Should the draws in tournaments be more intelligent ?

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

While we all say things even out over a career, often it does not. We have seen how Fed and Novak were drawn each other in every slam during the previous years when they were ranked 1 and 3. ( what like 14 of 18 majors ?)

You could be a decent player and in form but get very tough draws. You could be in decline and at that time an easy draw may not mean much as you are losing anyway.

I think since computers are used in these draws perhaps it can employ some intelligence in terms of the draws players had in the prior tournaments by surface and then propose opponent ?

This way a top player does not keep drawing the Jazeri's and the Stevie Johnson every time.

Epic · May 12, 2015

If draws are more "intelligent", they wouldn't be fair. Brute chance is the only fair way to draw matches.

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

Isn't it common knowledge that Novak gets really hard draws from like the dinosaur era ?

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

tennisaddict said:
While we all say things even out over a career, often it does not. We have seen how Fed and Novak were drawn each other in every slam during the previous years when they were ranked 1 and 3. ( what like 14 of 18 majors ?)

You could be a decent player and in form but get very tough draws. You could be in decline and at that time an easy draw may not mean much as you are losing anyway.

I think since computers are used in these draws perhaps it can employ some intelligence in terms of the draws players had in the prior tournaments by surface and then propose opponent ?

This way a top player does not keep drawing the Jazeri's and the Stevie Johnson every time.

That's inherently an unfair system. The only thing "computerized" from the draw is that places are assigned using a random number generator restricted by seeded players. You could literally do the draw by hand if you had the time. A random seeded tournament is the ONLY tournament structure where fairness is guaranteed in the long-run, and encourages the best possible players to meet in the final. The random seed structure has been proven to be the only optimal solution in this game-theoretic problem, covered by many respected economists.

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

I would settle for the draws being more random than they currently are.

G A S · May 12, 2015

the gripe I have against the draw are the people complaining against an unfair draw, and here I thought they liked the game to the point of saying:
- come any draw, I will win against anyone at any order.

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
That's inherently an unfair system. The only thing "computerized" from the draw is that places are assigned using a random number generator restricted by seeded players. You could literally do the draw by hand if you had the time. A random seeded tournament is the ONLY tournament structure where fairness is guaranteed in the long-run, and encourages the best possible players to meet in the final. The random seed structure has been proven to be the only optimal solution in this game-theoretic problem, covered by many respected economists.

I am also for randomness . I am not saying that the computer pick a specific opponent. It should propose a pool of players rather than totally at random

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

tennisaddict said:
I am also for randomness . I am not saying that the computer pick a specific opponent. It should propose a pool of players rather than totally at random

I still don't understand how that makes the system more intelligent. Please illustrate an example that represents the flaw you see in the current system.

PoeticJustice · May 12, 2015

yeah somehow Nadal and Berdych again Fed's half after Madrid....

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
I still don't understand how that makes the system more intelligent. Please illustrate an example that represents the flaw you see in the current system.

1. Fognini is meeting Dmitrov in R2 for the third consecutive master.

2. Fed played Cuevas for the first time ever last week

3. Historically Novak has had several tough draws

4. Ryan Harrison would always get big 3 in R1

Computer algorithm should account for such things and average out over a calendar year

HipRotation · May 12, 2015

The point of the ATP rankings computer is a computer doesn't know what tennis or even a human is and thus is completely unbiased. Are you going to make concessions for every player meaning that the draw would end up pretty much being predetermined every time? For every time Djokovic drew Federer in his side Murray drew Nadal, do you suggest to alternate the semi-final projections? How do you decide when or not to have certain players possibly face each other? Oh Djokovic won the Wimbledon final last year make sure Federer's in his semi-final this time?

JLyon · May 12, 2015

HipRotation said:
The point of the ATP rankings computer is a computer doesn't know what tennis or even a human is and thus is completely unbiased. Are you going to make concessions for every player meaning that the draw would end up pretty much being predetermined every time? For every time Djokovic drew Federer in his side Murray drew Nadal, do you suggest to alternate the semi-final projections? How do you decide when or not to have certain players possibly face each other? Oh Djokovic won the Wimbledon final last year make sure Federer's in his semi-final this time?

thought players draw chips, at least at the Big 4, seeds 3/4 random halves and seed 5-8 random quarters.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

tennisaddict said:
1. Fognini is meeting Dmitrov in R2 for the third consecutive master.

2. Fed played Cuevas for the first time ever last week

3. Historically Novak has had several tough draws

4. Ryan Harrison would always get big 3 in R1

Computer algorithm should account for such things and average out over a calendar year

There is no algorithm. It's simply a random number generator you could simulate with radioactive decay! The more you try and restrict the randomness, the more parametrized it is, therefore the system is beholden to the person who makes the parameters (in this case you).

Your issue is with the result, not the system. Anything other than a seeded random draw is subject to the system's own prejudices. A random draw has no preferences or biases except for trying to coerce the two best possible players to meet in the final match.

Djokovic has had tough draws and he has had easy draws. How is that an indictment on the random seed tournament?

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
There is no algorithm. It's simply a random number generator you could simulate with radioactive decay! The more you try and restrict the randomness, the more parametrized it is, therefore the system is beholden to the person who makes the parameters (in this case you).

Your issue is with the result, not the system. Anything other than a seeded random draw is subject to the system's own prejudices. A random draw has no preferences or biases except for trying to coerce the two best possible players to meet in the final match.

Djokovic has had tough draws and he has had easy draws. How is that an indictment on the random seed tournament?

Random draws are seemingly not random enough over a long period. If you toss a coin 100 times, if you get heads 70-80 times then you start wondering whether it is truly random. Same with ATP draws.

If player Seeded 1, gets player ranked 8 all the time in QF or player ranked 16 in R4 or player ranked 32 in R3 repeatedly then it is not fair.

Similarly a lower ranked player repeatedly getting the top 4 is not right.

Everyone understands the computer is not biased but it is very possible that luck plays a huge role. I am saying that there should be a balance between randomness and intelligence.

Steve0904 · May 12, 2015

No. I think they should be more stupid.

AngieB · May 12, 2015

Now, I've heard some wacky scheme's throughout the years in tennis, but this "draw is rigged" nonsense takes the cake.

The draw is attended by players and the tournament director and is done in the fairest way possible, which isn't currently challenged by players. Why does the OP think the draw selection should be changed when the players aren't calling for a change?

#DumbThread

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

You are very naive if you think the draws are not rigged.

After the 2010 Isner-Mahut epic, they miraculously drew each other in the 1st round again. People thought it was rigged then. The next year, they were slated to meet in the 2nd round.

And Federer and Djokovic were drawn into the same half at slams something like 20 out of 23 times.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
You are very naive if you think the draws are not rigged.

After the 2010 Isner-Mahut epic, they miraculously drew each other in the 1st round again. People thought it was rigged then. The next year, they were slated to meet in the 2nd round.

And Federer and Djokovic were drawn into the same half at slams something like 20 out of 23 times.

Randomness is not refuted by a few corner cases. You're going to need to work harder than that to accuse tournament officials of being dishonest.

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
Randomness is not refuted by a few corner cases. You're going to need to work harder than that to accuse tournament officials of being dishonest.

Funny how it's only the Nadal fans who say the draws aren't rigged. Maybe because he gets easy draws almost every time.

Of course quoting statistical improbabilities doesn't prove anything. They wouldn't do it if there were consequences. But they're rigged. I know it, you know it, and the tournament directors know it.

Technology Ruined Tennis · May 12, 2015

Let the 1 seed pick the half for the 3 and 4 seed.

Aussie Darcy · May 12, 2015

Now i'm not saying draws are rigged but talk about some easy draws for Djoko.
Monte Carlo. In his quarter were 3 seeds.
Gulbis (would have been 3R matchup, was 1-7 in 2015. Ended up losing R1
Tsonga had only played 2 matches in the entire year going into the tournament.
And Cilic who had only played 1 match for the entire year going into the tournament. Ended up facing Djoko and was bageled...

Meanwhile in the same tournament Fed faced a much tougher draw as the 2nd seed.

Chardy in R2 who had defeated Fed in their only other clay meeting
Monfils in R3 who is always a threat to Fed (ended up defeating Fed in straights)
Wawrinka who had defeated Fed in the last clay meeting which was the final of Monte Carlo in 2014
And Dimitrov who Fed hasn't lost too but can be a tough player..

Now i'm sure people will say "er but Djokovic was drawn in same half as Nadal". But by the time Nadal met Djokovic in the semis, Nadal had already played two 3 set matches. Whilst Djokovic had lost no more then 5 games in each match...

I'm not saying I agree with the poster of the thread but I can see their point of some players benefiting more then others from this random generator.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
Funny how it's only the Nadal fans who say the draws aren't rigged. Maybe because he gets easy draws almost every time.

Of course quoting statistical improbabilities doesn't prove anything. They wouldn't do it if there were consequences. But they're rigged. I know it, you know it, and the tournament directors know it.

You have no proof. All you have are baseless accusations not founded in science or data. Anyone can argue anything by the virtue of a few corner cases. That certainly doesn't make the conclusion generalizable. You haven't presented any proof of your conspiracy claims. Is Mahut-Isner seriously the best you've come up with?

Noelan · May 12, 2015

tennisaddict said:
1. Fognini is meeting Dmitrov in R2 for the third consecutive master.

2. Fed played Cuevas for the first time ever last week

3. Historically Novak has had several tough draws

4. Ryan Harrison would always get big 3 in R1

Computer algorithm should account for such things and average out over a calendar year

I also noticed that with Ryans path in the draw a few years a go.Poor kid

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

Aussie Darcy said:
Now i'm not saying draws are rigged but talk about some easy draws for Djoko.
Monte Carlo. In his quarter were 3 seeds.
Gulbis (would have been 3R matchup, was 1-7 in 2015. Ended up losing R1
Tsonga had only played 2 matches in the entire year going into the tournament.
And Cilic who had only played 1 match for the entire year going into the tournament. Ended up facing Djoko and was bageled...

Meanwhile in the same tournament Fed faced a much tougher draw as the 2nd seed.

Chardy in R2 who had defeated Fed in their only other clay meeting
Monfils in R3 who is always a threat to Fed (ended up defeating Fed in straights)
Wawrinka who had defeated Fed in the last clay meeting which was the final of Monte Carlo in 2014
And Dimitrov who Fed hasn't lost too but can be a tough player..

Now i'm sure people will say "er but Djokovic was drawn in same half as Nadal". But by the time Nadal met Djokovic in the semis, Nadal had already played two 3 set matches. Whilst Djokovic had lost no more then 5 games in each match...

I'm not saying I agree with the poster of the thread but I can see their point of some players benefiting more then others from this random generator.

In the long-run (and players play an especially long time) no one can benefit from a random seed. That's the whole point. Djokovic may get an easy draw here and there, but for every hard draw he almost always has a difficult one. That is the balancing nature of a random draw.

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
You have no proof. All you have are baseless accusations not founded in science or data. Anyone can argue anything by the virtue of a few corner cases. That certainly doesn't make the conclusion generalizable. You haven't presented any proof of your conspiracy claims. Is Mahut-Isner seriously the best you've come up with?

20 out of 23 (or whatever the actual number is) is beyond unlikely. Go ahead and do a chi squared test and determine the likelihood of that occurring randomly. Even Serbian statisticians were accusing the ATP/ITF of rigging draws against Novak a few years back.

It just so happens that Federer (at the time) was better at beating Djokovic than Nadal was. And they wanted Fedal finals.

But of course they had no motive at all.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
20 out of 23 (or whatever the actual number is) is beyond unlikely. Go ahead and do a chi squared test and determine the likelihood of that occurring randomly. Even Serbian statisticians were accusing the ATP/ITF of rigging draws against Novak a few years back.

It just so happens that Federer (at the time) was better at beating Djokovic than Nadal was. And they wanted Fedal finals.

But of course they had no motive at all.

This is a statistic out of context. You are looking at a concentrated sub-sample of data and making inferences about the general case. That's akin to me flipping a coin 10 times, observing that it is heads all 10 times, and then concluding the probability of heads is 100% thereafter. Take every random seed tournament in which both Federer and Djokovic were drawn and neither's seed prohibited sharing half the draw. I guarantee the numbers are much less dramatic and conspiratorial than this infamous one.

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

Of course they will be less dramatic. Because the periods (before and after) that they weren't rigged into the same half will buffer the numbers closer to 50%.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
Of course they will be less dramatic. Because the periods (before and after) that they weren't rigged into the same half will buffer the numbers closer to 50%.

Are you being serious right now? This is a text-book case of sample-selection bias where the conclusions you are drawing are not from phenomena but your own observation of phenomena.

I could equally say, that if I flipped 10 coins, and the first 5 came up heads with the last 5 as tails, I would conclude that in my first five attempts, the probability of flipping heads was 100%.

This is a half-baked conspiracy theory that has as much statistical credibility as saying hot dog sales are the driving force behind weather change.

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

Federer and Djokovic started being drawn into the same half as soon as Novak became relevant and it ended just as Federer became irrelevant.

But of course that's random too.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
Federer and Djokovic started being drawn into the same half as soon as Novak became relevant and it ended just as Federer became irrelevant.

But of course that's random too.

My friend, you are seeing what you want to see.

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

Riiiiight. And coincidentally, only Nadal fans think the draws aren't rigged.

That's also random. You guys aren't emotionally invested in this at all.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
Riiiiight. And coincidentally, only Nadal fans think the draws aren't rigged.

That's also random. You guys aren't emotionally invested in this at all.

Where did that come from? I am as much a Nadal fan as I am a Djokovic fan or a Federer fan or a Becker fan. I don't see how impartiality or the lack thereof refutes the fact that your theory is on shaky ground statistically. Not sure how I am relying on any sentiment whatsoever.

Aussie Darcy · May 12, 2015

Some people just have bad luck I mean look at Hewitt

2003 US Open - lost in QF to eventual finalist Juan Carlos Ferrero
2004 Australian Open- lost in R4 to eventual champion Federer
2004 French Open- lost in QF to eventual champion Gaston Gaudio
2004 Wimbledon- lost in QF to eventual champion Federer
2004 US Open- lost in the final to champion Federer
2005 Australian Open- lost in the final to champion Marat Safin
2005 Wimbledon- lost in Semi-finals to eventual champion Federer
2005 US Open- lost in Semi-finals to eventual champion Federer

2006 French Open- lost in 4R To eventual champion Nadal
2006 US Open lost in QF to eventual finalist Andy Roddick

That is freaking brutal!

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

Go ahead and prove that the draws aren't rigged. Supply the statistics. You won't because it takes a hell of a lot of time and you don't care enough. Likewise, I don't care enough to spend hours analyzing draws and putting into numbers what every sane and honest tennis fan has witnessed over the past several years. However, some Statistics doctorate from Serbia did publish a paper on it.

What I will say is that most of us would've bet big money on Nadal getting a cakewalk in Madrid. Veroniqeum even predicted it. She's the only Nadal fan I've seen be honest about it. I'd be filthy rich if I could bet on draws.

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
Where did that come from? I am as much a Nadal fan as I am a Djokovic fan or a Federer fan or a Becker fan. I don't see how impartiality or the lack thereof refutes the fact that your theory is on shaky ground statistically. Not sure how I am relying on any sentiment whatsoever.

i think you are missing the point.

Even assuming draws are not rigged, why let the system be so random that it could benefit some or hurt others ?

Asking a simple question - If you are Ryan Harrison and you get Novak at AO and Rafa at FO, then do you think it is fair when Monaco meets Lorenzi at AO and Schwartzman at FO ?

This is not just a discussion about which of the top seeds get rough draws. But why not build some intelligence and history ?

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

Hewitt and Harrison are great examples of players who get the stick everytime.

Isner has met Kohlschreiber the last 3 USO in the 3R.

Epic · May 12, 2015

A lot of people on this thread don't seem to understand how probability works. Every outcome in something as vastly permutational as a random Tennis draw is a highly unlikely outcome. If there were no patterns, that's when I'd begin to suspect that the draw is being rigged. In other words, it would be highly improbable not to have highly improbable patterns over so many draws.

Aussie Darcy · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
What I will say is that most of us would've bet big money on Nadal getting a cakewalk in Madrid. Veroniqeum even predicted it. She's the only Nadal fan I've seen be honest about it. I'd be filthy rich if I could bet on draws.

Couldn't care less about Nadal but i'd hardly call his draw a cakewalk. Could've been Anderson in 3R, Wawrinka in QF, Federer/Isner/Berdych/Kyrgios in SF and then the final. He was lucky Fed and Stan got knocked out by hardly lucky draw. Only reason anything was lucky was cause Nole didn't play but that's on him.

WhiskeyEE · May 12, 2015

Aussie Darcy said:
Couldn't care less about Nadal but i'd hardly call his draw a cakewalk. Could've been Anderson in 3R, Wawrinka in QF, Federer/Isner/Berdych/Kyrgios in SF and then the final. He was lucky Fed and Stan got knocked out by hardly lucky draw. Only reason anything was lucky was cause Nole didn't play but that's on him.

He drew the easiest opponent he could've in every round. Anderson in 3R? As opposed to who? What 3R opponent would've been easier?

None and that's why Anderson lost to Bolelli in the 1st round. I'm personally ecstatic that Federer drew him in Rome. He sucks.

Aussie Darcy · May 12, 2015

WhiskeyEE said:
He drew the easiest opponent he could've in every round. Anderson in 3R? As opposed to who? What 3R opponent would've been easier?

None and that's why Anderson lost to Bolelli in the 1st round. I'm personally ecstatic that Federer drew him in Rome. He sucks.

Granollers aka Murrays 3R matchup.
Mayer aka Raonics 3R matchup.

Just because the big players Nadal would have versed were knocked out early doesn't mean that from the outset it was a cakewalk draw... Noone would have predicted fed losing to kyrgios who would lose to Isner. Wawrinka losing to Dimitrov.. And Murray crushing Nishikori was a surprise for some as well despite the higher ranking.
Oh yeah and Nadal drew Fognini in the same quarter. Unlucky seeing as Fognini beat him on clay the week before and earlier in the year on clay.

mule250 · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
Are you being serious right now? This is a text-book case of sample-selection bias where the conclusions you are drawing are not from phenomena but your own observation of phenomena.

I could equally say, that if I flipped 10 coins, and the first 5 came up heads with the last 5 as tails, I would conclude that in my first five attempts, the probability of flipping heads was 100%.

This is a half-baked conspiracy theory that has as much statistical credibility as saying hot dog sales are the driving force behind weather change.

Man, don't bother. Most people don't understand simple probability concepts, or maybe they don't want to. Whatever the case, their theories help them sleep at night knowing that everything is unjust and rigged.

With that said, I do remember seeing a video of a presentation presented at a sports fairness convention (Playthegame I believe it was called), showing different samples of draws at grandslams and concluding that there was a 1 in a billion probability of these draws occuring. Unfortunately I don't remember all the details and who it was biased for. Maybe someone can help out and find this video? It was really interesting.

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

tennisaddict said:
i think you are missing the point.

Even assuming draws are not rigged, why let the system be so random that it could benefit some or hurt others ?

Asking a simple question - If you are Ryan Harrison and you get Novak at AO and Rafa at FO, then do you think it is fair when Monaco meets Lorenzi at AO and Schwartzman at FO ?

This is not just a discussion about which of the top seeds get rough draws. But why not build some intelligence and history ?

I believe I've already answered this. What you call "intelligence", I call a conscious attempt to parametrize the draw to one's own means. And while your means may be altruistic and endearing to competitive spirit it can never be as universally fair and uncompromising as the randomness. Your "intelligence" is viewing blaming the results of randomness, but not realizing that nearly every notable match you have ever seen is the product of the ingenious random draw.

If you want to look at the draw as beneficial to some and punitive to others, then regard the random draw as being universally beneficial and punitive to all. Not all at the same time, but over the course of a career, it is the ONLY unbiased means of punishing the unseeded and encouraging the seeds to the later rounds. It has the benefit of impartiality coupled with the desired side-effect that match quality gets better as the tournament progresses. These few sentences are an EXTREME dumbed down explanation that has been written in peer-review by several game-theoretic economists.

So long as things are left to chance, there will always be the possibility that an unseeded player faces the top seed in every single tournament. I can also play poker for a thousand years and get a 2, 7 hand off-suit every time. In that case I would damn my luck but not attempt to overthrow it.

Epic · May 12, 2015

mule250 said:
With that said, I do remember seeing a video of a presentation presented at a sports fairness convention (Playthegame I believe it was called), showing different samples of draws at grandslams and concluding that there was a 1 in a billion probability of these draws occuring.

What's odd about that? Any possible outcome in something as permutationally vast as a Tennis draw is extremely unlikely. That's how probability works.

In other words, if you flipped a coin 1000 times, the sequence of heads and tails you get is extremely unlikely to happen. But one sequence has to happen, because you carried out the experiment. It's very simple. It's like throwing a stone and being surprised it landed exactly where it landed.

mule250 · May 12, 2015

Epic said:
What's odd about that? Any possible outcome is something as permutationally vast as a Tennis draw is extremely unlikely. That's how probability works.

In other words, if you flipped a coin 1000 times, the sequence of heads and tails you get is extremely unlikely to happen. But one sequence has to happen, because you carried out the experiment. It's very simple. It's like throwing a stone and being surprised it landed exactly where it landed.

Yeah, I didn't explain what I meant properly. I need to find and rewatch the video as it was a few years ago. I was hoping someone who also watched it saw my post who remembers it better could explain it.

spinovic · May 12, 2015

tennisaddict said:
While we all say things even out over a career, often it does not. We have seen how Fed and Novak were drawn each other in every slam during the previous years when they were ranked 1 and 3. ( what like 14 of 18 majors ?)

You could be a decent player and in form but get very tough draws. You could be in decline and at that time an easy draw may not mean much as you are losing anyway.

I think since computers are used in these draws perhaps it can employ some intelligence in terms of the draws players had in the prior tournaments by surface and then propose opponent ?

This way a top player does not keep drawing the Jazeri's and the Stevie Johnson every time.

I think the draw should be set up 1/8 v 4/5 and 2/7 v 3/6. Beyond that, random is fine with me.

But, that difference isn't that big a deal so in essence, I don't care a whole lot.

tennisaddict · May 12, 2015

spinovic said:
I think the draw should be set up 1/8 v 4/5 and 2/7 v 3/6. Beyond that, random is fine with me.

But, that difference isn't that big a deal so in essence, I don't care a whole lot.

You are focussing on just the top players. I am talking about the players who make up the draw.

In Inaminate_object's terms, I would like the random draw to consider certain parameters instead of that being totally random.

mellowyellow · May 12, 2015

Inanimate_object said:
My friend, you are seeing what you want to see.

Are you just a moron or an idiot? It has unequivocally been proven that draws have been rigged, in fact a Major....

chjtennis · May 12, 2015

Epic said:
If draws are more "intelligent", they wouldn't be fair. Brute chance is the only fair way to draw matches.

This.

.................

Inanimate_object · May 12, 2015

mellowyellow said:
Are you just a moron or an idiot? It has unequivocally been proven that draws have been rigged, in fact a Major....

Maybe both. Because I clearly am horrible at my job if someone on a forum is telling me how sample-biased probabilistic phenomena has been miraculously causally linked to a deterministic event. Let me hang my head in shame for believing that even if not sample-biased, toppling randomness with a sample of 23 is like conquering the United States by passively insulting the governor of Guam.

Don't mind me. I am just a moron or an idiot, though to me the distinction between the two is not clear. That's probably because I am a moronic idiot.

Backspin1183 · May 12, 2015

tennisaddict needs to calm the fook down. None of your one million threads on a tennis forum is going to change the outcome of tennis tournaments. Stop your addiction.

Should the draws in tournaments be more intelligent ?

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

New User

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Professional

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Similar threads