AO Draw (Not Up Yet)

I'll post the draw when it goes up (about midnight on Thursday) but I have one question. If Murray draws Nadal in his half again does that mean it's rigged? Because now Djokovic is seeded first he should get Murray, so if Nadal were to find himself in Murray's half I'd be asking some questions about fairness.

TSC wrote:I'll post the draw when it goes up (about midnight on Thursday) but I have one question. If Murray draws Nadal in his half again does that mean it's rigged? Because now Djokovic is seeded first he should get Murray, so if Nadal were to find himself in Murray's half I'd be asking some questions about fairness.

No it does not - Nos. 3 and 4 are drawn out of a hat and there is no requirement to have 1/4 and 2/3. If you toss a coin you can get longish runs of 'heads' or 'tails'.

Last year Novak defeated Federer in straight sets in the semi-final (7-6, 7-5, 6-4) and defeated Murray in straight sets in the final (6-4, 6-3, 6-2). So I don't think he really cares whose half of the draw he will be in (Federer or Murray).

I think if all four reach the semi-finals, all possible combinations will be interesting match ups.

TSC wrote:I'll post the draw when it goes up (about midnight on Thursday) but I have one question. If Murray draws Nadal in his half again does that mean it's rigged? Because now Djokovic is seeded first he should get Murray, so if Nadal were to find himself in Murray's half I'd be asking some questions about fairness.

With regard to the current stats on Federer and Nadal being drawn in opposite halves of the draw: there have only been four times in recent years where it was possible for Nadal to be drawn in Federers half -
USO 2011, W 2011, FO 2011 where Federer was third seed and
USO 2009, where Nadal was third seed.

In all four draws Federer was placed in Djokovic's half (and not Nadals half). The chances of this happening due purely to chance is 1 out of 16. That is there was a 6% chance only that Federer and Nadal would be drawn in opposite halves in all four of those slams.

If Federer and Nadal are drawn in opposite halves again then the probability of that sequence (five in a row) goes to one chance in 32 (or about 3 %). In normal research it would be justified to conclude that this sequence was NOT due to chance as we would be more than 95% confident that this was the case. Hence we could conclude that it was rigged in some way. In law however we would probably need to be 99% confident or greater that it was not due to chance.

I'd like to see a Fed v Nadal semi and Djoko v Murray.

Nore Staat wrote:

TSC wrote:I'll post the draw when it goes up (about midnight on Thursday) but I have one question. If Murray draws Nadal in his half again does that mean it's rigged? Because now Djokovic is seeded first he should get Murray, so if Nadal were to find himself in Murray's half I'd be asking some questions about fairness.

With regard to the current stats on Federer and Nadal being drawn in opposite halves of the draw: there have only been four times in recent years where it was possible for Nadal to be drawn in Federers half -
USO 2011, W 2011, FO 2011 where Federer was third seed and
USO 2009, where Nadal was third seed.

In all four draws Federer was placed in Djokovic's half (and not Nadals half). The chances of this happening due purely to chance is 1 out of 16. That is there was a 6% chance only that Federer and Nadal would be drawn in opposite halves in all four of those slams.

If Federer and Nadal are drawn in opposite halves again then the probability of that sequence (five in a row) goes to one chance in 32 (or about 3 %). In normal research it would be justified to conclude that this sequence was NOT due to chance as we would be more than 95% confident that this was the case. Hence we could conclude that it was rigged in some way. In law however we would probably need to be 99% confident or greater that it was not due to chance.

The trouble with this argument is that the probability of any given outcome is always 1/2, so the likelihood of No. 3 falling on the same side as No. 1 or No. 2 is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2... ad nauseam. Therefore the chance of any sequence of the 4 draws carried out so far would be 1/16 and the chance of any sequence of 5 draws would still be 1/32. I am not a researcher, but I don't think that a coin showing 'heads' on the first 4 spins would indicate a fix, nor would showing 'heads' on the first 5 spins indicate a fix either.

In any event, for USO 2011 Nadal was 2nd seed not 1st seed, so your sample shows that the draw was 1&3 75% of the time and 2&3 25% of the time.

Nore Staat wrote:If Federer and Nadal are drawn in opposite halves again then the probability of that sequence (five in a row) goes to one chance in 32 (or about 3 %). In normal research it would be justified to conclude that this sequence was NOT due to chance as we would be more than 95% confident that this was the case. Hence we could conclude that it was rigged in some way. In law however we would probably need to be 99% confident or greater that it was not due to chance.

I think you'd need a lot greater chance than 1 in 32 for it to be deemed statistically significant in this case, because the sample size is too small i.e. we're only flipping the coin 5 times. 5 heads out of 5 flips is a lot less convincing than, say 20 heads out of 20 flips, despite both being 100% heads. Thus the standard <0.05 rule (which is somewhat arbitrary anyway) is less applicable.
In any case, you couldn't conclude it was not due to chance, just unlikely to be due to chance.
As this part of the draw is done by pulling numbers out of a hat in front of an audience, usually by a tennis player (Djoko, Rafa, whoever), it is very unlikely to be rigged.

Over the last 8 slams, the number 1 seed has been placed with the number 3 seed on three occasions (AO10, W10 and US11) and with the number 4 seed on five occcasions. You would only have to change one result for this to be an exact 50/50 split, so, given the size of the sample, it doesn't seem an odd set of results.

As the players' rankings have changed though, this has meant that Federer and Djokovic have been in the same half of the draw on seven out of eight occasions. This includes a run of six in a row which is still unbroken! This is a surprising outcome but as the event organisers structure the draw on rank rather than individual, it's difficult to use this as proof of a fix.

Tenez wrote:I'd like to see a Fed v Nadal semi and Djoko v Murray.

I'd love that too, but I have a feeling 2 of top 4 will not make it to semis.

Jahu wrote:

Tenez wrote:I'd like to see a Fed v Nadal semi and Djoko v Murray.

I'd love that too, but I have a feeling 2 of top 4 will not make it to semis.

That coudl be even better!

Except that like you (I guess) I fear for Federer (his back).

I'm hoping for the draw that IMO the AO organisers and unbiased tennis fans want. Federer and Nadal in opposite halves. A bit tough on Federer I know but as long as his back is OK I think he has an excellent chance.

This year no chance that Djoko will be in same Fed half, I'm sure organizers will avoid that. Nadal is non essential to them for AO. Me would like a Fed/Murray final. Djoko/Nadal to lose in semies.

Jahu wrote:This year no chance that Djoko will be in same Fed half, I'm sure organizers will avoid that.

What method would they use to ensure it is avoided?

Jahu wrote:This year no chance that Djoko will be in same Fed half, I'm sure organizers will avoid that. Nadal is non essential to them for AO. Me would like a Fed/Murray final. Djoko/Nadal to lose in semies.

Ha ha! You mean he is "non essential" to you. Just check out the viewing figures for last years final when neither Nadal or Federer made it.

hawkeye wrote:

Jahu wrote:This year no chance that Djoko will be in same Fed half, I'm sure organizers will avoid that. Nadal is non essential to them for AO. Me would like a Fed/Murray final. Djoko/Nadal to lose in semies.

Ha ha! You mean he is "non essential" to you. Just check out the viewing figures for last years final when neither Nadal or Federer made it.

Popularity-wise Djoko is an entirely different proposition now to what he was 12 months ago. His amazing 2011 means that he is firmly established as one of three very big draws in the men's tennis world. I think that the final with least interest now would most likely be Nadal v. Murray because that is probably the least inspiring rivalry to the public at large. Conversely, I believe that there would be little to choose in terms of popular appeal between any permutations of final involving two of Federer, Nadal, and Djoko.

As a Federer fan I don't really see any great advantage in who he draws as his potential SF opponent between Nadal and Djoko if they were all to make their seeding. I think that Djoko is marginally more likely to make the SF than Nadal so in theory being drawn against Nadal would be a marginally better bet for Federer. More likely still in my view is that this may be the first Australian Open since 2004 where Federer will really struggle to make the SF again.

Slightly off topic I suppose but does anyone know which British men are going to try and qualify, and when the qualifying tournament starts?

barrystar

I think you may be underestimating Nadal's appeal and overestimating Djokovics amongst the general public. Nadal like Federer has trancended the sport and for good reason. We here on 606v2 may know how good Djokovic is but many of the general public don't even know who he is.

As a Federer fan have a little belief. Hoping his back is OK and that he avoids Tsonga in the quarters...

hawkeye wrote:barrystar

I think you may be underestimating Nadal's appeal and overestimating Djokovics amongst the general public. Nadal like Federer has trancended the sport and for good reason. We here on 606v2 may know how good Djokovic is but many of the general public don't even know who he is.

As a Federer fan have a little belief. Hoping his back is OK and that he avoids Tsonga in the quarters...

I agree that Nadal and Federer have transcended the sport, don't you think that Djoko has too now? I know I'm a Brit, but the overseas SPOTY is quite an interesting guide and Fed, Nadal, and Djoko have now all won it in each of their 3-slam years. Djoko is also a Laureus nominee - I think he's really captured imaginations away from tennis. The irony may be that it's in part because Federer and Nadal have carried such a torch for tennis - but any non-tennis fan on hearing that Djoko is in a title match will almost certainly know who he is now and that he's the 'real deal'.

barrystar, I think you are right and in some respects I'm an example of it. Prior to 2011 I followed tennis at about the level of a 'general sports fan' i.e. I knew who the big names were, kept an eye out for the slam results, watched a fair bit of Wimbledon and that was about it.

Djokovic's season totally captivated me though and turned me into an avid tennis watcher. I think the thing that enthralled me was, as has been mentioned, Federer and Nadal are legends who have transcended the sport. But suddenly someone ups his game and not only challenges them but pretty much dominates them for an entire season. I think I find the story of the underdog becoming the top man a compelling one and surely I can't be the only person to have responded in this way?

And, although I can only judge by the UK, it seems that Djokovic's profile is much higher now. Magazine covers, winner of SPOTY, hour-long BBC 5Live specials... he's been hard to miss!

On Eurosport recently they were talking about Djokovic. Apparently he was expressing his upset at the US Open that he wasn't getting sponsorship deals anything like Nadal and Federer despite all his achievements in 2011. As recently as the Abu Dhabi exhibition he was "ranked" beneath Nadal and Federer because presumably they wanted to ensure that Nadal and Federer played at least 2 matches.

HM Murdoch

I'm not trying to say Djokovic hasn't captured anyones attention. I'm just talking in general terms.

hawkeye wrote:On Eurosport recently they were talking about Djokovic. Apparently he was expressing his upset at the US Open that he wasn't getting sponsorship deals anything like Nadal and Federer despite all his achievements in 2011. As recently as the Abu Dhabi exhibition he was "ranked" beneath Nadal and Federer because presumably they wanted to ensure that Nadal and Federer played at least 2 matches.
.

I am not surprised and this confirms the star (WWF) system of tennis. It has also something to do with his sponsors too. Had Djoko stayed with Adidas or moved to Nike, he would get a different treatment.

His popularity will improve as he adds some silver.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:On Eurosport recently they were talking about Djokovic. Apparently he was expressing his upset at the US Open that he wasn't getting sponsorship deals anything like Nadal and Federer despite all his achievements in 2011. As recently as the Abu Dhabi exhibition he was "ranked" beneath Nadal and Federer because presumably they wanted to ensure that Nadal and Federer played at least 2 matches.
.

I am not surprised and this confirms the star (WWF) system of tennis. It has also something to do with his sponsors too. Had Djoko stayed with Adidas or moved to Nike, he would get a different treatment.

His popularity will improve as he adds some silver.

I think Djokovic was dropped from Adidas (so they could get Murray?). We don't know if he's been offered a deal with Nike but I doubt it. Or if he has it wasn't a good deal or he would have taken it. The deals come with popularity or potential popularity. Not the other way round. Nationality plays a part too.

Popularity isn't always gained by winning. Ask Sharapova or Davydenko or even Lendl. With Nadal and Federer they have popularity and "silver".

bradman99.94 wrote:Slightly off topic I suppose but does anyone know which British men are going to try and qualify, and when the qualifying tournament starts?

Looks like it'll be just James Ward and the qualies start on Wednesday.

hawkeye wrote:On Eurosport recently they were talking about Djokovic. Apparently he was expressing his upset at the US Open that he wasn't getting sponsorship deals anything like Nadal and Federer despite all his achievements in 2011. As recently as the Abu Dhabi exhibition he was "ranked" beneath Nadal and Federer because presumably they wanted to ensure that Nadal and Federer played at least 2 matches.

HM Murdoch

I'm not trying to say Djokovic hasn't captured anyones attention. I'm just talking in general terms.

Sorry, wasn't picking a fight, my post was intended as a strong agreement with barrystar rather than a big disagreement with you!

I think part of the transcendence of Federer and Nadal is that they are Federer AND Nadal - their rivalry has been a focal point for a long time. I think each increases the other's appeal among the wider public. Djokovic doesn't yet have a clear-cut rivalry. Historically he has been too far behind Fed and Nadal to be a true rival, this year he has been too far ahead for them to be a rival to him. He did have a couple of classics against Fed but Fed is already 'taken' as a rival!

HM Murdoch

No Worries. I certainly didn't think you were "picking a fight".

I agree both Federer and Nadal make each othe stronger. I also think Djokovic is a great player...

Thanks dj, yep just James Ward who is no 31 seed and drawn in Igor Andreev’s section which I would suggest will be tough

For those that are interested…….that’s just me then, the draw is below

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/qs/r1s1.html.

For those who are eagerly awaiting the AO draw on Friday this week, something to comtemplate on: based on the announced seedings, the following pairings are possible from 3R onwards:

SF:
Djokovic/Nadal – Federer/Murray

QF:
Djokovic/Nadal/Federer/Murray – Ferrer/Tsonga/Berdych/Fish

4R:
Djokovic/Nadal/Federer/Murray – Dolgopolov/Monfils/Roddick/Isner

Ferrer/Tsonga/Berdych/Fish – Tipsarevic/Almagro/Del Potro/Simon

3R:
Djokovic/Nadal/Federer/Murray/Dolgopolov/Monfils/Roddick/Isner
– Monaco/Granollers/Chela/Ljubicic/Stepanek/Anderson/Melzer/Bogomolov jr.

Ferrer/Tsonga/Berdych/Fish/Tipsarevic/Almagro/Del Potro/Simon
– Gasquet/Lopez/Troicki/Mayer/Wawrinka/Verdasco/Raonic/Nishikori

A very tough draw for the top 4 (not considering unseeded players) would be:
3R: Ljubicic
4R: Monfils
QF: Del Potro

What do you think would be an easy draw the top 4 players?

Are you sure PS? I can;t see Djoko v Nadal semi. That's impossible.

sorry I should have explained how to read this!

Djokovic/Nadal – Federer/Murray means:

either Djokovic – Federer (and Nadal – Murray)
or Djokovic – Murray (and Nadal – Federer)

thanks for that prostaff, interesting that there don't seem to be many really dangerous opponents for the top 4 in the third round (the next bracket up of R3 opponents looks far more dangerous). An easy draw for the top 4 would probably look something like
Chela - Roddick - Ferrer/Fish

The big 4

Granollers/Monfils/Fish

Outsider

Troicki/Almagro/Nadal

Djokovic/Nadal/Federer/Murray – Dolgopolov/Monfils/Roddick/Isner

Ferrer/Tsonga/Berdych/Fish – Tipsarevic/Almagro/Del Potro/Simon

That's interesting. Does it say the top 4 cannot meet delpotro before teh 1/4F? Lucky them.

Tenez wrote:That's interesting. Does it say the top 4 cannot meet delpotro before teh 1/4F? Lucky them.

That's right. Seeds 1-4 are drawn against 13-16 in the 4th round.
Also a player like Raonic (very dangerous when his serve works!) cannot be up against the top 4 before the QF.

But then there are some dangerous unseeded players like Tomic, Nalbandian, maybe even Hewitt . They could come in R1!

Thanks PS!

Looking fwd to the draw now...

On the subject of probability of draw sequences, this four in a row is even less likely than the Federer-Nadal opposite half sequence: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/poles-apart-radwanska-sisters-threaten-walkout-20120109-1prwq.html

Not this again

LF, why don't you just make a sticky of the original thread by Socal so we can all save ourselves the trouble of going through it again at the next slam?

Some dangerous players possible in early rounds. Would not like to face players like nalbandian, Hewitt (given on Australian soil), tomic, ljubicic, karlovic etc

not biased at all but really hope Conor Niland qualifies for Aussie Open. That would be the third time in a row he has qualified for grand slam singles. come on Ireland ! He missed out so narrowly in Oz last year losing in deciding set of final qualifying round.

slashermcguirk wrote:not biased at all but really hope Conor Niland qualifies for Aussie Open. That would be the third time in a row he has qualified for grand slam singles. come on Ireland ! He missed out so narrowly in Oz last year losing in deciding set of final qualifying round.

Me too - I wanted him to get a wild card for Wimbledon last year but no luck.

Niland has an easier match against Bohli, but Jaziri/Smyczek are relatively tougher. For example, Jaziri played two TB sets and almost took out the Doha winner Tsonga.

hawkeye wrote: As recently as the Abu Dhabi exhibition he was "ranked" beneath Nadal and Federer because presumably they wanted to ensure that Nadal and Federer played at least 2 matches.

I read somewhere that he was effectively 3rd-ranked due to late entry. Also, the top 2 Nadal and Federer got a bye to the semis so played less matches, not more.

I think with Djokovic another factor is that there is a lag time with general sports fans and the wider public who reflect over several years and take time to catch up with who the new number 1 is.

Henman Bill

Yes sometimes there is a "lag time", sometimes players catch the publics eye before any big trophies have been won (Murray?) and sometimes they can have a whole batch and still generate little interest no matter how much time has passed (Lendl?).

I also saw that story about Djokovic being a late entry but it was disproved. It doesn't matter how many matches they played it was obvious that Nadal and Federer were the "big" names for that exhibition not Djokovic. Djokovic should just accept things but there is something in his personality that might make this difficult.

What's your source for "disproved?"

Henman Bill wrote:What's your source for "disproved?"

I'm sorry I can't remember. I saw it being discussed at the time and someone argued that Djokovic entering late was the reason for him not being ranked in front of Federer. A link was provided to show that he hadn't.

BTW Henman Bill. I always admire your thoughtful no nonsense posts.

ok thanks