PDA

View Full Version : So I crunched the numebrs....and the slam draws look rigged


Tony48
08-31-2011, 10:52 AM
I posted this over at MTF:

Fans have voiced complaints about how regularly Federer & Djokovic land on the same half, as well as how often Nadal and Murray land on the same half. And for good reason. I analyzed 3 other eras and not a single one displayed the glaring irregularities that we have come to expect in the Federer-Djokovic-Nadal-Murray era.

So did this happen in the past? I wanted to find out. My method was simple: try and find 3 other eras that were similar in nature to the current "Big 4" era. And those similarities included 1) an era with 4 CONSISTENT players, 2) they had to maintain that consistency simultaneously for at least a few years, and 3) they had to be seeded near the top of the rankings (No. 1 - 5, for example) more often than not.

It was a little difficult trying to pin down a group of 4 players that closely mirrored today's top guys but I found 3:

1. McEnroe-Lendl-Connors-Wilander ERA (1983-1985)
2. Endberg-Becker-Lendl-Agassi ERA (1988-1991)
3. Edberg-Courier-Becker-Sampras ERA (1991-1994)

....and they would be compared to:

4. Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray ERA (2008-present)

Fortunately, there was a lot of behavior in these eras that had characteristics similar to that of today's era, such as top guys that seemed to ALWAYS be seeded 1st and 2nd (a la Federer and Nadal) and guys that came in and crashed the party (a la Djokovic), etc. So theoretically, the draw based on the seeding would behave similarly, right? Right? :)

Well, here are the stats for the first era:

KEY:
1) number of times it was possible to be paired on the same side of the draw (not being seeded 1st and 2nd, 3rd and 4th, etc.)
2) number of times they were actually paired

McEnroe-Lendl-Connors-Wilander ERA (1983-1985)

MCENROE-LENDL
1) 2 times
2) 1 time (50%)

MCENROE-CONNORS
1) 7 times
2) 4 times (57%), 2 consecutive times

MCENROE-WILANDER
1) 11 times
2) 7 times (63%), 3 consecutive times

LENDL-CONNORS
1) 9 times
2) 4 times (44%), 2 consecutive times

LENDL-WILANDER
1) 11 times
2) 5 times (45%), 3 consecutive times

CONNORS-WILANDER
1) 3 times
2) 0 times

Nothing jumps out. Seems that the 50/50 draw was in full effect here. And it's perfectly reasonable for Connors and Wilander to have not drawn each other out of a mere 3 times of potentially being paired.

Also, there are no ridiculously high numbers when it comes to consecutive times of being paired (we'll revisit this later, lol)

On to the next era:

Endberg-Becker-Lendl-Agassi ERA (1988-1991)

EDBERG-BECKER
1) 6 times
2) 3 times (50%), 0 consecutive times

EDBERG-LENDL
1) 10 times
2) 6 times (60%), 3 consecutive times

EDBERG-AGASSI
1) 7 times
2) 2 times (29%), 2 consecutive times

BECKER-LENDL
1) 6 times
2) 2 times (33%), 0 consecutive times

BECKER-AGASSI
1) 8 times
2) 4 times (50%), 4 consecutive times

LENDL-AGASSI
1) 5 times
2) 4 times (80%), 3 consecutive times

At first glance, because of the high standard set by the first era, the Lendl-Agassi pairing looks suspicious. Their number of potential pairings is relatively low at 5 because Agassi didn't play the Australian Open and Wimbledon at times, as well as Lendl missing some. 4 out of 5 times COULD be seen as high but honestly, a pool of 5 isn't that big.

Next:

Edberg-Courier-Becker-Sampras ERA

EDBERG-COURIER
1) 6 times
2) 3 times (50%), 2 consecutive times

EDBERG-BECKER
1) 5 times
2) 2 times (40%), 0 consecutive times

EDBERG-SAMPRAS
1) 10 times
2) 6 times (60%), 2 consecutive times

COURIER-BECKER
1) 9 times
2) 5 times (56%), 2 consecutive times

COURLER-SAMPRAS
1) 9 times
2) 6 times (67%), 4 consecutive times

BECKER-SAMPRAS
1) 8 times
2) 2 times (25%), 0 consecutive times

Not much to see here. The Becker-Sampras pairing might be a little low given its potential pairing of 8, but since the OTHER pairings are pretty equal, it's probably safe to assume that this is just one of those statistical anomalies (assuming you think 25% even merits attention at all).

Now here's where the fun begins:

Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray ERA (2008-present)

FEDERER-NADAL
1) 3 times
2) 0 times

FEDERER-DJOKOVIC
1) 15 times
2) 13 times (87%), 7 consecutive times

FEDERER-MURRAY
1) 12 times
2) 1 time (8%)

NADAL DJOKOVIC
1) 11 times
2) 2 times (18%), 0 consecutive times

NADAL-MURRAY
1) 14 times
2) 13 times (93%), 8 consecutive times *PRESENT STREAK*

DJOKOVIC-MURRAY
1) 9 times
2) 1 time (11%)

Where do you even begin with something so ridiculous and unprecedented? Either the percentage is under 20% or over 85%...in every single pairing! (if you exclude Federer-Nadal).

And 8 consecutive, on-going pairings between Nadal and Murray? :roll: The highest in the other era was 4 and Nadal-Murray has doubled that and likely to continue.*** And if it weren't for the 2010 French Open, Djokovic and Federer would be on a current streak of 12! :shock:

And if these numbers are any indication, expect to NEVER see a Federer-Nadal semi-final in a slam (as long as they stay relevant).

Given all this data and how they bare NO resemblance to past draws, I think it's fair to suggest that the slam draws these days are rigged.

Also, if anyone wants to see all of the seeding data (or just look at it to make any corrections), you can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/?x1j2ngft97j3l4c

EDIT:

***that portion contains an error. I'll fix it later today....getting ready for work :)

Kaz00
08-31-2011, 10:53 AM
Mmmhmm interesting!!

r2473
08-31-2011, 10:57 AM
I was at a roulette table one time and black had come up 8 times in a row. Some fool next to me put $300 on red. Guess what, black came up again.

DjokovicForTheWin
08-31-2011, 11:09 AM
HHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT

HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT

Both are equally likely tardsssssssssssssssss.

tacou
08-31-2011, 11:24 AM
mildly interesting...i think it is more relevant how many times 1 played 3 vs 1 played 4

LuckyR
08-31-2011, 11:27 AM
The dice have no memory. Take a statistics class...

Tony48
08-31-2011, 10:30 PM
The dice have no memory. Take a statistics class...

That's really cheap, IMO.

No offense but how irregular does a draw have to be before common sense kicks in? Blaming obscenely irregular occurrences on "low probability" is a free pass for someone to cheat.

It's statistically probable for someone to win the lottery 100 times in a row. If that happened, would you honestly say that it happened with no interference?

My main point is that PAST draws are about as even can be. Then comes along the incentive of having Nadal and Federer (the most popular tennis players in history) play constant finals and you have irregularities in the draw. Sometimes I think statistics need to take a backseat to instinct.

veroniquem
08-31-2011, 10:54 PM
I totally agree, the numbers look ridiculous. Fed-Murray: 1 out of 12? And Nadal-Murray: 13 out of 14? How people can think this is just a matter of chance is beyond me.
If draws were riggged in soccer (and they were), I can't see why not in tennis.

Baxter
08-31-2011, 11:16 PM
I always knew this, I just never knew they pretending it was random.

Tony48
08-31-2011, 11:20 PM
And it's not even about the Nadal-Murray thing. It's more about how ever single match-up in the previous eras had incredibly balanced pairings when compared to today's era. Those eras reflect the 50/50 nature of a random draw and yet today's era couldn't be further from it (even with a larger sample size).

ViscaB
08-31-2011, 11:28 PM
Again the sample is too small to draw any conclusions...

Tony48
08-31-2011, 11:57 PM
Again the sample is too small to draw any conclusions...

Well a proper sample size (such as 50) isn't going to happen because Federer isn't going to be playing nine years from now. That's why I used data from the past, which would give SOME indication as to how draws typically behave. And now, that it's a proven fact that Nadal-Federer finals get higher ratings than any other tennis match, the draws behave abnormally.

I'm going to make another hypothesis. Before Djokovic became relevant, I bet that the chance of him being on the same side as Nadal or Federer was a lot more balanced.

DarthFed
09-01-2011, 12:36 AM
Lol people really don't find anything suspicious about this? Interesting read OP.

Tony48
09-01-2011, 01:07 AM
This is BEFORE Djokovic became relevant (and before the present Federer-Nadal rivalry:

Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray pre-ERA (2005-2007)

FEDERER-NADAL
1) 3 times
2) 1 time (33%)

FEDERER-DJOKOVIC
1) 12 times
2) 5 times (42%), 2 consecutive times

FEDERER-MURRAY
1) 8 times
2) 5 time (63%), 2 consecutive times

NADAL DJOKOVIC
1) 11 times
2) 6 times (55%), 3 consecutive times

NADAL-MURRAY
1) 7 times
2) 3 times (43%), 0 consecutive times

DJOKOVIC-MURRAY
1) 8 times
2) 3 time (38%), 3 consecutive times

Just like I hypothesized, the pairing data was a LOT more balanced back when Djokovic and Murray were nobodies.

Bud
09-01-2011, 01:15 AM
I totally agree, the numbers look ridiculous. Fed-Murray: 1 out of 12? And Nadal-Murray: 13 out of 14? How people can think this is just a matter of chance is beyond me.
If draws were riggged in soccer (and they were), I can't see why not in tennis.

No way these pairings are random, IMO.

Bud
09-01-2011, 01:15 AM
This is BEFORE Djokovic became relevant (and before the present Federer-Nadal rivalry:

Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray pre-ERA (2005-2007)

FEDERER-NADAL
1) 3 times
2) 1 time (33%)

FEDERER-DJOKOVIC
1) 12 times
2) 5 times (42%), 2 consecutive times

FEDERER-MURRAY
1) 8 times
2) 5 time (63%), 2 consecutive times

NADAL DJOKOVIC
1) 11 times
2) 6 times (55%), 3 consecutive times

NADAL-MURRAY
1) 7 times
2) 3 times (43%), 0 consecutive times

DJOKOVIC-MURRAY
1) 8 times
2) 3 time (38%), 3 consecutive times

Just like I hypothesized, the pairing data was a LOT more balanced back when Djokovic and Murray were nobodies.

Yep, these are numbers that look more probable

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that the numbers presented in your OP are dramatically skewed

Bud
09-01-2011, 02:04 AM
The dice have no memory.
http://www.primeaffiliate.com/track/images/10.jpg

Flip a coin 14 times. When you get heads or tails 13 times then come back and post.

DjokovicForTheWin
09-01-2011, 05:46 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 (seems impossible right??)!! 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.

LanceStern
09-01-2011, 01:19 PM
Do the number crunching with #1 vs #3 and #1 vs #4. And #2 vs #3 and #2 vs #4

Then come back. It's as fair as it should be

EDIT: Already been done:
Here's another way to look at it, based on seeding. When they make the draw they are basically pulling seed numbers out of a hat, whoever's name is attached to that seed is irrelevant. This means the situation should be assessed by which seeds drew one another in the last 14 slams.

2011
USO: #1/#3 - #2/#4
WB: #1/#4 - #2/#3
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3
2010:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#4 - #2/#3
AO: #1/#3 - #2/#4
2009:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4
RG: #1/#3 - #2/#4
AO: #1/#4 - #2/#3
2008:
US: #1/#4 - #2/#3
WB: #1/#3 - #2/#4

Instances of #1/#4 - #2/#3: 8
Instances of #1/#3 - #2/#4: 6

The proper way yo approach the situation is that there is a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #4 seed and the #2 seed will draw the #3 seed, and vice versa. And from this perspective the outcome is not that far off at all.


This is the third draw in a row where Nadal and Novak were on opposite sides of the draw and got Murray and Fed on their respective sides of the draw. The odds of this happening were 12.5%. Low but not crazy. Starting with the '11 AO, Nadal and Fed were 1 and 2, so this completely changes the variables and thus the probability. Going backwards, this one and two set also had three consectutive slams with Nadal getting Murray and Fed getting Novak. But at the '10 FO, Nadal would have gotten Novak, but Novak lost to Melzner in the quarters. At the '10 AO, Fed was one and Nadal was two, but Murray was five, again totally changing the variables and thus the probability. Remember Delpo was four there. At the '09 USO, Fed was one, but Murray was two. All of the variables keep changing, so it's completely inaccurate to say that the ITF keeps flipping a coin and Fed keep going to Novak and Murray keeps going to Rafa. Now if the current 1 through 4 seeds hold until Melbourne next January the chance and Fed going to Novak again are 6.125%; again very low, but not totally hook, line and sinker conspiracy time.

Tony48
09-01-2011, 03:01 PM
When they make the draw they are basically pulling seed numbers out of a hat, whoever's name is attached to that seed is irrelevant.

Well that's the basis of my theory....the name is IS relevant when it comes to this era. Of course it's going to be balanced when you only take the seed number into account....because the names are constantly changing and being attached to different seed numbers

Hypothetical:

1 Federer 3 Djokovic
2 Federer 3 Djokovic
1 Federer 4 Djokovic
1 Federer 3 Djokovic
1 Djokovic 4 Federer
1 Djokovic 3 Federer
3 Federer 2 Djokovic
2 Federer 4 Djokovic
1 Djokovic 4 Djokovic
3 Federer 1 Djokovic
1 Federer 3 Djokovic
1 Federer 4 Djokovic
2 Djokovic 4 Djokovic
2 Federer 3 Djokovic
2 Federer 4 Djokovic
2 Federer 4 Djokovic
1 Djokovic 3 Federer
2 Djokovic 3 Federer
1 Federer 3 Djokovic
1 Federer 4 Djokovic
2 Djokovic 3 Federer


In this scenario, Federer and Djokovic have met (or on the same side of the draw) 21 straight times, 100% of the time.

But if you only look at the seeds:

1 can meet 3 or 4
-meeting 3: 7 times (58%)
-meeting 4: 5 times (42%)

2 can meet 3 or 4
-meeting 3: 5 times (55%)
-meeting 4: 4 times (445)

and so forth.

Only looking at the numbers is naive and short-sighted.

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 03:07 PM
I agree they have been fixed for years now. The real question though is exactly WHY have they preferred Djokovic-Federer and Murray-Nadal. This year the reason is obvious, Djokovic is ranked #1 (or #2) almost all year, so they want Djokovic in Federer's half since that is the only possible chance of another final of the vastly overrated Fedal rivalry.

However before this year why was it is so important to have Djokovic in Federer's half and Nadal in Murray's. It isnt at all obvious which player is the bigger threat to who. Djokovic had similar records vs both Federer and Nadal before this year, and still does. Who did he have better chances against as the #3 seed? At the French obviously Federer, at the U.S Open obviously Nadal, at the Australian and Wimbledon about the same probably. So I dont see the point of being sure he was in Fed's half all the time.

As for Murray he has a much better record vs Federer than Nadal. Yet he has beaten Nadal in slams, and was slaughtered on his favorite surface in both his slam meetings with Federer. So it is not obvious who he has the better chance against either.

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 03:13 PM
The reason is: look at the USO on American TV. Now count the # of commercials involving Fed. (A LOT) Fed represents big money in the US. And who are the only 2 players who have led the h to h vs Fed? Nadal and Murray. To optimize the chances of Fed getting to the final, which is really the only thing they care about, they make sure those 2 players are never in Fed's half of the draw. Simple.

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 03:16 PM
Murray was destroyed by Federer both times he met in slams, and on his favorite surface of hard courts. I doubt there is much fear of Federer playing Murray in a slam until he proves otherwise, regardless of their overall H2H. If that is true though, I cant say I understand it given what I said.

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 03:18 PM
He was destroyed in finals because he always has the jitters there (also in 2008 they completely sabotaged Murray's schedule). It doesn't matter, on paper only 2 players have a leading h to h vs Fed and those 2 players won't be (never were) in Fed's half. Hey but pure coincidence, right?
I didn't say they want Fed to WIN the USO, one can never be sure of that. I said they want him in the final, so that they don't lose their biggest asset before the very end. There's never any guarantee but if they can help it a bit, they will and it's my opinion that they did.

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 03:26 PM
That is my point. Murray obviously isnt mentally strong enough to beat Federer in a slam no matter how mant times he beats him in other events, which has been conclusively proven twice now. It would be one thing if he were even close in either match. You might be right on their line of thinking from 2008-2010, but if you are I find it laughable, since Djokovic is actually a bigger threat to Federer in SLAMS than Murray is and always has been to date, while Murray was a bigger threat to Nadal in slams than Djokovic was before this year as well. They dont make their beloved Fedal finals more certain/likely with those halves.

Now that Djokovic is #1 it makes it is obvious why Federer is in that half and not Nadal's though. Aside from the desire for those overrated Fedal finals to continue, they also realize Federer has a better chance against Djokovic than his ultimate nemisis Nadal even today.

Emet74
09-01-2011, 03:38 PM
I didn't say they want Fed to WIN the USO, one can never be sure of that. I said they want him in the final, so that they don't lose their biggest asset before the very end. There's never any guarantee but if they can help it a bit, they will and it's my opinion that they did.

First of all, if you check tv ratings, americans are a much bigger draw at the USO than Fed. The only two finals Fed played that were highly rated were in 2005 v. Agassi and 2006 v. Roddick. In case you don't remember, Fed was not a star at all at the USO until 2007 at which point he'd established himself w/ his entourage, his records, the Darth Federer thing etc. Before that he was just this annoying bland swiss guy who kept winning.

In 2007 if the USO wanted to help Roddick the american as they presumably would they wouldn't have given him a QF against Fed.

As for helping Fed, in 2008 Djokovic was the #3 seed and the #4 was Ferrer. Djoko was the AO champion that year, Olympic medalist etc; easily the more formidable opponant than Ferrer for the semifinals.

Last year Fed got Soderling in the QF who'd knocked him out of the FO a couple months before. Not the draw you give someone you want to help.

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 03:56 PM
What are you talking about? Fed OWNS Sod on hard (like a million to nothing). The only slam Sod has been a factor at , at all, is the French on clay.
I am not saying BTW that the entire draw is rigged, just the fact that Murray and Nadal are kept out of Fed's way. (And that they happen, by pure coincidence lol, to be the only 2 players with a winning record over Fed).
As for helping the Americans, sorry but on the ATP, no American player is big enough to make the big bucks. Count the commercials involving Roddick or Fish and then count the ones involving Fed. It's not about nationalism, it's about money.
ETA: I'm not talking about pre-2008. Murray wasn't a factor at all pre-2008. Actually pre-2008, they didn't need to do anything because Fed was completely dominant (on hard).

tennis_pro
09-01-2011, 04:08 PM
The reason is: look at the USO on American TV. Now count the # of commercials involving Fed. (A LOT) Fed represents big money in the US. And who are the only 2 players who have led the h to h vs Fed? Nadal and Murray. To optimize the chances of Fed getting to the final, which is really the only thing they care about, they make sure those 2 players are never in Fed's half of the draw. Simple.

That could be true since the last couple of months but before that? How many times Nadal and Federer were NOT ranked no 1 and 2 in a Slam? The only major I remember in the mid 2005- early 2011 period when Nadal was ranked lower than 2 was the 2009 US Open.

And Federer had never any issues with Murray when it mattered.

accidental
09-01-2011, 04:11 PM
too many numbers in this thread

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 04:13 PM
And Federer had never any issues with Murray when it mattered.



Still more than any other player not named Nadal (and oh because masters don't matter? They're the most important ATP events).

Emet74
09-01-2011, 04:14 PM
What are you talking about? Fed OWNS Sod on hard (like a million to nothing). The only slam Sod has been a factor at , at all, is the French on clay.
I am not saying BTW that the entire draw is rigged, just the fact that Murray and Nadal are kept out of Fed's way. (And that they happen, by pure coincidence lol, to be the only 2 players with a winning record over Fed).
As for helping the Americans, sorry but on the ATP, no American player is big enough to make the big bucks. Count the commercials involving Roddick or Fish and then count the ones involving Fed. It's not about nationalism, it's about money.
ETA: I'm not talking about pre-2008. Murray wasn't a factor at all pre-2008. Actually pre-2008, they didn't need to do anything because Fed was completely dominant (on hard).

Sorry but Agassi and Roddick were big bucks in their day, were in commercials (remember the infamous "where's andy's mojo?) campaign and brought in t.v. ratings. If the USO was gonna rig the draw for anyone it would be them. Yet Agassi got stuck w/ Fed in QF in 2004 and Roddick got him in 2007.

As for Sod, he played Fed at 2009 USO quarters and after a terrible first two sets raised his level and took the third and Fed barely escaped the 4th in a TB. In 2010 Fed was in worse form than 2009 and had just lost to Sod recently. No way that was an easy matchup on paper.


Murray wasn't a factor in 2008 either before the tournament began, he was the #6 seed and his wins over Fed were insignificant ones, like Dubai first round. Djokovic was a much bigger threat to Fed at that time than Murray and had straight setted him at AO earlier that year.

Tony48
09-01-2011, 04:16 PM
Murray was destroyed by Federer both times he met in slams, and on his favorite surface of hard courts. I doubt there is much fear of Federer playing Murray in a slam until he proves otherwise, regardless of their overall H2H. If that is true though, I cant say I understand it given what I said.

Well it's not a given that Murray will beat Federer at a slam, just like it obviously wasn't a given that Djokovic would beat Federer at the French. You still have to play the match and the better guy on the day wins but given their H2H, it shouldn't come as a surprise if Murray manages to beat Federer in a slam.

IMO, Murray has a better chance of beating Federer in a semi-final because he obviously doesn't handle the psychological pressure of being in a final well.

But the day we see a Federer-Murray semi-final is the day we see another Federer-Nadal semi-final....which will probably be never.

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 04:18 PM
Murray had his breakthrough summer in 2008. He won Cincy that year. Also, regardless of what happened against other players, Murray had a crushing head to head vs Fed and other than Nadal, he was the only one.
Can you spell: bad matchup?

wilkinru
09-01-2011, 04:22 PM
First of all, if you check tv ratings, americans are a much bigger draw at the USO than Fed. The only two finals Fed played that were highly rated were in 2005 v. Agassi and 2006 v. Roddick. In case you don't remember, Fed was not a star at all at the USO until 2007 at which point he'd established himself w/ his entourage, his records, the Darth Federer thing etc. Before that he was just this annoying bland swiss guy who kept winning.

In 2007 if the USO wanted to help Roddick the american as they presumably would they wouldn't have given him a QF against Fed.

As for helping Fed, in 2008 Djokovic was the #3 seed and the #4 was Ferrer. Djoko was the AO champion that year, Olympic medalist etc; easily the more formidable opponant than Ferrer for the semifinals.

Last year Fed got Soderling in the QF who'd knocked him out of the FO a couple months before. Not the draw you give someone you want to help.

If they did 2007 over again, I'm sure they would have rigged it towards Roddick's way.

Think whats happened since 2007: finical crisis. Tennis has been starving for sponsors.

tennis_pro
09-01-2011, 04:30 PM
Still more than any other player not named Nadal (and oh because masters don't matter? They're the most important ATP events).

Federer cares more about Basel than a Masters tournament nowadays.

tennis_pro
09-01-2011, 04:33 PM
Murray had his breakthrough summer in 2008. He won Cincy that year. Also, regardless of what happened against other players, Murray had a crushing head to head vs Fed and other than Nadal, he was the only one.
Can you spell: bad matchup?

he had what?

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 04:37 PM
Well it's not a given that Murray will beat Federer at a slam, just like it obviously wasn't a given that Djokovic would beat Federer at the French. You still have to play the match and the better guy on the day wins but given their H2H, it shouldn't come as a surprise if Murray manages to beat Federer in a slam.

IMO, Murray has a better chance of beating Federer in a semi-final because he obviously doesn't handle the psychological pressure of being in a final well.

But the day we see a Federer-Murray semi-final is the day we see another Federer-Nadal semi-final....which will probably be never.

Nadal is unlucky to not have Federer in his half. It would allow him to build on his already dominant H2H with Federer. Nadal has played many more matches with prime Federer (2004-2007) than in his own prime (2008-present) and still has such a dominant head to head. He also has a better W-L ratio vs Federer on non clay surfaces in his own prime (3-1) than Federer had in his prime (5-2) but Federer is saved from more defeats by being kept away from Nadal in draws.

Anyway it would be very interesting to see a Federer-Murray semifinal. As you suggested Murray might do alot better in a round that isnt the final, although apart from the 2008 U.S Open he played subpar in all his slam semis (including the two he won vs much lesser opponents in Ferrer and Cilic). Too bad the ATP rigging never allowed that to happen.

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 04:39 PM
he had what?


Murray was leading Fed 6-2 at the beginning of 2009.

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 04:42 PM
Murray was leading Fed 6-2 at the beginning of 2009.

17-19 year old Nadal also led PEAK Federer 6-1 at one point, including 2-1 on hard courts and somehow blew a 2 sets to 0, 5-3, lead in his only ever loss. It is hilarious to see *******s try and fish for ways to deny that Nadal owns Federer.

tennis_pro
09-01-2011, 04:43 PM
Murray was leading Fed 6-2 at the beginning of 2009.

15-0 is crushing, 6-2 is a healthy lead especially given that many of the matches went to distance, use your vocabulary properly

veroniquem
09-01-2011, 04:47 PM
Whatever, you get the idea. Who else had that much lead over Fed except for Nadal?

tennis_pro
09-01-2011, 04:48 PM
17-19 year old Nadal also led PEAK Federer 6-1 at one point, including 2-1 on hard courts and somehow blew a 2 sets to 0, 5-3, lead in his only ever loss. It is hilarious to see *******s try and fish for ways to deny that Nadal owns Federer.

It's blatantly obvious that Nadal peaked way earlier than an average player does. It's also obvious that he'll fade away quicker than you think. By the time he hits 26-27 (years in which Federer was still at a 2-3 per year slam winning ratio) he'll be semi-retired.

Unless you think he's in his prime, I'm perfectly fine with him being owned IN HIS PRIME by Djokovic, then. Federer at least had an upper hand (and still has) in the h2h on grass and hard courts, Djokovic is pwning Nadal left and right now and expect it to continue.

There's even a good chance Nadal will retire this year a la Borg in 1981. So much for Nadal enjoying his "prime" LOLZ

jmverdugo
09-01-2011, 04:53 PM
It could be but it just doesn't make any sense to me, I mean it is equally interesting for me to see Fed-Djo, or Fed-Mur or Fed-Nad on a semi, why would they rigged it everytime the same way?

Emet74
09-01-2011, 04:55 PM
Murray had his breakthrough summer in 2008. He won Cincy that year. Also, regardless of what happened against other players, Murray had a crushing head to head vs Fed and other than Nadal, he was the only one.
Can you spell: bad matchup?

At the time of the 2008 USO, the Murray-Fed H2H was 2-1, hardly "crushing."

Those 2 wins were:

1) Cincy 2006 when Fed was tired from winning Toronto, lost serve 7 times and was accused by the press of tanking.

2) Dubai 2008 first round, a three-setter, and Fed's first match back after being ill during the post-AO break w/ mono.

Djoker meanwhile had beaten Fed in the Montreal finals and at the AO in straight sets, and had multiple set points he choked away during 2007 USO final.

In the eyes of any potential draw-riggers, no question who'd be considered a bigger threat in those circumstances.

Murray later went on a tear against Fed post-USO begining with Madrid 2008, but that hadn't happened yet.

Also, the organizers had they wanted to be nice could have easily kept BOTH Murray and Djoker out of Fed's way as they were the #3 and #6 seeds.

(to clarify, I'm not out to "make excuses" re Fed's pre-USO losses to Murray, but explaining how they would have been perceived by the mainstream at that time.)

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 05:03 PM
It's blatantly obvious that Nadal peaked way earlier than an average player does. It's also obvious that he'll fade away quicker than you think. By the time he hits 26-27 (years in which Federer was still at a 2-3 per year slam winning ratio) he'll be semi-retired.

Unless you think he's in his prime, I'm perfectly fine with him being owned IN HIS PRIME by Djokovic, then. Federer at least had an upper hand (and still has) in the h2h on grass and hard courts, Djokovic is pwning Nadal left and right now and expect it to continue.

There's even a good chance Nadal will retire this year a la Borg in 1981. So much for Nadal enjoying his "prime" LOLZ

Fact 1: Federer does NOT have the upper hand on hard courts in anyway as far as the head to head goes. Their overall hard court head to head is 4-4. Their head to head on outdoor hard courts (the important kind where the 2 hard court slams and all the major events minus the WTF is played) is 4-1 Nadal. Their slam head to head on hard courts is 1-0 Nadal.

He will keep the winning grass head to head as long as he makes sure to keep losing before playing Nadal at Wimbledon, and keep avoiding Queens. That has been the case for several years now and Federer has done a good job these last few year avoiding facing Nadal on grass, and thus forever losing his lone surface h2h lead remaining.

Fact 2: Nadal still leads Djokovic in head to head 16-12, and in slams 5-1. You are truly delusional to think that one year erases everything that has previously happened. Djokovic will need to beat Nadal another 20 times in a row to come close to Nadals head to head pawnage of Federer.

Fact 3: It doesnt matter if Nadal was a early bloomer or how close to his prime you believe he was in his teenage years. That period was Federer's peak of all peaks, his best tennis ever by far. So Federer was still more peak than Nadal and still lost 6 of their first 7 matches, and lost more of their early hard court matches to boot, and had to make a huge comeback to avoid an embarassing 7 match losing streak to start.

Fact 4: Nadal right now is more prime than 2005-2006, or even 2007. The fact he has been in the final of nearly event he played this year is proof of that. In those years he couldnt even beat nobodies most times on grass yet, couldnt even make it past the quarters of any hard court slam, and was owned by the likes of Berdych, Blake, and Youzhny. By contrast Berdych is a much better player these last couple years than back then, and is useless vs Nadal now.

Fact 5: There is no shame in doing poorly vs Djokovic this year. He will probably end up surpassing Federer's best ever year, and doing it facing prime Nadal, aging but still strong Federer, and Murray, rather than doing it just facing Roddick and Hewitt.

Fact 6: Federer at 26/27 at a 2/3 slam winning ratio still? Delusional. He started 2008 at age 26 and ended it having turned 27 late in the year and won only 1 slam. He had exactly one 2 slam year (and obviously no 3 slam years) after turning 26, and needed the career miracle of a French Open title and Nadal to miss Wimbledon with an injury to even achieve that.

tennis_pro
09-01-2011, 05:26 PM
Fact 1: Federer does NOT have the upper hand on hard courts in anyway as far as the head to head goes. Their overall hard court head to head is 4-4. Their head to head on outdoor hard courts (the important kind where the 2 hard court slams and all the major events minus the WTF is played) is 4-1 Nadal. Their slam head to head on hard courts is 1-0 Nadal.

I said upper hand in the h2h on grass and hard courts which is 6-5. 12 out of 17 wins for Nadal came on clay and that should tell you the whole story about the h2h.

He will keep the winning grass head to head as long as he makes sure to keep losing before playing Nadal at Wimbledon, and keep avoiding Queens. That has been the case for several years now and Federer has done a good job these last few year avoiding facing Nadal on grass, and thus forever losing his lone surface h2h lead remaining.

Lolwut Nadal had to play his best match on grass in his life to barely sneak out a win against Federer who himself was playing crap for the whole 2008 season and was low on confidence. I wonder how many "Federer pwns Nadal on grass" threads we'd see today if Fed had converted that BP he had at 4-3 in the 5th set and served it out.

LOLWUT about Federer avoiding Nadal in warm-up tournies on grass as well, Fed has been playing Halle since 2000 when Nadal was 14-years old. Why couldn't Rafito bother to go to Halle once in his career just to beat Federer?

Fact 2: Nadal still leads Djokovic in head to head 16-12, and in slams 5-1. You are truly delusional to think that one year erases everything that has previously happened. Djokovic will need to beat Nadal another 20 times in a row to come close to Nadals head to head pawnage of Federer.

Federer has never went 0-5 on 3 surfaces in a year, including getting pwned twice on his favorite turf. Watch Nadal's lead vanish in the next couple of months, of course he can start losing to nobodies like Dodig just to avoid getting humiliated by Djokovic again.

Fact 3: It doesnt matter if Nadal was a early bloomer or how close to his prime you believe he was in his teenage years. That period was Federer's peak of all peaks, his best tennis ever by far. So Federer was still more peak than Nadal and still lost 6 of their first 7 matches, and lost more of their early hard court matches to boot, and had to make a huge comeback to avoid an embarassing 7 match losing streak to start.

Since Nadal sucked everywhere outside of clay, the only way he was gonna build up a lead in the h2h over Federer was facing him million times where? That's right on clay. He beat Federer twice only on a non-clay surface in 2004-2007, one of which Fed was still playing with an ankle injury (Dubai 2006)

Fact 4: Nadal right now is more prime than 2005-2006, or even 2007. The fact he has been in the final of nearly event he played this year is proof of that. In those years he couldnt even beat nobodies most times on grass yet, couldnt even make it past the quarters of any hard court slam, and was owned by the likes of Berdych, Blake, and Youzhny. By contrast Berdych is a much better player these last couple years than back then, and is useless vs Nadal now.

That's too bad. He's back to losing in hard court slam quarters, it seems. I wonder if he can win a hard court slam without the **** easy draws and an injured/tired opponent in the final like 2009 AO/2010 USO.

Fact 5: There is no shame in doing poorly vs Djokovic this year. He will probably end up surpassing Federer's best ever year, and doing it facing prime Nadal, aging but still strong Federer, and Murray, rather than doing it just facing Roddick and Hewitt.

Don't bull***. 2011 has had the most crappiest players on tour since I remember. Apart from Djokovic who is playing very well and Nadal (and even he is playing worse than his 2010 self), there is nobody in the horizone threating them. Federer's 2011 FO was a one-off, Murray is a slamless mental midget who probably wouldn't even beat a 35-year Federer in a slam if they meet. You wanna compare mental midgets like Murray and top 10 monsters like Fish, Melzer, Almagro, Monfils, Youzhny to the likes of Henman, Agassi, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Coria, Moya, Gaudio in 2004? Freaking Troicki was no 12 this year, that tells you everything about 2011.

Even Berdych and Ferrer shouldn't be in the top 15, not even mentioning the top 10 (or top 5!). Soderling who is ranked no 6 and has been crap for half a year now still has a healthy lead over guys below him.

Emet74
09-01-2011, 05:38 PM
Look I'm a Fed fan but fair is fair. Nadal won 2 of the first 3 hardcourt matches he played against Fed and nearly won the third (was up 2 sets and a break).

And you can't blame Dubai 2006 on Fed's ankle when he was coming off winning AO and had just reached the final of Dubai. Not to mention after the loss he went on to win IW/Miami back to back in the following weeks.

tennis_pro
09-01-2011, 05:44 PM
Look I'm a Fed fan but fair is fair. Nadal won 2 of the first 3 hardcourt matches he played against Fed and nearly won the third (was up 2 sets and a break).

And you can't blame Dubai 2006 on Fed's ankle when he was coming off winning AO and had just reached the final of Dubai. Not to mention after the loss he went on to win IW/Miami back to back in the following weeks.

IW/Miami is played 1 month after Dubai, he had time to recover.

Then, look how he struggled to win the Australian Open in 2006.

-5-setter against Haas. Tommy is a good player, don't get me wrong, but not good enough to challenge prime Federer
-If not for supreme choking skills from Davydenko, Fed would've been out of the tournament
-even freaking Kiefer took a set off him
-was BP down to go down 7-5 3-0 (double break) in the final against Baghdatis before Marcos started to choke/cramp in any order

Emet74
09-01-2011, 05:56 PM
IW/Miami is played 1 month after Dubai, he had time to recover.

Then, look how he struggled to win the Australian Open in 2006.

-5-setter against Haas. Tommy is a good player, don't get me wrong, but not good enough to challenge prime Federer
-If not for supreme choking skills from Davydenko, Fed would've been out of the tournament
-even freaking Kiefer took a set off him
-was BP down to go down 7-5 3-0 (double break) in the final against Baghdatis before Marcos started to choke/cramp in any order

No, the Dubai final was 3/6/06 and Fed played his first match in IW on 3/13/06, halfway across the world. On the other hand, there is nearly a month between AO and Dubai for him to recover from whatever remaining ankle issues there were.

Fact of the matter is Fed reached the final of the first 4 tournaments he played that year and won every final except the 1 to Nadal. No way not to credit Nadal there. Especially since Fed won the first set 6-2. So what exactly happened to make him lost the next two sets other than difficulties w/ the play of his opponant?

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 06:19 PM
I said upper hand in the h2h on grass and hard courts which is 6-5. 12 out of 17 wins for Nadal came on clay and that should tell you the whole story about the h2h.

Indeed, it proves Federer is incapable of owning Nadal on any surface, yet is so completely owned by Nadal on clay. As far as the head to head goes Federer and Nadal are about equal on non clay surfaces, and Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>Federer on clay. So as far as the head to head goes overall Federer is Nadal's b*tch, no matter how much you ****s deny it.

Lolwut Nadal had to play his best match on grass in his life to barely sneak out a win against Federer who himself was playing crap for the whole 2008 season and was low on confidence. I wonder how many "Federer pwns Nadal on grass" threads we'd see today if Fed had converted that BP he had at 4-3 in the 5th set and served it out.

Nadal has played many matches in his career as good or better as the 2008 Wimbledon final. He even choked one of the sets away, and that is the match of his life, LOL!

Nadal would have killed Federer at Wimbledon 2010 and probably Wimbledon 2011 if he had gotten that far. Berdych and Tsonga did him a big favor, especialy Berdych.

LOLWUT about Federer avoiding Nadal in warm-up tournies on grass as well, Fed has been playing Halle since 2000 when Nadal was 14-years old. Why couldn't Rafito bother to go to Halle once in his career just to beat Federer?

Why bother playing the puny Halle event which no top players other than Federer even play. Now that Federer's grass game is declining so far he should start playing a warm up with some actual players in it, it might help him.

Federer has never went 0-5 on 3 surfaces in a year, including getting pwned twice on his favorite turf.

No, but he has lost a slam final in 8 months on 3 different surfaces which is even worse. After all isnt it only about the slams according to you Federer fanboys.

Since Nadal sucked everywhere outside of clay, the only way he was gonna build up a lead in the h2h over Federer was facing him million times where? That's right on clay.

Which is why Nadal won 2 of their first 3 non clay matches. Ooops. Funny how peak Federer was already so easy for teenage Nadal on clay, yet teenage Nadal was such a tough opponent for peak Federer on other surfaces.

That's too bad. He's back to losing in hard court slam quarters, it seems. I wonder if he can win a hard court slam without the **** easy draws and an injured/tired opponent in the final like 2009 AO/2010 USO.

I wonder if Federer can win a slam final again facing someone other than a choking Murray or Roddick. Probably not. I wonder if Federer could have ever dominated without Roddick, Hewitt, and a 35 year old broke back Agassi as his main rivals off of clay. Probably not.


Don't bull***. 2011 has had the most crappiest players on tour since I remember. Apart from Djokovic who is playing very well and Nadal (and even he is playing worse than his 2010 self)

We both agreed Nadal was still in his prime despite regularly losing to a currently on fire Djokovic. Prime Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prime Roddick or prime Hewitt. So already Djokovic has a much tougher top rival.

Also werent you saying Nadal is still in his prime and getting owned by Djokovic, and now you are saying Djokovic is dominating since Nadal is not as good now. Make up your mind, LOL!

there is nobody in the horizone threating them. Federer's 2011 FO was a one-off, Murray is a slamless mental midget who probably wouldn't even beat a 35-year Federer in a slam if they meet. You wanna compare mental midgets like Murray and top 10 monsters like Fish, Melzer, Almagro, Monfils, Youzhny to the likes of Henman, Agassi, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Coria, Moya, Gaudio in 2004? Freaking Troicki was no 12 this year, that tells you everything about 2011.

A 30 year old Henman who even in his prime many years earlier than that had never made it past the 4th round of a non Wimbledon slam (except for a fluke semifinal at 30 at Roland Garros), and never had made a Wimbledon final on his best surface.

A 35 year old Agassi with a serious back injury who had problems walking. Remember Federer was supposably an old grandpa whose defeats should all be discounted from 26 on.

Coria, Moya, and Gaudio, the one surface wonders (and not even much of a wonder on that surface at that), except for maybe the aging Moya who many years ago was pretty good on hard courts.

Safin, who was never again a top 20 player after his mid 2005, and even in his prime played like god for 2 or 3 tournaments a year and half tanked through all the rest.

Roddick and Hewitt, the twin pigeons for life were his toughest competition. Wow amazing.

Youzhny btw was a top 10 player in the Federer era too.

Even Berdych and Ferrer shouldn't be in the top 15, not even mentioning the top 10 (or top 5!). Soderling who is ranked no 6 and has been crap for half a year now still has a healthy lead over guys below him.

I guess you are forgetting some of the top 10 players of the mid 2000s. Rainer Schuettler, Tommy Robredo, Gaston Gaudio (oh I forgot you already listed the Open Eras worst and flukiest slam winner as an example of tough competition, lol), were all year end top 8 ranked players and direct qualifiers to the YEC (not just top 10 for a few weeks like many of the ones you listed). James Blake at #4 in the World. Compare 2006 year end #4 Blake to current #4 Murray. Even Soderling is far beyond Blake with both guys in their primes. Ivan Ljubicic at #3 in the World, you are actually going to argue that would happen in a strong field. :rolleyes:

David Ferrer was a top 5 player during the Federer era at one point, so your point there is pointless. Ferrer shouldnt be top 15? Are you saying Ferrer isnt better than Robredo who was a frequent top 10 player of the Federer era. Please.

So the 7-10 players in some cases might be worse than ever. So what, the competition for players like Federer or Nadal while on top is the top 5 anyway, and the top 5 today >>>> Roddick, Ljubicic, teenage "clay only" Nadal, Blake, Davydenko.


I will say one thing. NONE of Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal have dominated eras that overall had stronger competition compared to past greats. Is Djokovic on top at a time of a super strong field? No, but you are delusional if you think Federer did either. Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Connors, Agassi, and many others all faced MUCH tougher competition than any of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. So your using the competition argument to defend Federer is a huge LOL. Arent *******s always the ones defending his (what most feel was weak) competition and saying that is a weak argument, and now you are using it to dismiss Djokovic's year. Get real.

Caesar
09-01-2011, 06:52 PM
The dice have no memory.

If you had a statistically significant sample to work with then you may be able to draw some conclusions, but 14 matches with a 50-50 proposition is nowhere near substantial. Comparing it to winning the lottery 100 times in a row is just facepalm stuff.

People only register the patterns that stand out. The top guys stand out because they are expected to meet each other later in the tournament and potentially go all the way, so people pay attention to who's in their half of the draw. If this scenario had happened with the 21st and the 32nd seeds frequently appearing on the same side of the draw then would people have noticed? What if we were talking about two top 100 journeymen who never make it past the first round? For all we know these scenarios may have happened far more frequently (and to a far greater extent) than this situation.

I know statistics are difficult for some people to get their head around, but this really isn't remarkable at all. Just because it seems unusual compared to a handful of combinations in the last 30 years doesn't mean that it is actually an aberration, farfetched, or difficult to explain.

Sure - it doesn't prove that the Slam draws aren't rigged. But absence of proof of one thing is not evidence in favour of the contrary position.

kishnabe
09-01-2011, 07:10 PM
The dice have no memory. Take a statistics class...

Even if the Dice have no memory there are weighted dice to cheat a result.....just like the Tournament Organizers are doing.

Nothing anyone can do about it....I wouldn't mind the odd Fedal Semi, Djokray semi!

DarthFed
09-01-2011, 07:12 PM
Lol jmac just mentioned how odd it is.

Chopin
09-01-2011, 07:19 PM
Fact 1: Federer does NOT have the upper hand on hard courts in anyway as far as the head to head goes. Their overall hard court head to head is 4-4. Their head to head on outdoor hard courts (the important kind where the 2 hard court slams and all the major events minus the WTF is played) is 4-1 Nadal. Their slam head to head on hard courts is 1-0 Nadal.

He will keep the winning grass head to head as long as he makes sure to keep losing before playing Nadal at Wimbledon, and keep avoiding Queens. That has been the case for several years now and Federer has done a good job these last few year avoiding facing Nadal on grass, and thus forever losing his lone surface h2h lead remaining.

Fact 2: Nadal still leads Djokovic in head to head 16-12, and in slams 5-1. You are truly delusional to think that one year erases everything that has previously happened. Djokovic will need to beat Nadal another 20 times in a row to come close to Nadals head to head pawnage of Federer.

Fact 3: It doesnt matter if Nadal was a early bloomer or how close to his prime you believe he was in his teenage years. That period was Federer's peak of all peaks, his best tennis ever by far. So Federer was still more peak than Nadal and still lost 6 of their first 7 matches, and lost more of their early hard court matches to boot, and had to make a huge comeback to avoid an embarassing 7 match losing streak to start.

Fact 4: Nadal right now is more prime than 2005-2006, or even 2007. The fact he has been in the final of nearly event he played this year is proof of that. In those years he couldnt even beat nobodies most times on grass yet, couldnt even make it past the quarters of any hard court slam, and was owned by the likes of Berdych, Blake, and Youzhny. By contrast Berdych is a much better player these last couple years than back then, and is useless vs Nadal now.

Fact 5: There is no shame in doing poorly vs Djokovic this year. He will probably end up surpassing Federer's best ever year, and doing it facing prime Nadal, aging but still strong Federer, and Murray, rather than doing it just facing Roddick and Hewitt.

Fact 6: Federer at 26/27 at a 2/3 slam winning ratio still? Delusional. He started 2008 at age 26 and ended it having turned 27 late in the year and won only 1 slam. He had exactly one 2 slam year (and obviously no 3 slam years) after turning 26, and needed the career miracle of a French Open title and Nadal to miss Wimbledon with an injury to even achieve that.

The head to head is unbalanced, but Federer is 30, while Nadal is 25 and the majority of their matches have been on Nadal's best surface. What do you expect?

NadalAgassi
09-01-2011, 07:26 PM
The head to head is unbalanced, but Federer is 30, while Nadal is 25 and the majority of their matches have been on Nadal's best surface. What do you expect?

They started playing when Nadal was 17 and Federer was 22. Your point? Nadal can win virtually every match with Federer on clay, while Federer can only win half of their matches on other surfaces. Your point?

TopFH
09-01-2011, 07:32 PM
I totally agree, the numbers look ridiculous. Fed-Murray: 1 out of 12? And Nadal-Murray: 13 out of 14? How people can think this is just a matter of chance is beyond me.
If draws were riggged in soccer (and they were), I can't see why not in tennis.

I agree with you.

DarthFed
09-01-2011, 07:34 PM
How the F*CK did this become a fed VS Nadal thread good god this is borderline disgusting.

Chopin
09-01-2011, 09:04 PM
They started playing when Nadal was 17 and Federer was 22. Your point? Nadal can win virtually every match with Federer on clay, while Federer can only win half of their matches on other surfaces. Your point?

Right, but Federer was far superior to Nadal off of clay during his prime years, evidenced by the fact that they never met once past Wimbledon outside of the Masters Cup (in which they MUST meet).

Both players have strengths and weaknesses, but the head to head tells us many things, and while it certainly tells us that Nadal is a very difficult match-up for Federer and far superior on clay, it also tells us that Nadal has traditionally weakened during the second half of the year.

An interesting stat is this:

Federer is 5-1 against Nadal in meetings that fell after the French Open. In other words, where Federer has traditionally played his very best tennis: Wimbledon and the faster American hard-court season, Nadal wasn't there to meet Federer. Yes, he made the finals last year, but I think that was the first year, if I'm correct, and Federer is well past his prime now and has no more than a couple of years left.

Nadal generally slows down as the year goes on, and I think that if they had met on faster courts when Federer was prime, it would be a very difficult match for a young Nadal. Interestingly enough, Nadal seems to have hit his prime years a couple of years earlier than Federer did; so, in this sense their careers have different arcs.

I think both are great players, in different ways, and certainly all-time greats. I think to compare them now, before they both have retired is foolish. Nadal is the better player now, but Federer has accomplished more, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

No need to be fanboys about it :-)

Best,
Chopin

Chopin
09-01-2011, 09:10 PM
About the draws:

Just a question, but don't some tournaments go by the rankings?

In other words: Federer was #1 and Nadal was #2 for the longest time, right? So, shouldn't they be at the opposite ends of the draw?

Bryan Swartz
09-01-2011, 09:23 PM
The tournaments do go by the rankings, but the issue is not #1 and #2 -- they can never meet until the final. It's how the semis are paired, i.e. 1v3 or 1v4, etc.

BevelDevil
09-01-2011, 11:31 PM
@Tony48


If they hypothesis is that organizers want the big rivalries to take place on days of high viewership, that suggests the incentive to rig the draws would be weaker at the U.S. Open, where there is a Super Saturday.

Thus, we would expect to see less rigging at the USO, and also more rigging at the USO during the era where there was no Super Saturday.


Can you break down the data by Slam, and also by USO SS/non-SS?

tennis_pro
09-02-2011, 12:09 PM
A 30 year old Henman who even in his prime many years earlier than that had never made it past the 4th round of a non Wimbledon slam (except for a fluke semifinal at 30 at Roland Garros), and never had made a Wimbledon final on his best surface.

A 35 year old Agassi with a serious back injury who had problems walking. Remember Federer was supposably an old grandpa whose defeats should all be discounted from 26 on.

Coria, Moya, and Gaudio, the one surface wonders (and not even much of a wonder on that surface at that), except for maybe the aging Moya who many years ago was pretty good on hard courts.

Safin, who was never again a top 20 player after his mid 2005, and even in his prime played like god for 2 or 3 tournaments a year and half tanked through all the rest.

Roddick and Hewitt, the twin pigeons for life were his toughest competition. Wow amazing.

Youzhny btw was a top 10 player in the Federer era too.



I guess you are forgetting some of the top 10 players of the mid 2000s. Rainer Schuettler, Tommy Robredo, Gaston Gaudio (oh I forgot you already listed the Open Eras worst and flukiest slam winner as an example of tough competition, lol), were all year end top 8 ranked players and direct qualifiers to the YEC (not just top 10 for a few weeks like many of the ones you listed). James Blake at #4 in the World. Compare 2006 year end #4 Blake to current #4 Murray. Even Soderling is far beyond Blake with both guys in their primes. Ivan Ljubicic at #3 in the World, you are actually going to argue that would happen in a strong field. :rolleyes:

David Ferrer was a top 5 player during the Federer era at one point, so your point there is pointless. Ferrer shouldnt be top 15? Are you saying Ferrer isnt better than Robredo who was a frequent top 10 player of the Federer era. Please.

So the 7-10 players in some cases might be worse than ever. So what, the competition for players like Federer or Nadal while on top is the top 5 anyway, and the top 5 today >>>> Roddick, Ljubicic, teenage "clay only" Nadal, Blake, Davydenko.


I don't care about the rest what you said but to claim that the top 10 in 2011 is better than 2004/2005 you have to be a plain re***d. Even freaking Agassi who was 34/35 at the time but still could play well on hard courts would replace Ferrer as the no 5 player in the world nowadays. The top 10 in 04/05 is 10 times better in every single way than the current crop of "all-time greats". Apart from Nadal, Djokovic and Federer who is years past his prime the rest sucks and would suck even more so a couple years ago.

tennis_pro
09-02-2011, 12:18 PM
No, the Dubai final was 3/6/06 and Fed played his first match in IW on 3/13/06, halfway across the world. On the other hand, there is nearly a month between AO and Dubai for him to recover from whatever remaining ankle issues there were.

Fact of the matter is Fed reached the final of the first 4 tournaments he played that year and won every final except the 1 to Nadal. No way not to credit Nadal there. Especially since Fed won the first set 6-2. So what exactly happened to make him lost the next two sets other than difficulties w/ the play of his opponant?

He had the same injury in late 2005 and beat 4 top 10 players in the Tennis Masters Cup, almost (and should've won) beat Nalbandian in the final with his hindered movement.

Tony48
09-02-2011, 12:36 PM
@Tony48


If they hypothesis is that organizers want the big rivalries to take place on days of high viewership, that suggests the incentive to rig the draws would be weaker at the U.S. Open, where there is a Super Saturday.

Thus, we would expect to see less rigging at the USO, and also more rigging at the USO during the era where there was no Super Saturday.


Can you break down the data by Slam, and also by USO SS/non-SS?

I started to do this but figured that it was meaningless, but I guess I'll finish it just for the sake of completion.

Also, what does the "SS" mean?

NadalAgassi
09-02-2011, 02:30 PM
I don't care about the rest what you said but to claim that the top 10 in 2011 is better than 2004/2005 you have to be a plain re***d. Even freaking Agassi who was 34/35 at the time but still could play well on hard courts would replace Ferrer as the no 5 player in the world nowadays. The top 10 in 04/05 is 10 times better in every single way than the current crop of "all-time greats". Apart from Nadal, Djokovic and Federer who is years past his prime the rest sucks and would suck even more so a couple years ago.

So Federer is WAY past his prime at 26/27 and his losses dont even count anymore, but Agassi at 34/35 with a horribly bad back is supposed to be a beast, ROTFL! You are basically confessing you consider Agassi much better than Federer if those are your standards.

The bottom of the top 10 is meaningless anyway. Nobody cares who is better between Robredo, 35 year old broken backed Agassi, Schuettler, 30 year old Henman, or Berdych, Verdasco, Ferrer. None of those players is any threat whatsoever to a prime Federer, prime Nadal, or peak Djokovic, so who cares. The top 5 is where the only real competition for prime Federer or prime Nadal can come. Djokovic faces prime Nadal, a still strong Federer, and Murray who has won by far the most Masters in history of a slamless player, while Federer faced Roddick, Hewitt, and Ljubicic. No comparision. I love how you say Djokovic only faces Nadal and an aging Federer. Federer only faced Roddick and Hewitt, who would one rather face- prime Nadal and 29/30 year old Federer or Roddick and Hewitt. Tough call, NOT.

Anyway if you want to demean Djokovic due to lack of competition, then you must now accept Federer's achievements being demeaned due to lack of competition compared to any of Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, nearly everyone before 2002. Federer whether he has tougher competition than Djokovic or not, has much worse competition than nearly every other great player in history, a fact ignored or blindlessly dismissed by Federer fans, so if you dont want the competition argument reopened for Federer you are best to shut up on it when it comes to Djokovic and his success this year as well.

A Federer fanboy dismissing Djokovic's year due to the quality of the field is a laugher, talk about the black kettle and pot. You would think Federer had to face one of the deepest and highest quality in fields in history according to you, hahaha.

tennis_pro
09-02-2011, 03:12 PM
So Federer is WAY past his prime at 26/27 and his losses dont even count anymore, but Agassi at 34/35 with a horribly bad back is supposed to be a beast, ROTFL! You are basically confessing you consider Agassi much better than Federer if those are your standards.

The bottom of the top 10 is meaningless anyway. Nobody cares who is better between Robredo, 35 year old broken backed Agassi, Schuettler, 30 year old Henman, or Berdych, Verdasco, Ferrer. None of those players is any threat whatsoever to a prime Federer, prime Nadal, or peak Djokovic, so who cares. The top 5 is where the only real competition for prime Federer or prime Nadal can come. Djokovic faces prime Nadal, a still strong Federer, and Murray who has won by far the most Masters in history of a slamless player, while Federer faced Roddick, Hewitt, and Ljubicic. No comparision. I love how you say Djokovic only faces Nadal and an aging Federer. Federer only faced Roddick and Hewitt, who would one rather face- prime Nadal and 29/30 year old Federer or Roddick and Hewitt. Tough call, NOT.

Anyway if you want to demean Djokovic due to lack of competition, then you must now accept Federer's achievements being demeaned due to lack of competition compared to any of Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, nearly everyone before 2002. Federer whether he has tougher competition than Djokovic or not, has much worse competition than nearly every other great player in history, a fact ignored or blindlessly dismissed by Federer fans, so if you dont want the competition argument reopened for Federer you are best to shut up on it when it comes to Djokovic and his success this year as well.

A Federer fanboy dismissing Djokovic's year due to the quality of the field is a laugher, talk about the black kettle and pot. You would think Federer had to face one of the deepest and highest quality in fields in history according to you, hahaha.

Schuttler was top 10 for a very brief period in 2003 mostly due to his fluke AO run. Once his AO points dropped his ranking went down.

Henman at 29/30 was playing his best tennis, in 2003 he won his only Masters tournament while in 2004 he reached the FO semis (best result), US semis (best result), Wimbledon quarters (close to his best result - semis), actually beat Federer that year in Rotterdam.

Apart from prime Roddick and prime Hewitt he also had Nalbandian, Safin, both at their best, that's already more tough opponents than Djokovic has now. The top 10 in 2004/2005 was miles better than the current players. If such a mental midget like Murray constantly reaches slam SEMIS (!) only to get pwned by the top 3 just sais it all.

Agassi at 34 was a bigger threat in Slams than Murray ever was or ever will be, that's a LOLfact.

tennis_pro
09-02-2011, 03:20 PM
A Federer fanboy dismissing Djokovic's year due to the quality of the field is a laugher, talk about the black kettle and pot. You would think Federer had to face one of the deepest and highest quality in fields in history according to you, hahaha.

When did I say that Federer faced the highest quality opposition in history you liar? Still he had a way tougher time dominating players like Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Henman, Agassi, Moya, Coria, Ferrero instead of just Olderer and Nadal who is his pidgeon atm.

BeHappy
09-02-2011, 03:45 PM
To be fair to Federer, in 2004 he had very tough competition. Roddick, Safin and Hewitt were still playing really well, and Agassi was still very good too, and Coria was amazing on the clay. Gaudio was a very good player on clay too, although he was a non factor on other surfaces. It's really late 2005-2007 that Federer had absolutely no competition at all.

BevelDevil
09-02-2011, 04:08 PM
I started to do this but figured that it was meaningless, but I guess I'll finish it just for the sake of completion.

Also, what does the "SS" mean?


SS= "Super Saturday".

The absence of a super saturday would increase the pressure to rig the men's draw.

NadalAgassi
09-02-2011, 11:06 PM
Schuttler was top 10 for a very brief period in 2003 mostly due to his fluke AO run. Once his AO points dropped his ranking went down.

So Schuettler was a fluke top 10 player yet Almagro, Melzer, and Youzhny who spent much less time there are legit ones amongst todays field. Schuettler with an Australian Open final, Indian Wells semis, Canadian Open semis, WTF semis, and no loss before the round of 16 of any slams, was a fluke top 10 player amongst the 2003 crop of players. Try again.

Henman at 29/30 was playing his best tennis, in 2003 he won his only Masters tournament while in 2004 he reached the FO semis (best result), US semis (best result), Wimbledon quarters (close to his best result - semis), actually beat Federer that year in Rotterdam.

ROTFL Henman was not playing his best tennis in 2004. It is pretty much a consensus from all tennis followers that his prime ended after 2001 or so. He hadnt been in serious contention at Wimbledon in years, despite by then facing a grass court field 40% as deep as the Sampras era he peaked in. He only got that high due to the total lack of depth in the weak Federer era that allowed such comical results as clay court mug Henman reaching the FO semis at age 30.

Apart from prime Roddick and prime Hewitt he also had Nalbandian, Safin, both at their best, that's already more tough opponents than Djokovic has now.

prime Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime Roddick or Hewitt
29/30 year old Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prime Roddick or Hewitt
Murray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nalbandian

Safin who peaked in 2000-2002 had maybe 3 good tournaments left in him once Federer's reign begin. Try again.

The top 10 in 2004/2005 was miles better than the current players. If such a mental midget like Murray constantly reaches slam SEMIS (!) only to get pwned by the top 3 just sais it all.

The fact that Andy Roddick and 35 year old Agassi were Federer's only competition (except for baby diapered Nadal destroying him on clay already) during Federer's dominance already sais it all

Agassi at 34 was a bigger threat in Slams than Murray ever was or ever will be, that's a LOLfact.

A so called fact based on absolutely no truth. Agassi won 0 slam titles and reached exactly 1 slam final from ages 33-36 when he retired, the period of the Federer reign. Murray in the last 3 years has reached 3 slam finals, and beat prime Nadal to reach 2 of those, something a 33-36 year old Agassi would never have been capable of. Agassi couldnt even play all the slams by that point as his body was so beat up. It is laughable you *******s are so desperate to pump up Federer's competition you resort to a man almost a decade older than when Feddy was supposably "way past his prime", and one who was having trouble walking due to a major back injury.

Of course that isnt a knock on Agassi, just the reality of being that old in professional tennis. He is probably the best mid 30s tennis player since Laver and Rosewall. After all according to Fed fanboys Federer was an old geezer on a walking cane at only 26, LOL!


Anyway back to what I said even if you were right that Djokovic faced weaker competition than Federer (actually I previously thought it was a tough call, but your sh1tty arguments have now actually shown me that even Djokovic probably did have tougher competition than Federer, so thanks) are you now agreeing to accept Federer's accomplishments deserve to be demeaned in comparision to guys like Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Becker, Nadal, who ALL faced more competition than Federer did. After all Federer dominated one of the worst eras in mens tennis history too, so if you want to demean Djokovic's year by using the competition argument the same must be done for Federer. That or you can use the Federer fanboys old mantra: results are all that count, competition comparision over eras is unprovable, or doesnt matter, or is just excuse making; and rightfully congratulate Djokovic on his outstanding year rather than whining and making excuses like a buttsore loser (something as a Nadal fan unlike you I am not stooping to). Your choice.

zagor
09-03-2011, 01:10 AM
Honestly I was a bit sceptical before on the conspiracy theories on draws(I'm well aware that odd streaks happen) but lately I'm definitely beginning to have my doubts.

It's not just that it's always Fed-Novak and Nadal-Murray but in the last 2 slams the word from official twitters(and similar) was that it was Fed-Nadal which later proved to be a mistake.

Tony48
09-03-2011, 01:24 AM
Honestly I was a bit sceptical before on the conspiracy theories on draws(I'm well aware that odd streaks happen) but lately I'm definitely beginning to have my doubts.

It's not just that it's always Fed-Novak and Nadal-Murray but in the last 2 slams the word from official twitters(and similar) was that it was Fed-Nadal which later proved to be a mistake.

EXACTLY!

Even ESPN even reported it. I saved it on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9u5yPGnzzA

tennis_pro
09-03-2011, 05:03 AM
So Schuettler was a fluke top 10 player yet Almagro, Melzer, and Youzhny who spent much less time there are legit ones amongst todays field. Schuettler with an Australian Open final, Indian Wells semis, Canadian Open semis, WTF semis, and no loss before the round of 16 of any slams, was a fluke top 10 player amongst the 2003 crop of players. Try again.



ROTFL Henman was not playing his best tennis in 2004. It is pretty much a consensus from all tennis followers that his prime ended after 2001 or so. He hadnt been in serious contention at Wimbledon in years, despite by then facing a grass court field 40% as deep as the Sampras era he peaked in. He only got that high due to the total lack of depth in the weak Federer era that allowed such comical results as clay court mug Henman reaching the FO semis at age 30.



prime Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prime Roddick or Hewitt
29/30 year old Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prime Roddick or Hewitt
Murray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nalbandian

Safin who peaked in 2000-2002 had maybe 3 good tournaments left in him once Federer's reign begin. Try again.



The fact that Andy Roddick and 35 year old Agassi were Federer's only competition (except for baby diapered Nadal destroying him on clay already) during Federer's dominance already sais it all



A so called fact based on absolutely no truth. Agassi won 0 slam titles and reached exactly 1 slam final from ages 33-36 when he retired, the period of the Federer reign. Murray in the last 3 years has reached 3 slam finals, and beat prime Nadal to reach 2 of those, something a 33-36 year old Agassi would never have been capable of. Agassi couldnt even play all the slams by that point as his body was so beat up. It is laughable you *******s are so desperate to pump up Federer's competition you resort to a man almost a decade older than when Feddy was supposably "way past his prime", and one who was having trouble walking due to a major back injury.

Of course that isnt a knock on Agassi, just the reality of being that old in professional tennis. He is probably the best mid 30s tennis player since Laver and Rosewall. After all according to Fed fanboys Federer was an old geezer on a walking cane at only 26, LOL!


Anyway back to what I said even if you were right that Djokovic faced weaker competition than Federer (actually I previously thought it was a tough call, but your sh1tty arguments have now actually shown me that even Djokovic probably did have tougher competition than Federer, so thanks) are you now agreeing to accept Federer's accomplishments deserve to be demeaned in comparision to guys like Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Becker, Nadal, who ALL faced more competition than Federer did. After all Federer dominated one of the worst eras in mens tennis history too, so if you want to demean Djokovic's year by using the competition argument the same must be done for Federer. That or you can use the Federer fanboys old mantra: results are all that count, competition comparision over eras is unprovable, or doesnt matter, or is just excuse making; and rightfully congratulate Djokovic on his outstanding year rather than whining and making excuses like a buttsore loser (something as a Nadal fan unlike you I am not stooping to). Your choice.


How is Murray a better slam contender than even 40-year old Agassi if we already know that Agassi, old or not, was never gonna wilt under the pressure while Murray has proved it 3 times already. Agassi reached the US Open final at 35 facing prime Federer and he did way better than 24-year old Murray against a 29-year old Federer.

Of course the rest you wrote is total bull**it but I'm done with responding to a guy who has to have the last word at any price. If you haven't started watching tennis in 2008 you'd know that the players ranked 4 or lower are less than half as good as the top 10 a couple of years ago.

Huge lol at Schuttler being a factor in Federer's prime (which "began" in late 2003/early 2004). Schuttler apart from the 2004 Monte Carlo final lost in the 1st or 2nd round in just about every tournament he played in 2004 (finished year ranked 42 and probably would drop out of the top 70 if not for that 1 MC final), including 1st round losses in 3 of the 4 Slams (and a 3rd round in the 4th LOL). 1st round losses in 6/9 Masters, 2nd round losses in 2/9 Masters titles. WOW he was a beast back in Federer's prime. I mantain that the 2003 AO final was the only reason he was in the top 10 in the first place.

Tony48
09-05-2011, 02:08 PM
CBS saw my OP, lol

http://i56.tinypic.com/4h6z9h.jpg

ubermeyer
09-05-2011, 03:14 PM
I don't think Murray deserves to be put in the same category. I think any of Nadal-Federer-Djokovic would infinitely prefer drawing Murray to another person in that group of 3 (in a slam, at least).