Proved by who? Where is this proof? Let's see it.
Should the draws in tournaments be more intelligent ?
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
Brilliant! I applaud you, sir, for showing class and intelligence in the face of juvenile insults!
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You think I care about your opinion ?
Newsflash : I don't. Now go back to fantasizing Rafa winning RG.
No, it hasn't been proven. It is rather inconclusive. I'm agnostic on the draw-rigging.
But to cut the data wherever you can find the biggest streak is a biased sampling. And it was still slightly less than 3 standard deviations away from the mean as is (if we are talking about the 15 of 18 thing). Stuff that unlikely happens every day.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Actually the draws are very fair and balanced. The problem is elsewhere. Case in point. Here was the draw for the top 2 seeds in the main events of 2015. In ( ) are the names of the players who reached a round when the highest seeded player who was supposed to reach it didn't:
AO: D = Djoko #1, F = Fed #2
1- D Bedene, F Lu
2- D Kuznetsov, F Bolelli
3- D Verdasco 31, F Chardy 29 (Seppi)
4- D Isner 19 (Muller), F Robredo 15 (Kyrgios)
5- D Raonic 8, F Murray 6
6- D Wawrinka 4, F Nadal 3 (Berdych 7)
7- D 1, F 2 (Murray 6)
IW:
1- D Baghdatis, F Schwartzman
2- D Benneteau 25 (Ramos-Vinolas), F Seppi 30
3- D Anderson 16 (Isner 18), F Bautista Agut 15 (Sock)
4- D Ferrer 8 (Tomic 32), F Wawrinka 7 (Berdych 9)
5- D Murray 4, F Nadal 3 (Raonic 6)
6- D 1, F 2
Miami:
Fed didn't play. Nadal was seeded #2
1- D Klizan, N Almagro
2- D Muller 30 (Darcis), N Verdasco 29
3- D Robredo 16 (Dolgopolov), N Gulbis 14 (Monaco)
4- D Ferrer 6 , N Berdych 8
5- D Nishikori 4 (Isner 22), N Murray 3
6- D 1 , N 2 (Murray 3)
Monte-Carlo:
1- D Ramos-Vinolas, F Chardy
2- D Gulbis 13 (Haider-Maurer), F Monfils 14
3- D Cilic 8, F Wawrinka 7 (Dimitrov 9)
4- D Nadal 3, F Raonic 4 (Berdych 6)
5- D 1, F 2 (Berdych 6)
Madrid:
Djoko did not play. Fed was seeded 1, Murray 2
1- F Kyrgios, M Kohlschreiber
2- F Isner 16, M Monfils 13 (Granollers WC)
3- F Berdych 6, M Raonic 5
4- F Nadal 3, M Nishikori 4
5- F 1 (Nadal 3), M 2
Rome:
1- D Almagro, F Cuevas
2- D Bautista Agut 14, F Anderson 15
3- D Nishikori 5, F Berdych 6
4- D Murray 3, F Nadal 4
5- ?
The draws seem perfectly balanced. Note that often #1 has higher seeds in some rounds and #2 higher seeds in other rounds but in Australian Open Fed got the higher seed in every round and in Rome Djoko did. Coincidence? Don't know enough about probabilities to have an opinion.
To me, the real problem is that tournaments do not use surface specific rankings apart from Wimbledon. That means some players' overall ranking is not at all the same as what it would be on clay only or hard only. Then people will complain that x or y has an easy draw because they get to play clay specialists on hard or vice versa.
There is also the problem of what a player owes most of his points to: Gulbis did very well in RG 2014, so he's ranked high but recently his form has plummeted. So when Djoko gets Gulbis in 2nd round of M-C, he actually gets a free pass despite Gulbis being #13.
Same thing for Cilic whose ranking is inflated because he won USO but who doesn't have a top 8 level of play right now.
Federer is definitely not top 2 on clay (currently all of Murray, Nadal and Nishi are better than him), so whoever is in Fed's half is going to benefit (Both Monfils and KG did in the 2 clay masters and conversely both were relatively easy to beat later on ). I do not see any way to fix that other than adjust the ranking to the surface.
The last thing I noted is that Murray has really positioned himself as Djoko's main rival in 2015: they met in AO, IW, Miami and could meet again in Rome. (And it seems the only reason they didn't meet in M-C/Madrid is because 1 of the 2 was not playing)
AO: D = Djoko #1, F = Fed #2
1- D Bedene, F Lu
2- D Kuznetsov, F Bolelli
3- D Verdasco 31, F Chardy 29 (Seppi)
4- D Isner 19 (Muller), F Robredo 15 (Kyrgios)
5- D Raonic 8, F Murray 6
6- D Wawrinka 4, F Nadal 3 (Berdych 7)
7- D 1, F 2 (Murray 6)
IW:
1- D Baghdatis, F Schwartzman
2- D Benneteau 25 (Ramos-Vinolas), F Seppi 30
3- D Anderson 16 (Isner 18), F Bautista Agut 15 (Sock)
4- D Ferrer 8 (Tomic 32), F Wawrinka 7 (Berdych 9)
5- D Murray 4, F Nadal 3 (Raonic 6)
6- D 1, F 2
Miami:
Fed didn't play. Nadal was seeded #2
1- D Klizan, N Almagro
2- D Muller 30 (Darcis), N Verdasco 29
3- D Robredo 16 (Dolgopolov), N Gulbis 14 (Monaco)
4- D Ferrer 6 , N Berdych 8
5- D Nishikori 4 (Isner 22), N Murray 3
6- D 1 , N 2 (Murray 3)
Monte-Carlo:
1- D Ramos-Vinolas, F Chardy
2- D Gulbis 13 (Haider-Maurer), F Monfils 14
3- D Cilic 8, F Wawrinka 7 (Dimitrov 9)
4- D Nadal 3, F Raonic 4 (Berdych 6)
5- D 1, F 2 (Berdych 6)
Madrid:
Djoko did not play. Fed was seeded 1, Murray 2
1- F Kyrgios, M Kohlschreiber
2- F Isner 16, M Monfils 13 (Granollers WC)
3- F Berdych 6, M Raonic 5
4- F Nadal 3, M Nishikori 4
5- F 1 (Nadal 3), M 2
Rome:
1- D Almagro, F Cuevas
2- D Bautista Agut 14, F Anderson 15
3- D Nishikori 5, F Berdych 6
4- D Murray 3, F Nadal 4
5- ?
The draws seem perfectly balanced. Note that often #1 has higher seeds in some rounds and #2 higher seeds in other rounds but in Australian Open Fed got the higher seed in every round and in Rome Djoko did. Coincidence? Don't know enough about probabilities to have an opinion.
To me, the real problem is that tournaments do not use surface specific rankings apart from Wimbledon. That means some players' overall ranking is not at all the same as what it would be on clay only or hard only. Then people will complain that x or y has an easy draw because they get to play clay specialists on hard or vice versa.
There is also the problem of what a player owes most of his points to: Gulbis did very well in RG 2014, so he's ranked high but recently his form has plummeted. So when Djoko gets Gulbis in 2nd round of M-C, he actually gets a free pass despite Gulbis being #13.
Same thing for Cilic whose ranking is inflated because he won USO but who doesn't have a top 8 level of play right now.
Federer is definitely not top 2 on clay (currently all of Murray, Nadal and Nishi are better than him), so whoever is in Fed's half is going to benefit (Both Monfils and KG did in the 2 clay masters and conversely both were relatively easy to beat later on ). I do not see any way to fix that other than adjust the ranking to the surface.
The last thing I noted is that Murray has really positioned himself as Djoko's main rival in 2015: they met in AO, IW, Miami and could meet again in Rome. (And it seems the only reason they didn't meet in M-C/Madrid is because 1 of the 2 was not playing)
Last edited:
I would rather suggest reduced involvement of human intelligence in process of draw making. Draw making programs are perfectly random and well designed until humans gets involved in Process. It's well known secret, how this random draw making programs keeps drawing Berdych- Federer pair of pigeons as potential QF and SF for Nadal of in majority of big tournament these days. His AO and Madrid draws are blatant cases of draw rigging which is very usual process in Tennis.
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Draws are rigged depending on a lot of different factors. Get over it, you are not going to change it. If you were operating a multi-billion dollar business would you want to leave things completely to chance? There is always a little strategic help depending on what country they are in, who the sponsors are for the tournament, which players the tv viewing audience would like to see in the final, etc. etc.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
We tracked for a while who among the top 4 consistently got a tough quarter and who got the easiest. One of Fed or Djoker would always get the toughest quarter and Nadal always the easiest.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=422886
I cannot remember a slam draw (or even a masters) in the past several years when Nadal got the toughest quarter of the top 4. Make what you want out of it.
Last edited:
AngieB
Banned
Let me hand you a tissue for your tears of bitterness. Shall we should call the #wah-mbulance for your #breakdown? Maybe someone can call the #police to report the grave #injustice you endured as a result of the #unintelligent draw. #Damaged
#PTL #JC4Ever
#AngieB
#AngieB
The problem is that you create a large human bias. How can you prove what a tough draw is or a bad matchup?
See, this already illustrates why not using a computer and math is a terrible idea. Now you already have bias, saying some draws are unfair. Well, people will never agree what draws are fair or unfair, so how would this be an intelligent system if it will be based on opinions?
Everyone has different idea what intelligent system would look like.
Math is not a perfect system, but still a lot less biased than any human system.
There is a reason we use machines in science, that's because we can't be objective as humans, we are designed to seek patterns where mostly they aren't there, so we can't be unbiased. Not only that, emotions always affect our decisions, plus we make errors.
That's why science has the most success with not being biased and making most progress, because the goal of science is to eliminate human intelligence as much as possible.
What happened when we didn't use math and science and we used human intelligence? We thought for 100.000 years that Earth was flat
. Yeah, I wouldn't use our intelligence.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
^^ We can philosophize all we want, but it is usually easy to have consensus on what consists of a tough draw for a given tournament.
1.A player who is in red hot form and has done well in the tournaments leading up to this one.
2. A player who is known to be a bad matchup for a given player
3. A big hitter in decent form on a relatively fast surface.
Take the example of Tsonga sometime in 2011, especially after he beat Fed at Wimbledon. He was in red hot form for a few months and was drawn to meet Federer in the quarters almost all the time (including Canada and USO and then he was in Fed's half in the WTF). The moment he cooled down and lost form, this trend stopped too and he started landing in other's quarters. Such "coincidences" are hard to ignore. Maybe the organizers wanted to cash in on the Wimbledon rematch again. How can you tell for sure it was a mere coincidence ?
The same Tsonga when in red hot form has never landed in Nadal's quarter at a slam ever since the 2008 AO shellacking. That is 7 straight years ! Look up how many times Tsonga has played the rest of the big 3 in slams in those 7 years. Djoko - 5 times, Fed-6 times, Murray-3 times. Nadal - 0 times. Is this a coincidence again ? I don't know, you tell me.
1.A player who is in red hot form and has done well in the tournaments leading up to this one.
2. A player who is known to be a bad matchup for a given player
3. A big hitter in decent form on a relatively fast surface.
Take the example of Tsonga sometime in 2011, especially after he beat Fed at Wimbledon. He was in red hot form for a few months and was drawn to meet Federer in the quarters almost all the time (including Canada and USO and then he was in Fed's half in the WTF). The moment he cooled down and lost form, this trend stopped too and he started landing in other's quarters. Such "coincidences" are hard to ignore. Maybe the organizers wanted to cash in on the Wimbledon rematch again. How can you tell for sure it was a mere coincidence ?
The same Tsonga when in red hot form has never landed in Nadal's quarter at a slam ever since the 2008 AO shellacking. That is 7 straight years ! Look up how many times Tsonga has played the rest of the big 3 in slams in those 7 years. Djoko - 5 times, Fed-6 times, Murray-3 times. Nadal - 0 times. Is this a coincidence again ? I don't know, you tell me.
Ok, there is a flaw in this reasoning. If we had better intelligent system based on matchups, how would we know who is a bad matchup for someone, since you have a system for bad matchups not even meet?
It's a paradox, it's not possible. How do you know who bad matchup is to prevent further matches with those guys, if you need to play them a lot prior, to even determine they are bad matchups.
You try to change one parameter assuming nothing else changes, this doesn't work. You try to see alternate reality with today's standards. That can't work.
Plus, how can you even tell if a guy lost just because he had to play his bad matchup or because he was outplayed by his bad matchup?
I mean, you can still lose even if you don't play your bad matchup.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
This. The whole idea with the ranking is to rank the best players in the world at any given time in a falling order. The seedings are mainly based on that. There is not a more fair way to go about it than that.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
^^^ Actually, I was only trying to say that the current system is flawed/prone to rigging. I am not really agreeing with the OP's method of using AI or something . All I want is a 100% fair system without any room for rigging. There should be ways of ensuring that.
One other thought I've had is that you first draw up the 4 quarters and then let the top seed pick the quarter he wants, followed by second seed picking his quarter etc. Atleast this way, we won't have ridiculous scenarios like the top seed being punished by the toughest draw while the 3rd or 4th seed has a cakewalk repeatedly. It is as fair as it can get because there has to be some advantage to being a top seed, right ?
One other thought I've had is that you first draw up the 4 quarters and then let the top seed pick the quarter he wants, followed by second seed picking his quarter etc. Atleast this way, we won't have ridiculous scenarios like the top seed being punished by the toughest draw while the 3rd or 4th seed has a cakewalk repeatedly. It is as fair as it can get because there has to be some advantage to being a top seed, right ?
Last edited:
That's right. If we use "intelligence" which one do we use? Eventually one school of thought would prevail and it will be a dictatorship, not democracy.
People who think they are intelligent will dictate. That is the worst thing we can have. I don't want to live in the middle ages anymore where truth was based on opinions and not on reality.
There is too much politics in tennis anyway, and OP wants to bring even more? No, sir, I object.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Couldn't agree more.
There is no such thing as a fair system. Perfection is an illusion. Everything in the world is too complex to be fair, so life is unfair.
Is it fair that Federer has more talent and was lucky to have great coaches and parents and opportunities? Is it fair that Nadal has 14 slams and that some pros can't even win a tournament?
You can't create a fair system, since we don't have the knowledge to even determine what fair is. But at least math is still better than other systems.
To make things fair, we would have to measure dna to determine talent, then to give people with less talent more chance from the start. But, we can't do that, it's too complex.
What we can do is have some sort of democracy based on reality. Far from perfect, but other systems are even worse.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
I, like you, would not be surprised at all if many of today's draws are in fact rigged. Let's face it. Money are the biggest factor here, and some matchups bring more income than others. But we will never be able to prove it, and as long as we can't prove anything, then rigging doesn't exist.
I actually kind of like your idea of the top seeds picking their quarter. Would bring an extra dimension to the game, and possibly also give the higher seeds a well deserved advantage. But again, rigging doesn't exist until it's proved, which it most likely never will be.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
This list could go on forever. Bottom line: Survival of the fittest(and to a lesser extent luckiest)!!
Ok, so if draws are rigged, that means we already have an intelligent system and not a random system
. So, OP shouldn't complain.Also, I don't see how rigging draws would change anything anyway. The field is not static. The field would see that the draws are rigged and they would adjust. For example, if someone sees that he gets his bad matchup a lot of times, he would just improve that matchup more and ignore the rest. So, things would even themselves out anyway and the best players would still prevail.
So, the guy who has least bad matchups would still win the most, right? And that would still be Federer, who seems to have the least bad matchups.
TennisLovaLova
Hall of Fame
The real questions is this: do we want a djoko-federer in early GS rounds?
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Ok, so if draws are rigged, that means we already have an intelligent system and not a random system
Also, I don't see how rigging draws would change anything anyway. The field is not static. The field would see that the draws are rigged and they would adjust. For example, if someone sees that he gets his bad matchup a lot of times, he would just improve that matchup more and ignore the rest. So, things would even themselves out anyway and the best players would still prevail.
So, the guy who has least bad matchups would still win the most, right? And that would still be Federer, who seems to have the least bad matchups.
Correct. No matter the system, the best players will usually come out on top anyway. Rigging of draws(if such a thing exists) are mainly done for entertainment purposes.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Not necessarily always. This may be true in a few specific cases like Djoko 2011 (and all the AO's he has won), Delpo USO 2009, Nadal RG 2008 or Federer 2004-2007 grass. In most other cases, a player winning the title definitely has a lot to do with who he had to face. There are instances of players winning slams without beating a single top 10 player. So, the draw matters a hell lot.
A player is declared the best in a slam by beating 7/128 players in his draw. Would he really be able to beat any potential combination of 7 players in the draw ? In the examples mentioned above, sure. But in most other cases, I doubt it.
Just take the recent Madrid tournament and swap Federer's and Nadal's draws. Do you think Fed would have lost in the second and Nadal made the final beating Kyrgios, Isner on the way ? You can do a similar exercise for the last 5 years. I can bet that the slam and masters counts for the players would have been very different if we considered such draw swaps.
Last edited:
mellowyellow
Legend
Actually if anyone cared to search 1996 USO fixed draw you would see that it has been fixed... its nothing new.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
You don't know what you're talking about. The draw is not random in the sense that players draw straws. It is a random SEED. The seed which is a non-random "intelligent" system that tries to coerce the game to its own goals.
The only reason why the random seed structure is tolerated is because it works...for the most part. The seed is based on rankings, and because different tournaments provide different ranking points , the system is possible to game. A player has an interest to skip a minor tournament in favor of one with a greater yield. In a perfect setting, this would not happen and players could not control the seed beyond trying to simply win. A level of human interaction will always be required to suit the preferences of the viewers and the players and the officials. But this is where it ends. If you deviate from the random seed, you change the preferences of players making it by definition a less optimal solution to this game. A random seed is scientifically proven to be the most optimal game design for the tournament problem.
I meant exactly what you are saying here, so I don't know what the problem is. You just argue over semantics. You love to argue and prove me wrong more than caring about the truth.
For some reason you love to put me down all the time, which I take as a compliment
.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
The whole frustration of 23-10 summed up in one line :mrgreen:
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
I meant exactly what you are saying here, so I don't know what the problem is. You just argue over semantics. You love to argue and prove me wrong more than caring about the truth.
For some reason you love to put me down all the time, which I take as a compliment
The point of the thread is not to say the randomness is garbage and throw it out. Nor is it to say an "intelligent" draw is garbage and throw it out. The random seed represents both a human system to coerce the best players to the final, and a stochastic system to randomize AROUND those human-set parameters. There is ALREADY an intelligent system for the draw by way of seeding. Saying that we should have cold hard randomness without intelligent design is irrelevant because that would take us to a time before Laver. The system already IS intelligent design. It breaks impartiality and includes a bias. The saving grace is that this bias is what the players, the tournament officials and the viewers all want anyways. This ain't some dramatic argument between whether the draw should be stochastic or deterministic. We're past that point.
I said it already once in an old post about it; but trying to make statistics on players name while the draw is based on seed number is totally irrelevant. In the supposed Federer / Djokovic case in the said period Fed position oscillated between 1 and 2 and Djoko 3 and 4 if you look at wether #1 gets 3 or 4 in it's half, it is much closer to the target 50%....
mellowyellow
Legend
That for the most part false, the draws are what they are for commercialism. The 1996 USO FIXED DRAW and REDRAW is a reality that was a culmination of that pressure. No player petitioned for it, no fan lobbied for it. If anything, REAL fans that actually support the sport not just the venues understand the shortcoming of the elitest rank sytem with the obvious draw rigging. If SEEDING were all that went on most would be fine with the draws, but the obvious placement of Q/WC players, the limited "randomness" of high seeds and low seeds, and that current form means squat is not even a laughable concept for draw making. Once everyone admits its an elitest system and designed to only appear to be fair and not functionally be fair the system can then be fixed. Like the drug testing, the draw system needs transparency and maybe an outside entity that doesnt rely on broadcasting/commercialization for its income to govern it.
G A S
Hall of Fame
I imagine that if there was no ranking and seeds used, and instead the draws were all haphazard and random, then the grand slams winners would be more varied.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Whether the draw is random or not is besides the point of discussing whether the random seed structure has MERIT or not, and even so, citing corner cases and a very limited scope of data is not nearly sufficient to conclude the draw is fixed.
As to the draw being elitist, of course it is! All draws are elitist. They favor the higher seeds to go deep and punish unseeded players. Why? Because every player wants to win the tournament. Moreover they want to give themselves the best possible chance at winning the tournament. So the only way to have a good chance of winning, is to be the elite. The elitist draw encourages year-round competitive behaviour and gives us the highest possible level of tennis at the deepest stages of the tournament. How this is not functionally fair in your mind, I do not know and you will have to elaborate.
What do you mean the draw should be transparent? It's a randomized generator! What do you want, and how on earth can parallels be drawn to drug testing of all things?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
The notion that draws are not fixed and are totally determined by computers is really naive .
These folks don't understand how money works.
These folks don't understand how money works.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
The notion that draws are fixed and determined by commercial forces is really naive.
These folks don't understand how probability works.
These folks don't understand how probability works.
AngieB
Banned
I hear you. I don't think #tennisaddict has ever attended a professional draw ceremony. The conspiracy theories are unreasonable in this instance.
#AngiesLyst
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Let me just say that I have studied 'Operations Research/Optimization' at a fairly advanced level.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
I don't doubt you are an intelligent person. Nevertheless I have seen no evidence that provides proof of a fixed draw. But more to the point, whether or not the draw is fixed has ZERO relevance to the topic of whether draws should be more intelligent or not - your very own OP.
Let us assume that the draw is random. Should it be more intelligent than restricting randomness using 16 seeded players in most tournaments, and 32 seeded men in slam tournaments? I would say no. In fact it is too "intelligent". There is no need to seed 32 players regardless of the size of the field. The idea that the seeding should increase based on the size of the field doesn't make any sense - as if to say every player plays better specifically because there are more players in the tournament. As tennis stands now (and as it has stood for years), it would be best for no tournament to have more than 16 seeded players. 32 seeds overly restricts the randomness and leads to somewhat unexciting results through the rounds.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
@AngieB, they found the WMD in Iraq , right ?
torpantennis
Legend
One ridiculous thing about draws: Players who are consistently ranked 5-8 almost never play against each other in big tournaments. A good example is Berdych-Ferrer: The have only played 13 matches, and only ever once in slams, AO14 when Ferrer was actually in top 4.
I'd like a bit more variety in draws. Something like top 4 can only meet in SF, but then anything else within top 16 would be random, i.e random draw in 4R and QF. Then on 3R seeds 1-16 would randomly be drawn against seeds 17-32.
I'd like a bit more variety in draws. Something like top 4 can only meet in SF, but then anything else within top 16 would be random, i.e random draw in 4R and QF. Then on 3R seeds 1-16 would randomly be drawn against seeds 17-32.
mellowyellow
Legend
Is it your position that draws have never been fixed or proved to be fixed?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I concur with you that 32 seeds makes the first week on TV a joke. So glad that they televise outer courts and we can watch better quality matches between lower ranked players.
However commercial interests have taken over in a big way. You see WC vs WC in 28 person draw, repeated matches between players who have provided earlier good matches, softer draws for the player being promoted as the next face of ATP and so on. We will agree to disagree on this.
What I was suggesting in OP will in one way address this. At the end of the day, tournament is a business and they will conduct it in such a way that it maximizes their interests . However we as consumers should have a say when we see the system is abused beyond a limit.
Also it is not just about the big players. It is playing with careers of players who are good enough to be around 50, yet could go up into the 20's or pushed down to the 80's based on luck of draws. And as we all know the lifestyle of a player ranked 30 is 100 times different from the one ranked 80.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
I posted this on another thread, but this is perhaps a case for rethinking the way draws are made.
Rankings of the R1 and R2 opponents respectively for the 'big 4' at RG 2015 :
no.1 seed Djoker : #87 , #55
no.2 seed Fed : #109, #57
no.3 seed Murray : #137, #44
no.6 seed Nadal : #296 , #154
One idea is : After a given round is completed, should they re-draw with whoever is left ?
This way, you wouldn't have the perceived unfairness with the #1 seed consistently getting a tougher draw compared to #6.
Rankings of the R1 and R2 opponents respectively for the 'big 4' at RG 2015 :
no.1 seed Djoker : #87 , #55
no.2 seed Fed : #109, #57
no.3 seed Murray : #137, #44
no.6 seed Nadal : #296 , #154
One idea is : After a given round is completed, should they re-draw with whoever is left ?
This way, you wouldn't have the perceived unfairness with the #1 seed consistently getting a tougher draw compared to #6.
Last edited:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Scheduling could be a night mare.
You may have played on day 1 early morning and your new opponent may have played day 2 night or day 1 night and you are drawn to face each other on day 3.
Seems like a terrible idea to be honest. The way the draws are done now is much more fair than what you are suggesting which would involve a lot of personal bias (even if it used computer formulas, the bias would be inherent in the formulas) in determining draws.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Similar threads
