Federer-Djokovic in the same draw again!

TennisFan3

Talk Tennis Guru
Blatantly rigged, and it's a slap in the face to the players.

That's a load of CRAP.

The draw is NOT rigged. Each draw event is "mutually exclusive" and independent from the previous one. What happened previously does not matter. The probability of Fed/Djoker being together is always 50%.

The analogy of flipping 11 consecutive tails or heads is also not correct. Because these draws happen after 3 months, four times a year - not in one go.

That is not to say that this is not unusual; nonetheless it is possible, and doesn't mean the draws are rigged..
 

MixieP

Hall of Fame
what the hell happens with the ATP? could someone explain me? This is getting pathetic, i would like to see Nadal-Federer at the same draw, i think that will never happen. that drawing was fixed again.:evil:

They should be in the same quarter. It's the only way we have a chance to see them play each other.
 

devila

Banned
why is it sooo tough to accept that federer can't get away with
predictable carelessness, no strategy and a smug attitude about how relaxed he is after beating chokers like roddick 2-6 years ago?
 

DeShaun

Banned
Is this too surprising?

Rafa is second best overall and defending champion, but Roger is five-time champ and arguably better on this surface on any given day than Rafa, particularly at the moment w/Rafa not necessarily peaking.
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
Just for fun, I did 20 sets of 4 coin flips (80 flips) to represent the 50/50 chance in the 4 slams this year. Only 3 times did I get 4 straight heads/tails (in set 5 I got 4 heads which was immediately followed by 4 tails in set 6, lol. Set 15 was all heads). So there was a 15% chance that I would get all heads/tails.

And that's just for FOUR slams. Fed & Djoker have been in the same half for SIX slams. Maybe I should do 20 sets of 6 to see how unlikely this is.
 

frunk

Semi-Pro
35i23he.png
 

madmanfool

Semi-Pro
However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

I don't see how this has any importance apart from the 2011 US Open draw (or the 2012 Australian Open draw if you want to look already one ahead). Yes, we shouldn't asume that draw has to be different more than 50% chance because of what happened in the past. I don't see how this takes away from the unlikeliness of the Federer/Djokovic 'SF-event' so many times in a row though. The chances of it happening like 14 times in a row again in the future aren't going to be lower because it already happend 14 times in row in the past, but that doesn't take away that the chance is already very low on it's own.

I dont see the big deal here. Federer vascillated across 1,2,3 rankings. Djoker operated 4,3,2,1. Nadal was mostly 1 and 2.

Draws are based on rankings and so even when the draw changed, probably their ranking was such, that Fed-Djo faced each other more often than not.


I would be lying if i say i am not suspecting some sort of rigging. I actually do but i still give some benefit of doubt to ATP.

Rankings aren't that important. Only 1 and 2 are important in this case, because they can't be in the same half of the draw. Yes, Federer and Djokovic propably have never been 1 and 2 on the same time. However, if they aren't 1 or 2 they could still end up in either half of the draw. Meaning them being in the same half of the draw so many times in a row is very unlikely.


On another note, let's see who gaines or loses by this (right now and simplyfied a bit assuming it's only between them):

Nadal: Fed is his pigeon, so for him it's best to have Federer in his SF on first sight. Best chance of getting to the final. Now he might have to beat both Murray and Djokovic to win, if Federer was in his draw he would only have to beat one of them in the final. He's screwed on first sight. However it's also hugely important for him not to play Djokovic, but then Murray or Federer will have to beat Djokovic. So it's either Federer SF and then play Murray in final or Murray SF and then play Federer in final (assuming Djokovic loses). Only the order changes, he will have to beat Murray anyway. I would say Federer has the best chance of taking out Murray. It's what happened in the French after all.So it just comes down to whatever you find more important. Being certain to play Federer in SF and play only winner of Djokovic/Murray or having the best chance of not having to play Djokovic. Though call.

Federer: Main thing is avoiding Nadal in SF. He might not even face Nadal if Nadal loses to Murray. That's a plus. No chance of avoiding Djokovic now however. There is no chance of him avoiding Djokovic and Nadal both though and I would say avoiding Nadal is more important. He gaines.

Murray: He's such a tough call. Out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, I think he prefers Nadal. Now he plays Nadal SF and only winner Djokovic/Federer. He gaines a bit.

Djokovic: Since he is always on the other side of Nadal, I would say it's best for him to have Federer/Nadal SF, with probably Nadal in final then which he has owned this year. Now he has to play Federer in SF, the last player to whom he lost to in a slam and he might miss Nadal. He's screwed.

There, I hope I didn't contradict myself :) Maybe it's better the draw just opens up a bit and little of this still holds true. Anyone up for a Fish-Roddick final? :)
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
Just did 20 sets of 6 flips (damn I'm bored, lol). Only once did I get straight heads or tails, which means there was a 5% chance of that happening.
 

madmanfool

Semi-Pro
Just did 20 sets of 6 flips (damn I'm bored, lol). Only once did I get straight heads or tails, which means there was a 5% chance of that happening.

Uhm no, it means it only happened 5% of YOUR trows. To have the chance of it happening you would have to do it till infinity, not 20 times. But since you're bored, ... :)
 

Tony48

Legend
Well the point I'm trying to illustrate is that the chance of it happening anywhere is clearly extremely low.

Someone should look at past draws and see how often top names land in the same draw despite moving up/down in the rankings.
 
Last edited:

madmanfool

Semi-Pro
That's a load of CRAP.

The draw is NOT rigged. Each draw event is "mutually exclusive" and independent from the previous one. What happened previously does not matter. The probability of Fed/Djoker being together is always 50%.

The analogy of flipping 11 consecutive tails or heads is also not correct. Because these draws happen after 3 months, four times a year - not in one go.

That is not to say that this is not unusual; nonetheless it is possible, and doesn't mean the draws are rigged..

True, you can't say it's rigged because it happened so many times in row. You can't even say it's rigged when it happens a million times in a row. Highly unlikely but not impossible. It could however, since it's so unlikely, be an indicator that it is rigged in the way that the ATP isn't making a random draw as they should. Then we take the cospiracy road. I don't believe that myself, but I'm just saying.
 

Colin

Professional
I haven't looked at the draw too closely, but I have a feeling Djokovic is going to lose early.

I know it's more likely he's going to beat Nadal or Murray in the final and may not even see Fed in the semis, but I just think it's all catching up to him, and he's going to fall to someone who's unheralded in the first few rounds, which will inspire Nadal and Fed to up their games and make it to the final.
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
However, you must remember that this kind of probability is always independent. Just because butt monkey and murray have been in the same half 13/14 times doesn't mean there isn't a 50% chance they will be in the same half again on the next draw.

It's like having children. If you had 4 girls in a row, surely you would think the next would be a boy (assuming it was a 50/50 chance). However, the 5th child still has a 50% chance of being a girl.

Thus, to the statistically-educated, this is not surprising.

Although the mainstream medical community has not yet acknowledged it there is alot of evidence that there are numerous biological factors from both human parents which can influence the gender of the offspring.

Women in uncertain unstable relationships or with low status male partners are more likely to give birth to females then males. In the past during previous generations when males benefited from a very male biased western societies, records show high status males and their wives would generally give birth to more males. Its been known that the human male can influence the gender of an offspring, there is evidence mounting and may be unequivocally proven that females may play a roll in gender of offspring as well. X and Y chromosome sperm each have varying conditions inside the vagina which would benefit one type from reaching the egg, something which women may instinctively be able to change.
 
Last edited:

JSummers

Rookie
No offense but this has nothing to do with tennis. Delete?
Not to say I am highly skeptical of this until proven facts.

Although the mainstream medical community has not yet acknowledged it there is alot of evidence that there are numerous biological factors from both human parents which can influence the gender of the offspring.

Women in uncertain unstable relationships or with low status male partners are more likely to give birth to females then males. In the past during previous generations when males benefited from a very male biased western societies, records show high status males and their wives would generally give birth to more males. Its been known that the human male can influence the gender of an offspring, there is evidence mounting and may be unequivocally proven that females may play a roll in gender of offspring as well. X and Y chromosome sperm each have varying conditions inside the vagina which would benefit one type from reaching the egg, something which women may instinctively be able to change.
 

Mahboob Khan

Hall of Fame
Federer to me is like a crocodile. If the crocodile is not hungry he is not bothered if a prey swims close to his jaws, but when he is hungry he can tear a wilderbeast apart.

If Federer can beat Djokovic in the French Open on clay, he can beat him on the deco-turf surface as he already has. It all depends on Federer's mood and hunger.
 

Fedace

Banned
ALL you Fed Lovers out there,,,,Don't worry about Joker. He is so tired and burned out right now that he may not even get to the semis. Even if he does, Roger should beat him in 4 sets.

+ Joker has #1 ranking Locked up by winning 2 slams this year. So he really doesn't have the motivation.
 
C

celoft

Guest
Federer to me is like a crocodile. If the crocodile is not hungry he is not bothered if a prey swims close to his jaws, but when he is hungry he can tear a wilderbeast apart.

If Federer can beat Djokovic in the French Open on clay, he can beat him on the deco-turf surface as he already has. It all depends on Federer's mood and hunger.

I concur. The problem is Fed has to win his QF(Tsonga) BEFORE playing Djoko.
 

jbpick920

New User
I think there is a real possibility that 2 or 3 of the top 4 might not make it. I probably feel the most confident about Nadal making it to the semis even though he is a basketcase right now. I think you could have different guys coming from out of nowhere this time.
 
Of course the ATP makes this happen...

Noel may be number 1 but he has not transcended the sport and reached "ambassador" status like Fedal have.

A Fedal final final gets a$$e$ in the seats guys....

It isn't a matter of getting people in the chairs but TV ratings(I suspect you probably meant them as well).
 
On the subject of Djokovic drawing Federer again, technically the #1 seed drew the #3 seed, which is DIFFERENT from the last 3 slams where the #1 seed drew the #4 seed. So seed-wise the draw is not identical.
 

Tony48

Legend
ALL you Fed Lovers out there,,,,Don't worry about Joker. He is so tired and burned out right now that he may not even get to the semis. Even if he does, Roger should beat him in 4 sets.

+ Joker has #1 ranking Locked up by winning 2 slams this year. So he really doesn't have the motivation.

Make no mistake: Djokovic really wants to win the U.S. Open
 
Actually its been 13 of the past 14 grand slams.

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


What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

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.
 
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.

Excellent post! A voice of reason has finally spoken.
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
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.

Excellent post! A voice of reason has finally spoken.

You guys missed this portion of the thread. Its obvious that there is a 50% chance for the 3rd and 4th seeds to have one draw placement or the other. A coin flip you could say. Below our resident math teacher gives us the odds. Notice the 1/2's in his equation that is the 50% chances you are discussing about.

What is the mathematics formula to calculate odds for 13 of the past 14 slams, and what are the odds?

impressive sdont. You should have been a math teacher. ha

Guess what? ;)

Haha well that makes sense.

The general formula for something with a probability p of happening once to happen exactly K times out of N tries is:
N!/(K!*(N-K)!)*p^K*(1-p)^(N-K)
It is called the binomial distribution.

So, the odds for drawing heads exactly 13 times out of 14 tries are:
14!/(13!*(14-13)!)*1/2^13*1/2^(14-13) = 0.085%.
 
Last edited:

ViscaB

Hall of Fame
We need more draws before we reject the hypothesis that the draw is not fixed. The sample is too small to get statistically significant results.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
You guys missed this portion of the thread. Its obvious that there is a 50% chance for the 3rd and 4th seeds to have one draw placement or the other. A coin flip you could say. Below our resident math teacher gives us the odds. Notice the 1/2's in his equation that is the 50% chances you are discussing about.

But the resident math teacher, from my quick skim through his post, wasn't approaching it from a "seed" point of view. He was saying "Djokovic in Fed's half = heads". But that isn't really the case, Djokovic in Fed's half has changed between heads and tails depending on the seedings.

That's not to say it isn't odd that Fed and Djokovic have so often been together, but you do need to remember that their seedings have been changing too.
 
So you dismiss it instantly based on a comparison of seedings? Notice how no matter what Federer or Djokovic are ranked, 1, 2, or 3, they always seem to find each other in the same half.

They don't draw names alone, they draw names attached to seed positions. The distribution of 8 times one way and 6 times the other is very plausible for the last 14 slams. With Federer dropping from #1 to #2 and now #3, and Djoker moving up, it's more likely just a coincidence that they happen to be on the same side so often. That said, I'm not saying the draw can't be rigged or tampered with, but the probabilities certainly make sense now, and if it's rigged they've used some other mechanism unbeknownst to us.
 

devila

Banned
djoker fooled rogi and rafa


it's no one's fault that rafa and rogi fell down. they can't improve their predictable games..

this time, there's no mercy from djoker as long as rogi keeps his finger down and realizes there's no use in pretending djoker isn't superior to rogi federina.
 

LanceStern

Professional
I said on page four to look at the seedings!


I'm not sure you guys are taking into account that Federer and djokovic keep changing rankings.

Fed nadal semis never happened before because fed was #1 and nadal was #2. As a result a lot of the times fed played djokovic or some loser cause Murray dropped out early.

Then nadal came #1 and fed #2 so that restarts the randomness again. Still fed and nadal couldn't meet.

Then fed became #3 and djokovic #2. Still random chance fed plays djokovic even with odds of playing him in the same side of the draw 3 consecutive slams.

Then djokovic came #1 so now fed could theoretically play him again
 

madmanfool

Semi-Pro
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.

I don't agree. Why make a distinction between who is 3 and who is 4? It doesn't matter if a player is 3 or 4, in both cases he can end up in either part of the draw. We are looking into the unlikeliness of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half so many times. We are not looking into the unlikeliness of the nr 1 and 3 seed for example being in the same half. I don't see how the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, knowing they can constantly switch rankings, will be any different from the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, disregarding they are switching rankings. In both cases it's very unlikely to happen. The point is that every year there is 50% chance of Federer and Djokovic being together. It doesn't matter if Djokovic is 3 or 4. 1*50% = 1/2*50% + 1/2*50%

You say they make the draw only by looking at the seedings. Who cares? Say I want to rig the draw by putting Djokovic and Federer together all the time. Let's also say I have the power to do so for a second. All the homework I have to do is look up which seed connects to which player that year. Say I rigged the draw last year. I put Federer and Djokovic together. Federer was no 1 seed and Djokovic was no 4 seed. This year I want to do same, but Djokovic is now no 3 seed. All I have to do is keep in mind that this year I want to put 1 and 3 together, whereas last year I put 1 and 4 together. So I just got to keep in mind that I got to do it the other way around this year. Whoever's name is attached to a seed is very relevant if you want to rig the draw.

Edit: I just did the exact math. If you take into account that Federer and Djokovic can't be in the same half when they are 1 and 2 or 3 and 4, it becomes even more unlikely.
It goes like this:

0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2
+0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2
+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0
+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0=

8*(1/4*1/3*1/2) = 1/3 = 33,33 % (instead of the earlier 50%)

It goes like this: Federer can be ranked either 1,2,3 or 4. So 1/4 chance of him being no 1, 1/4 of him being no 2, etc. If Federer is no 1 for example, Djokovic can be 2,3 or 4. So 1/3 chance of him being no 2, 1/3 chance of him being no 3 etc.
So it goes like this: If Federer and Djokovic are 1 and 2 there is 0% chance of them being in the same half. Hence the first "0". If Federer is no 1 (1/4 chance) and Djokovic is no 3 (1/3 chance), there is 1/2 chance of them being drawn together. Hence the 1/4*1/3*1/2. And so forth. If you fill in the zeros as well (disregard 1 and 2, 3 and 4 can't end up together) you get the earlier 50%. Now you have 33% chance.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. Why make a distinction between who is 3 and who is 4? It doesn't matter if a player is 3 or 4, in both cases he can end up in either part of the draw. We are looking into the unlikeliness of Federer and Djokovic being in the same half so many times. We are not looking into the unlikeliness of the nr 1 and 3 seed for example being in the same half. I don't see how the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, knowing they can constantly switch rankings, will be any different from the chance of Federer and Djokovic being drawn together, disregarding they are switching rankings. In both cases it's very unlikely to happen. The point is that every year there is 50% chance of Federer and Djokovic being together. It doesn't matter if Djokovic is 3 or 4. 1*50% = 1/2*50% + 1/2*50%

You say they make the draw only by looking at the seedings. Who cares? Say I want to rig the draw by putting Djokovic and Federer together all the time. Let's also say I have the power to do so for a second. All the homework I have to do is look up which seed connects to which player that year. Say I rigged the draw last year. I put Federer and Djokovic together. Federer was no 1 seed and Djokovic was no 4 seed. This year I want to do same, but Djokovic is now no 3 seed. All I have to do is keep in mind that this year I want to put 1 and 3 together, whereas last year I put 1 and 4 together. So I just got to keep in mind that I got to do it the other way around this year. Whoever's name is attached to a seed is very relevant if you want to rig the draw.

Edit: I just did the exact math. If you take into account that Federer and Djokovic can't be in the same half when they are 1 and 2 or 3 and 4, it becomes even more unlikely.
It goes like this:

0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2
+0+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2
+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0
+1/4*1/3*1/2+1/4*1/3*1/2+0=

8*(1/4*1/3*1/2) = 1/3 = 33,33 % (instead of the earlier 50%)

It goes like this: Federer can be ranked either 1,2,3 or 4. So 1/4 chance of him being no 1, 1/4 of him being no 2, etc. If Federer is no 1 for example, Djokovic can be 2,3 or 4. So 1/3 chance of him being no 2, 1/3 chance of him being no 3 etc.
So it goes like this: If Federer and Djokovic are 1 and 2 there is 0% chance of them being in the same half. Hence the first "0". If Federer is no 1 (1/4 chance) and Djokovic is no 3 (1/3 chance), there is 1/2 chance of them being drawn together. Hence the 1/4*1/3*1/2. And so forth. If you fill in the zeros as well (disregard 1 and 2, 3 and 4 can't end up together) you get the earlier 50%. Now you have 33% chance.

I wasn't trying to say that the odds of Djokovic/Federer matching up so many times in a row is not tiny--it is. My point is that the odds of Djokovic/Federer having a semifinal matchup in any given draw is not 50%; there is always the chance, albeit small, that one of the them drops out of the top 4 (or they move in some way that would negate a semifinal meeting). This reality (that ranks are always CHANGING), makes the 50% odds assumption moot. In terms of seeding, however, there is ALWAYS a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #3 seed, or #4 seed, etc. Therefore, if you are going to use a simple 50% probability equation, you need to look at seeding, and the seeding results I presented are not skewed.

The bottom line is, because Federer and Djokovic are actively changing ranks, this makes calculating the probability of their meetings much more complex than 0.5^nth power. I realize you did do out a more complex equation (though I don't have time at the moment to check it out), my reply is directed more towards the general assumption in this thread that a Djokovic/Federer matchup is 50% odds.
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
I wasn't trying to say that the odds of Djokovic/Federer matching up so many times in a row is not tiny--it is. My point is that the odds of Djokovic/Federer having a semifinal matchup in any given draw is not 50%; there is always the chance, albeit small, that one of the them drops out of the top 4 (or they move in some way that would negate a semifinal meeting). This reality (that ranks are always CHANGING), makes the 50% odds assumption moot. In terms of seeding, however, there is ALWAYS a 50% chance that the #1 seed will draw the #3 seed, or #4 seed, etc. Therefore, if you are going to use a simple 50% probability equation, you need to look at seeding, and the seeding results I presented are not skewed.

The bottom line is, because Federer and Djokovic are actively changing ranks, this makes calculating the probability of their meetings much more complex than 0.5^nth power. I realize you did do out a more complex equation (though I don't have time at the moment to check it out), my reply is directed more towards the general assumption in this thread that a Djokovic/Federer matchup is 50% odds.

The thing is it doesn't matter what the seeding are. Mathmatically there could be seeding switchups of whatever combination as long as the conditions Rafa and Fed are on opposite sides and it would not effect the equation of .086% chance of 13 out of 14 past tournaments in a row.
EVERY single seeding combination of the 4 players with the one condition Fed/Nad or conversely Mur/Djok on oppostie sides of the draw has 50% chance of Mur meeting Fed or Djok meeting Fed on same side of draw.
 

winstonplum

Hall of Fame
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.
 
Top