Names, numbers and Nole

First topic message reminder :

LF: I am moving our discussion here.

Legendkillar it is not about discriminating against Nole. The aftermath of their draws on Federer or Nadal's career or Novak's is a mere afterthought to the business of the game. The business of the game favors one or both being in a finals. Compare the ratings between the AO mens final of 2011 with Murray and Nole and compare it to the final this year with Nole and Nadal or to the previous year in 2010 with Fed and murray. You will find 2010 is the highest, 2011 the lowest (the year with murray and nole and no fedal final) and 2012 is the next highest. Fed equals ratings, Nadal equals ratings, Nole equals less than both. So to maximize your chance of one or both reaching finals keep them separate in the draw.


Lets follow the money, Grandslams get paid in new contracts based on avg. ratings over a 3-5 year period that is how negotiations for broadcasts grow. Over a said period you show X ratings you get paid this many millions for exclusive rights in said market. Lets just for argument's sake, and this is actually a reasonable figure the real number is out there but I have to hunt it down. Lets say a Fedal final would give you 30-50 percent boost in ratings over a final with neither one. If you can in a 5 year period help along one fedal final you increase your finals rating by an average of 6-10 percent over 5 years. Based on those higher ratings over 5 years pumped up by a fedal final or two you go out and get a bigger broadcast contract in the negotiations. Plus you have the indirect financial benefit of the increased media attention and coverage for a big slam final with fed and Nadal, the free media will pump the event now and give you even extra brand recognition in the wider business world.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan I don't get your table frankly maybe I am dense it doesn't seem to address the question I am asking.

My table is from 2007-2012 (Toronto), to show that Federer-Djokovic have been in the same and opposite half roughly the same number of times at the outset of the draw. The "(name)" indicates where one of them lost earlier than the designated SF/F.

socal1976 wrote:Here it is in plain speak; in Dubai, Monte Carlo, the olympics, and cincy only 3 top 4 players showed up and every time Djokovic (always ranked in the top 2) got the other big 4 semi. Every single time. AGain another 16 to 1 longshot that comes in serving the financial interests of getting fedal or one of them into the final. Again last year we had till this AO where fed was put into Nadal's half we had 6 slams in a row where Djoko was put in fed's half. That is 64 to 1 longshot that again maximizes the chance of fedal finals and cuts in favor of the financial interests of the tournaments.

The columns which contain 'No Federer' or 'No Djokovic' are when either Djokovic is absent, or Federer is absent. My tables do not address all tournaments where Nadal or Murray are not in the draw. This is your general case. I have addressed a subset of it. See HM's question as well. The list of tournaments where either Federer or Djokovic are not in the draw, I have shown the designated SF and the actual SF and F.

socal1976 wrote:Numbers are wonderful for providing raw data but without applying the mathmatics to real world of people they lack any context. Why are the longshots that favor the pocketbooks of the tournaments and broadcasters the longshots that keep coming in? And no we aren't even talking about longshot any more we are talking about multiple longshots and odd numbers on multiple fronts.

Here is some math for those of you who need it. Money+no oversight=fraud

This rule holds true pretty much every time.

Remember, I am not addressing revenue, sales, but just the draws. I have clearly stated, and IMBL has also suggested a larger scope of investigation, which I do not have the ability to address. Hopefully this answers your post. My research in your/HMs question is ongoing.

Born Slippy has provided one example, of Basel 2011, where Nadal was absent, Federer-Murray were in one half, and Djokovic-Berdych was the other half, and Berdych lost to Nishikori in R1.

Another example of Nadal being absent is

Paris 2011, Djokovic-Ferrer (1-4), Federer-Murray (2-3)

Tsonga v Djokovic w/o
Berdych d Murray
Isner d Ferrer

Tsonga d Isner (SF)
Federer d Berdych (SF)
Federer d Tsonga (F)

Ok thanks it is a bit clearer there with that explanation.

HM Murdoch wrote:Laverfan - phenomenal research! Any chance we could see just the outcomes when Djoko is seeded 1 or 2 and another member of the top 4 is absent? That could pretty much end the debate! (I'd be happy to look it up myself but I know I won't have a chance tonight).

Working on that now. (Just do not want you to feel I am ignoring your request).

socal1976 wrote:Ok thanks it is a bit clearer there with that explanation.

socal

Let's give this purpose as the numbers have had the crap crunched out of them.

In terms of draw rigging, if I am not mistaken in the Masters/Slams Djokovic has drawn more qualifiers this year than anyone else in the top 4. That to me suggests he has been given the 'preferent' treatment you claim he lacks.

Now in a BO5 7 match, how on earth can TV companies and tournament organisers ensure a Fedal final? The answer is they can't. When the USTA go to TV broadcasters they will use the lure of the best players 'competing' at the tournament. If they wanted to guarantee a Fedal final, we would be talking match fixing and not draw rigging. Take when Nadal pulled out of Wimbledon in 2009. Did the organisers cancel the tournament because they couldn't get the Fedal final we all wanted? Of course they didn't. Like I said a Fedal final does not have the lure you think it does. The Australian Open Final this year is what TV companies and sponsors would want. 5 hour gladitorial matches. They are not interested in superb shot making, but watching baseline sluggers rip each other apart in 30 shot rallies and seeing players hands on knees drenched in sweat trying to catch their breath like the spectators watching. That is the future of the game. All this talk of cupcake draws is nonsense. Look at how the draw opened up for Djokovic at Wimbledon. Djokovic has shown great consistency since Federer's decline. From Wimbledon 2011 to French Open 2012 you have Nadovic finals. Nothing in that time has convinced me that the draws conspired against Djokovic. Take Wimbledon. Djokovic finished all his matches on time didn't he. Now as a Murray fan I could cry foul, but I won't. Djokovic plays on the show courts like all top players before and after him. He gets all the benefits of being at the top.

Look at the game as it stands. Federer and Nadal the greatest of this generation. Look at the future. For every Federer you might be lucky enough to see 1 player make it playing his style. For every Nadal you will get 6-7 that would make it playing his style.

The only thing organisers can guarantee is participation of the top players. The end result or desired result is one thing they cannot guarantee.

Of course tournament organisers don't cancel a tournament if a top player doesn't turn up or goes out early. What they do publicly is heavily promote whoever is left in the draw... what they do privately is pull their hair out in frustration.

All the talk of men's tennis never being so good is fueled by a certain two players. To some extent other players have been pulled along on their coat tails. When they do retire many believe that others will just take their place and of course others will win the trophies but I'm yet to be convinced that there is anyone around that can take their place. They will leave a huge vacume...

But no need for gloom yet. Federer hasn't retired yet and Nadal is the same age as Djokovic and Murray.

socal1976 wrote: The money is in having Roger and Rafa in the final, preferrably both, hopefully at least 1. The ratings for finals involving one or both are higher than the ratings of events neither play in the final. hence to maximize your chances of getting the ratings cow of a fedal final you have to keep them on separate halves of the draw. These are series of indpendent decisions from similarly situated people who have the same financial motivations.

Do the ATP run slam draws, or is it the ITF, or are there separate draw committees for (a) ATP tournaments (b) slams (c) the Olympics? The more people involved, the less likely that there is fraud going undiscovered. That's another immutable iron law.

Secondly - these guys are taking a big risk - they might get neither Fed nor Nadal in the final. Maybe the banker over recent years would have been a Fedal SF to ensure a big match towards the end of the tournament and making if far more likely that one of them would be in the final?

So given that Federer and Djokovic will be seeded 1 and 2 respectively, wouldn't it be a strong assumption that they will avoid each other before the final?

If that were the case, then it would mean 2 Slams this year that he has avoided Federer before the final and the difference, again both players have changed seed and ranking. He avoided him in Miami and Indian Wells if my memory serves right.

So lets take 2012

Number of times Fed/Djo drawn each other - 5
Number of times Fed/Djo avoiding each other - 6

So I think it seems the draws have been more than fair.

barrystar wrote:
Do the ATP run slam draws, or is it the ITF, or are there separate draw committees for (a) ATP tournaments (b) slams (c) the Olympics? The more people involved, the less likely that there is fraud going undiscovered. That's another immutable iron law.

ITF is the overall governing body, but TA, FFT, AELTC and USTA actually manage and run the slams.

In terms of draw rigging, if I am not mistaken in the Masters/Slams Djokovic has drawn more qualifiers this year than anyone else in the top 4. That to me suggests he has been given the 'preferent' treatment you claim he lacks.

Wrong I don't think Djoko even cares who is first round opponent is, what I think it has been almost 3 years since he lost in a first round, a harder first round match does not make up for the semi and quarter. That is what I keep telling you guys the working end of the tournament is where the draw matters if you are one of the very top guys. 98 percent of the time they are losing at the semi, quarter, and 4th round stage. So this point in my mind is mute it doesn't matter much one way or the other. It just doesn't enter the calculus really, I mean do you think they care if their first round match is ranked number 80 or 125, there isn't much difference in those two players as a matchup for Djoko either way.

socal1976 wrote:In terms of draw rigging, if I am not mistaken in the Masters/Slams Djokovic has drawn more qualifiers this year than anyone else in the top 4. That to me suggests he has been given the 'preferent' treatment you claim he lacks.

Wrong I don't think Djoko even cares who is first round opponent is, what I think it has been almost 3 years since he lost in a first round, a harder first round match does not make up for the semi and quarter. That is what I keep telling you guys the working end of the tournament is where the draw matters if you are one of the very top guys. 98 percent of the time they are losing at the semi, quarter, and 4th round stage. So this point in my mind is mute it doesn't matter much one way or the other. It just doesn't enter the calculus really, I mean do you think they care if their first round match is ranked number 80 or 125, there isn't much difference in those two players as a matchup for Djoko either way.

Prove I am wrong that Nole hasn't drawn more qualifiers in Masters and Slams this year.

During the Olympics you were bigging up Djokovic having to beat 'world' beaters like Hewitt!

Now in a BO5 7 match, how on earth can TV companies and tournament organisers ensure a Fedal final? The answer is they can't. When the USTA go to TV broadcasters they will use the lure of the best players 'competing' at the tournament. If they wanted to guarantee a Fedal final, we would be talking match fixing and not draw rigging.Legendkillar

Wrong my friend match fixing is dangerous it involves multiple parties, players involved and so forth. Draw tampering requires at best the tacit going along of a couple of guys on committee who we may not even know who these people are. No one has alleged match fixing and generally match fixing is something you can get caught for and has more working parts.

Of course they can't guarantee fedal finals, Djokovic's rise in 2011 put a stop to all that. But let me tell you if they put Rog and Nadal in the same half then they would have no chance at a fedal final. The draw juicing is more subtle, what they are doing is preserving the chance of the fedal final in virtually every slam. Obviously Roger and Rafa don't need that much help making finals anyway, so just preserve the chance of a fedal final, you can't guarantee its outcome, no one is alleging that.

LK don't be obtuse I just addressed your point, no way an easier 1 or 2nd round match makes up for drawing the death semi every time. For the most part it is irrelevant to Djokovic if his first opponent is number 56 or 156. Rosol is an odditiy with what happened to nadal, however the fact of the matter remains it is the semi and quarter draw that really matters for the top top guys. I don't need to prove you right or wrong, I will take your word for it and say you are right and tell you that it doesn't really matter because 99 percent of the time the 1st round opponent does not impact which of the big stars win the title.

socal1976 wrote:Now in a BO5 7 match, how on earth can TV companies and tournament organisers ensure a Fedal final? The answer is they can't. When the USTA go to TV broadcasters they will use the lure of the best players 'competing' at the tournament. If they wanted to guarantee a Fedal final, we would be talking match fixing and not draw rigging.Legendkillar

Wrong my friend match fixing is dangerous it involves multiple parties, players involved and so forth. Draw tampering requires at best the tacit going along of a couple of guys on committee who we may not even know who these people are. No one has alleged match fixing and generally match fixing is something you can get caught for and has more working parts.

Of course they can't guarantee fedal finals, Djokovic's rise in 2011 put a stop to all that. But let me tell you if they put Rog and Nadal in the same half then they would have no chance at a fedal final. The draw juicing is more subtle, what they are doing is preserving the chance of the fedal final in virtually every slam. Obviously Roger and Rafa don't need that much help making finals anyway, so just preserve the chance of a fedal final, you can't guarantee its outcome, no one is alleging that.

This all chances and odds my friend. Federer and Nadal being in different halves of the draw doesn't guarantee a Fedal final. These things are not forever. Like I said the interest in it for me is on the decline. Match fixing or even spot fixing can be difficult for even the trained eye to pick up. Like I said this year Djokovic has avoided Federer more times than actually being paired with him in the tournaments they have competed in. For me this more than proof that draw rigging is a bit far fetched. I don't know what ratio you would expect for Federer and Djokovic on average to meet.

Right now what is important is to get Fedal matches given the current position of both players for tournament organisers.

Well I will have to respectfully disagree. Laverfan that is interesting that 4 special organs handle the slam and the slam draws separate from the regular ITF that even adds more fuel to my speculative ability.

I don't think it is far fetched Legend. There really is no oversight and transparency and we are getting weird longshots. And the precise weird longshots that benefit the financial interests of those making the draws. Of course longshots happen but why are the longshots that protect the TV ratings the longshots that are happening? (ie Isner v. mahut rematch. Djoko v. Fed 15 out of 17 slams, and ie Djoko getting the other big 4 semi when only 3 big 4 guys show up now 5 times in a row. ) Longshots do happen but it is funny that all of them are coming up peachy keen for the TV broadcasters.


PS I won't be posting on this topic after I finish this thread with you and Laverfan because many people are upset by the topic and my posts on the subject, but in fairness this thread was started and questions asked so i will finish the discussion here.

I don't think anyone will mind continuing the debate as long as it remains on this one thread.

If the draw-rigging is so obvious, then surely the players, who are closer to it an us, must be aware of it? If the integrity of the sport is involved, why do they not speak up. To keep quiet would make them all complicit, would it not?

Can you imagine the firestorm if Djokovic said one tenth of the things that I say? Federer fans have absolutely no tolerance of the slightest negative being directed against Federer, his numbers, or his accomplishments. Nadal and Fed fans approximately 90 percent of the world would attack him and he might even get fined and suspended by the same people loading the draws allegedly.

Frankly, this situation is so weird that in later years I wouldn't be surprised if more came up on the issue.

socal1976 wrote:Well I will have to respectfully disagree. Laverfan that is interesting that 4 special organs handle the slam and the slam draws separate from the regular ITF that even adds more fuel to my speculative ability.

It requires a higher degree of collusion when the governing bodies are separate. If it was just a single governing body, it is logistically easier to manipulate. Despite such challenges, collusion among multiple bodies in the commercial/corporate world is common, with a myriad 'price fixing' scandals.

You have every right to disagree.

====

This is a table that tries to answer the question that HM asked, with a caveat. Since this table is based on 'actual' playing activity, not the draws, Lucky Losers (LL) replacing seeds is not tracked in ATP playing activity, but only in the draws. One example is Basel 2011, where Murray was replaced by Chiudinelli (LL) after he withdrew.

Since 2007 (upto 2012 Madrid), this matrix looks at 'actual' played tournaments to see when one of the current Top 4 is missing. Murray became part of the Top 4 in Sep 2008, while Djokovic was in Top 4 around Hamburg 2007, so Murray does not show up in the matrix till London/Queens 2008. (The numbers under each player do have a significance. Let me know if it needs an explanation ). Rest of the table should be easy to follow. The numbers in '()' indicate seeding, not ATP rank. The last column looks at Djokovic or Federer, if they lost earlier then their designated SF.

Tournament	Date	Djokovic	Federer	Murray	Nadal	Draw	Played?
Dubai, U.A.E.	26-Feb-07	112	100		105	Federer-Davydenko (1-3), Nadal-Robredo (2-4)	Federer d Djokovic R3
ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco	15-Apr-07	108	97		102	Federer-Gonzalez (1-4), Nadal-Davydenko (2-3)	Ferrer d Djokovic R3
Roland Garros, France	28-May-07	104	94		98	Federer-Davydenko (1-4), Nadal-Roddick (2-3)	Nadal d Djokovic SF
Wimbledon, Great Britain	25-Jun-07	102	93		96	Federer-Roddick(1-3), Nadal-Djokovic (2-4)	Nadal d Djokovic SF
London / Queen's Club, Great Britain	9-Jun-08	82		80	76	Nadal-Roddick(1-3), Djokovic-Nalbandian(2-4)	Nadal d Djokovic F
Doha, Qatar	5-Jan-09		64	69	67	Nadal-Roddick(1-4), Federer-Murray(2-3)	Murray d Federer SF
Wimbledon, Great Britain	22-Jun-09	57	56	58		Del Potro-Murray(5-3), Federer-Djokovic(2-4)	Haas d Djokovic QF
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco	11-Apr-10	42		46	44	Djokovic-Cilic(1-4), Nadal-Murray(2-3)	Verdasco d Djokovic SF
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain	9-May-10		42	44	42	Federer-Murray(1-3), Nadal-Soderling(2-4)
London / Queen's Club, Great Britain	7-Jun-10	38		42	40	Nadal-Murray(1-3), Djokovic-Roddick(2-4)	Malisse d Djokovic R3
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Paris, France	7-Nov-10	28	32	33		Federer-Murray(1-3), Djokovic-Roddick(2-4)	Llodra d Djokovic R3
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco	10-Apr-11		25	27	26	Nadal-Murray(1-3), Federer-Ferrer(2-4)	Melzer d Federer R4
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Paris, France	7-Nov-11	11	14	13		Djokovic-Ferrer(1-4),Murray-Federer(2-3)	Tsonga d Djokovic W/O
Dubai, U.A.E.	27-Feb-12	8	8	9		Djokovic-Murray(1-3),Federer-Tsonga(2-4)	Murray d Djokovic SF
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco	15-Apr-12	5		6	7	Djokovic-Murray(1-3),Nadal-Tsonga(2-4)	Nadal d Djokovic F
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain	6-May-12	4	5		5	Djokovic-Federer(1-3), Nadal-Tsonga(2-4)	Tipsarevic d Djokovic R4

All data from ATP website, E&OE.

Wow great effort laverfan, I will have to delve into this and give you my thoughts later.

The 'draw' search is being continued, not abandoned.

socal1976 wrote:Can you imagine the firestorm if Djokovic said one tenth of the things that I say? Federer fans have absolutely no tolerance of the slightest negative being directed against Federer, his numbers, or his accomplishments. Nadal and Fed fans approximately 90 percent of the world would attack him and he might even get fined and suspended by the same people loading the draws allegedly.

Frankly, this situation is so weird that in later years I wouldn't be surprised if more came up on the issue.

If Djokovic (or any player) was the guy who cleaned up tennis, he could end up a hero. Sort of, he loved the sport so much, he sacrificed his career for its integrity.

But my main question is - would you say that they all know about it, even the lower ranked players, and just accept it?

My second question is, would those who benefit most - Fed and Rafa - be involved, given they have, as you might say, the opportunity to influence the tournament organisers + motivation + no oversight?

socal1976 wrote:Wow great effort laverfan, I will have to delve into this and give you my thoughts later.

Anything Tennis-related to make posters happy and make them stay.

Fed and Rafa are benefitted the most that is clear. And I would not go so far as saying that everyone knows it and all the players know about it. I think the draw tinkering stuff with higher seeds in semis probably doesn't even get onto the radar of the mid ranking guy fighting it out in qualification.

Incredible effort, Laverfan! I'll need to cogitate on this for a while!

I'm obviously being stupid but I have no idea what the numbers in the player columns are! Can you help me out?!

Laverfan when 3 of the top 4 have shown up over the years what is the split? How many times has Novak gotten the other big 4 guy in the semi, how many times has he been given the clearer easier half?

HM Murdoch wrote:Incredible effort, Laverfan! I'll need to cogitate on this for a while!

Thanks.

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm obviously being stupid but I have no idea what the numbers in the player columns are! Can you help me out?!

I took the playing activity from 2007-2012. The number in the column is the number of tournaments since 2012 up to that specific tournament in reverse chronological order. For example, the Djokovic sequence, using W 2012 (my starting point), is


ID Tournament Date Type Surface DrawSize
1 Wimbledon, Great Britain 25.06.2012 GS Outdoor: Grass Draw: 128
2 Roland Garros, France 27.05.2012 GS Outdoor: Clay Draw: 128
3 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy 13.05.2012 1000 Outdoor: Clay Draw: 56
4 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain 06.05.2012 1000 Outdoor: Clay Draw: 56
5 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco 15.04.2012 1000 Outdoor: Clay Draw: 56
6 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A. 21.03.2012 1000 Outdoor: Hard Draw: 96
7 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A. 08.03.2012 1000 Outdoor: Hard Draw: 96


There was an ulterior motive :p.

Since January 2007, tournaments played by each player are 116 (Djokovic), 101 (Federer), 110 (Murray) and 108 (Nadal). Dividing this by 5 years, the annual average number of tournaments is 23 (Djokovic), 20 (Federer), 22 (Murray), 21 (Nadal).

IIRC, you had mentioned number of tournaments somewhere for 2012, so I wanted to see what was the average in the last five years.

Interesting in that since 2007 Djokovic has played the busiest schedule of all the top 4 guys that is a pretty good sign for his long term durability. Nadal surprisingly with all his injury issues has played in just 8 less tournaments than Novak over the last 5 years. That is another interesting tidbit that is a bit unrelated to what you discussed.

Laverfan, thanks for your efforts with this. It's actually proved very revealing to me.

Firstly, my impression, my gut feeling, before looking at the numbers was that Novak has had a disproportionate numbers of "tougher" draws since ascending to the top of the game i.e. being ranked 1 or 2 and therefore being at the top of the draws.

He moved up to #2 on 21st March 2011 and has been there or above ever since.

Since then, he has entered 6 tournaments where another member of the top 4 was missing.

In the first one (Paris 11) he got the "easier" draw, being paired with the number 4 seed.

In all 5 events since then though (Dubai, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Olympics, Cincy) he has had the "harder" draw, being paired with the number 3.

I'm not going to say this proves a conspiracy, it's too small a population of data. My eyebrows however, were raised beforehand and they remain raised.

Prior to 21st March 2011, Novak was ranked 3 or lower and could only be one of the top 2 seeds if another of the top 4 didn't enter.

This happened on 4 occasions - and in every one of them, Novak got the easier draw!

So, do I see a long-running stitch up? No, the numbers don't suggest that to me at all.

Has he had a bit of a rough deal since becoming a top two player? Yes, I think he has. Bear in mind too, that there have been 6 slams in that time and in 5 of them he has faced the number 3 seed.

Thanks again for pulling all those stats together, Laverfan!

I don't know if you're still around but Summerblues' argument is correct in terms of the selection process. The actual names are immeasurably more helpful than the numbers particularly as until recently Fed and Novak have never both been in the top 2. There are 2^(however many tournaments) possibilities all of which are equally likely. So for those intents and purposes 12 heads in a row is just as suspicious as any given combination of heads and tails. Then when you attach the names to the numbers there's still no reason for any suspicion at first; it's only when you consider the motivations for these combinations, such as popularity and ratings, that you start to wonder why it was this combination that came up.

Yes Murdoch it really is the last two seasons that the draws in terms of Djokovic has as you say caused me to raise the eyebrows. And I will keep my eye on this streak of who gets the extra top 4 guy in the semi from here on out. Right now we know it is 5 times in a row and 5 out of 6 total. Put this together with 6 straight at one point in a row that he got Federer. Two longshots that came both favoring fedal finals and ratings, both longshots come in, how peachy for the TV broadcasters.

Break in the fifth is correct, the whole seeding v. personality distinction is a distinction without a difference. Especially, in light of the fact that the top 3 guys have switched around the top 3 ranking for 2 years and until just 2 weeks ago we never had a configuration where fed and Djoko where in the top 2 without Nadal. Therefore regardless of the seeding of the top 3 players, the percentage chance of Djoko and Fed being drawn together during this period of time has remained a constant 50 percent. Now the US open will be the first grandslam draw since Fed and Djoko are 1 and 2 and the first time that they will have ZERO CHANCE of being drawn in the same semi. For all of the last 5 years really their chance regardless of seeding has been 50 percent.

Federer, at 31 yo, is now considered a 'threat' to a 25 yo Djokovic, who played a 70-6 season in 2011.

Djokovic had a 4-1 h2h in 2011 (3-1 in SFs, 1-0 in Fs) against Federer. Did someone in 2011 have a crystal ball to predict Federer would get #1 back?

Nadal at 25 yo, and Djokovic, who have played 7 finals in 2011, which Nadal lost.

Djokovic v Nadal at AO 2012 (5:53) was called a 'classic' by McEnroe/Gilbert/Cahill.

If Brad Drewett had his head screwed correct, he would try to protect Djokovic-Nadal more than Federer-Nadal based on 2011.

If I were allowed to manipulate the draws in any way, I would put Nadal and Federer together in SFs, and you get both a Fedal and a Nadalovic. It is a win/win for TV/Marketing/Broadcasters.

Who cares if Federer is the GOAT or not?

Now, can we restart this discussion?

Wrong Laverfan the finals on sunday draws more than both semis combined. Namely because it is in a better viewing slot and it is a final. So your analogy does not hold water. A fedal semi doesn't mean the same kind of ratings bump on a friday afternoon as a fedal final on sunday. Again you fail to follow the money. There is no need for collusion among slams or among a large group of people all it needs is for a few relative unknown and unaccountable people to want to make more money when they think no one is watching. That is hardly the kind of thought process that requires an overrarching dark conspiracy.

Wrong Laverfan the finals on sunday draws more than both semis combined. Namely because it is in a better viewing slot and it is a final. So your analogy does not hold water. A fedal semi doesn't mean the same kind of ratings bump on a friday afternoon as a fedal final on sunday. Again you fail to follow the money. There is no need for collusion among slams or among a large group of people all it needs is for a few relative unknown and unaccountable people to want to make more money when they think no one is watching. That is hardly the kind of thought process that requires an overrarching dark conspiracy.

socal1976 wrote:Wrong Laverfan the finals on sunday draws more than both semis combined. Namely because it is in a better viewing slot and it is a final. So your analogy does not hold water.

For the last 4 years, at least, this has not been the case.

USO 2008 (Final played on Monday, 8 Sep 2008)

This was the first time since the 1974 Open, when Billie Jean King beat Evonne Goolagong, that the women's final was not played on the Saturday, and the first time since 1987 that an extra day was required. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_US_Open_(tennis)

USO 2009 (Final played on Monday, 14 Sep 2009)

Originally, it was scheduled to end with the men's singles final match on Sunday, September 13, but due to rain the tournament was extended by one day. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_US_Open_(tennis)

USO 2010 (Final played on Monday, 13 Sep 2010)

The tournament was initially going to finish with Men's Singles final on September 12, but was postponed due to rain on the last day and just before the men's tournament final. In the previous two years the tournament was also postponed because of weather. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_US_Open_(tennis)

USO 2011 (Final played on Monday, 12 Sep 2011)

It began on 29 August and was originally scheduled to end on 11 September, but the men's final was postponed to 12 September due to rain. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_US_Open_(tennis)


Also,

Here are the viewing figures for USO ...

YEAR # AA% SHARE VIEWERS P2+ (in 000’s) WINNERS (WOMEN/MEN)
2006 10 (Excludes Rain Coverage) 2.1 5 2,359 Sharapova/Federer
2006 11 (Includes Rain Coverage) 2.0 5 2,186 Sharapova/Federer
2007 9 1.7 5 1,959 Henin/Federer

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/sports/us-open-historic-television-ratings/

Comparatively, Australian Open 2012 has - The adjusted figure for the Australian Open Men’s final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal was 2.04m viewers, the top show of Week 5. - http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/02/seven-takes-the-trophy-but-nine-nabs-sydney.html

See Wimbledon 2009 for comparison here - http://www.initiative.com/sites/default/files/ViewerTrack_2010.pdf

Here is a comprehensive look by the Beeb - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13809276

socal1976 wrote:A fedal semi doesn't mean the same kind of ratings bump on a friday afternoon as a fedal final on sunday. Again you fail to follow the money.

I will keep my a lookout for 2012 and see how it goes.

socal1976 wrote:There is no need for collusion among slams or among a large group of people all it needs is for a few relative unknown and unaccountable people to want to make more money when they think no one is watching. That is hardly the kind of thought process that requires an overrarching dark conspiracy.

What roles do these people play? Please elaborate.

I don't believe in draw conspiracy theories but I do agree with socal1976 about how important and what a big draw a Federer Nadal US Open final (or any other slam final) would be. It would generate more interest than any other final. The interest it would generate would potentially make far more money than any other final. A Federer Nadal semi is in no way the same thing. How can you have two of the greatest players ever meeting in a semi? This is not as good a product as two of a greatest ever players meeting in a final match.

I don't believe in draw fixing but I do think it's obvious that if draw fixing did take place this is what would be fixed (apart from at Wimbledon maybe when the desired fix by some would be to get Murray in the final against someone outside the top ten...)

hawkeye wrote:I don't believe in draw conspiracy theories but I do agree with socal1976 about how important and what a big draw a Federer Nadal US Open final (or any other slam final) would be. It would generate more interest than any other final. The interest it would generate would potentially make far more money than any other final. A Federer Nadal semi is in no way the same thing. How can you have two of the greatest players ever meeting in a semi? This is not as good a product as two of a greatest ever players meeting in a final match.

IIRC, Borg-McEnroe was also considered two 'greatest players' rivalry.

hawkeye wrote:I don't believe in draw fixing but I do think it's obvious that if draw fixing did take place this is what would be fixed (apart from at Wimbledon maybe when the desired fix by some would be to get Murray in the final against someone outside the top ten...)

Murray getting the schtick. HE. Why?

It's the events in the US that I feel I trust least because the TV coverage of anything there stikes me as particularly low brow and driven by advertising revenue.

The insistence on Super Saturday when it is clearly detrimental to the players is a good example.

We also saw in the Olympics that the Men's 100m was not broadcast live so that advertising revenue could be maximised by showing it when more people would see it. They didn't just show a repeat when more people would see it - they delayed showing the blue riband event of the Olympics at all so that profit could be maximised.

They also cut the 7/7 tribute in the opening ceremony in favour of a Ryan Seacrest interview because they wanted to "tailor it for an American audience".

That's why I have no conceptual problem with the idea that draws could be tailored by US events for what could produce the most money.

They also cut the 7/7 tribute in the opening ceremony in favour of a Ryan Seacrest interview because they wanted to "tailor it for an American audience".

In the same token I don't really care about 9/11 either cause none of my relatives were caught in this. Lets change this topic already.

David Goffin?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:In the same token I don't really care about 9/11 either cause none of my relatives were caught in this. Lets change this topic already.

David Goffin?

I'm not related to David Goffin, so I don't really care about him.

I'll have a cup of Goffin with milk please.

HM Murdoch wrote:It's the events in the US that I feel I trust least because the TV coverage of anything there stikes me as particularly low brow and driven by advertising revenue.

The insistence on Super Saturday when it is clearly detrimental to the players is a good example.

We also saw in the Olympics that the Men's 100m was not broadcast live so that advertising revenue could be maximised by showing it when more people would see it. They didn't just show a repeat when more people would see it - they delayed showing the blue riband event of the Olympics at all so that profit could be maximised.

They also cut the 7/7 tribute in the opening ceremony in favour of a Ryan Seacrest interview because they wanted to "tailor it for an American audience".

IIRC, USO 2012 now has a contingency Monday final.

HM Murdoch wrote:That's why I have no conceptual problem with the idea that draws could be tailored by US events for what could produce the most money.

Producing 'more' money is an exercise in financial forecasting, without a priori knowledge of the outcome. Think of Nadal withdrawing from Miami, or Federer losing to Roddick. As has been stated, the TV revenue 'contracts' are written prior to the events. Unlike influencing the 'stock' market, sport in general, because of it's ties to finance, has become like a 'stock' in a company which the corporate executives may try to influence.

At the Olympics, some Badminton teams were warned, and subsequently expelled due to non-performance. There was no 'direct' revenue link, but secondary and tertiary links always exist in terms of sponorship, etc.

I think of Pink Floyd's Money whenever such discussions come up.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I'll have a cup of Goffin with milk please.

You are milking the Goffin to hide the 'bitterness' of Goffin.

hawkeye wrote:I don't believe in draw conspiracy theories but I do agree with socal1976 about how important and what a big draw a Federer Nadal US Open final (or any other slam final) would be. It would generate more interest than any other final. The interest it would generate would potentially make far more money than any other final. A Federer Nadal semi is in no way the same thing. How can you have two of the greatest players ever meeting in a semi? This is not as good a product as two of a greatest ever players meeting in a final match.

I don't believe in draw fixing but I do think it's obvious that if draw fixing did take place this is what would be fixed (apart from at Wimbledon maybe when the desired fix by some would be to get Murray in the final against someone outside the top ten...)

I don't think that is so anymore - the outcome over bo5 is sadly too predictable now and I think a huge, even enormous majority would expect Nadal to prevail.

It doesn't really matter who the participants are - if matches become too easy to call then some of the excitement surrounding them begins to wane. The organisers are probably thinking that a Murray vs Federer or Federer vs Djokovic is potentially a match with more frisson surrounding it, and a Djokovic vs Nadal epic has the same aura of 'who will triumph' now.

Federer vs Nadal matches may have been the ones everyone wanted to see four years ago, but life and tennis move on and I expect the organisers are only too well aware of that. Their interest will be in securing sponsorship and audiences over the long term, not just this year and so I am sure they will have vested interest in not comprimising the stars of the future, whoever they may be, by fixing draws for a guy in his twilight years and Mr 'will his knees last' Nadal.

time please

Ha ha! Maybe you see "a guy in his twilight years" and Mr "will his knees last" Nadal but maybe because that is what you wish to see. Like it or not these two players carry the mens tour. Both not only possess rare talents but also even rarer charisma. To have two such players playing at the same time and able to compete against each other IMO is the reason why people view men's tennis as in such a healthy state.

Of course fans of other players may wish that their favourite player could take their place and personally not be interested in watching Nadal and Federer. But as Djokovic has shown even having such an amazing year as he did in 2011 wasn't enough to steal attention away from them. In some ways despite all the trophies and being ranked one he still remained in third place. I can understand socal1976's sense of frustration that Djokovic doesn't get the recognition that his achievements should perhaps deserve... It's hard enough winning trophies not everyone can be expected to be able to do it in a way that captures the more general publics imagination.

laverfan

I bet the draw fixers would try and fix a Borg McEnroe final if they could just figure out a way of transforming them back into their twenties...

Like it or not these two players carry the mens tour

That is a rather naive comment. I would agree from 2005-2007 they were the focus point of the tennis world but many of players have since come on to the scene in that time in Djokovic and Murray. Tsonga's stock has certainly risen in the last couple of years too.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Like it or not these two players carry the mens tour

That is a rather naive comment. I would agree from 2005-2007 they were the focus point of the tennis world but many of players have since come on to the scene in that time in Djokovic and Murray. Tsonga's stock has certainly risen in the last couple of years too.

Exactly legend - Tsonga has oodles of charisma and the once a year Wimbledon watchers are waking up to the fact, so I am sure that he commands similar interest all over the globe.

I think most tournament organisers would love to see the hugely popular Jo Willy in a final, and masses of people desperately would like to see Andy Murray land a slam.

Look at how many Nadal fans state that it was 'boring' when Fed dominated in his purple patch. Equally there are many who would love to see someone else triumph at Roland Garros next year and find their interest is not so great as it once was because they are pretty sure they know the outcome already.

Tennis really would be in trouble if its popularity was being shored up solely on the shoulders of Federer and Nadal.

hawkeye wrote: I can understand socal1976's sense of frustration that Djokovic doesn't get the recognition that his achievements should perhaps deserve... It's hard enough winning trophies not everyone can be expected to be able to do it in a way that captures the more general publics imagination.

I'm not sure that the general public's imagination has been captured. It's more that only Fed and Nadal have had a long enough period of success for the public to have heard of them!

The sad truth is that a bog standard Premiership footballer can become famous for not much but a tennis player needs years of success to achieve even a modicum of fame.

I suspect if you asked a member of the British public to name as many tennis players as they can it, it would typically go:
1) Andy Murray
2) Roger Federer
3) Tim Henman
4) Thingy Nadal
5) Oh, what's his name? You know, him with the face.
6) Cliff Richard?

Cliff who?