G354

Roddick was a high seed for Wimby/USO, he could only be in few positions/spots in the draw, the chances are then greatly increased, because the only real variable is Gimblestob. For the most part only coincidence of a first rd, but not for the same tourney either.......

cc0509
06-19-2011, 01:37 AM
Why are you responding to arguments I haven't made? Where have I argued that the AELTC doesn't make money? That's the whole point - the AELTC are absolutely rolling in it - which makes your claim about frigging the draw even less tenable. To repeat, they do not need to compromise their integrity by frigging draws - they are already absolutely loaded - hence them not even having to sell advertising.


You have a very strange view of logic and reason mate. You seem to think that arguments that have no evidence to support them are as valid as arguments that do - just because that's someone's opinion. People are of course entitled to hold all sorts of opinions, but they shouldn't be surprised when other people reject those opinions if there is no evidence to support such a viewpoint. You have provided no evidence to support your contention other than some mumblings about money and greed.

PS if you see corruption every day then you operate in very different business circles to me mate.

You are not understanding my point. I am not saying that the AELTC does not make money or that it necessarily needs the money. I am saying that there are many ways that it makes money--i.e.more than one way. Have you yourself seen the coffers of the AELTC? How are you so certain of its money status and in what forms it makes its money? Just because it does not "need" money to sell advertising, that is your proof that it absolutely does not have other means to make even more money?

I am not saying that the draw is rigged 100%. I am saying that there is a possibility that it "may" be rigged to achieve a certain outcome that it desires in an effort to make more money and the fact that I can't prove that and show you proof does not make the statement less so. You can't show me proof that the draw isn't rigged. All you can come up with is that the AELTC does not need the money. Since when has that ever stopped any corporation from making even more money. Just because a business does not need money does not mean they do not attempt to find different ways to keep even more money coming in.

When I say I have seen corruption it is due to the fact that I work in the legal and business worlds so I have seen white collar corruption in my profession, that is what I mean. Get it now?

P.S. Yes, I understand the theory of random probability.

RCizzle65
06-21-2011, 11:38 AM
Well if they were so money grubbing, they would allow advertising over rigging a draw where they won't even get a big benefit of money from

Notio
06-21-2011, 12:18 PM
Well if they were so money grubbing, they would allow advertising over rigging a draw where they won't even get a big benefit of money from

The tournament prides itself on its image. As others have said, they have lots of ways of making money. I can see a few possible reasons they would refuse advertisements on the facility: they may believe their image carries certain value and making some changes would hurt them long-term, or they may simply have traditionalists on their board who have the conviction to maintain the integrity of the tournament and believe certain changes would sully it.

We see this elsewhere also: most baseball stadiums carry the name of some big sponsor now but the most prestigious teams tend not to allow this for their stadiums; I don't see Yankees Stadium and Fenway Park becoming Wells Fargo Stadium and Google Park any time soon. Sure, there may be some income to be made there, but to a lot of people it would hurt the prestige of the franchises. The people in charge of Wimbledon, rightly or wrongly, believe allowing advertisements would lessen the prestige of the tournament.


As for their incentive to rig a draw: Wimbledon certainly makes a ton of money from selling the rights to broadcast their matches. Ratings matter; when future contracts are negotiated, ratings for previous years make a big difference in the money they can get. Therefore, they want as much as possible for interesting matches that draw in viewers to take place. And if something special happens, it tends to have the residual effect of drawing in viewers for future matches: people who otherwise were not too interested last year tuned into the Isner-Mahut match and some of those people continued watching more of the tournament, increasing overall interest in the rest of the tournament.

They also make money from ticket sales and lots of early matches have plenty of open seats; having a match that draws in fans also gives a nice boost. All of this, by the way, does not in any way prove that the draw is rigged. But they certainly have the incentive to do so as long as they believe the chance of getting caught rigging it is negligible...and I can't believe they would rig the draw if there was any chance they'd actually get caught doing it.

RCizzle65
06-29-2011, 11:14 AM
Federer didn't make it far enough to play Djokovic or Nadal
So when is the scandal gonna break loose?

PCXL-Fan
08-25-2011, 12:05 PM
And it now becomes 13 of the past 14 grand slams.

2011
USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2010:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2009:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2008:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

Tammo
08-25-2011, 12:11 PM
I bet next year it will be the same Nad Murr and Fed Djok

West Coast Ace
08-25-2011, 04:14 PM
When I say I have seen corruption it is due to the fact that I work in the legal and business worlds so I have seen white collar corruption in my profession, that is what I mean. Get it now?

P.S. Yes, I understand the theory of random probability.So because you see the outcome when there is a lack of Integrity, you think it's possible that it's happening somewhere else? That makes no sense. As Batz said, Wimbledon is so successful, they don't need to do anything. Completely different than the white collar crime you see - it's driven by individual or corporate greed - there is nothing like that with the AELTC. They aren't profit driven - there are no bonuses based on revenues.

And I don't think you do understand Probability and Statistics. Otherwise you'd know that 'trends happen'.

Draws aren't rigged. Come on, people.

MichaelNadal
08-25-2011, 04:22 PM
So because you see the outcome when there is a lack of Integrity, you think it's possible that it's happening somewhere else? That makes no sense. As Batz said, Wimbledon is so successful, they don't need to do anything. Completely different than the white collar crime you see - it's driven by individual or corporate greed - there is nothing like that with the AELTC. They aren't profit driven - there are no bonuses based on revenues.

And I don't think you do understand Probability and Statistics. Otherwise you'd know that 'trends happen'.

Draws aren't rigged. Come on, people.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b129/deano7879/freddy%20gifs/th_byecarlos.gif

Rippy
08-25-2011, 04:49 PM
So because you see the outcome when there is a lack of Integrity, you think it's possible that it's happening somewhere else? That makes no sense. As Batz said, Wimbledon is so successful, they don't need to do anything. Completely different than the white collar crime you see - it's driven by individual or corporate greed - there is nothing like that with the AELTC. They aren't profit driven - there are no bonuses based on revenues.

And I don't think you do understand Probability and Statistics. Otherwise you'd know that 'trends happen'.

Draws aren't rigged. Come on, people.

I'd be inclined to agree with this.

veroniquem
08-25-2011, 05:18 PM
I bet next year it will be the same Nad Murr and Fed Djok




No, next year Fed will be out of top 4.

mellowyellow
08-26-2011, 07:52 AM
And it now becomes 13 of the past 14 grand slams.

2011
USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2010:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2009:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2008:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)
Hey, maybe this could be updated since the draw is out for the 2011 USO??

RCizzle65
08-26-2011, 07:06 PM
I was going to bump this since the draws came out, but I see it has already been done for me. Federer didn't even make it to the semis at Wimbledon, you guys are just showing no respect for anyone else, hell, Nadal has not been looking good all summer, I doubt he defends his title, or he may not even make the semis. Djokovic is on a monster run, but had that injury against his match against Murray, so just because they are on the same side, doesn't guarantee a match against each other.

Povl Carstensen
08-26-2011, 10:34 PM
I agree with this, but come on, you have to confess, this IsnerMahut thing doesn't look very good.
That might as well indicate its not rigged.

Povl Carstensen
08-26-2011, 10:38 PM
^^12 out of 13? YES. That IS incredible. Why would Wimbledon not benefit from a Fedal final?How would the Nadal-Murray, Federer-Djokovic draw guarantee that?

RCizzle65
08-28-2011, 11:17 PM
How would the Nadal-Murray, Federer-Djokovic draw guarantee that?

Also, how would it not benefit from a Federer/Nadal semi? And anyways....Federer didn't even make the semis this year! So if they rig a draw, and a player doesn't make it, then what happens? You would think someone would not be getting paid, and someone would leak about a scandal, am I right? But why has this not happened yet, when Federer failed to make even the semis of a grand slam this Wimbledon, and last Wimbledon and French Open? Big gaping hole in logic there.

PCXL-Fan
08-29-2011, 09:32 AM
They can't make Federer reach every single final, but doesn't mean they can't try to help him reach it.

This last French Open Final had the largest French Open tv viewership in 12 years. When Federer and Nadal play they dominate the tv ratings for tennis mattches.

The 2011 Aussie Open final between Djokovic and Murray was down alot in tv viewrship. The 2009 Federer vs Nadal was the highest viewed AO final in a number of years.

2008 Wimbledon final had the highest tv viewrship of any tennis match anywhere in numerous years.

2011 Wimbledon rated over twice as low it as 2008 Wimb final in viewership.

http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2011/06/07/ratings-roundup-nadal-federer-draws-largest-french-open-audience-since-1999/

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=12472&zoneid=25

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon08/news/story?id=3476842

http://www.mediabistro.com/sportsnewser/few-watch-nadal-federer-less-australian-open-final_b5571

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/07/tvratings

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/sports/tennis/2011/07/07/308876/ESPN-takes.htm

Tim Tennis
08-29-2011, 03:50 PM
I am so paranoid that I even think the lines people are coached to give close calls to a favorite/big draw player . Example, the Sharapova match today against the English girl.
Even the comentators said she should have challenged some of the calls. Of course the draws are rigged to some extent. Follow the money. To make it fair and above board they should go strickly by the rankings.

Mustard
08-29-2011, 04:11 PM
And it now becomes 13 of the past 14 grand slams.

2011
USO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko (order of seeding does not matter, this is simply to show draw placement relative to one another)
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2010:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Djoko - Fed/Murray
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2009:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: X/Murray - Fed/Djoko
RG: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
AO: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
2008:
US: Nadal/Murray - Fed/Djoko
WB: Nadal/Davydenko - Fed/Djoko *(Murray was in Nadals Qtr ranked 12th had not yet established himself...which he does in this with the epic win over Gasquet in R16, winning Cinci Open MS1000, and reaching final of USO)

You're looking at the draws in the wrong way. In the 14 majors there have been from 2008 Wimbledon to the 2011 US Open, there's been 6 occassions of seeds 1 and 3 in the top half and seeds 2 and 4 in bottom half, and there's been 8 occasions of seeds 1 and 4 in the top half and seeds 2 and 3 in the bottom half. See below:


2008 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Nikolay Davydenko (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2008 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: David Ferrer (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2009 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2009 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2009 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half - withdrew from tournament)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 5: Juan Martin del Potro (Top half - replaced Nadal at the top of the draw)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2009 US Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Andy Murray (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2010 Australian Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Juan Martin del Potro (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2010 French Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2010 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2010 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Robin Soderling (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 US Open
Seed 1: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

ledwix
08-29-2011, 04:41 PM
How is that looking at it the wrong way? Whenever Fed/Djoke/Nadal switch seeds, they still stay in the same halves relative to each other pretty much every time. That shows that the seeds are irrelevant but names seem to be incredibly significant, which is in itself a case for rigging. It's not proof, but it's evidence.

Mustard
08-29-2011, 04:48 PM
How is that looking at it the wrong way? Whenever Fed/Djoke/Nadal switch seeds, they still stay in the same halves relative to each other pretty much every time. That shows that the seeds are irrelevant but names seem to be incredibly significant, which is in itself a case for rigging. It's not proof, but it's evidence.

Seeds 1 and 2 are in different halves, and seeds 3 and 4 are in different halves. In the last 14 majors, it's 8-6 in terms of whether it's 1/4 and 2/3, or 1/3 and 2/4. Over the last 4 years, the players in the top 4 seedings haven't changed much, but their seeding position has changed quite a bit.

Service Ace
08-29-2011, 05:41 PM
An "Outside the Lines" analysis of 10 years of men's and women's Grand Slam draws shows the top two men's and women's seeds in the U.S. Open -- on average -- faced easier opponents in the first round than is statistically probable if the draws were truly random.

Not only do both of the men's and women's first-round U.S. Open matchups deviate significantly from true randomness, this skewed pattern was not found at the Australian Open and Wimbledon, which use a similar draw system. At the French Open, the difficulty of opponents for the top two women's players during that time period was significantly more difficult than a random draw should produce, but the men were in line.

...

"Outside the Lines" analyzed the average difficulty -- determined by the players' ATP or WTA rankings before the draws -- of those who played the top two seeds in all Grand Slams over 10 years. That was compared to 1,000 random simulations of 10 years of Grand Slam draws -- or the equivalent of producing 10,000 random draws taken 10 years at a time.

Only three of OTL's 1,000 simulations produced first-round opponents as easy as those the top two men's seeds have actually faced on average over 10 years in the U.S. Open. In none of the 1,000 simulations did OTL get the extreme results found in 10 years of actual opening matchups for the top two women's Open seeds.

Dr. Andrew Swift, past chairman of the American Statistical Association's Section on Statistics in Sports and an assistant mathematics professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said the analysis and its methodology were sound.

"Any way you want to look at these, there is significant evidence here that these did not come from a random draw," he said.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn-analysis-finds-top-seeds-tennis-us-open-had-easier-draw-statistically-likely

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how-espn-lines-analyzed-us-open-tennis-tournament-draw

Tony48
08-30-2011, 06:35 AM
I am almost done compiling some stats of seeding and draw placement across different eras and the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray era is so blatantly corrupted that it's ridiculous. The numbers will have you laughing. They are flat out ABSURD.

Will post soon.

All-rounder
08-30-2011, 06:43 AM
Lol people still doing mathematical caluclations. It won't prove anything Fed and Nadal as seeds 1 or 3, 2 or 4, 1 or 4 will always be on the opposite side of the draw. keep crossing your fingers hoping to see it one day. It will never happen Quote me on that.

LuvTheGame
08-30-2011, 06:50 AM
Better question..."Why do people think draws are NOT rigged? For the same reason they think reality tv is real!

Psyche!

Tony48
08-31-2011, 07:01 AM
Still analyzing another era, but here's a sneak peak:
-also, the word "pairing" means being drawn on the same half of the draw

McEnroe-Lendl-Connors-Wilander Era (1983-1985)
-number of times of a POTENTIAL "McEnroe-Connors" pairing: 7
-actual pairings: 4 times (57%)

-number of times of a POTENTIAL "Lendl-Wilander" pairing: 11 times
-actual pairings: 5 times (45%), with 3 consecutive pairings

Seems fair, right? They're both near 50% (as I've found with most of the previous era data) which reflects the supposedly 50/50 chance of being paired together. Now, here's where the fun starts:


Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray Era (2008-present)
-number of times of a POTENTIAL "Nadal-Murray" pairing: 14 times
-actual pairings: 13 times (93%), with a PRESENT streak of 8 consecutive times

-number of times of a POTENTIAL "Federer-Murray" pairing: 12 times
-actual pairings: 1 time (8%)

-number of times of a POTENTIAL "Federer-Djokovic" pairing: 15 times
-actual pairing: 13 times (87%), with 7 consecutive pairings

Brian Fellows: "THAT'S CRAZY!"

DjokovicForTheWin
08-31-2011, 07:46 AM
Wow, how can people still be arguing about this? The rankings, i.e. the player name attached to a particular seed # is independent of the draw selections.

Consider hypothetical 4 events:
1) 1/4, 2/3
2) 1/3, 2,4
3) 1/3, 2/4
4) 1/4, 2,3

Notice the 50% distribution above of the seedings. The draw is done with the seed #'s, not the names. The names attached are whatever they may be depending on the current rankings.

Now consider the rankings in those 4 events:
Tourney 1, Nadal is #1, Fed #2, Djoker #3, potential Fedal
Tourney 2, Djoker take over #1, Nadal #2, Fed #3, potential Fedal
Tourney 3, Djoker still #1, Nadal #2, Fed #3, potential Fedal
Tourney 4, Let's say Fed falls to #4 now, Djoker #1, Nadal #2, potential Fedal

In all cases you get a potential Fedal final. 4 times in a ROW!! But the draw was still random with ~50% probability (2 and 2) law being obeyed (in real life it was 8 and 6 as shown in previous posts). The draw knows nothing of how the rankings will change due to players getting better and worse. They are independent.

If the rankings did not change at all, with Nadal #1 and Fed #3, and you had 8 consecutive Fedal, then there'd be something to talk about.

omigod
08-31-2011, 12:59 PM
Thought the thread was about how Djokovic is always on Federer's half. i.e. Fed vs. Djokovic semi.

mellowyellow
08-31-2011, 01:15 PM
Wow, how can people still be arguing about this? The rankings, i.e. the player name attached to a particular seed # is independent of the draw selections.

Consider hypothetical 4 events:
1) 1/4, 2/3
2) 1/3, 2,4
3) 1/3, 2/4
4) 1/4, 2,3

Notice the 50% distribution above of the seedings. The draw is done with the seed #'s, not the names. The names attached are whatever they may be depending on the current rankings.

Now consider the rankings in those 4 events:
Tourney 1, Nadal is #1, Fed #2, Djoker #3, potential Fedal
Tourney 2, Djoker take over #1, Nadal #2, Fed #3, potential Fedal
Tourney 3, Djoker still #1, Nadal #2, Fed #3, potential Fedal
Tourney 4, Let's say Fed falls to #4 now, Djoker #1, Nadal #2, potential Fedal

In all cases you get a potential Fedal final. 4 times in a ROW!! But the draw was still random with ~50% probability (2 and 2) law being obeyed (in real life it was 8 and 6 as shown in previous posts). The draw knows nothing of how the rankings will change due to players getting better and worse. They are independent.
If the rankings did not change at all, with Nadal #1 and Fed #3, and you had 8 consecutive Fedal, then there'd be something to talk about.
Thats fine if you don't want to believe but take a look at the Masters for this year too, I think that makes the picture a little clearer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/players/1068

LuvTheGame
08-31-2011, 10:23 PM
Then tell me why no player or commentator or well known journalist has made a big fuss about draws being rigged? That's a pretty bold claim to have, and you have no proof or worthy suspicion

The investigative news show on ESPN recently aired a special program about the controversay regarding the Draws at the major slams. Here a bit of their findings:

ESPN show "Outside the Lines" reported that the top two men's and women's seeds in the U.S. Open -- on average -- faced easier opponents in the first round than is statistically probable if the draws were truly random. They did an analysis of 10 years of men's and women's Grand Slam draws.

This skewed pattern was not found at the Australian Open and Wimbledon, which use a similar draw system. At the French Open, the difficulty of opponents for the top two women's players during that time period was significantly more difficult than a random draw should produce, but the men were in line.

THE SHOW'S CONCLUSION: There is significant evidence here that the US OPEN DRAW RESULTS did not come from a random draw," said Dr. Andrew Swift, past chairman of the American Statistical Association's Section on Statistics in Sports.

Full article and more info available at::neutral::neutral:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...tically-likely

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...ournament-draw

RCizzle65
09-13-2011, 04:11 PM
Federer played a lefty in his opening round last year, surely not an easy opponent, especially since at Wimbledon that year, he was taken to 5 sets by Falla. Also, Nadal's first round opponent almost took him out, almost as in he was up breaks in each set and had 6 set points in one of the sets, he couldn't close, but if that wasn't the case, he could have easily taken him out. Pretty sure you should know that just because a player may be ranked a certain number, doesn't mean he can't pose a threat to another player if their strengths play into their weaknesses.

Chenx15
09-13-2011, 04:20 PM
i think 1-4 is rigged. everyone else i think is random

winstonplum
09-13-2011, 10:33 PM
It makes me sick reading it, especially when they draw the names in front of plenty of other people not taking part of the tournament. No one has any proof that ANY draws are rigged, so please, shut up

Because stupidity and ignorance go together on TT like stink on sh$%.

mellowyellow
09-14-2011, 02:11 AM
Because stupidity and ignorance go together on TT like stink on sh$%.
Totally wrong post. See 1996 USO fiasco and redraw. This is all the evidence needed to believe that money pushes these venues just like it does Pro Wrestling. The only proof of stupidity and ignorance is you.

ledwix
09-14-2011, 02:15 AM
Because stupidity and ignorance go together on TT like stink on sh$%.

No one has any proof of anything, but the more times we get Federer/Djokovic semis, the closer you are to ruling out chance. That's not stupidity, just probabilistic anomalies in need of explanation.

Dilettante
09-14-2011, 02:19 AM
Why do people think draws are rigged?

Because I had a supernatural experience and the ATP talked directly into my heart. ATP is there for anyone who wants to see.

nereis
09-14-2011, 02:42 AM
Gamblers fallacy and the belief in the law of small numbers at work. A sample size of ten years when the event is only held annually is laughable.

mellowyellow
09-14-2011, 12:51 PM
Line of probabiliy in slams from 2008 to present, 13 of 14, with 8 heads in a row and 6 tales in a row. This year alone 4 slams in a row, 5 of 6 masters, and for this year 9 of 10 potential semi matchups 4 slams + 5 masters. The fact that these happened is not funny, or impossible, its that it always coincided with the change in seed. Would like for someone to really tally up all of those things happening when they happened and come up with a realistic number. The point of the "luck of the draw" and "randomness" is that you should get closer to 50/50, when that doesn't work out I think they should step in and say "wait this matchup happened x amount of times it needs to be changed." They would wrather meddle in different ways that can't be explained by a system ala 1996. How is it fair that 1 player gets to play a no slam loser in every semi, the other has to beat the GOAT and the other potential GOAT to win a slam? The random draw is supposed to bring a certain amount of fairness and equality to the tourney, I aint seeing it........

mellowyellow
09-14-2011, 12:58 PM
Gamblers fallacy and the belief in the law of small numbers at work. A sample size of ten years when the event is only held annually is laughable.
Maybe you can explain why this happens now, and never before? Why does this coincide with this particular group of players only, and in particular the way that it involves them. Everyone knows Novak started to own Nadal early in the h2h on HC. This would mean in many of these matchups Nadal is a semifinalst and thats it. That means no Fed/Nadal rivalry, probably as big as the Samp/Agassi rivalry, that likely means a loss in revenue.

FiveO
09-14-2011, 01:47 PM
Real simple way to eliminate most of the suspicion is to place the seeds purely, IOW, barring upsets #1 faces, #32, #16, #8, #4 and #2. The remaining seeds get placed similarly.

That way it's based totally on the rankings x number of weeks prior to the event. Even at Wimbledon. Naysayers should note how rare it is that the top four seeds have made it through to the SF at Majors. The rankings after 4 are in a sufficient state of flux so as to not have the same opponents facing each other event after event. Even still what if they did?

At least people wouldn't have that "name out of the hat" thing to aim their suspicions at.

5

RCizzle65
01-13-2012, 08:18 AM
So, no conspiracy at the AO...

mellowyellow
05-12-2012, 10:56 AM
You're looking at the draws in the wrong way. In the 14 majors there have been from 2008 Wimbledon to the 2011 US Open, there's been 6 occassions of seeds 1 and 3 in the top half and seeds 2 and 4 in bottom half, and there's been 8 occasions of seeds 1 and 4 in the top half and seeds 2 and 3 in the bottom half. See below:


2008 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Nikolay Davydenko (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2008 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: David Ferrer (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2009 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2009 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2009 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half - withdrew from tournament)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 5: Juan Martin del Potro (Top half - replaced Nadal at the top of the draw)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2009 US Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Andy Murray (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2010 Australian Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Juan Martin del Potro (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2010 French Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2010 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2010 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Robin Soderling (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 US Open
Seed 1: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.

Any chance of updating this.

Mustard
05-12-2012, 11:34 AM
Any chance of updating this.

See below :)

2008 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Nikolay Davydenko (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2008 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: David Ferrer (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2009 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2009 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2009 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half - withdrew from tournament)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Andy Murray (Top half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 5: Juan Martin del Potro (Top half - replaced Nadal at the top of the draw)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2009 US Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Andy Murray (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Novak Djokovic (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2010 Australian Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Juan Martin del Potro (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2010 French Open
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2010 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2010 US Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 Australian Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Robin Soderling (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 French Open
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 Wimbledon
Seed 1: Rafael Nadal (Top half)
Seed 2: Novak Djokovic (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.


2011 US Open
Seed 1: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Top half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Bottom half)

1/3 in top half, 2/4 in bottom half.


2012 Australian Open
Seed 1: Novak Djokovic (Top half)
Seed 2: Rafael Nadal (Bottom half)
Seed 3: Roger Federer (Bottom half)
Seed 4: Andy Murray (Top half)

1/4 in top half, 2/3 in bottom half.

RCizzle65
05-12-2012, 01:49 PM
So since 2008 Wimbledon, 1/4 and 2/3 have met 9/15 times, and 1/3 and 2/4 have met 6/15 times....nothing outrageous about that

mellowyellow
05-12-2012, 05:44 PM
No, but you will see that its not the number but when the players changed number that is almost a direct correlation of when the seeds changed. Their were many "in a row" for the seedings. Now consider that for Fed/Djoko semi between the Masters and Slams is (dont quote me on this, just memory from another thread) on the order of 28 maybe 29 out of something like 32 or 33 possibilities makes it seem quite absurd. Throw in the Isner/Mahut rematch and the 1996 Kafelnikov USO redraw and it all is quite clear what happens come draw time. Lets not forget that between the lines said that out of 1000 draws they failed to produce but a few draws that were even close to being as easy as the last 10 USO draws for the top seeds.

ledwix
05-12-2012, 05:46 PM
You don't see a correlation between seed matchings because seed doesn't matter. No one is claiming the seeds are being matched up every time. It's the players that are, which is a clear fact, whether by chance or not.

RCizzle65
05-12-2012, 06:28 PM
You don't see a correlation between seed matchings because seed doesn't matter. No one is claiming the seeds are being matched up every time. It's the players that are, which is a clear fact, whether by chance or not.

What I'm saying is that the players flip around in rankings, so that it is totally random....if say, Federer was 1, Nadal was 2, Djokovic was 3, and Murray was 4 and ALL of them stayed at that same rank since 2008 Wimbledon, and Federer/Djokovic and Nadal/Murray drew each other as much as they have, then yeah it might seem a little suspicious. But, since all 4 of them have bounced around a lot from 1-4 (except not as much for Murray), you can't conclude anything.

There's also the thing I've said almost every post, they are not guaranteed to the semis, both Nadal and Djokovic lost before the semis in Madrid (and Murray didn't even play), Federer lost early in Miami, Nadal also pulled out, and Murray lost early in Indian Wells. So for the past few masters, we've had zero Federer/Djokovic matches, one Federer/Nadal match, one Murray/Djokovic match, and zero Djokovic/Nadal matches (besides Monte Carlo).

PCXL-Fan
05-12-2012, 06:35 PM
Things changed after all the media attention and forum threads were brought about by this miraculous phenomenon.

RCizzle65
06-07-2012, 01:57 PM
Federer and Djokovic both had scares to the semis, Federer being down 0-2 sets to Del Potro, and Djokovic having to save 4 match points against Tsonga, and being down 0-2 sets to Seppi.

jm1980
06-07-2012, 02:01 PM
What I'm saying is that the players flip around in rankings, so that it is totally random....if say, Federer was 1, Nadal was 2, Djokovic was 3, and Murray was 4 and ALL of them stayed at that same rank since 2008 Wimbledon, and Federer/Djokovic and Nadal/Murray drew each other as much as they have, then yeah it might seem a little suspicious. But, since all 4 of them have bounced around a lot from 1-4 (except not as much for Murray), you can't conclude anything.

Yes you can. In the past 18 slams, Federer ended up on Djokovic's side 15 times.

That's a far cry from the 50% it should've been. And if you argue that it's because their actual rankings changed as if this explained anything then your math/logic fails you.

They (Djoko and Fed) have always had a 50% chance of drawing each other, regardless of their actual rankings. After 18 tries, they should end up together about 9 times. 15 is too far from 9 to be legit.