Draw fixing (hypothesis) at grand slams (2008-2012)

First topic message reminder :

Recently a lot of talk has been done about the possibility of draw fixing at the slams in tennis. It was not only the subject of debate on this site, but also others. The thoughts of the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' were reflected in an interesting study by the Estonian researcher Katarina Pijetlovic in october 2011. Here's the link for who hasn't seen it yet.

http://www.livestream.com/playthegame_dshs/video?clipId=pla_44809e94-aa04-46c7-9f1e-35b212ba9d46

She noticed a strange pattern of Djokovic always landing in Federer's half of the draw at the slams during 2008-2011, with the exception of the French Open (something many posters on this forum had already noticed). Because the French Open showed a healthy pattern she decided to not include it in her study. Her opinion is that the ITF (stimulated by Nike) might fix the draw to increase the chances of getting a Federer-Nadal final. After all those are by far the most popular tennis players in the world. Both sponsored by Nike, who would like a final between the two, as this would mean a lot of advertising.

The omission of the French Open was the main bullet for the opponents of the study to shoot it down and classify it as unstatistical, meaningless, prejudiced. In this article I will try to demonstrate that there was actually no reason to omit the French Open. In my research all slams will be included. Instead of purily looking from a statistical perspective like Katarina Pijetlovic, insight in the dynamics of the recent tennis world will be applied. Our basis assumption is that the ITF and Nike wanted Federer-Nadal finals at the slams. It are the slams that attracts the wider audience. Tennis hadn't always had a wide audience. Many will remember the dark years of the early 2000's, even till 2004, with lot of empty seats at the slams, even in big matches. Tennis wasn't very popular. It was the Federer-Nadal rivalry, hyped into heaven, that really started to attract lots of people. A rivalry that really bursted out in 2006/2007 with consecutive finals the French Open and Wimbledon. There wasn't really much of a problem to get a final back then, with Federer and Nadal at number one and two respectively, so automitically in opposite sides of the draw. There wasn't a single player who could really rival the two. Only at hardcourt slams there was the problem of Nadal not getting to the final, losing to lower players, but this couldn't be helped.

2007 "unfortunately" saw the rise of Novak Djokovic. During the year he got a few wins over Federer and Nadal (all on hardcourts). On clay and at the slams, they still had him very much under control. But he had proven to be the biggest threat so far to their duopoly. The last thing the ITF and Nike wanted, after putting so much effort in promoting Federer and Nadal, was this guy to spoil the party. After all he came from a country that most of the rest of the world looked negatively upon because of what happened there in the 90's, he had a bad haircut, and wore even worse Addidas clothes. They didn't want this guy in the finals instead of the more glamourous looking Federer and Nadal, with the great Nike clothes. What would the fate of tennis be if this guy ever became the top dog.

Djokovic had already made the 2007 US Open final and something had to be done. So from 2008 onwards they started to fix the draw to increase the possibility of a Federer-Nadal final. In the tabel below the slams at which the favourable draw was achieved are marked with a +, when the less favourable draw was achieved there stands a - .

****AO RG W USO

2008 + + + +

2009 + - / +

2010 + + + +

2011 + + + +

2012 - + + ?


This of course needs some explanation. I'll discuss the slams in chronological order.

Period 1: AO08-W09: Djokovic at number three, put in either Federer's or Nadal's half. Federer and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

AO08: It had been three years ago since Federer last failed to make the final of a hardcourt slams. Nadal still hadn't gone beyond the quarters. It was better to not make life even more difficult for Nadal and to put Djokovic in the opposite (Federer's) half. This was successfully done.
RG08: Nadal was practically unbeatable on clay, so better to put Djokovic in his half, as the Serb would certainly get beaten. Again successful.
W08: At this time Federer was still the king of grass and five time defending champion, while Nadal hadn't won a Wimbledon titel yet. Djokovic in Federer's draw. Successful draw.
USO08: Again Djokovic had to be put in Federer's half, as Nadal still hadn't reached a HC slam final yet, and was beaten twice by Djokovic on HC during 2008. Successful.
AO09: Same stuff as in previous hardcourt slams. Successful draw.
RG09: Best would have been Djokovic in Nadal's half like the year before. This time though the opposite happened, first unsuccessful draw.
W09: Makes no part of the study as Nadal didn't play.

Period 2: USO09: Federer number one, Murray number two. Nadal three, Djokovic four.

US09: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Nadal in Murray's half, and Djokovic' in Federer's as a consequence of that. Again the draw was successful.

Period 3: AO10-AO11: Djokovic at number three, put in either Federer's or Nadal's half. Federer and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

AO10: Nadal had been in very bad form for the last six months, losing to most top ten players he faced in that period. Better to make his work a bit easier and put Djokovic in Federer's half. Djokovic had spanked Nadal recently three times in a row and was too dangerous for the Spaniard. Again success.
RG10: Better to put Djokovic in the draw of the unbeatable (on clay) King of Clay Nadal. Success.
W10: Now this was a hard one. Federer hadn't been playing well since the AO that year, while Nadal had cleaned up the clay season. In which half to put Djokovic? Nadal though for the last year hadn't enjoyed success outside of the clay, and had a very poor showing at Queens in 2010. The Bookies made Federer slight favourite for the title, so Djokovic should be in his half. The draw was succesful.
USO10: Federer had showed great form during the US HC summer, in strong contrast with Nadal, and was the big favourite for the title. Djokovic in Federer's half? Yup, achieved.
AO11: While Nadal had been the strongman of 2010, unfortunately just before AO11 he became ill and got bagled by Lacko and spanked by Davydenko in Doha. So Djokovic had to be in Federer's half. Successfully.

Period 4: RG11-RG12: Federer at number three, put in either Djokovic's or Nadal's half. Djokovic and Nadal taking number one and two position (not necessarily in this order), automatically in opposite sides of the draw.

RG11: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. Success.
W11: Same story.
USO11: Same story.
AO12: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. This is the second time though the draw was unsuccesful, as Federer was put in Nadal's half.
RG12: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Federer in Djokovic' half. Success.


Conclusion:

In 17 slams 15 times the favourable draw was achieved. Only twice the unfavourable. Each time the statistical chance to get a certain draw was 50% each for the favourable and the unfavourable. So you would expect a more even division between favourable and unfavourable draws, something like 8/9 or 7/10 or even 6/11. 2/15 looks very suspect. Probably the ITF decided to do twice the unfavourable draw. 17 times the favourable ones would even make the die-hard naysayers grow suspicious. Maybe not accidently the unfavourable AO12 draw was only a few months after Katarina Pijetlovic had proposed her study, when suspicion grew.

Now remains the question of how did they actually fix the draw? It's impossible to find hard proof for this. The number three and four seeds are picked by hand by the defending champion. No video material of this can be found on the internet, which is not the case for lots of other occasions involving tennis. I remember though seeing video material of the draw picking during the news report on TV. I remember for this year's AO seeing Djokovic pick one piece of paper out of (wherever they put it in) to decide which player goes in a certain half of the draw. Now is the question, do they really pick a second time? There are only two players, number 3 and 4 to be handpicked. As soon if one is picked, they know in which half the other has to be. There is no need to pick the second player, and my guess is they don't do it. This though gives the chance to put twice the same number (3 or 4) on the two pieces of paper, without anyone noticing. This way they can choose which player to put in which half of the draw. This corruption can happen without the necessity of the defending champion being part of the fraud.

Thing is socal, I haven't deleted any of your posts for quite a while and actually take care to run everything of yours I have deleted/might delete by the Admins for review, in an attempt not to be biased. With other posters I make my own judgements.
I have deleted a couple of lines from a post, including "The tournament directors have decided that Nadal only has to beat one of the top 3 to win a slam." , which I considered a statement, not an opinion, but the Admins did not advise me to put it back.
I have no idea which post of yours was deleted.
Yes, I think you're a crap poster who can't argue logically or cohesively, who ignores valid counter-arguments and constantly mis-represents others and gets over-emotional, but I take great care not to let that affect my role as a moderator.

Good I am glad you can voice your opinions and I am happy you have a forum to express it. So who exactly freaking deleted my comments if you didn't?

It can be a difficult job moderating at times, and is often a thankless task done in good spirit as a forum member. No poster, moderator or Admin is perfect. I also know from experience that in moderating sometimes people have to err on the side of caution when topics come up that can be contentious (e.g. fixing draws, PEDs, etc).

Socal, I would just urge caution in leaving the site - I dont always agree with your posts, on other things we do agree, but regardless its always good to have a collection of views on here. As long as its all done in good spirit of course! I wouldnt let this current debate get in the way of sharing opinions on the what are going to be a good 14 days of tennis coming up, especially with your guy looking in good form yesterday

lydian wrote:It can be a difficult job moderating at times, and is often a thankless task done in good spirit as a forum member. No poster, moderator or Admin is perfect. I also know from experience that in moderating sometimes people have to err on the side of caution when topics come up that can be contentious (e.g. fixing draws, PEDs, etc).

Socal, I would just urge caution in leaving the site - I dont always agree with your posts, on other things we do agree, but regardless its always good to have a collection of views on here. As long as its all done in good spirit of course! I wouldnt let this current debate get in the way of sharing opinions on the what are going to be a good 14 days of tennis coming up, especially with your guy looking in good form yesterday

Spot on lydian.

Thanks lydian, I am not the type of person to make threats or emotional decisions. But if my contributions to the site after thousands of posts is so little valued that a couple of hundred word post is shown the trash can when most of it was just restating and complimenting arguments already posted by the OP then I won't make much more contributions. I mean this is the first real problem I have had with the moderation of this site but it is serious in my mind. I am the only one muzzled on the issue and if you had a chance to actually read the post you would see it isn't even controversial or actionable.

I was a moderator once and called myself NERO. There was no a messing when I was in charge but unfortunately the server went up in smoke.

Thanks cc. Fair enough socal but I wouldnt generalise that your contributions arent valued. Websites/forums thrive off differences of opinion...my lord these places would be boring if we all agreed, all the time.
We've not agreed on the recent Djokovic/Nadal FO final but its good to have the discussions...driven by a convivial competitive spirit shall we say. Sometimes of course 1 or 2 posters just dont get on and thats difficult to a) moderate and b) sort out between the individuals. Lord knows people saw that Tenez and I were like oil and water, so I'm not trying to be holier than thou either. But I recognise we dont always get along...but usually this only becomes an entrenched position when there is no "give" from one or both sides.

Moderation, like a bass player in a band, is best when you dont really know its there...and sometimes there is a need for it to become more apparent on a contentious area of discussion that comes to the attention of Admin/owners too. I'm sure you would agree moderating isnt an easy task? Maybe your post was fine, etc, I cant comment...but its probably best to put this one down to experience for all concerned and move on to enjoy the tennis at hand. And sure, lets keep debating the draws although we'll not agree on whether they're fixed or not...lol

socal1976 wrote:... I am the only one muzzled on the issue and if you had a chance to actually read the post you would see it isn't even controversial or actionable. ...

I have in fact been muzzled on several occassions but who can blame them

Personally I think that ]this has been removed by the moderators for breach of common sense].

lydian wrote:...my lord these places would be boring if we all agreed, all the time. ...

You see, that right there is our first point of disagreement.

Hey Nore!

Hey lydian!






I think it is nearly time for Wimbledon

Nice post lydian, I don't have a problem with difference of opinion. I just find it funny that others are allowed to make arguments I am not allowed to make. But whatever. The damage is already done. I personally feel like the ATP tour blew a lot of its credibility with me the last couple of years with these draws. I really don't buy their results anymore, in my mind the grandslams have an asteriks by them now. It is sad but no one cares and it will get worse and worse, in my mind the process is no longer credible. The whole event frankly is called into question. The credibility of the entire sport and no one cares just business as usual. Well I have resigned myself I suppose to watching the world wrestling federation of tennis.

Sending me flowers hey? (hope we're opposite sexes, lol)


Aye...looking forward to seeing some balls struck in anger...and hoping we dont have much need for that B&Q product "Sir Cliff Filler"

socal, you know I think you've talked/thought yourself into a corner with this 2008-2012 draw thing. Its hampering your enjoyment of tennis.

Yes I can understand how you feel but I dont agree with the draw fixing. And not just because I'm a Nadal fan either. The run of draws is a weird statistical anomaly when you look at it from a names perspective. But not a seeding position. But as I keep saying when you look at the potential basis/reasons for "fixing" they dont hold any water. The "fixing" argument assumes:

a) Federer-Nadal is best.
Why? Slams are sellouts anyway.

b) Nadal needs to avoid Federer.
No he doesnt. Federer hasnt beaten him since 2007.

c) Nadal needs to avoid Djokovic.
No he doesnt - or certainly didnt before 2011, well after fixing was meant to have started

d) That FO is not important to be added to the calculation.
So, 3 slams rig the draw and 1 doesnt? Why's that? Doesnt make sense.

e) Nadal does better against Murray.
No he doesnt. Since 2007, he has faired worse against Murray than Federer.

f) Djokovic has more to fear from Federer.
No he doesnt. Since 2008 for H2H in slams against Federer its 4-2 for Novak.

g) Djokovic doesnt fear Murray or Nadal.
Wrong...again since 2008 his H2H in slams versus them is 3-3 vs Nadal, and 2-0 Murray (ok good for Djokovic...but they dont meet often in slams, otherwise its 5-5 H2H since 2008 and we saw AO12)

h) The fixing started from 2008.
So why 2008? We're supposed to believe they knew from start of 2008 that Nadal/Federer would THE final to have for the next 4 years - and that Nadal would reach finals of hardcourt slams when he hadnt done so until 2009? Hey? And they continued to fix the draw for a Fedal final even though by 2010 Nadal it was clear Nadal was always beating Federer? By AO09 the rivalry between Federer and Nadal was effectively over. And yet we're to believe they still wanted that final?

i) The slams colluded.
Why would they risk 100 years of heritage? Why would they risk a leak and total discreditment that would wipe their value/income to come...when their value/income is already assured before draws are even made? Sorry, that just doesnt add up.

Summary - there is no reason to put Djokovic up against Federer to get the "dream" final given all this. Its too facile a reason to do it anyway. The slams are bigger than any 1 player/combination. Why would any slam risk their reputation for a player or two who will come and go at peak in 5 years? Why risk that? Besides which, Novak has a better run against Federer than he does against Nadal..so why not fix it to put him against Nadal when he wasnt in top2? His record against Murray is no better than against Federer either.

The bottom line is that there is no reason to put Djokovic against Federer rather than against Nadal or Murray. The facts dont support it.
Socal, I think you've really boxed yourself into a corner with this one due to an anomaly of stats...you need to rethink it.

Evening all.

I just thought I would pop on as I was the one who posted the "libel" statement last night.

I just wanted to clear a few things up.

Firstly, the moderators are always in a no win situation for two reasons:

1. It is a thankless task where there is not always a clear all encompassing resolution.

2. All moderators and admin will look "crap" compared to me.

HAving said all that, both Laverfan and Julius have done a fantastic job in the tennis section. Since there appointments, there have been very few flare ups, which is a credit to both. With regards to your deleted post, I believe Julius in his statement that he didnt delete your post, as he has acted honestly and with integrity since taking up the role. I will check the admin section to see if I can find out what happened to your post (can you confirm that you saw it post on the site and that it wasnt a error in some way).

Although you (and that means everyone) may not agree with the moderators decision at times, they do act in the best interest of the site. In fact, they try and let threads develope well - other sections have far more strict moderation styles.

I would ask you all to support both Laverfan and Julius, even if you disagree with specific decisions - they have never raised any biased decisions within the moderator section of the site and asked for advice if they werent sure on things.

If any one has any specific points they would like to raise with me, then please do so via pm as I dont want the thread derailed anymore. Otherwise I will be accused of rigging the thread in favour of the moderators.

And saying Julius is crap is not libelous. Its slander

Can I just say in all seriousness that laverfan and Julius have done an outstanding job as moderators, really excellent. I especially like how they continue to be valuable posters as well as excellent moderators.

I could only just have done a better job myself. What higher praise could there be than that?

socal1976 wrote:Nice post lydian, I don't have a problem with difference of opinion. I just find it funny that others are allowed to make arguments I am not allowed to make. But whatever. The damage is already done. I personally feel like the ATP tour blew a lot of its credibility with me the last couple of years with these draws. I really don't buy their results anymore, in my mind the grandslams have an asteriks by them now. It is sad but no one cares and it will get worse and worse, in my mind the process is no longer credible. The whole event frankly is called into question. The credibility of the entire sport and no one cares just business as usual. Well I have resigned myself I suppose to watching the world wrestling federation of tennis.

I know, a #1 who feigns exhaustion until leaping ofthe canvas. It's all so contrived!

Asterisked Slams indeed.

socal1976 wrote:I am lawyer for chrissake I know better than any of you

How do you know how many other attorneys and/or lawyers are on the Tennis forum @606v2?

BTW, this same theme (of draw rigging) has been done more than once. Why?

Statistical analysis does not indicate any wrongdoing, you can state your opinion as often as you like, and others will challenge you on your opinions, not on universal facts.

Many have commented on various incarnation of this same theme.

For example, the link in the OP is also the same link in another OP - https://www.606v2.com/t27820-draw-fixing-an-official-study

Even ATP Masters have been studied. - https://www.606v2.com/t30741-draw-fixing-a-real-world-example-masters-series-2005-2012

as have slams - https://www.606v2.com/t28203-draw-fixing-a-real-world-analysis-part-1-the-12-vs-12-question

If a similar article appears before the USO draw, it would be the fourth appearance of this theme.

PS: The self-stated 'basis' of this OP is Our basis assumption is that the ITF and Nike wanted Federer-Nadal finals at the slams.

Fair point Laverfan. But the statistical evidence in my mind is pretty overwhelming. the only critique I hear mathmatically is too fold and they are not really persuasive arguments.

1. Stranger things have happend: Well yes of course even a one in a billion shot will come in one in a billion times

2. The sample is too small: Really well we don't have the luxury of waiting for thousands upon thousands of events for you amateur mathmeticians to complete your results. 6 in a row and 8 out of 9 are weird enough especially when coupled with the oversight issues and lack of transparency involved. couple that with the financial incentives.

So the two main arguments of those arguing for the status quo and against possible draw manipulation aren't really arguments at all. They are just trueism that neither prove or disprove anything.

In one of my comments, I had stated that 15-20 years is the span for a player at the Top level. so ~60 slams is the window of analysis.

Djokovic has been in Top 10 since 2 Apr 2007, so ~5 years, hence roughly 20+ slams. Tom___ analysed 30 slams and you can see his analysis in this thread. Past analyses by Summerblues and others have not proved rigging, but left it open-ended.

In my analysis, I have looked at real-world draws to compare and found similarities with other similar match-ups on ATP and WTA sides.

Being a fan of Djokovic, you can focus on just one player, and perhaps see just a singular viewpoint, but others have suggested looking at the bigger picture. The coin toss analogy has been compared to 1-2,3-4 vs 1-3,2-4 and shown to be balanced.

Where do you think this debate should go? I can sticky this specific incarnation, if the community feels that it should be permanent fixture. Such an approach would contradict the natural life cycle of a topics on 606v2.

NO laverfan, I think we don't need to go to sticky option. As long as people can fairly express their opinions they can just do a thread or call one of the old ones up whenever they like.

@lydian, I will respond to your lengthy critique as I think many of your assumptions are just plain wrong. Have to run now but next time you log in be sure to look at my response to your post on this thread I think it demands a fair response.

Look forward to it socal...debate is what its all about

But answer this - do you REALLY think 3 slams would collude at the same time to start rigging draws to get a FED-NAD final? The slams hadn't been suffering before 2008 so why did they suddenly need to start doing it?

And then, why would AO and USO start rigging FED-NAD draws in 2008 when Nadal had given no hint of getting to a hard court slam final at that point?

Finally, why put Djokovic against Federer in 2008 if they wanted Federer in th final given Novak was a greater threat to Federer at slam HCs than Nadal?

An additional point to observe is that this is the most stable Top 4 in history and prior to 2011 the most stable Top 2. Coupled to that is Djokovic and Murray switching positions quite often through this period with Murray even being #2 in 2009. So doesnt this unique blend of stable top 4 with changing positions within that simply increase the chance of something like the run we have seen being able to happen?

Lydian I agree that I don't think Djokovic would have won that many more slams anyway even if had the different SF combo each time.

Article coming up shortly on this

Also slam finals will always be a sell-out so for draws to be fixed to arrange a Federer v Nadal final does not hold any extra financial benefit. And would Wimbledon not try to 'fix it' for say Andy Murray to 'doctor' a first British win for ages?

Remember as well if you are saying you reckon its a fix then it is a fix for more than just Djokovic. In that case why aren't there bundles more fans of other players up in arms. Plus why just try fixing at semi stages? Why not go the whole hog and do all they can to eliminate Murray and Djokovic from the get go ensuring they get the toughest possible opponents in Rounds 1 through to the semi-finals? After all Federer and Nadal would be a virtually assured final if Djokovic and Murray are eliminated early doors.

As I've said it's what is more likely: a convoluted multi slam conspiracy the motives for which seem shortsighted and naive at best? Or a one in 90 happenstance, which is only one in 90 anyway because the data used has been cherry-picked?

It may be an accurate theory but in it's current state no journal would pick it up

Was it a 'conspiracy' to make Federer play Ancic, a qualifier, in 2002 W, perhaps Sampras wanted another W?

Bastl, a LL himself, played another LL Golovanov and avenged his Swiss compatriot's R1 loss by beating the tricky Sampras, who had AELTC in his pocket, perhaps.

laverfan wrote:Also, despite all these conspiracy theories, W (and AELTC) have yet again, rigged a Federer-Djokovic semifinal. What sheer arrogance!

Broadcasters must be expecting a larger revenue now.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Even ignoring all the inaccuracies I seriously doubt the calculation itself is correct. Eventually I will check it over the w/e if you are interested.......

Much obliged, if you can, pretty please.

The calculation in Tom's article are correct, but imo he gets the wrong set of data to start with. He considers all of the slams in which Fed and Djokovic have played, when he should instead leave out all the slams in which Fed and Nadal were occupaying the first two positions.

In fact the purpose of the alleged rigging was, as I understand it, to produce Fed- Nadal finals to attract attention and sponsors to the game and not Fed-djokovic semis, which would be utter nonsense.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:The calculation in Tom's article are correct, but imo he gets the wrong set of data to start with. He considers all of the slams in which Fed and Djokovic have played, when he should instead leave out all the slams in which Fed and Nadal were occupaying the first two positions.

That is precisely the cherry picking that the Tallinn travesty did by ignoring FO. All data should be considered. Even if Fedal were 1 and 2, it would not guarantee such a final. For example USO 2006.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:In fact the purpose of the alleged rigging was, as I understand it, to produce Fed- Nadal finals to attract attention and sponsors to the game and not Fed-djokovic semis, which would be utter nonsense.

The probability distribution is almost 50% for 1-2,3-4 vs 1-3,2-4, even with 20+ draws. This constant drumming of a conspiracy against Djokovic and the consequent deprivation of slam titles is unnecessary. If Federer- Djokovic semis were rigged, then Nadal-Murray semis were also rigged, but the Murray and Nadal followers rarely make any such allegations and consider it part of the 'luck of the draw'.

Perhaps, LKv2, CC, BanBro, et al. , should start their own conspiracy corner.

Isner v Mahut round 2, what a fix up.

Its like a sideshow having those 2 meet in 3 straight Wimbledons.

...yeah a boring one

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:The calculation in Tom's article are correct, but imo he gets the wrong set of data to start with. He considers all of the slams in which Fed and Djokovic have played, when he should instead leave out all the slams in which Fed and Nadal were occupaying the first two positions.

That is precisely the cherry picking that the Tallinn travesty did by ignoring FO. All data should be considered. Even if Fedal were 1 and 2, it would not guarantee such a final. For example USO 2006.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:In fact the purpose of the alleged rigging was, as I understand it, to produce Fed- Nadal finals to attract attention and sponsors to the game and not Fed-djokovic semis, which would be utter nonsense.

The probability distribution is almost 50% for 1-2,3-4 vs 1-3,2-4, even with 20+ draws. This constant drumming of a conspiracy against Djokovic and the consequent deprivation of slam titles is unnecessary. If Federer- Djokovic semis were rigged, then Nadal-Murray semis were also rigged, but the Murray and Nadal followers rarely make any such allegations and consider it part of the 'luck of the draw'.

Perhaps, LKv2, CC, BanBro, et al. , should start their own conspiracy corner.

I think you'll agree with me that:

a) If the purpose of rigging a draw is to allow for the possibility of a Nadal-Federer final to happen it would be nonsense to rig a draw where Fed and Nadal are in the top 2 spots

b) It doesn't make a lot of sense to rig a draw with the purpose to make Fed-Djoko semis

Either way, as both propositions seem plain obvious at least for me **Debate closed**

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
I think you'll agree with me that:

a) If the purpose of rigging a draw is to allow for the possibility of a Nadal-Federer final to happen it would be nonsense to rig a draw where Fed and Nadal are in the top 2 spots

Possibility vs Guarantee are two completely different situations. There is higher probability of a Fedal final, if they are 1 and 2, but such a probability is not an absolute value of 1.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

b) It doesn't make a lot of sense to rig a draw with the purpose to make Fed-Djoko semis

Either way, as both propositions seem plain obvious at least for me **Debate closed**

It may make sense, if it is to make the passage of Nadal to the final a higher probability event, since Federer had the wherewithal to handle Djokovic, while Nadal was considered immature on HCs, which is Lydian's argument as well. This is what is the usual thrust of the argument.

For example

Djokovic v Nadal H2H...

Clay - 2-12
Hard - 11-5 <-- This surface may need external manipulations to ensure Fedal finals.
Grass - 1-2

Total 14-19

a) Federer-Nadal is best.
Why? Slams are sellouts anyway

Look at the ratings between the 2010 final of fed v. Murray and Djoko v. Murray 2011 AO final. Same tournament one year apart massive difference in ratings. Why because Roger was in final. Who cares if the live event is a sell out. Live tickets are a fraction of the money of global tv and broadcast rights. The live audience at grandslams at most makes up a fraction of the total revenue. So actually ratings spike with fed or Nadal in the final and spike immensely with both in final. And guess what broadcasters and tournament directors know that fact.

b) Nadal needs to avoid Federer.
No he doesnt. Federer hasnt beaten him since 2007.

Be honest here would Nadal rather play Federer or David Ferrer or Murray in a slam. Is Nadal's head to head better against fed or against ferrer or murray. Of course fed is still more dangerous to even Nadal than either of those two players. No Nadal doesn't need to avoid federer he still would prefer to not play Roger in the semi and play murray or the leftovers of murray's quarter. Novak does fear Roger, and Nadal fears Novak in the slams, Novak gets Roger all the time and this IS A HUGE STRUCTURAL BENEFIT FOR NADAL TO HAVE THE EASIER SEMI PRETTY MUCH EVERY TIME.

c) Nadal needs to avoid Djokovic.
No he doesnt - or certainly didnt before 2011, well after fixing was meant to have started


Before 2011, see you look in isolation at just Nadal without looking at the other matchup. Federer prior to 2010 would probably have chosen to play Djoko and avoid murray. Let us remember that Murray before flopping against fed in back to back slam finals was seen as the most dangerous opponent for fed as well after Nadal. At one stage Murray had 3 straight wins against fed and during much of this PERIOD MURRAY HAD A SUPERIOR HEAD TO HEAD AND WAS SEEN AS A MORE DIFFICULT DRAW FOR FED THAN NOVAK. So by giving Novak to Roger they gave Nadal his favorite semi matchup AT THE TIME vs. Andy Murray. And they gave Fed his favored semi matchup Novak as opposed to Andy who had a superior winning record against while Novak up until recently had a much more lopsided head to head.

If there were draw fixing why would every tournament organiser fix the draws - is it the same people that make the draw for all four grand slams or is it different people?

Why don't you address these points lydian and I will do part two of your post which is also in my humble opinion wrong when you get a chance to digest this. If I answered the last few letters the post would get really long so I will wait till you digest this one and give me your opinions.

Nore Staat wrote:If there were draw fixing why would every tournament organiser fix the draws - is it the same people that make the draw for all four grand slams or is it different people?

GOOD THING YOU ASKED NORE STAAT, THIS WILL HELP ME ANSWER LYDIAN'S CRITIQUE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN THE SLAM COMMITTEES. I have never said that the slams were in collusion or there is an overeaching conspiracy. If you took tournament directors and major broadcasters and asked them do they like the possibity of doubling their ratings without ever get caught gilding the lilly because no one would be watching how many of them would just tweak the process a little. Approximately, 80 percent of all businesspeople I know would tinker a little especially if no ones life or safety is at risk and they think it is harmless. Which to them it is and to most people it is, but has been devastatingly difficult obstacle in Djokos career.

First of all socal I am well-nigh certain that TV deals are signed and sealed well in advance of any draws being made so are destined to be screened live whoever makes the final. If you have factual TV viewing figures where more watch a Federer/Nadal final than other finals then I'd like to see them.

Ignoring the final two points I will say what I said in a post late last night - if you feel that their is rigged drawd to create a potential Federer V Nadal final then why are the draws not also made water tight by giving Murray and Djokovic nightmare draws in a bid to see they are knocked out before having the better chance to themselves knock out Federer or Nadal in the semis. I mean all they'd need to do is make sure Djokovic was drawn against players with a good or the best head-to-heads against Djoko and the same goes for Murray but that doesn't happen. WHY?

From a Nadal fan perspective before 2011 I always thought Murray was a bigger threat to Nadal in Slams. His overall H2H was better and Murray had already beaten Nadal in US and AO. Meanwhile Djoko had a terrible abysmal record vs Nadal in slams until 2011.

As for Grand Slams in HC and grass, Nadal probably needed more 'help' than Federer to make Fedal finals, especially on HC. Hence it would have been better to let Nadal have Djokovic surely...? Instead he kept on getting Murray who troubled him a lot more in GS (do I need to get out the H2Hs) in-fact drawing him in the QF at AO!

So Socal I don't know why you are singling out Nadal, this is really unfair.
OK Federer could have benefited as he had a better record against Djokovic compared to Murray, but not really Nadal.

Also do you not think that (if there were draw fixing in the manner you suspect) to arrange a Federer/Nadal final that they'd try a different tact now considering the success rate is so miniscule. I mean they could just settle for a guaranteed semi-final instead with whopping viewing figures (which according to you) would be supremely higher than any other semi match-up so job done and more certain to happen.

socal1976 wrote:Which to them it is and to most people it is, but has been devastatingly difficult obstacle in Djokos career.

It really hasn't.
As my earlier article showed you are right in saying a lot of Djokovic's loss came against Federer in semifinals of HC Grand Slams. Even if he had avoided Fed in those semis he would have lost to him in the final like 2007.

Normally the best player of the fortnight wins the tournament, irrelevant of the draw.
The only time this is not the case is you have a triad of players who match up in such a way there is a triangular series of results. The only example of this I have seen in FO2011 really.

CaledonianCraig wrote:First of all socal I am well-nigh certain that TV deals are signed and sealed well in advance of any draws being made so are destined to be screened live whoever makes the final. If you have factual TV viewing figures where more watch a Federer/Nadal final than other finals then I'd like to see them.

Ignoring the final two points I will say what I said in a post late last night - if you feel that their is rigged drawd to create a potential Federer V Nadal final then why are the draws not also made water tight by giving Murray and Djokovic nightmare draws in a bid to see they are knocked out before having the better chance to themselves knock out Federer or Nadal in the semis. I mean all they'd need to do is make sure Djokovic was drawn against players with a good or the best head-to-heads against Djoko and the same goes for Murray but that doesn't happen. WHY?

Craig I have tried to answer your question by showing you that your basic assumptions about them wanting Djoko or Murray out early isn't right. But you don't want to accept that your assumptions are mistaken. All I can do is lead you to water if you want to or don't want to drink that is your call. There is no smoking gun and if there was I do not have the ability to come into possession of it on my own. The grandslams want the top seeds to make it far but they want a fedal final as well. And they have very limited discretion to abuse, which they somehow manage because there are stated pre-published rules. Also they can't go overboard because they are dealing with rich and powerful athletes who themselves are backed by powerful business interests. Now if this doesn't call into question your assumptions I don't know what will sway you?

Socal ignore these posts I am writing quite a long comment on my thread for you to respond to, point by point.

Edit: On this thread I have presented it in quite a haphazard way

Tom_____ wrote:

Chydremion wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

Chydremion wrote:1) Getting Federer-Djokovic was not always the favourable draw. Often it was, but not always. The point of the draw fixing is not getting Federer-Djokovic, but getting the most favourable draw. Your analysis means nothing. Read my article again.

2) With your statistics you went back to 2005, which is totally irrelevant to this debate, as Djokovic was not a factor then. I'm sure your (statistically still acceptable) result of 66,7% would be far higher (and far less statistically acceptable) if you kept to the period of this debate, 2008-2012.

1)If getting the favourable draw is what you want to analyse, then you have to first define what a favourable draw is in an absolute manner. The way to do this would be to take each draw in turn and define whether it is favourable to a particular player - we would have to fix who that player was and select events where the probability remained constant. You also have to consider that in 2008, who do you say is a factor out of Djoko and Murray for instance given that both scored slam victories over their respective 1 and 2 in that year - the opening post of this thread is quite frankly laughable because the reasoning for a rigged draw alters frequently. For instance the logic used of Djoko getting to the 2007 USO final is then used as and argument for him to be considered a threat, but the following year Murray made the final by beating Nadal and we get we have the following logic applied:

"US09: The only way to get a Federer-Nadal final was to put Nadal in Murray's half, and Djokovic' in Federer's as a consequence of that. Again the draw was successful."

Using logic if you wanted Nadal to get to the USO final you may consider a bad idea to put him in the same half as a Murray who beat him the previous year at the USO. Post 2008 you could then say Murray is also a threat, using the Djoko 2007 logic, yet this is not followed through in the OP and the logic is changed to suit the notion of bias - this is flawed logic.

The problem i can see here is there is a tendancy to bring subjectivity into this by looking in hindsight, when its statistically incorrect to do so. You could equally write another post that came up with reasons why the whole the draw system was rigged against another particular player, or for a different commercial reason, that warps and changes over time. Its poppycok because in reality you have to fix variables and analyse them separately to build up a picture of reality. The overall consensus was that Djoko and Fed have appeared in one half of the draw more often than they should - statistically this can be shown that the draws we have seen still lie within a normal distribution of 50/50 events.

2) statistically its incorrect to consider only 2008 onwards. I would have thought this would be obvious to people, but i'll try to explain again. The reason you cannot start at an arbitrary date is because you would then not be considering what went before it, as quite naturally a streak one way or the other may balance over time you would be focusing only on one period of the test. For example, if you stood tossing a coin all day and decided that during the period where you threw 8 heads in a row the coin had suddenly become biased, whilst ignoring the fact that during the whole day you had a roughly equal number of Heads and Tails throw. If the draws were indeed fair you have to analyse every draw available where the probability of 50/50 existed, otherwise you may skew results unfairly - this is literally what you are doing by asking for only 2008-on to be considered only. You are ignoring the corrective factor provided by pre-2008 draws.

1) Yes Murray might have been a threat at the US Open 2009, but that is irrelevant. If you read my article better you'll understand the only way for a Federer-Nadal final was to put him in Murray's half. Even if Murray was the terminator, they would still have had to place him in Murray's half.

2) It's a bit hard to see a conspiracy without hindsight. You wanted me to predict it beforehand or what?

3) Why start in 2005 when Djokovic was no factor at all? 2008 makes much more sense. Maybe this isn't enough for the statictics, the good thing for draw-riggers is that the sample will never be big enough to have proof, but anyway 2008 is a logical starting point, much more than your 2005.

1) Disagree on relevance, particularly as you say that USO 2009 they put Murray in Nadals half to help Nadal reach the final, when Murray beat him in the USO 2008. You would logically argue Nadal would be hindered no matter who he faced in 2009. At the time Murray had won the previous 2 HC meetings. Djokovic and Nadal had shared the last 2 HC meetings stretching back to 2008. At the 2009 USO, Nadal had Tsonga in his half (who took him out on HC AUS open 2008), Murray (Who took him out USO 2008), Berdych, Monfils & Ferrer (Who beat Nadal at USO 2007). I can't see how anyone could argue Nadals draw was set up for him to reach a Fed final that year if you start picking apart individual draws on their own merit.

You blatantly refuse to understand this. I have already explained it several times and I'll explain it again. At US Open 2009 Nadal was number three, Murray number two so Nadal had to be put in Murray's half. Not to help him reach the final (as you wrongly assume) but because it was the only way to get a Federer-Nadal final. I suppose you still haven't fully understood my article and I'd like to ask you to not respond anymore to my comments before you do. Otherwise we are going nowhere with our little debate. It's like me saying 2+2=4 (=Nadal had to be in Murray's half to have the possibility of a Federer-Nadal final, which you have to agree even if you don't believe in draw-rigging) and you saying 'no, that's not true'.

Also get your facts right. Murray hadn't won their two previous HC meetings. Nadal had won their last HC meeting, crushing Murray at the 2009 Indian Wells final.

lydian wrote:Look forward to it socal...debate is what its all about
Finally, why put Djokovic against Federer in 2008 if they wanted Federer in th final given Novak was a greater threat to Federer at slam HCs than Nadal?

Maybe read the article?

laverfan wrote:In one of my comments, I had stated that 15-20 years is the span for a player at the Top level. so ~60 slams is the window of analysis.

Being a fan of Djokovic, you can focus on just one player, and perhaps see just a singular viewpoint, but others have suggested looking at the bigger picture. The coin toss analogy has been compared to 1-2,3-4 vs 1-3,2-4 and shown to be balanced.

15-20 years career, but only several of those the player is at the top of the game. In this debate only those years are relevant.

The seedings are irrelevant in draw-rigging. It's about the names related to those seedings, but others have already explained that. If 1-2, 3-4 was balanced than I guess it was pretty convenient for draw-riggers that the top players regularly swapped places.

Chydremion wrote:

laverfan wrote:In one of my comments, I had stated that 15-20 years is the span for a player at the Top level. so ~60 slams is the window of analysis.

Being a fan of Djokovic, you can focus on just one player, and perhaps see just a singular viewpoint, but others have suggested looking at the bigger picture. The coin toss analogy has been compared to 1-2,3-4 vs 1-3,2-4 and shown to be balanced.

15-20 years career, but only several of those the player is at the top of the game. In this debate only those years are relevant.

The seedings are irrelevant in draw-rigging. It's about the names related to those seedings, but others have already explained that. If 1-2, 3-4 was balanced than I guess it was pretty convenient for draw-riggers that the top players regularly swapped places.

On one hand you are using the 14 v 16 study, numbers that strengthen your case, while you conveniently ignore the 'balanced' 50/50 split and bring in the names.

I have yet to see an answer from proponents of this theory for

a. why names are more important than seedings. (The convenient case of Nadal being 3 at USO 2009 is being used to berate Tom___ ).
b. why are the events of each slam draw being a 'discrete' event, are now correlated to each other due to 'names' which is directly in contradiction to such being discrete. Are names written on the draw tags at the slams?
c. why there is no Nadal-Murray counterpoint.



I can take all slams between 1973 and 2012 and show that the 1-2,3-4 distribution is statistically sound.

Also, if Djokovic took 5+ years after turning pro and beating Federer at this current career stage, so be it.

I have yet to hear from Rosewall supporters crying foul when Laver beat him with a 79-63 h2h.

Also, Djokovic would have publicly said something, but he is not. He did state his displeasure about 'blue' clay, so why not this subject? Perhaps, he thinks this is irrelevant?

BTW, Murray was #5 at AO 2010, so theoretically, he could have also ended in Federer's half, which could have prevented the Nadal retirement, correct, and resulted in a Fedal final?