PDA

View Full Version : Why does Djokovic always draw Federer?


jm1980
05-25-2012, 08:24 AM
15 times out of the last 18.

2008 AO: #1 Federer - #3 Djokovic; #2 Nadal - #4 Davydenko
2008 RG: #1 Federer - #4 Davydenko; #2 Nadal - #3 Djokovic
2008 W: #1 Federer - #3 Djokovic; #2 Nadal - #4 Davydenko
2008 USO: #1 Nadal - #4 Ferrer; #2 Federer - #3 Djokovic

2009 AO: #1 Nadal - #4 Murray; #2 Federer - #3 Djokovic
2009 RG: #1 Nadal - #3 Murray; #2 Federer - #4 Djokovic
2009 W: #1 Nadal - #3 Murray; #2 Federer - #4 Djokovic
2009 USO: #1 Federer - #4 Djokovic; #2 Murray - #3 Nadal

2010 AO: #1 Federer - #3 Djokovic; #2 Nadal - #4 JMDP
2010 RG: #1 Federer - #4 Murray; #2 Nadal - #3 Djokovic
2010 W: #1 Federer - #3 Djokovic; #2 Nadal - #4 Murray
2010 USO: #1 Nadal - #4 Murray; #2 Federer - #3 Djokovic

2011 AO: #1 Nadal - #4 Murray; #2 Federer - #3 Djokovic
2011 RG: #1 Nadal - #4 Murray; #2 Djokovic - #3 Federer
2011 W: #1 Nadal - #4 Murray; #2 Djokovic - #3 Federer
2011 USO: #1 Djokovic - #3 Federer; #2 Nadal - #4 Murray

2012 AO: #1 Djokovic - #4 Murray; #2 Nadal - #3 Federer
2012 RG: #1 Djokovic - #3 Federer; #2 Nadal - #4 Murray

BigServer1
05-25-2012, 08:26 AM
15 out of 18 is pretty wild to think about...I know it's random, but it is a funny coincidence.

Clarky21
05-25-2012, 08:27 AM
It doesn't matter who Rolaids draws. He's going to win RG anyway.

SwankPeRFection
05-25-2012, 08:28 AM
Just once I'd like to see Nadal have to go through Nole first and then Fed to win something. FCOL!

woodrow1029
05-25-2012, 08:30 AM
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231409/uncyclopedia/images/1/11/Beating-a-dead-horse.gif (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231409/uncyclopedia/images/1/11/Beating-a-dead-horse.gif)

EndLy
05-25-2012, 08:30 AM
the possible lure of a nadal federer final, primetime Sunday afternoon is too great.
I was honestly surprised federer and nadal were on the same side of the draw for tue Australian Open.

I'm sure Djokovic will draw Federer for Wimbledon too.

Frying Pan Forehand
05-25-2012, 08:30 AM
Damn this conspiracy theory lunatics. Right now Fed isn't making finals so if the organizers want profit they would have Fed vs Nadal because that is the most popular match possible in today's tennis and then even get a nice match Nadal vs Djokovic which is becoming even more popular than Fed vs Djokovic.

Take your pills.

Arafel
05-25-2012, 08:32 AM
Well, it seems odd, but if you look at the breakdown, it's because their rankings keep changing and have not been static. Put it this way: in every year except 2011, the split has been 50/50 over the Slams between a 1/4 and 2/4 pairing of the seeds for the semis. In 2011, there were 3 1/4 parings and one 1/3. If the rankings had been the same over that period, it would argue for something more in terms of organizers fixing it.

jm1980
05-25-2012, 08:35 AM
Well, it seems odd, but if you look at the breakdown, it's because their rankings keep changing and have not been static. Put it this way: in every year except 2011, the split has been 50/50 over the Slams between a 1/4 and 2/4 pairing of the seeds for the semis. In 2011, there were 3 1/4 parings and one 1/3. If the rankings had been the same over that period, it would argue for something more in terms of organizers fixing it.

This doesn't mean they couldn't have been rigged. Here's what I think the train of thought was last year:

AO: We have to draw Federer and Djokovic together... #2 vs. #3 it is.
RG: Again, Fed must draw Djokovic. Nobody will notice if we put #2 vs. #3 again, right?
W: This is getting a little suspicious, but f*** it. Let's go with #2 vs. #3 again.
USO: Oh thank God Djokovic got #1! Now we can have a #1 vs. #3 to even out the numbers a little bit.

Evan77
05-25-2012, 08:39 AM
It is very strange ... I thought about it too ... conspiracy, so Nudall can get anywhere, unlcle Tony is really good, lol

svijk
05-25-2012, 08:45 AM
isnt Fed #2 ranked player now? so how did he end up in Djoko' half?

Lemoned
05-25-2012, 08:46 AM
Damn this conspiracy theory lunatics. Right now Fed isn't making finals so if the organizers want profit they would have Fed vs Nadal because that is the most popular match possible in today's tennis and then even get a nice match Nadal vs Djokovic which is becoming even more popular than Fed vs Djokovic.

Take your pills.
Last time they got what they wanted, even though Federer hadn't been able to make a final four times in a row prior to RG 2011. So why change a winning formula when it's proved it's still working for them. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

jm1980
05-25-2012, 08:47 AM
isnt Fed #2 ranked player now? so how did he end up in Djoko' half?

He isn't.

1. Djokovic, Novak (SRB) - 11,800
2. Nadal, Rafael (ESP) - 10,060
3. Federer, Roger (SUI) - 9,790
4. Murray, Andy (GBR) - 7,500

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

Tammo
05-25-2012, 08:47 AM
Just once I'd like to see Nadal have to go through Nole first and then Fed to win something. FCOL!

2008 FO........

PCXL-Fan
05-25-2012, 08:53 AM
They had to stop doing this because the media started writing articles about this.

svijk
05-25-2012, 09:00 AM
He isn't.

1. Djokovic, Novak (SRB) - 11,800
2. Nadal, Rafael (ESP) - 10,060
3. Federer, Roger (SUI) - 9,790
4. Murray, Andy (GBR) - 7,500

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

thx, i thought he became #2 after winning Madrid....but i guess Rafa got it back after Rome

Rickenbacker4003
05-25-2012, 09:06 AM
Nadal got a dream draw. No Fed, Berdych, Delpo or Tsonga. So much for the French hating him.

Rickenbacker4003
05-25-2012, 09:07 AM
Just once I'd like to see Nadal have to go through Nole first and then Fed to win something. FCOL!

French Open 2007 and 2008.

kishnabe
05-25-2012, 09:25 AM
French Open 2007 and 2008.


Nadal needs to go through Grampa Freds, and Djokovic 2.0

Before it was okay when Nadal went through Djokovic 1.0 to Prime Federer.

It impossible to face Prime Federer and Djokovic 2.0 since they both have appeared in different times. If Nadal did he would not have 10 but rather 4 slam titles.

WhiskeyEE
05-25-2012, 09:25 AM
Well, it seems odd, but if you look at the breakdown, it's because their rankings keep changing and have not been static. Put it this way: in every year except 2011, the split has been 50/50 over the Slams between a 1/4 and 2/4 pairing of the seeds for the semis. In 2011, there were 3 1/4 parings and one 1/3. If the rankings had been the same over that period, it would argue for something more in terms of organizers fixing it.

That means absolutely nothing. Fed and Joker switching seeds allowed the number pairings be more balanced. That doesn't mean they aren't rigging the draws.

From chance alone, both the number and Joker-Fed pairings should be balanced, regardless of whether they changed seeds or not. That is, they should have met half the time while seeds 1 and 3 AND half of the time while 2 and 3, or whatever. This would make both the number and player pairings balanced.

The fact that one is extremely skewed suggests that they are rigging them.

zagor
05-25-2012, 09:29 AM
Because tio Toni owns tennis.

Soon we will see higher net, only one serve allowed, all HC tournaments switched to (red) clay and a two year ranking system.

sunof tennis
05-25-2012, 09:31 AM
Perhaps one of the tennis historians can answer this question, have the slams always completed their draws with random selections in the semis?
Not sure why tennis doesn't do what other sports do and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3 at all times if all make it to the semis. That would certinaly eliminate the conspiracy theories:)

NadalAgassi
05-25-2012, 09:39 AM
I think TPTB still hold out hopes for Federer-Nadal finals and the only way that is possible is for them not to play in the semis.

Then going back in time when Djokovic was #3 he seemed to usually end up in Nadal's half at Roland Garros, but Federer's in the other slams, which was kind of funny. Maybe they figured there was no chance of him beating Nadal at RG, and not much chance of him beating Federer at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, so that was the safest draw to almost guarantee the desired Federer-Nadal final as well.

WhiskeyEE
05-25-2012, 09:43 AM
I think TPTB still hold out hopes for Federer-Nadal finals and the only way that is possible is for them not to play in the semis.

Then going back in time when Djokovic was #3 he seemed to usually end up in Nadal's half at Roland Garros, but Federer's in the other slams, which was kind of funny. Maybe they figured there was no chance of him beating Nadal at RG, and not much chance of him beating Federer at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, so that was the safest draw to almost guarantee the desired Federer-Nadal final as well.

This is what I think as well. But who's TPTB?

PCXL-Fan
05-25-2012, 09:55 AM
The Djokovic-Federer semi pattern thing stopped recently when various academic and journalistic bodies drew attention to this issue, which coincided with the ending of this pattern. Also a weird coincidence that the pattern stops after media and academic attention is drawn to this suspicious pattern. The Djokovic-Federer semi pattern thing changed when various academic and journalistic bodies did drew attention to this issue which coincided with the ending of this pattern.


http://essentialtennis.com/tournews/2011/06/the-strange-odds-of-federer-vs.-djokovic/
http://www.b92.net/sport/tenis/vesti.php?yyyy=2011&mm=10&dd=20&nav_id=550938
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kR1DPVj3DAlkq880NDIt4K7Kyrk8I0iF48-rEKBJ3S0/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how%E2%80%90espn%E2%80%90lines%E2%80%90analyzed%E2 %80%90us%E2%80%90open%E2%80%90tennis%E2%80%90
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn%E2%80%90analysis%E2%80%90finds%E2%80%90top%E2 %80%90seeds%E2%80%90tennis%E2%80%90us%E2%80%90open %E2%80%90had%E2%80%90easier%E2%80%90draw%E2%80%90
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6861149&categoryid=2378529
http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/PTG2011/Presentation/thursday/Katarina_Pijetlovic_-_6_Oct_at_PLAY_THE_GAME_2011.pdf
http://www.livestream.com/playthegame_dshs/video?clipId=pla_44809e94-aa04-46c7-9f1e-35b212ba9d46 <- this link gives estonian researchers lecture to the press on these's statistical improbabilities (starts at 14:00)

Investigators also found that relative easiness USO for the opening rounds for the top 2 men over the last 10 years happened with a probability of 1 in 333. They also found that in WTA it was even worse, that the top 2 seeds relative easiness of 1st round opponents using computer probility simulations was reproduced 0 in of 1000 attempts.

Evan77
05-25-2012, 10:22 AM
The Djokovic-Federer semi pattern thing stopped recently when various academic and journalistic bodies drew attention to this issue, which coincided with the ending of this pattern. Also a weird coincidence that the pattern stops after media and academic attention is drawn to this suspicious pattern. The Djokovic-Federer semi pattern thing changed when various academic and journalistic bodies did drew attention to this issue which coincided with the ending of this pattern.


http://essentialtennis.com/tournews/2011/06/the-strange-odds-of-federer-vs.-djokovic/
http://www.b92.net/sport/tenis/vesti.php?yyyy=2011&mm=10&dd=20&nav_id=550938
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kR1DPVj3DAlkq880NDIt4K7Kyrk8I0iF48-rEKBJ3S0/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how%E2%80%90espn%E2%80%90lines%E2%80%90analyzed%E2 %80%90us%E2%80%90open%E2%80%90tennis%E2%80%90
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn%E2%80%90analysis%E2%80%90finds%E2%80%90top%E2 %80%90seeds%E2%80%90tennis%E2%80%90us%E2%80%90open %E2%80%90had%E2%80%90easier%E2%80%90draw%E2%80%90
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6861149&categoryid=2378529
http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/PTG2011/Presentation/thursday/Katarina_Pijetlovic_-_6_Oct_at_PLAY_THE_GAME_2011.pdf
http://www.livestream.com/playthegame_dshs/video?clipId=pla_44809e94-aa04-46c7-9f1e-35b212ba9d46 <- this link gives estonian researchers lecture to the press on these's statistical improbabilities (starts at 14:00)

Investigators also found that relative easiness USO for the opening rounds for the top 2 men over the last 10 years happened with a probability of 1 in 333. They also found that in WTA it was even worse, that the top 2 seeds relative easiness of 1st round opponents using computer probility simulations was reproduced 0 in of 1000 attempts.
yeah, I read so much about it and I find it really odd ... not sure what to make out of it ...

WhiskeyEE
05-25-2012, 11:20 AM
yeah, I read so much about it and I find it really odd ... not sure what to make out of it ...

The probability of them meeting as often as they have is a fraction of a percent (I calculated it). It's ridiculous.

Anyone know if a similar thing occurred with Sampras and Agassi?

BlueClayIsRealClay
05-25-2012, 11:38 AM
it's a conspiracy

Evan77
05-25-2012, 11:39 AM
The probability of them meeting as often as they have is a fraction of a percent (I calculated it). It's ridiculous.

Anyone know if a similar thing occurred with Sampras and Agassi?
good question. I'm going to try to look it up. As for Djoko and Fed it's so crazy (I had to learn some statistics at the university, and I can only scratch my head)...

look, love watching 2 great champions (Rog and Nole) but it's so strange :confused:

r2473
05-25-2012, 11:42 AM
He's mastered the 20 step program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdKZDk9v2dQ

And because everyone else does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxGihSUNEs&feature=related

Evan77
05-25-2012, 11:44 AM
He's mastered the 20 step program:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdKZDk9v2dQ
lol, cute, but we still haven't got the darn answer :)

Mustard
05-25-2012, 11:49 AM
Look at the seeding numbers and not the names of the players.

WhiskeyEE
05-25-2012, 11:51 AM
Look at the seeding numbers and not the names of the players.

It doesn't matter. Statisically, they should have met half the time while seeds 1 and 3 and half the time while seeds 2 and 3, which would still be half the time overall. But it isn't.

They changed rankings, which evened out the number pairings a bit since they went from rigging 2 and 3 to 1 and 3. That doesn't mean it isn't rigged.

Sid_Vicious
05-25-2012, 11:59 AM
Same old BS topic.

purge
05-25-2012, 12:01 PM
because its only fair since federer always drew djokovic as well lol

Daized
05-25-2012, 12:02 PM
The seeding itself is irrelevant because in each slam they had a 50% chance of meeting. The chances Fed and Djokovic met this many times is just statistically not very plausible (It can happen, but so so so unlikely).

Ocean Drive
05-25-2012, 12:06 PM
Nadal needs to go through Grampa Freds, and Djokovic 2.0

Before it was okay when Nadal went through Djokovic 1.0 to Prime Federer.

It impossible to face Prime Federer and Djokovic 2.0 since they both have appeared in different times. If Nadal did he would not have 10 but rather 4 slam titles.

I don't see much of a difference between 2008 Djokovic to 2012 Djokovic, in ability. I just think that the competition was better in 2008. Djokovic is certainly fitter now than in 2008 but his game has been more passive as a result, in my opinion.

1970CRBase
05-25-2012, 12:08 PM
Check out the epic thread on it :mrgreen:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=402889

jm1980
05-25-2012, 12:11 PM
I don't see much of a difference between 2008 Djokovic to 2012 Djokovic, in ability. I just think that the competition was better in 2008. Djokovic is certainly fitter now than in 2008 but his game has been more passive as a result, in my opinion.

Djokovic hasn't been the same this year, not just his game but also his head.

Been seeing shades of Djokovic 1.0, who would lose his cool when facing adversity.

I want Djokovic 2.0 back, that one who remained calm no matter what happened on court and found a way to win.

Crisstti
05-25-2012, 12:54 PM
Nadal needs to go through Grampa Freds, and Djokovic 2.0

Before it was okay when Nadal went through Djokovic 1.0 to Prime Federer.

It impossible to face Prime Federer and Djokovic 2.0 since they both have appeared in different times. If Nadal did he would not have 10 but rather 4 slam titles.

Sure, and how many slams would Fed have if he had faced both prime Nadal and Djokovic...

:roll:

Nathaniel_Near
05-25-2012, 01:43 PM
Because draws are probably to some extent predetermined.

dascud
05-25-2012, 01:47 PM
Just once I'd like to see Nadal have to go through Nole first and then Fed to win something. FCOL!

You mean like in Roland garros 2007 & 2008 ?.

bullfan
05-25-2012, 02:49 PM
Nadal got a dream draw. No Fed, Berdych, Delpo or Tsonga. So much for the French hating him.

Nadal doesn't need a dream draw for clay.

Fed.... Hasn't beat him at RG yet, and won't start now.

Berdych..... Nadal took him to the cleaners at Rome, although that was Rafa's best match during the tournament. Berdych is a mental midget and it doesn't matter who's side of the draw Berdych is in. Berdych should have beat Fed and Djokovic on clay this year and blew it both times. Didn't come close to beating Rafa. Won't come close to beating Fed or Novak if he should face either.

Delpo.... is most not a clay court challenge for Rafa. Delpo couldn't prepare for DC while Rafa was wiped out after a busy season, and didn't challenge Rafa much, why would he now? Besides I see Delpo as possibly injured, he started wearing a brace and didn't look good in Rome. I don't think it matters which draw Delpo is in, he isn't going to hurt any of the top 3.

Tsonga..... who Rafa wiped off clay in DC right after USOpen, when Rafa was beat. Tsonga is so hit or miss that unless it's hard court, he's a total miss, it doesn't matter who's draw he's in.

Bottom line.... None of those 4 can hurt any of the top 3 on clay.

Bobby Jr
05-25-2012, 03:44 PM
This is one slam where I'm happy for Federer and Djokovic to be on the same side. My reasoning is I think Djokovic has little chance of beating both Federer and Nadal at the FO.

My preference is that Djokovic does not win four slams on the trot - basically because we'll be subjected to even more "goat" arguments forever as if he achieved the same as Laver of Graf - who did it in a calendar year (it would still be a great achievement no doubt - I just don't want Djokovic to do it).

For once we're entering a slam where I don't wanting any particular player to win, rather I want a particular player to not win.

jm1980
05-25-2012, 03:47 PM
This is one slam where I'm happy for Federer and Djokovic to be on the same side. My reasoning is I think Djokovic has little chance of beating both Federer and Nadal at the FO.

Since my number one wish at this even is that Djokovic does not win four slams on the trot - basically because we'll be subjected to even more "goat" arguments forever as if he achieved the same as Laver of Graf - who did it in a calendar year.

For once we're entering a slam where I don't wanting any particular player to win, rather I want a particular player to not win. Sad I know...

What if Djokovic wins all 4 slams this year?

Evan77
05-25-2012, 04:21 PM
This is one slam where I'm happy for Federer and Djokovic to be on the same side. My reasoning is I think Djokovic has little chance of beating both Federer and Nadal at the FO.

My preference is that Djokovic does not win four slams on the trot - basically because we'll be subjected to even more "goat" arguments forever as if he achieved the same as Laver of Graf - who did it in a calendar year (it would still be a great achievement no doubt - I just don't want Djokovic to do it).

For once we're entering a slam where I don't wanting any particular player to win, rather I want a particular player to not win.
disagree, my dream is to see Novak and Roger in the final of RG. also it would be awesome if Novak could win RG and hold all 4 slams ... sure I'd be perfectly happy if Roger wins another one but don't see it happening ... I'd be happy if Joan Rivers wins RG, anybody but that pusher Nadal :)

Tony48
05-25-2012, 04:55 PM
Well, it seems odd, but if you look at the breakdown, it's because their rankings keep changing and have not been static. Put it this way: in every year except 2011, the split has been 50/50 over the Slams between a 1/4 and 2/4 pairing of the seeds for the semis. In 2011, there were 3 1/4 parings and one 1/3. If the rankings had been the same over that period, it would argue for something more in terms of organizers fixing it.

I already looked at 3 other groups of tennis players:

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 their rankings kept changing but they didn't show anything NEAR the kind of outrageous pairing that we see with Fed-Djokovic/Nadal-Murray

NadalAgassi
05-25-2012, 05:00 PM
I already looked at 3 other groups of tennis players:

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 their rankings kept changing but they didn't show anything NEAR the kind of outrageous pairing that we see with Fed-Djokovic/Nadal-Murray

I think it revolves around TPTB that be wanting Federer-Nadal finals at all costs. The only way that is possible if Djokovic is #1 or #2 is if Federer plays Djokovic in the semis, as obviously if there is a Federer-Nadal semi there can be no final. Then when Djokovic was #3 putting Djokovic in Nadal's half at RG and Federer's half at the U.S Open was the safest way to ensure him not making the final of either, thus preserving the chance of the likely Fedal final (Wimbledon I dont think they worried what half he was in pre 2011, and Australian they were worried about him whichever half he was in).

I have some friends who dont follow tennis very closely, and they complained to me last year when they bought tickets to the Canadian final and neither Federer or Nadal made it. They didnt even care about Djokovic or "that other guy", which was their exact words. I have a feeling that is representative of many of the casual fans thoughts even today. It isnt fair, but it is how it is. Even after his amazing 2011, Nadal and Federer are still the big drawing cards.

Mustard
05-25-2012, 05:03 PM
I already looked at 3 other groups of tennis players:

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 their rankings kept changing but they didn't show anything NEAR the kind of outrageous pairing that we see with Fed-Djokovic/Nadal-Murray

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6108165&postcount=246

1970CRBase
05-25-2012, 05:23 PM
Fedal is good for the clothes sponsors.

TheTruth
05-25-2012, 05:25 PM
I think TPTB still hold out hopes for Federer-Nadal finals and the only way that is possible is for them not to play in the semis.

Then going back in time when Djokovic was #3 he seemed to usually end up in Nadal's half at Roland Garros, but Federer's in the other slams, which was kind of funny. Maybe they figured there was no chance of him beating Nadal at RG, and not much chance of him beating Federer at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, so that was the safest draw to almost guarantee the desired Federer-Nadal final as well.

I agree. I can't believe that there is that much randomness in the world.

cc0509
05-25-2012, 06:56 PM
Because draws are probably to some extent predetermined.

Some extent? If you owned a multi-billion dollar business, would you let random draws decide your fate? The ATP/tournament head honchos are no different.
Random draws my *****!

cc0509
05-25-2012, 06:57 PM
This is one slam where I'm happy for Federer and Djokovic to be on the same side. My reasoning is I think Djokovic has little chance of beating both Federer and Nadal at the FO.

My preference is that Djokovic does not win four slams on the trot - basically because we'll be subjected to even more "goat" arguments forever as if he achieved the same as Laver of Graf - who did it in a calendar year (it would still be a great achievement no doubt - I just don't want Djokovic to do it)



I agree with this.

WhiskeyEE
05-25-2012, 07:34 PM
Nadal doesn't need a dream draw for clay.

Fed.... Hasn't beat him at RG yet, and won't start now.

Berdych..... Nadal took him to the cleaners at Rome, although that was Rafa's best match during the tournament. Berdych is a mental midget and it doesn't matter who's side of the draw Berdych is in. Berdych should have beat Fed and Djokovic on clay this year and blew it both times. Didn't come close to beating Rafa. Won't come close to beating Fed or Novak if he should face either.

Delpo.... is most not a clay court challenge for Rafa. Delpo couldn't prepare for DC while Rafa was wiped out after a busy season, and didn't challenge Rafa much, why would he now? Besides I see Delpo as possibly injured, he started wearing a brace and didn't look good in Rome. I don't think it matters which draw Delpo is in, he isn't going to hurt any of the top 3.

Tsonga..... who Rafa wiped off clay in DC right after USOpen, when Rafa was beat. Tsonga is so hit or miss that unless it's hard court, he's a total miss, it doesn't matter who's draw he's in.

Bottom line.... None of those 4 can hurt any of the top 3 on clay.

True enough, but I don't think that anyone foresaw Soderling's 2009 FO run either.

veroniquem
05-25-2012, 07:37 PM
Because they know Nadal would beat him. He has a bit more chance to make it vs Djoko. (a lot more chance at RG)

bkpr
05-25-2012, 07:44 PM
But who's TPTB?

The Powers That Be?

sbengte
05-25-2012, 08:08 PM
Look at the seeding numbers and not the names of the players.

Irrelevant. I thought Benhur went to great lengths to explain why it is so and you would have got it by now.

Mustard, try to imagine this. Suppose that before every draw, they just attach (add) the name of each player after the corresponding number on each chip.

Now think. Would this change the nature of the draw?

It wouldn’t at all. The numbers just have some letters attached to them. It's the same draw.

Now, from one draw to the next this is what happens sometimes:

The name attached to each number has changed. (Which is exactly the same as saying that the number attached to each name has changed.) But each chip is still identified by a number AND a name.

Now, after a series of draws, you don’t expect that the same numbers should be paired up over and over. Likewise, you don’t expect that the same names should be paired up over and over. Why would you?

Your view is that, since the same numbers aren’t paired up over and over, this shows that the same names being paired up over and over is not an anomaly.

Why do you believe this? Clearly each chip has two pieces of identification: the number and the name. They are both equally valid, and both subject to the same randomness.

Let’s try a different approach.

You have four balls in a cup. Labeld as follows

John Smith, John Anderson, Paul Smith, Paul Anderson

You pick one ball out of the cup. Write down the result. Then put the ball back in the cup, shake the cup, and then pick one ball again. Keep doing this for a while.

We know this:

There is a 25% chance of picking one of those four names.

We also know that there is a 50% chance of picking an Anderson (or a Smith). And there is a 50% chance of picking a John (or a Paul).

Now imagine you keep getting an Anderson over an over and over again. Say 13 times out of 14 it’s Anderson.

According to your view, this would be perfectly normal, as long sometimes it is John Anderson, and sometimes Paul Anderson.

You need to realize that such view does not make sense. Your view assumes that the only piece of identification that matters is the first name.

Likewise with the chips that are marked with a number followed by a name. You believe that the only piece of identification for each chip is the number, and as long as the number changes, the name doesn’t matter.

But that’s not the case.

Thread in which the draw rigging topic is beaten to death in case any one is interested :

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=401162

TMF
05-25-2012, 08:13 PM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6108165&postcount=246

THat doesn't change the fact that Nole was in Fed's half draw so many times. THere's a reason for the Serbian to speak out to fight for their player(Nole).

War, Safin!
05-26-2012, 01:29 AM
So Nadal is a lock for at least one Major per year, now he can't win on grass or hardcourt...

Sentinel
05-26-2012, 01:56 AM
Fedal is good for the clothes sponsors.
Especially since there's no awareness of Undergarment Abuse in the US/Europe.

edk1512
05-26-2012, 03:49 AM
That means absolutely nothing. Fed and Joker switching seeds allowed the number pairings be more balanced. That doesn't mean they aren't rigging the draws.

From chance alone, both the number and Joker-Fed pairings should be balanced, regardless of whether they changed seeds or not. That is, they should have met half the time while seeds 1 and 3 AND half of the time while 2 and 3, or whatever. This would make both the number and player pairings balanced.

The fact that one is extremely skewed suggests that they are rigging them.

Irrelevant. I thought Benhur went to great lengths to explain why it is so and you would have got it by now.



Thread in which the draw rigging topic is beaten to death in case any one is interested :

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=401162

I do agree with the opinion that it is the seeding that matters. People who say the names does matter ignore the fact that both no. 1 & no.2 seeds are not actually drawn. They're both guaranteed to be in the top and bottom halves respectively.

The no.3 and no.4 are in a pot and they're drawn, and the result of this experiment is that no.3 will be in the top half "roughly" half the time irrespective of who is the top seed of the tournament.

Federer and Murray have been no.3 and 4 for all the slams since 2011 FO. View it as you like, either the names or the seedings are written on the paper. The paper with Federer's name (or the one with no.3) will be drawn first half the time and last the other half.

The same applies for when Djokovic was no.3. Regardless of the seeding of Federer and Nadal and regardless of who was no.4, he should get drawn out first half the time (the top half)

edk1512
05-26-2012, 04:57 AM
Just to add to the previous post after I have gone through some other threads

People who say that Federer should get Djokovic half the time,
let's just say Federer will be no.3 for some time and Djokovic and Nadal will alternate their seeding from a tournament to another.

Now to get Federer to meet Djokovic only half the time, this essentially means the paper with Federer's name on it should be drawn either first or last ALL THE TIME for the draws not to be rigged in their opinion.

Are you guys serious?

jm1980
05-26-2012, 05:25 AM
Just to add to the previous post after I have gone through some other threads

People who say that Federer should get Djokovic half the time,
let's just say Federer will be no.3 for some time and Djokovic and Nadal will alternate their seeding from a tournament to another.

Now to get Federer to meet Djokovic only half the time, this essentially means the paper with Federer's name on it should be drawn either first or last ALL THE TIME for the draws not to be rigged in their opinion.

Are you guys serious?

This is an extremely contrived scenario that never actually happened.

edk1512
05-26-2012, 09:08 AM
This is an extremely contrived scenario that never actually happened.

Well, the extreme scenario is the best case to illustrate the point which is no.3 is drawn either first or last. If he happens to come first half the time, then mathematically I don't see anything wrong with what the draws look like.

mellowyellow
05-26-2012, 09:42 AM
This fixed draw is about keeping Rafa knees good by not ever having to play the 2 best player on the tour to win a title. Their will ALWAYS be an Asterisk next to his name...

Mustard
05-26-2012, 10:23 AM
THat doesn't change the fact that Nole was in Fed's half draw so many times. THere's a reason for the Serbian to speak out to fight for their player(Nole).

We've all been over this topic until we are blue in the face. If you look at it in terms of seeding numbers, there is nothing statisically suspicious.

Warmaster
05-26-2012, 11:35 AM
We've all been over this topic until we are blue in the face. If you look at it in terms of seeding numbers, there is nothing statisically suspicious.

And again, for it not to be suspicious both the seeds and the names should be around 50%.

This isn't an argument. It's a fact. It's been explained time and time again, but you just won't see it.


I don't even care about draws being rigged or not. It just annoys me to see so many people talk mathematical nonsense.

Rui
05-26-2012, 12:00 PM
Rafa is the GOAT of the easy draw.

mellowyellow
05-26-2012, 12:55 PM
We've all been over this topic until we are blue in the face. If you look at it in terms of seeding numbers, there is nothing statisically suspicious.

You are only looking at slams, now do the math for the 9 masters from 2008... Is it coincidence that after losing to Crash, Nadal loses this lapdog and he gets placed into Fed's? Hmm...

jm1980
05-26-2012, 02:03 PM
Well, the extreme scenario is the best case to illustrate the point which is no.3 is drawn either first or last. If he happens to come first half the time, then mathematically I don't see anything wrong with what the draws look like.

Actually:

#1 Djoko - #3 Fed; #2 Nadal - #4 ?
#1 Nadal - #4 ?; - #2 Djoko - #3 Fed
#1 Djoko - #4 ?; - #2 Nadal -#3 Fed
#1 Nadal - #3 Fed; - #2 Djoko - #4 ?

There you have it, Fed is drawn first half the time and plays Djoko half the time.

WhiskeyEE
05-26-2012, 02:12 PM
I do agree with the opinion that it is the seeding that matters. People who say the names does matter ignore the fact that both no. 1 & no.2 seeds are not actually drawn. They're both guaranteed to be in the top and bottom halves respectively.

The no.3 and no.4 are in a pot and they're drawn, and the result of this experiment is that no.3 will be in the top half "roughly" half the time irrespective of who is the top seed of the tournament.

Federer and Murray have been no.3 and 4 for all the slams since 2011 FO. View it as you like, either the names or the seedings are written on the paper. The paper with Federer's name (or the one with no.3) will be drawn first half the time and last the other half.

The same applies for when Djokovic was no.3. Regardless of the seeding of Federer and Nadal and regardless of who was no.4, he should get drawn out first half the time (the top half)

You completely missed the point of my post. I stated that, statistically, BOTH the numbers and name pairings should be about even. The fact that one is out of balance is enough to raise suspicion of rigging.

Consider the following scenario:

For 6 tournaments, the seeds are:
1 Nadal
2 Joker
3 Fed
4 Murray

Suppose Joker draws Fed all 6 times. Then suppose the rankings switch to:

1 Joker
2 Nadal
3 Fed
4 Murray

Now suppose Joker draws Fed all 6 times again.

The number pairings are even (2 and 3 paired together 6 times, 1 and 3 together 6 times), but the player pairings are completely skewed.

This is basically what happened in real life. The fact that they switched rankings balanced out the number seedings a little, but it doesn't mean that it isn't rigged.

What SHOULD have happened in the above scenario is Fed and Joker meeting three times while seeds 2 and 3 and then three times while seeds 1 and 3. This isn't what happened in real life and therefore suggests that it's likely being rigged.

What I'd like to know (if anyone has the info) is how many times were seeds 1 and 3 paired in a row and then how many times were seeds 2 and 3 paired in a row. Long streaks of 2 seeds being paired together suggest rigging. It doesn't matter if they balance out in the end after players changed seeds half way.

WhiskeyEE
05-26-2012, 02:25 PM
And again, for it not to be suspicious both the seeds and the names should be around 50%.

This isn't an argument. It's a fact. It's been explained time and time again, but you just won't see it.


I don't even care about draws being rigged or not. It just annoys me to see so many people talk mathematical nonsense.

This. Thank you. My 10 year old nephew has a better grasp of math than some people here.

1970CRBase
05-26-2012, 02:31 PM
And again, for it not to be suspicious both the seeds and the names should be around 50%.

This isn't an argument. It's a fact. It's been explained time and time again, but you just won't see it.


I don't even care about draws being rigged or not. It just annoys me to see so many people talk mathematical nonsense.

To intentionally confuse the matter and muddy the waters to dishonestly cover up for their humble hero.

M Dean
05-26-2012, 02:34 PM
Sometimes it's quite interesting how a draw turns out... some players are destined to meet again and again, whatever their ranking/seeding is! :)

However, i think it's for Djoko (given the current situation) a better prospect to face Federer than Nadal in the semis... but who knows how the draw will develope, maybe Djoko looses before the semis, maybe Berdych/ Delpo takes out Roger, Nadal looses to Raonic/Murray or goes out with a injury,... there is always the possibility (even if it's 0,0001%)!

PCXL-Fan
05-26-2012, 09:12 PM
Lets talk about the skewed 1st round draws of top 2 players in the USO in BOTH ATP and WTA over the past 10 years.

Recent research conducted by ESPN’s “Outside The Lines” demonstrated that computer-generated part of the draw at US Open which supposed to randomly distribute the unseeded players in the draw sheet has likely been rigged for the past ten years to ensure that the top 2 players face the easiest possible opponents in the first round. “It is still possible though…in sport just like in life anomalies can happen” said Chris Widmaier of US Tennis Association. But statistical analysis conducted by Dr. Andrew Swift produced as easy opponents in the first round in only 4 out of million simulations! "By itself, the U.S. [Open] numbers are weird," he said. "And then they're also weird in comparison to the other three Grand Slams. So you've got a double argument of weirdness here. Something weird is going on."

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6861149&categoryid=2378529 (and yes murray was no.2 in 2009 USO)
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how-espn-lines-analyzed-us-open-tennis-tournament-draw

primetennis
05-26-2012, 09:27 PM
it's an open secret..djoker draws fed always bcoz it's the only way for the ATP to ensure nadal still wins slams..he just can't beat both djoker and fed in the same slam anymore..

Mike Sams
05-26-2012, 09:33 PM
it's an open secret..djoker draws fed always bcoz it's the only way for the ATP to ensure nadal still wins slams..he just can't beat both djoker and fed in the same slam anymore..

The ATP wants Nadal to surpass Sampras' Slam count so we can have the 2 greatest legends in the history of Tennis who happened to play in the same era. Once Nadal does that, watch Novak's draws all become really easy so that the ATP can help Novak increase his Slam titles so that all 3 of them retire with an accumulation of 50 Slam titles! :) Making this era the greatest era ever!

sbengte
05-26-2012, 09:39 PM
And again, for it not to be suspicious both the seeds and the names should be around 50%.

This isn't an argument. It's a fact. It's been explained time and time again, but you just won't see it.


I don't even care about draws being rigged or not. It just annoys me to see so many people talk mathematical nonsense.

This. After a poster (whose post I quoted in the previous page) explained patiently with examples like you would to a class of 10 year olds, people keep bringing up the same nonsense of "look at seeds, not names and it is fairly even" ? I mean really ? It is not like they don't get it but want to hold on to their lame argument for whatever reasons.

primetennis
05-26-2012, 09:40 PM
The ATP wants Nadal to surpass Sampras' Slam count so we can have the 2 greatest legends in the history of Tennis who happened to play in the same era. Once Nadal does that, watch Novak's draws all become really easy so that the ATP can help Novak increase his Slam titles so that all 3 of them retire with an accumulation of 50 Slam titles! :) Making this era the greatest era ever!

dude..no matter how many slams that whiny boy wins..he never can be as great as roger and pete..Roger n Pete = Pure Class

primetennis
05-26-2012, 09:43 PM
This. After a poster (whose post I quoted in the previous page) explained patiently with examples like you would to a class of 10 year olds, people keep bringing up the same nonsense of "look at seeds, not names and it is fairly even" ? I mean really ? It is not like they don't get it but want to hold on to their lame argument for whatever reasons.

Bingo!!!uff..these nad-***** have no brains at all..

Mike Sams
05-26-2012, 09:49 PM
The ATP should even this out come Wimbledon to be fair to Djokovic.
Put Federer, Roddick, Tsonga, Hewitt, Del Potro, and Berdych all on Nadal's side of the draw at Wimbledon. :lol:

sbengte
05-26-2012, 09:58 PM
The ATP should even this out come Wimbledon to be fair to Djokovic.
Put Federer, Roddick, Tsonga, Hewitt, Del Potro, and Berdych all on Nadal's side of the draw at Wimbledon. :lol:

Yes , they will. Roddick and Hewitt in Nadal's quarter and Tsonga,Delpotro,Berd in Fed's quarter and all of them in the same half :D

Dash
05-26-2012, 10:16 PM
You completely missed the point of my post. I stated that, statistically, BOTH the numbers and name pairings should be about even. The fact that one is out of balance is enough to raise suspicion of rigging.

Consider the following scenario:

For 6 tournaments, the seeds are:
1 Nadal
2 Joker
3 Fed
4 Murray

Suppose Joker draws Fed all 6 times. Then suppose the rankings switch to:

1 Joker
2 Nadal
3 Fed
4 Murray

Now suppose Joker draws Fed all 6 times again.

The number pairings are even (2 and 3 paired together 6 times, 1 and 3 together 6 times), but the player pairings are completely skewed.

This is basically what happened in real life. The fact that they switched rankings balanced out the number seedings a little, but it doesn't mean that it isn't rigged.

What SHOULD have happened in the above scenario is Fed and Joker meeting three times while seeds 2 and 3 and then three times while seeds 1 and 3. This isn't what happened in real life and therefore suggests that it's likely being rigged.

What I'd like to know (if anyone has the info) is how many times were seeds 1 and 3 paired in a row and then how many times were seeds 2 and 3 paired in a row. Long streaks of 2 seeds being paired together suggest rigging. It doesn't matter if they balance out in the end after players changed seeds half way.

The scenarios above do not represent what really happened. The longest streak of 2 seeds being paired was only 4 timesover 18 drawing events. It was #1 (Nadal) and #4 (Murray) pairing 4 times in a row from 2010 US to 2011 W. The probability for it is 43%, which is very likely. The example you provided was a two-streak scenario of 6 of 6 events. The probability for a streak 6 of 6 is 1.56% and it is 0.024% for such a streak to happen twice in a row. You have to learn more about probability.

And your theory of "both numbers and name pairings should be even" is wrong. In drawing only pairing pattern of numbers should be constant 50-50. Since numbers are associated with different names therefore pairing pattern of names can not be 50-50 unless numbers and names follow certain patterns.

sbengte
05-26-2012, 10:24 PM
What I'd like to know (if anyone has the info) is how many times were seeds 1 and 3 paired in a row and then how many times were seeds 2 and 3 paired in a row. Long streaks of 2 seeds being paired together suggest rigging. It doesn't matter if they balance out in the end after players changed seeds half way.

There is a streak of 1-4 four times in a row from USO 2010
source :
http://letsecondserve.blogspot.ca/2012/05/luck-or-conspiracy-federer-and-djokovic.html?spref=tw

WhiskeyEE
05-26-2012, 10:25 PM
The scenarios above do not represent what really happened. The longest streak of 2 seeds being paired was only 4 timesover 18 drawing events. It was #1 (Nadal) and #4 (Murray) pairing 4 times in a row from 2010 US to 2011 W. The probability for it is 43%, which is very likely. The example you provided was a two-streak scenario of 6 of 6 events. The probability for a streak 6 of 6 is 1.56% and it is 0.024% for such a streak to happen twice in a row. You have to learn more about probability.

And your theory of "both numbers and name pairings should be even" is wrong. In drawing only pairing pattern of numbers should be constant 50-50. Since numbers are associated with different names therefore pairing pattern of names can not be 50-50 unless numbers and names follow certain patterns.

I provided an exaggerated example. My point was that Novak and Fed met many times while seeds 2 and 3 and then many times again while seeds 1 and 3. From sbengte's post I can see that the seeds changed more than I thought, but my point still stands.

I'm not going to bother explaining to you why you're wrong in your last paragraph. Well, I pretty much already did in this thread, but you're apparently too dense to get it. The only way it wouldn't hold is if Fed/Joker were ever not seeded any combination of 1/3, 1/4, 2/3. or 2/4. However, that wasn't the case.

WhiskeyEE
05-26-2012, 10:33 PM
There is a streak of 1-4 four times in a row from USO 2010
source :
http://letsecondserve.blogspot.ca/2012/05/luck-or-conspiracy-federer-and-djokovic.html?spref=tw

Thanks. The seeds changed more than I thought. My point that both seed and player pairings should be about equal still stands though.

BigForehand
05-26-2012, 10:48 PM
You gotta be untrained in statistics if you think switching rankings has anything to do with this 15/18 BS.

BreakPoint
05-26-2012, 10:58 PM
What do you mean?

Djokovic doesn't always draw Federer.

Here's one of Federer that was NOT drawn by Djokovic:




http://www.stars-portraits.com/img/portraits/stars/r/roger-federer/roger-federer-1-by-Jojemo.jpg


:lol:

WhiskeyEE
05-26-2012, 11:05 PM
You gotta be untrained in statistics if you think switching rankings has anything to do with this 15/18 BS.

I'll provide a proof for this crap tomorrow if these jackasses keep talking out of their ***.

Defcon
05-27-2012, 01:55 AM
No matter how you slice it, 15/18 is a huge statistical imbalance and the simple fact is it gives Rafa a much easier draw. We all know he gets easy draws at Slams very often, this is just simple proof.

mellowyellow
05-27-2012, 04:31 AM
The link makes it even more obvious, especially if you throw out the 2007 draws as it wasn't till 2008 Australian that Djoko becomes a real threat winning a Slam. Its funny how from the Wimby 08 the seed pattern changes when the names change, except for 2010 RG, and 2012 AUSO and that maintained the Fed Djoko draw, you would have to be a fool to not see it!!!!

Slice&Smash
05-27-2012, 06:05 AM
It's all about Money.

A Nadal vs. Federer final means more TV revenues. You really think major sponsors and events organizers would leave such money on the table without trying to protect it?? I always thought Novak needed a major US sponsor to improve his 'luck'. He will never have it easy until it's in the interest of a major corporation to see him in the final.

Slice&Smash
05-27-2012, 06:09 AM
No matter how you slice it, 15/18 is a huge statistical imbalance and the simple fact is it gives Rafa a much easier draw. We all know he gets easy draws at Slams very often, this is just simple proof.

I don't think it's about Nadal getting an easy draw. It's really about maximizing the probabilities of a Nadal - Federer final.

nadal_GOAT_king
05-27-2012, 06:12 AM
Bollocks.....

Sentinel
05-27-2012, 06:38 AM
I don't think it's about Nadal getting an easy draw. It's really about maximizing the probabilities of a Nadal - Federer final.
So they give priming clay-GOD Nadal an easy draw and 31-year old Roger a tough one so they meet in the final !!

Naah. i think its possible they want Nadal to win and equal / surpass Roger's slam count to build up excitement. After that they'll probably try to get someone else to beat that count. If Nadal gets injured (really, I mean) they'll probably start giving Nole easy draws.

p.s. NGK, what do you and your esteemed mentor have to say about this?

Slice&Smash
05-27-2012, 06:51 AM
So they give priming clay-GOD Nadal an easy draw and 31-year old Roger a tough one so they meet in the final !!

Naah. i think its possible they want Nadal to win and equal / surpass Roger's slam count to build up excitement. After that they'll probably try to get someone else to beat that count. If Nadal gets injured (really, I mean) they'll probably start giving Nole easy draws.

p.s. NGK, what do you and your esteemed mentor have to say about this?

That also make sense...

Evan77
05-27-2012, 07:47 AM
It's all about Money.

A Nadal vs. Federer final means more TV revenues. You really think major sponsors and events organizers would leave such money on the table without trying to protect it?? I always thought Novak needed a major US sponsor to improve his 'luck'. He will never have it easy until it's in the interest of a major corporation to see him in the final.
rubbish ... Sampras vs. Laver means more TV revenues, lol ... man, who is the #1 in the world? I guess you forgot, this is 2012, not 2007. and why Djokovic needs 'a major US sponsor'? Djoko is doing pretty well, he is worth more than 60 millions ... does the whole world revolve around the states? don't think so. some of you Americans are the biggest ******s in the world. sorry ...

NadalAgassi
05-27-2012, 08:02 AM
The ATP should even this out come Wimbledon to be fair to Djokovic.
Put Federer, Roddick, Tsonga, Hewitt, Del Potro, and Berdych all on Nadal's side of the draw at Wimbledon. :lol:

Put a guy Nadal has beaten in 3 straight sets both career meetings at Wimbledon, a grass court mug, a 30 something washed up former champion, a headcase, another 30 something washed up former champion, and someone Nadal has been eagerly waiting to tie their career H2H with on grass and Nadal's pigeon in slams. Sure, go right ahead.

sbengte
05-27-2012, 09:36 AM
I don't think it's about Nadal getting an easy draw. It's really about maximizing the probabilities of a Nadal - Federer final.

And how exactly are they achieving it by giving a prime Nadal the kind of easy draws he gets and giving a past prime , old Federer the likes of Nalby, Delpotro and Berdych ? It has been somewhat of a pattern in the past several slams , not just this one.

EDIT : I see Senti has already said it all above..

ductrung3993
06-22-2012, 04:34 AM
16 times out of 19 now, it is ridiculous.

Alchemy-Z
06-22-2012, 04:50 AM
their names are on longer pieces of paper easy to grab...why nadal is always on the bottom half.

sportsfan1
06-22-2012, 04:58 AM
well, there you go, Fed vs Djok at Wimby '12, another "random" event happening consistently yet again.

Mustard
06-22-2012, 07:24 AM
16 times out of 19 now, it is ridiculous.

Their seeding numbers have changed in that period.

forzamilan90
06-22-2012, 07:28 AM
16 times out of 19 now, it is ridiculous.

i don't think i've ever flipped a coin 19 times and got such a lopsided result, just saying

TMF
06-22-2012, 07:32 AM
Their seeding numbers have changed in that period.

The names doesn't change.

3fees
06-22-2012, 07:46 AM
The current Wimbly pairings of 1-3, 2-4 meeting in Semi Finals if all goes well for the top 4 seeds is standard, of course its along way to the semi's right now and much will happen.

Cheers
3fees :)

beast of mallorca
06-22-2012, 07:57 AM
So they give priming clay-GOD Nadal an easy draw and 31-year old Roger a tough one so they meet in the final !!

Naah. i think its possible they want Nadal to win and equal / surpass Roger's slam count to build up excitement. After that they'll probably try to get someone else to beat that count. If Nadal gets injured (really, I mean) they'll probably start giving Nole easy draws.

p.s. NGK, what do you and your esteemed mentor have to say about this?

Check your idol's draw before making silly comments Senti.

ViscaB
06-22-2012, 07:58 AM
Because Roger and Novak are drawn to each other.

decades
06-22-2012, 08:15 AM
Just once I'd like to see Nadal have to go through Nole first and then Fed to win something. FCOL!

now how is that going to happen when they are 1 and 2 in the world?:rolleyes:

Larrysümmers
06-22-2012, 08:25 AM
i still dont see the big deal. youre going to have to face him, whether its in the semis or in the finals.

forzamilan90
06-22-2012, 08:25 AM
now how is that going to happen when they are 1 and 2 in the world?:rolleyes:

let's wait till Wimbledon is over :)