No, but it might prove that draws are NOT rigged.
It seems a little funny, Young and Harrison break away from the USTA and both seem to get the shaft in draws soon after... There are an awful lot of times a US player gets a seed.
There's no logic in your observation. They wouldn't do that. They 'purposely' drew him for a high profile player in the first rd... to be dispatched sooner. Yeah nice favor they are doing harrison. If they were trying to expose him to more viewers and celebrate his national roots they would give him easier draws to give him more rounds before he faced top seeds. That's why your little conspiracy doesn't make any sense.
You think it "more than seems reasonable" that the USTA are not only rigging draws, but are doing so to gain revenge on their own young players? Super interesting.
I think that considerig the state of tennis in the US, it is plausible to get US faces in front of the viewer the only way thats definite. That would be in the first rd... Young, and Harrison have had their respective differences with the USTA. Young has played Fed, and now Harrison has played Nadal. In both instances the draw odds are the best at AVOIDING the first and second seeds. Is it coincidence that Scolville Jenkins got the 2nd seed on 04, and the 1st seed in 07?
And all those players are lucky to get a wc. If any of them managed to play better, then they wouldn't have such low seedlings to play high level folks.
So you are saying WC are placed not drawn?
Ding Ding Ding!
I can't say as I'm not in a position to say. I do think that if you get a WC, you maybe likely to get a top person. Not to say that Qualies wouldn't either, but, but qualies earn thier spot, and they also earn more points.
Their are 96 unseeded players all in "pot" to pick from, they are not placed. With Harrison, Young and Jenkins you have 3 Americans pulled first or second in the draw 4 times over a span of 9 years... For the USO. You dont think those odds of American players being drawn first or second out of 96/95 players is suspicious, 4 times in 9 years?
That's on the USOpen.... and do the other GS have their folks playing the big dogs in first round? I'm not sure. Does the USOpen skew the seeds, I would say so in my opinion. But, that's just my opinion.
I havent researched that, this all came from memory, then some very basic research that added Jenkins to the stats.
Quite frankly, I don't know what to make of your post. Don't know who Jenkins is, nor think that he matters if he doesn't include other slams. The other issue, that is important is how players are ranked. For example, Harrison, is ranked 97th. Given the number of seeds, he's most likely playing a higher numbered seed. He wouldn't be playing a lower level seed. There isn't a lower level than his to play, unless he lucked out to play a qualie. It's kinda offensive to give a qualie to a seed at 97 to the other players. Ryan gets more visibility to play Rafa than Ernests Gulbis.
You clearly do not understand that besides the 32 seeds everyone else is "randomly" drawn. Makes no difference where you are ranked or if WC or Qualifier, they all get picked from the same hat. Jenkins was a US up and comer in the early/mid 2000's.
Who cares.... when they are lowly ranked, they don't deserve any specialness just because they are americans....
It also happens more in the other GS. The us doesn't have a market on it, although the USOpen has pretty much skewed the winner based on the scheduling. Thus, I see Nadal or Fed as the winner. Shoot Nishikori has done his part in Feds quarter as the top draw loser in Feds quarter.
Yea, one would think that only a total loser would get Query and Robredo in their draw, along with Nishikori as the top draw, who lost in round 1! One couldnt ask for a better draw if they were named Federer.... Oh, yea, that's Fed's easy peesy draw!The draws are pretty simple to understand. If you suck (i.e. have a low ranking) you'll get a top player early on so that you can't get very far past 1st or 2nd round and still suck.
Quite frankly, it seems that you *******ed Couriers comments off the bat to suit you need needs.
Exactly, the numbers basically prove this in different ways like the Djoko/Fed semi matchups. In this case the US players have little chance making the 2nd rd no matter who they play, so to drum interest have them play a top player, good for TV at a time when Brian Earley himself has said is the slow point of the tourney. How else are you going to draw American interest in the sport.
Totally... Courier is definitely not on my top list of commentators.
I have to admit, that's a lot of occasions when that happens in the last several years.
1) A player always has a better chance of drawing the other 126 players. That's just math.
Whenever someone says it's "simple economics", it usually becomes clear that they understand nothing about economics.
I haven't read the thread so sure someone else has mentioned this but:
