Cincinnati Masters Thread

[laverfan]

Mens Singles Draw - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2012/422/mds.pdf

Mens Qualifying Draw - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2012/422/qs.pdf

OoP (Updated Daily) - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2012/422/op.pdf

Live Scores - Guess this is passe now. So here is the Twitter link - http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23cincytennis (Live Scores is available on the ATP Web Site).

Live Streams - Live Score Hunter, Sport Lemon

TV Coverage - Starts Monday.

Cupcake/Pastry/Cakewalk/Strawberries and Cream Draw Discussion - ??? (Let me know and I can update this thread with the 606v2 link).

Daily Schedule.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Scores/schedule.aspx?EventId=422

Center Court

Afternoon @ 12:30pm local - Federer v Djokovic
Afternoon @ NB 4pm local - Li v Kerber

Grandtsand

Afternoon @ 1pm local - Srebotnik/Zheng v Hlavackova/Hradecka
Afternoon @ NB 3pm local - Lindstedt/Tecau v Bhupathi/Bopanna

Match Pick of the Day - Federer v Djokovic

Surprise of the Day (Previous) - Kerber d S Williams

Enjoy!

[Born Slippy]

I'm not going to start a thread but Federer's draw is cup-cake-tastic

[The Special Juan]

Querrey v Melzer again? Federer, Murray and Djokovic have reasonble draws with Murray's being the slightly more difficult of the 3 due to Isner lurking. The real action is with Ferrer's half though; what a horrible draw he could have. Gasquet v Raonic 1st round? Yes please.

[The Special Juan]

And I'm tipping Berdych for another 3rd round exit.

[HM Murdock]

I know this is retreading tired ground but....

4 events this year where one of the top 4 players is missing:

Dubai (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed get #4 seed.

Monte Carlo (Fed absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Nadal gets #4 seed.

Olympics (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed

Cincinatti (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed.

Socal will be having fits! And, in fairness, it is getting a bit silly.

[laverfan]

I know this is retreading tired ground but....

Yes, it is.

4 events this year where one of the top 4 players is missing:

Dubai (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed get #4 seed. 1-3, 2-4

Monte Carlo (Fed absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Nadal gets #4 seed. 1-3, 2-4

Olympics (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed 1-4, 3-2

Cincinatti (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed. 1-4, 3-2

Socal will be having fits! And, in fairness, it is getting a bit silly.

That looks to be 50-50 to me. It is a bit silly to bring this up at every draw, would you agree?

You conveniently forget that Federer became #1 after W 2012, correct?

If you want yourself to be convinced of a conspiracy, there is no one who can stop you. The video cameras are at every corner.

[laverfan]

I'm not going to start a thread but Federer's draw is cup-cake-tastic

So Federer getting Tomic is a cup-cake, but Djokovic getting Tomic is not?

So Federer getting Gasquet is a cup-cake, the SF (and perhaps the Finalist) at Toronto.

So Raonic was considered a test for Murray, but not so much for Federer?

Did Stepanek beat Del Potro at Toronto or not?

I think I should start a thread.

And I have posted slam draws over last 30 years, masters over last 10 years to statistically show that it is balanced.

[Danny_1982]

I totally agree with LF. The only meaningful analysis is how the seeds are drawn, not the players in those seeds.

Anyway, in terms of who is going to win Cincinnati, I've not seen a fat lot of Toronto so don't know how Djokovic is playing. Is he looking good so far?

Fed and Murray both have great momentum after very successful summers, and will fancy their chances. If any of the top 3 really go after it then it'll obviously be one of those that win it. If they are just after a few matches to sharpen up for New York then I would say someone like Ferrer may challenge. He's been in good form all year.

[laverfan]

Danny... I watched Haas-Djokovic last night. Djokovic is tired. Haas took a set off and almost broke Djokovic while serving for the match.

Tipsarevic can be a handful (like WTF). Will Isner get a Masters this time?

[time please]

Djokovic really pushed by Tommy Haas in Toronto - I am not sure I have a great deal of confidence in him closing it out at the moment.

I clicked Fed, but I've changed my mind over last two seconds and I really feel Murray has the momentum going into Cincinnati. I would go for a rested Nadal, but perhaps not on this fast surface.

[Danny_1982]

Thanks LF.

Funny how he's struggling at the moment. I still think he's one good win away from being back to his best though. Momentum can change in one day in tennis, and if he wins Toronto (which he should really) then he'll pick up again.

I hope so because I do love watching Djokovic in top form.

[time please]

just noticed Nadal withdrawn - bit behind with everything this week!!!!

Going to stick with Murray, but watching Del Po with interest!

[laverfan]

just noticed Nadal withdrawn

Nadal has been very withdrawn since Wimbledon. .

Going to stick with Murray, but watching Del Po with interest!

I was hoping Raonic would do something last night, but silly mistakes cost him the first set.

[User 774433]

4 events this year where one of the top 4 players is missing:

Dubai (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed get #4 seed. 1-3, 2-4

Monte Carlo (Fed absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Nadal gets #4 seed. 1-3, 2-4

Olympics (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed 1-4, 3-2

Cincinatti (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed. 1-4, 3-2

Socal will be having fits! And, in fairness, it is getting a bit silly.

That looks to be 50-50 to me. It is a bit silly to bring this up at every draw, would you agree?

You conveniently forget that Federer became #1 after W 2012, correct?

If you want yourself to be convinced of a conspiracy, there is no one who can stop you. The video cameras are at every corner.

Laverfan, once again you're fuelling the conspiracy theory further
I actually don't think such 'rigging' exists at all, but your posts are actually edging me to that side.

Firstly you cannot dismiss all claims as 'conspiracy' and to give your argument a boost. Labelling doesn't change anything. In the last line you talked about 'video cameras at every corner.' What's that got to do with anything? Certainly not much to do with this argument.

Secondly I can go on to my earlier line where I said your posts are persuading me that I am wrong about this. I still think that unless we have solid evidence, i.e. an NOTW style investigation (rather than statistics which unless we have vast data can vary dramatically due to luck) we should not allege or assume anything.
But as you say this argument has happened many times and I have noticed a pattern. Normally Socal (well now HM) points out a semi-final permutation that is being repeated too often. I'll use the 12vs12 thing as an example. The repeating pattern is shown. Then you use the seedings to show balance. But this strengthens the theory, and exposes that maybe there is more to it.
Let's say there are 6 Slams in 2014. Let's just say.
Suppose that the same top 4 *A,B,C,D) remain throughout the year, but they change rankings within the top 4.
Now if they change an even amount of times. Let's say the evil draw committees from Socal's nightmares love Player A to be drawn against C in the semi-finals. The seedings for Player A required to face C are 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 across the 6 Slams. This is an equal split in seedings.
Hence if a certain player vs player combo is wanted it can be done with an equal split in seedings.

This shows that there are two ways of looking at it. Either you can just see the seedings and say that's alright- it makes sense and some player combo will naturally be changed as the rankings does; or if you look at it from the other end you can say they players determine the seeding ratio, rather than the other way around.

Your stats are only showing one side of the story

*Nevertheless would still like to say unless I see solid evidence (not just statistics) I can't buy any theory like this.*

[lydian]

I'm going for Federer/Djokovic final at Cincy. Hard to pick a winner until I see Feds form early on.

Don't be surprised to see Nadal pull out of US Open...if he doesn't play next week at Winston-Salem then can't see him walking cold into USO. After that he might just write the season off...if he has tendinosis (rather than tendinitis) and its bad he may need 6 months for the tendons to properly repair. His doctor post Wimb may have said "look, you need to repair the damage properly, to take a lengthy break, or else you're looking at early retirement". Conjecture I know, and I was dubious about the knee injury to start with, but clearly it's serious to be missing all these events and he'll be getting on for 2 months since he last played in a match.

[laverfan]

IMBL... you need to stop cherry-picking data and manufacturing data. Remember you can get 12 H in a row in theory, so can 12vs12 occur.


PS:

Now if they change an even amount of times. Let's say the evil draw committees from Socal's nightmares love Player A to be drawn against C in the semi-finals. The seedings for Player A required to face C are 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 across the 6 Slams. This is an equal split in seedings.
Hence if a certain player vs player combo is wanted it can be done with an equal split in seedings.

You conveniently manufactured player C changing from seed 3 to 4 an even number of times, and player A a staying at 1, or vice-a-versa. You can also do this with 4 slams. Take the 2012 calendar, take Federer-Djokovic to be player A and C respectively. Start them with some arbitrary ranking points in Jan 2012 so they are 1 and 3. Now create a schedule for both of them and a create a list of w/l titles to show me how this can be done across 4 or 6 slams.

[invisiblecoolers]

I was about to start the so-cal-led cup cake draw and draw rigging to Djoko.

I guess a non top -3 player will win and I wish it be Del Potro or Ferrer.

[Born Slippy]

I'm not going to start a thread but Federer's draw is cup-cake-tastic

So Federer getting Tomic is a cup-cake, but Djokovic getting Tomic is not?

So Federer getting Gasquet is a cup-cake, the SF (and perhaps the Finalist) at Toronto.

So Raonic was considered a test for Murray, but not so much for Federer?

Did Stepanek beat Del Potro at Toronto or not?

I think I should start a thread.

And I have posted slam draws over last 30 years, masters over last 10 years to statistically show that it is balanced.

Huh?

Tomic hasn't got past the second round of any tournament for ages and Fed wouldn't have to play him until round 3. He isn't seeded to get there and he wouldn't be overly difficult if he did.

Raonic is in a completely different quarter, as is Gasquet. Stepanek is a possible QF opponent but also won't get there (and wouldn't be a threat if he did).

Fed's draw is easy, as it has been the last few tournaments. That isn't the same as saying it has been fixed.

[laverfan]

Ah ok, so let us look at QF and before for Djokovic.

By the same token...

Haase/Seppi - Seppi lost to Pospisil at Toronto in R1
Davy/Dolgo - Dolgo lost in R1 despite winning Washington.
Tipsy - Let us see how he does today in the SF.

Federer's draw at OG was considered as well, but he did struggle. Let us see what happens.

I agree the 'draw' fixing thing is just speculation.

[Guest]

Potential Kohlshreiber/Federer 3rd round match which would be very tasty indeed. If Fish can replicate some form could meet Federer in the quarters.

Djokovic has the erratic Dologoplov in his section. I actually fancy Mayer to meet Djokovic in the 3rd round. Tipsarevic has been playing well and with qualifiers and Young in his draw I would think we will see another Serbian showdown.

Murray's draw would normally look straight forward if was fully fit. Potential 2nd round match with the newly in form Querrey, but Querrey for me is not quite there to take out Murray. The draw then becomes quite difficult. Looking at the top section with Del Potro, Haas, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Isner, Troicki, Youzhny. Anyone on their day could come out of that.

Ferrer actually has a good section. Berdych, Nishikori and Simon are out of form. Quite the opportunity.

Looking at the draws and current form and health you would have to say Djokovic starts as favourite just ahead of Federer. I would expect these 2 to make it to the final.

[The Special Juan]

I'll say Ferrer to win the title if Djokovic is exhausted, Federer is a bit off colour and Murray is injured. Ferrer as the World Number 5 is probably the favourite and he's a much better all court player these days than he was in the past. I think Murray will win his quarter though if he's fit enough which hopefully he should be. Obviously Ferrer needs a bit of luck though as his quarter is by far the worst.

[User 774433]

Now if they change an even amount of times. Let's say the evil draw committees from Socal's nightmares love Player A to be drawn against C in the semi-finals. The seedings for Player A required to face C are 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 across the 6 Slams. This is an equal split in seedings.
Hence if a certain player vs player combo is wanted it can be done with an equal split in seedings.

You conveniently manufactured player C changing from seed 3 to 4 an even number of times, and player A a staying at 1, or vice-a-versa. You can also do this with 4 slams. Take the 2012 calendar, take Federer-Djokovic to be player A and C respectively. Start them with some arbitrary ranking points in Jan 2012 so they are 1 and 3. Now create a schedule for both of them and a create a list of w/l titles to show me how this can be done across 4 or 6 slams.

I didn't conveniently manufacture anything- I wa just mirroring the HM's point. Well I used 6 datas, while HM talked of 4.

In this 4 occasions you showed that the split between 1-3 1-4 was 5050. HM showed that Djokovic drew the number 4 player each time. It exactly mirrors what I said.
Vague and meaningless demands aren't changing this fact

[laverfan]

Now if they change an even amount of times. Let's say the evil draw committees from Socal's nightmares love Player A to be drawn against C in the semi-finals. The seedings for Player A required to face C are 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 1-3 1-4 across the 6 Slams. This is an equal split in seedings.
Hence if a certain player vs player combo is wanted it can be done with an equal split in seedings.

You conveniently manufactured player C changing from seed 3 to 4 an even number of times, and player A a staying at 1, or vice-a-versa. You can also do this with 4 slams. Take the 2012 calendar, take Federer-Djokovic to be player A and C respectively. Start them with some arbitrary ranking points in Jan 2012 so they are 1 and 3. Now create a schedule for both of them and a create a list of w/l titles to show me how this can be done across 4 or 6 slams.

I didn't conveniently manufacture anything- I wa just mirroring the HM's point. Well I used 6 datas, while HM talked of 4.

In this 4 occasions you showed that the split between 1-3 1-4 was 5050. HM showed that Djokovic drew the number 4 player each time. It exactly mirrors what I said.
Vague and meaningless demands aren't changing this fact

Why not pick all draws where Djokovic is in Federer's half as an arbitrary data set, and you have a watertight case? Correct?

I guess ATP Tennis stopped between MC and Olympics.

[HM Murdock]

That looks to be 50-50 to me. It is a bit silly to bring this up at every draw, would you agree?

You conveniently forget that Federer became #1 after W 2012, correct?

If you want yourself to be convinced of a conspiracy, there is no one who can stop you. The video cameras are at every corner.

No convenient forgetting of anything. My natural inclination is not toward a conspiracy, I'm just finding the recurring outcome incredibly tedious.

[summerblues]

After we went through the first round of the draw debates, I thought I was done with my contributions - I said what I had to say and there was no point repeating the same thing over and over again. Nevertheless, I find myself itching to make a handful of extra observations:

1. The initial thread started around the Monte Carlo Masters. Since then, Nole has played seven tournaments (incl Cincy next week) and every single time he has been drawn to play #3 seed. I do find it interesting enough to be worth an observation.

2. I have found the debate on this forum to be puzzling in some surprising ways. This has largely been a debate between ardent Nole supporters with a somewhat extraordinary claim and neutrals who got to judge the claim based on presented evidence. With that set up, I would expect that the Nole side - with its inherent interest in one outcome of the debate - would be more likely to create logical errors in order to advance their view and the other side would be relatively impartial.

But it just never felt that way. While I would definitely agree that Nole side was trying to "paint" the picture somewhat favorably, the basic premise of the argument was not altogether baseless.

On the other hand, some of the arguments of the other side were. Specifically, one argument that has gained a lot of traction is that the distinction between "drawing numbers" rather than "drawing names" is important and invalidates the initial claim. I cannot emphasize enough how baseless this argument is. It is entirely irrelevant whether the drawing is done on numbers or names.

So I am now left pondering why it is that the side that in principle should be more open to either outcome of the discussion (not having much vested interest either way) is ultimately the one that resorts to indefensible arguments. I am hoping that it is just because something about probabilities is confusing enough to make them come up with a wrong conclusion. However, at times I almost have a feeling that there is a sizeable proportion of the posters who are to some extent allergic to the very notion that the draws could in principle be rigged and who are thus trying to defend the fairness of the draws for "ideological" rather than logical reasons.

For the record, when we initially had this debate, I said that various data that was presented did not make me convinced the draws were rigged but it was enough to raise my eyebrows. I am still in much the same position, except that my eyebrows are now raised a bit higher due to the draws we have had since then.

PS: I have been quite impressed by IMBL in this discussion (across multiple threads over the last few months). I know he does not think the draws are rigged - and may even have some emotional capital invested in this position - yet he has been very impartial when it came to the logical nitty-gritty of the debate. That is much harder to do than it sounds.

PPS: HMM, you missed Madrid - it is now five (not four) such tournaments.

[laverfan]

No convenient forgetting of anything. My natural inclination is not toward a conspiracy, I'm just finding the recurring outcome incredibly tedious.

Would you care to look at this thread? - https://www.606v2.com/t30741-draw-fixing-a-real-world-example-masters-series-2005-2012

[laverfan]

Qualifying so far...

Falla d C Harrison 63 63
Lu b Gulbis 63 62
Ram d Dimitrov 76(5) 76(3)
Mathieu d Ebden 46 61 75
Levine d Lacko 46 64 63
Rochus d Sock 64 75
Goffin d Russell 64 23 R
Matosevic d Becker 36 63 63
Janowicz d Darcis 63 61
L Mayer d Andreev 63 61
Stakhovsky d Sijsling 63 64

[laverfan]

For the record, when we initially had this debate, I said that various data that was presented did not make me convinced the draws were rigged but it was enough to raise my eyebrows. I am still in much the same position, except that my eyebrows are now raised a bit higher due to the draws we have had since then.

Why?

PS: I have been quite impressed by IMBL in this discussion (across multiple threads over the last few months). I know he does not think the draws are rigged - and may even have some emotional capital invested in this position - yet he has been very impartial when it came to the logical nitty-gritty of the debate. That is much harder to do than it sounds.

I personally would say I am not. . And you are agreeing with an arbitrary collection of numbers to indicate a draw being rigged? Strange.

PPS: HMM, you missed Madrid - it is now five (not four) such tournaments.

The basis for any such debate seems to be based on the postulate that Djokovic has been 'wronged' and somehow has a claim to some redress. Why?

Is it that Federer has the beating of Djokovic, even at the ripe old age of 31 (see W 2012), and is seen as a 'roadblock' to greater Djokovic success.

Did you see the link I had posted on MS 2005-2012?

[summerblues]

Why?

Because over the last few months since the last time I was involved in this debate, Djokovic's SF draws (slams and elsewhere) continued to be harder than what one would expect on average. Mind you, I am not saying anything changed drastically. But if say 4 months ago I would assign probability of x% to the draw rigging, and now y%, than y > x, though not by much.

I personally would say I am not. . And you are agreeing with an arbitrary collection of numbers to indicate a draw being rigged? Strange.

But it is not an arbitrary collection. The collection looks arbitrary if you think of it in terms of numbers but not if you look at it in terms of names. I tried to explain this a few months back, and I will give it another try in the next two posts, but perhaps it is just not easy to see. At the end of the day, I will be fine if we just do not reach consensus on this.

The basis for any such debate seems to be based on the postulate that Djokovic has been 'wronged' and somehow has a claim to some redress. Why?

I will not attempt to answer this one. My interest in this topic is more as a purely mathematical and intellectual exercise, in the end I do not care much whether or not Djokovic was wronged and, if anything, am inclined to think that - even if the draws had indeed been rigged - he did not really lose out by that much.

[laverfan]

Federer v Djokovic

Djokovic as #1 (4 matches) ...

Wimbledon, Great Britain; 25.06.2012; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 1 W 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-3
Roland Garros, France; 27.05.2012; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 1 L 4-6, 5-7, 3-6
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 13.05.2012; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 1 L 2-6, 6-7(4)
US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 29.08.2011; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 1 L 7-6(7), 6-4, 3-6, 2-6, 5-7


Djokovic as #2 (3 matches)...

Roland Garros, France; 22.05.2011; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 2 W 7-6(5), 6-3, 3-6, 7-6(5)
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Shanghai, Shanghai, China; 10.10.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 2 W 7-5, 6-4
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Canada, Toronto, Canada; 09.08.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 2 W 6-1, 3-6, 7-5


Djokovic as #3 (13 matches) ...

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 10.03.2011; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 3-6, 6-3, 2-6
Dubai, U.A.E.; 21.02.2011; 500; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32 F Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 3-6, 3-6
Australian Open, Australia; 17.01.2011; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 6-7(3), 5-7, 4-6
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, London, England; 21.11.2010; WC; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-1, 6-4
Basel, Switzerland; 01.11.2010; 500; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 32 W Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-4, 3-6, 6-1
US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 30.08.2010; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 7-5, 1-6, 7-5, 2-6, 5-7
Basel, Switzerland; 02.11.2009; 500; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 32 F Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 4-6, 6-4, 2-6
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 27.04.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 6-4, 3-6, 3-6
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 25.03.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 6-3, 2-6, 3-6
US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 25.08.2008; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-2
ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; 20.04.2008; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 6-3, 3-2 RET
Australian Open, Australia; 14.01.2008; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 L 5-7, 3-6, 6-7(5)
US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 27.08.2007; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 W Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3 W 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4


Djokovic as #4 (3 matches)...

US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 31.08.2009; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 4 W 7-6(3), 7-5, 7-5
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 16.08.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56 W Novak Djokovic (SRB) 4 W 6-1, 7-5
ATP Masters Series Canada, Montreal, Canada; 05.08.2007; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56 F Novak Djokovic (SRB) 4 L 6-7(2), 6-2, 6-7(2)

Djokovic as non Top-4 (4 matches)

Dubai, U.A.E.; 26.02.2007; CS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32 Q Novak Djokovic (SRB) 14 W 6-3, 6-7(6), 6-3
Australian Open, Australia; 15.01.2007; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 R16 Novak Djokovic (SRB) 15 W 6-2, 7-5, 6-3
SUI v. SCG WG PO, Switzerland; 22.09.2006; DC; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 4 RR Novak Djokovic (SRB) 21 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-3
ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; 17.04.2006; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64 R64 Novak Djokovic (SRB) 67 W 6-3, 2-6, 6-3

[laverfan]

Why?

Because over the last few months since the last time I was involved in this debate, Djokovic's SF draws (slams and elsewhere) continued to be harder than what one would expect on average. Mind you, I am not saying anything changed drastically. But if say 4 months ago I would assign probability of x% to the draw rigging, and now y%, than y > x, though not by much.

Hardness of the draw is again arbitrary. Is playing Darcis harder or Berdych, considering Darcis beat Berdych at OG, but just lost to Janowicz at Cincy qualies. Is playing Rosol harder for Nadal or is Kohlschreiber a harder opponent for Rosol?

I personally would say I am not. . And you are agreeing with an arbitrary collection of numbers to indicate a draw being rigged? Strange.

But it is not an arbitrary collection. The collection looks arbitrary if you think of it in terms of numbers but not if you look at it in terms of names . I tried to explain this a few months back, and I will give it another try in the next two posts, but perhaps it is just not easy to see. At the end of the day, I will be fine if we just do not reach consensus on this.

On the other hand, some of the arguments of the other side were. Specifically, one argument that has gained a lot of traction is that the distinction between "drawing numbers" rather than "drawing names" is important and invalidates the initial claim. I cannot emphasize enough how baseless this argument is. It is entirely irrelevant whether the drawing is done on numbers or names.

Is this a contradiction or are you trying to simplify the explanation? A name is always tied to a number, and is not separable at a given point in time. As the time reference changes that number and name may form other associations. See the previous post. This is also the basic objection to IMBL's hypothesis.

The basis for any such debate seems to be based on the postulate that Djokovic has been 'wronged' and somehow has a claim to some redress. Why?

I will not attempt to answer this one. My interest in this topic is more as a purely mathematical and intellectual exercise, in the end I do not care much whether or not Djokovic was wronged and, if anything, am inclined to think that - even if the draws had indeed been rigged - he did not really lose out by that much.

I agree. Whether he played Federer at SF or F, it is entirely irrelevant to Djokovic winning the title. He would have had to beat two players to win the title anyway.

[summerblues]

LF, some more on patterns (names vs numbers etc):

Say someone tells us they have two numbers - 1 and 2 - in a hat and will be randomly pulling one. Say they repeat this a number of times. Further say we suspect they do not pull these numbers randomly and we have a theory that the next twenty numbers they will pull will go like this: 12211121211222112212. If this set of outcomes indeed happens, that is equally suspicious as if we had predicted twenty "1s" in a row and that happened.

Mathematically, all possible sequences are equivalent and any of them (20 "1s" or otherwise) is equally unlikely. If the experiment is truly random, we should not be able to predict the pattern - the fact that the pattern we predicted does not look "suspicious" per se is irrelevant. What is relevant here is that we were able to - somehow - identify the pattern as "the pattern of interest". If the draws were random, we should not have been able to do so.

Now, 20 draws in a row is actually not strong enough evidence to feel really certain that something is fishy. But it does raise the eyebrows. And 100 draws in a row - for example - would for all practical purposes be pretty close to certainty.

Our tennis draws are similar. Say, if we define our "pattern" as the draw in which Djokovic draws Federer for his SF, and this then say happens 10 times in a row, this is mathematically just as strange as if #1 and #3 seeds were drawn 10 times in a row (and, in reality, it is probably even more suspicious given that if anyone does have an interest in rigging the draws, their interest is much more likely in doing it by names than numbers).

[laverfan]

SB..
I understand the 'patterns' and 'predictability' abstractions.

Can I ask you to take a look at this? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19099777

This is a fixed set of numbers and are being correctly predicted. Does that mean 'randomness' is not meaningful anymore?

1,2,3,4 are fixed set of numbers, as well. If someone predicts 1-3,2-4 will occur for USO, what is the difference between the link I provided and draw 'rigging'.

I also wonder if anyone else wants this thread 'dragged' into such a discussion as the one we are engaged in.

Hopefully, after your second post, this thread can go to Tennis and we can perhaps continue elsewhere.

[summerblues]

...and one more on the same topic from a similar, but somewhat different angle (less mathematical perhaps):

Consider a country tormented by a nasty dragon. Say the dragon demands one person per year (to use as her New Year's Eve dinner) as the tribute from this country.

This country's population is populated by two tribes - A and B. Once a year, the king, who is from tribe A, assigns numbers 1 and 2 to these two tribes. He then randomly pulls a number (1 or 2) from a hat. The tribe whose number is drawn has to provide the victim for the dragon.

The last 40 years, the following numbers were assigned to the tribes:

Tribe A: 1212212112111221221121212211122121122122
Tribe B: 2121121221222112112212121122211212211211

The king has drawn these numbers from his hat: 2121121221222112112212121122211212211211

As a result, the victims were coming from these tribes: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Which of the following better describes your reaction?

(a) Over the last 40 years, 20 1s and 20 2s were drawn, with no obvious pattern, so I see no reason to think anything untoward has been happening.

(b) I suspect this king is not a very fair kind of guy.

[summerblues]

Hopefully, after your second post, this thread can go to Tennis and we can perhaps continue elsewhere.

Fair point, but now I end up owing you some responses. I quite enjoy this geeky stuff so am happy to continue if you are. By the same token, I will not feel tormented until my dying day if I do not get to respond, so it is up to you if you want to continue someplace else or not.

To bring this back to Tennis and Cincy:

prostaff, wherever you are please remember to kick off the Cincy edition of your tour!

[HM Murdock]

The basis for any such debate seems to be based on the postulate that Djokovic has been 'wronged' and somehow has a claim to some redress. Why?

Because there are really only two possibilities:

1) Djokovic is very unlucky to always get the other member of the top 4 when only 3 of them are in a competition.

2) Some degree of manipulation is taking place.

My stance is much like that of summerblues - I'm not crying foul but my eyebrows are raised. The idea that corporate bodies, acting in private, who produce an outcome in which the biggest star in tennis is given a favourable chance of reaching their final (which is televised and draws advertising money), may not be 100% honest is not a preposterous idea to me.

Is it that Federer has the beating of Djokovic, even at the ripe old age of 31 (see W 2012), and is seen as a 'roadblock' to greater Djokovic success.

You like statistics so here's one: since the start of 2011 Fed and Djoko have played 8 times and Fed has lost 6 of them, so let's change the "Fed has the beating of Djokovic" record.

Aside from that, it's irrelevant to the discussion as Fed and Novak have been the top 2 seeds in most of these cases and therefore can't be put in the same half.

[User 774433]

PS: I have been quite impressed by IMBL in this discussion (across multiple threads over the last few months). I know he does not think the draws are rigged - and may even have some emotional capital invested in this position - yet he has been very impartial when it came to the logical nitty-gritty of the debate. That is much harder to do than it sounds.

PPS: HMM, you missed Madrid - it is now five (not four) such tournaments.

Merci SB

This country's population is populated by two tribes - A and B. Once a year, the king, who is from tribe A, assigns numbers 1 and 2 to these two tribes. He then randomly pulls a number (1 or 2) from a hat. The tribe whose number is drawn has to provide the victim for the dragon.

The last 40 years, the following numbers were assigned to the tribes:

Tribe A: 1212212112111221221121212211122121122122
Tribe B: 2121121221222112112212121122211212211211

The king has drawn these numbers from his hat: 2121121221222112112212121122211212211211

As a result, the victims were coming from these tribes: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Which of the following better describes your reaction?

(a) Over the last 40 years, 20 1s and 20 2s were drawn, with no obvious pattern, so I see no reason to think anything untoward has been happening.

(b) I suspect this king is not a very fair kind of guy.

Personally I think that the idea that everyone is against Djokovic is slighty speculative Well, I simply don't think this would be the case. Why would they be against Djokovic?

BUT I think Laverfan's arguement has been flawed. This does not mean I think draw-rigging exists, but you cannot say that if the seedings are equal then it means no suspicion.
My example earlier is a bit like SB's here, except I used players A, B,C,D rather than tribes.
The tribe example of SB is the perfect example of why I think the seedings theory does not deflect anything, unless the conspiracy is that the ATP wanted the 1st seed to play the 3rd seed to always draw in Masters (irrelevant of the names).

[socal1976]

I know this is retreading tired ground but....

4 events this year where one of the top 4 players is missing:

Dubai (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed get #4 seed.

Monte Carlo (Fed absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Nadal gets #4 seed.

Olympics (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed

Cincinatti (Nadal absent)
Djoko gets Murray, Fed gets #4 seed.

Socal will be having fits! And, in fairness, it is getting a bit silly.

Murdoch I really don't know what to say on the subject anymore. I am already adding a multiplier to Novak's slam count in my consideration of the goat list. Not only due to the incredible competition the two greatest players by all accounts in the open era or close to it, but because he has to beat the draw committee as well as Fedal. At this rate his five slams get counted for about 10 slams for a regular champion who didn't have to fight the ALLEGED fix and fedal at the same time.

People can scoff and make their little idiotic jokes all they like the facts are the facts. Out of 17 possible grandslams Novak drew the toughest possible grandslam draw for him 15 out of 17 times. And as you say 4 times this year with 3 out of the top 4 and magically all 4 times Djokovic is the top 2 guy who gets the semi against the other big 4 opponent while his opponent gets a relatively clear half.

I mean they gifted Roger a silver upgrade in the olympics looks like short of hiring Tonya Harding's exhusbhand to whack Novak in the kneecaps with a crowbar and having to watch Novak crumble on the ground and cry "why!" in serbian over and over again there isn't much else they could have done to tilt the number 1 race to Roger. 3 times already this year when it has been Roger, Novak, and Andy they have given Andy to Novak. That alone is like a 500-1000 point bump for the Rog.

It still won't help Novak will win the year end number despite these laughable draws.

[socal1976]

Lets not forget Ian Tiriac's dodgey 1000 point clay court that Roger would have no chance of winning on a real clay court against either Novak or Nadal and certainly not against both.

This year frankly has been the year where tennis has started to descend into pro-wrestling as people bend over backwards to placate and worship at the alter of the Rog. How much protection do these two need to handle one scrawney screech looking guy from serbia, according to some. At least after the draws come out Roger could do the honorable thing and go down and sign a few autographs for his fans in the draw committees that would be a nice way to repay them for these gooey cupcakes.


Its just funny how often I get proven right!!!!!!

[socal1976]

After we went through the first round of the draw debates, I thought I was done with my contributions - I said what I had to say and there was no point repeating the same thing over and over again. Nevertheless, I find myself itching to make a handful of extra observations:

1. The initial thread started around the Monte Carlo Masters. Since then, Nole has played seven tournaments (incl Cincy next week) and every single time he has been drawn to play #3 seed. I do find it interesting enough to be worth an observation.

2. I have found the debate on this forum to be puzzling in some surprising ways. This has largely been a debate between ardent Nole supporters with a somewhat extraordinary claim and neutrals who got to judge the claim based on presented evidence. With that set up, I would expect that the Nole side - with its inherent interest in one outcome of the debate - would be more likely to create logical errors in order to advance their view and the other side would be relatively impartial.

But it just never felt that way. While I would definitely agree that Nole side was trying to "paint" the picture somewhat favorably, the basic premise of the argument was not altogether baseless.

On the other hand, some of the arguments of the other side were. Specifically, one argument that has gained a lot of traction is that the distinction between "drawing numbers" rather than "drawing names" is important and invalidates the initial claim. I cannot emphasize enough how baseless this argument is. It is entirely irrelevant whether the drawing is done on numbers or names.

So I am now left pondering why it is that the side that in principle should be more open to either outcome of the discussion (not having much vested interest either way) is ultimately the one that resorts to indefensible arguments. I am hoping that it is just because something about probabilities is confusing enough to make them come up with a wrong conclusion. However, at times I almost have a feeling that there is a sizeable proportion of the posters who are to some extent allergic to the very notion that the draws could in principle be rigged and who are thus trying to defend the fairness of the draws for "ideological" rather than logical reasons.

For the record, when we initially had this debate, I said that various data that was presented did not make me convinced the draws were rigged but it was enough to raise my eyebrows. I am still in much the same position, except that my eyebrows are now raised a bit higher due to the draws we have had since then.

PS: I have been quite impressed by IMBL in this discussion (across multiple threads over the last few months). I know he does not think the draws are rigged - and may even have some emotional capital invested in this position - yet he has been very impartial when it came to the logical nitty-gritty of the debate. That is much harder to do than it sounds.

PPS: HMM, you missed Madrid - it is now five (not four) such tournaments.

Exceptional post by summerblues, finally someone who steps out of the ideological box as summer called it so eloquently and looked at the actual facts of the argument. Why is that Djoko keeps getting the hardest possible semi draw, why is it that he gets the other big 4 semi when only 3 big 4 members show up now 5 times in a row according to summerblues. The fact of the matter is that the defense that oh longshots happen is not a defense at all. it is bogus logic, by that account if Djokovic drew federer hypothetically 399 times in a row we would all have to turn the other cheek and vomit up the logical pablam of longshots happen. Of course they do that isn't an argument that is a trueism at best and cliche at worst.

Now lets look at the surrounding non-mathematical factors that none of my detractors really ever address. There is no independent regulation of these draws, it is basically the honor system. 2. There is money involved in favorable matchups 3. No oversight, no transparency and money combined are a combination that leads directly to fraud in thousands of other real world scenarios.

So yes longshots do happen, but why is that the longshot that directly benefits the financial interests of the people who make the draws keeps happening? To me that is the more interesting question.

[JuliusHMarx]

I am already adding a multiplier to Novak's slam count in my consideration of the goat list. Not only due to the incredible competition the two greatest players by all accounts in the open era or close to it, but because he has to beat the draw committee as well as Fedal. At this rate his five slams get counted for about 10 slams for a regular champion who didn't have to fight the ALLEGED fix and fedal at the same time.

People can scoff and make their little idiotic jokes all they like the facts are the facts.

But it is a fact that Djoko has won 5 slams, and any attempt to say he is worth more than that is not a fact, it is entirely subjective. There are also no facts to prove that any draw-rigging has taken place. Maybe he got unlucky, but there is no way to quantify luck as a fact. So the question is, do we deal with facts, or do we deal with speculation and subjectivity. And also, do we at least acknowledge which is which?

Where does it then stop - do we have to got back to every slam in the Open Era and re-evaluate it subjectively and try and reach some agreement. Are Borg's FO's worth less because he greatest rival, Connors, didn't show up? Are McEnroe's slams worth less because Borg retired? Do we have to re-examine Sampras' 14 slams to see if he had easier draws than in Agassi's 8 and then divide 14 by 1.3, mulitply 8 by 1.7 and try to match Agassi up with Sampras?

My own view is that if someone is going to big up their favourite player on an entirely subjective basis, they should at least acknowledge that that is what they are doing, and the bias involved, not try to couch it in terms of 'facts' that aren't there, and proclaim it as any sort of truth. That's not what the records books will do.

[User 774433]

I am already adding a multiplier to Novak's slam count in my consideration of the goat list. People can scoff and make their little idiotic jokes all they like the facts are the facts.

If Australian Open was played on clay, (and hence there would have been two clay slams and only one on HC) then Nadal would have way more Grand Slams than Djokovic, even more than Federer.

Djokovic is lucky that out of the 4 slams 50% is played on Hard Court, while only FO is clay.

[User 774433]

PS: I have been quite impressed by IMBL in this discussion (across multiple threads over the last few months). I know he does not think the draws are rigged - and may even have some emotional capital invested in this position - yet he has been very impartial when it came to the logical nitty-gritty of the debate. That is much harder to do than it sounds.

I personally would say I am not. . And you are agreeing with an arbitrary collection of numbers to indicate a draw being rigged? Strange.

I hope you take this comment back Laverfan.
My 'arbitary' data was not there to show that the draws were rigged, in-fact I do not think this is the case as I have said many times.
However it showed that it is possible to have a 'suspicious' set of draws even if they seedings are totally balanced- look at Summer's 'tribe' analogy for an expansion.
But as I have said, unless presented with more hardcore facts, rather than just statistics (and in this case the data is too small to really reach conclusions) I do not think there is draw-rigging.

[JuliusHMarx]

If Australian Open was played on clay, (and hence there would have been two clay slams and only one on HC) then Nadal would have way more Grand Slams than Djokovic, even more than Federer.

Again, that's probable, but not definite. What if 3 were still played on grass, what if one was indoors. That's the problem with speculation - once you start, there's no reason to stop. Speculation can be fun, but no more than that - it can't be turned into fact.

[User 774433]

If Australian Open was played on clay, (and hence there would have been two clay slams and only one on HC) then Nadal would have way more Grand Slams than Djokovic, even more than Federer.

Again, that's probable, but not definite. What if 3 were still played on grass, what if one was indoors. That's the problem with speculation - once you start, there's no reason to stop. Speculation can be fun, but no more than that - it can't be turned into fact.

East. German. Runners.

[JuliusHMarx]

OK - speculation can't be turned into fact by posting it a lot on the internet

[laverfan]

I hope you take this comment back Laverfan.

, No.

This country's population is populated by two tribes - A and B. Once a year, the king, who is from tribe A, assigns numbers 1 and 2 to these two tribes. He then randomly pulls a number (1 or 2) from a hat. The tribe whose number is drawn has to provide the victim for the dragon.

A very convenient 2-tribe example, like the 4/6 slam analogy to fit a theory. Please do this example with 4 tribes. I provided the h2h with Djokovic to illustrate that there is no convenient seeding swap and the tribe example is not valid, but SB and I can continue this, perhaps in a separate thread.

My stance is much like that of summerblues - I'm not crying foul but my eyebrows are raised. The idea that corporate bodies, acting in private, who produce an outcome in which the biggest star in tennis is given a favourable chance of reaching their final (which is televised and draws advertising money), may not be 100% honest is not a preposterous idea to me.

Canas a LL (replacing Waske) beat Federer, twice in a row. Do you know if there was any difference in TV revenues at the two tournaments? Why was the 'draw' not fixed the second time to avoid such a perceived loss of revenue? Slightly off this specific subject, I guess WTA prize money is also obliquely related to TV revenues. I understand a healthy need for questioning, but as JHM says, where does this stop?

I am already adding a multiplier to Novak's slam count in my consideration of the goat list.

. I now know why there is draw 'rigging'. It is all about the GOAT debate.

[lydian]

Isn't everything LF?

[laverfan]

This country's population is populated by two tribes - A and B. Once a year, the king, who is from tribe A, assigns numbers 1 and 2 to these two tribes. He then randomly pulls a number (1 or 2) from a hat. The tribe whose number is drawn has to provide the victim for the dragon.

King = ATP Council
Tribe B = Djokovic
Tribe A = Federer

And the seeding and points of a player and the tournaments that he plays in are also controlled by the ATP. Perhaps ATP draws the Federer and Djokovic personal calendars for the year, since they have an interest in promoting a specific player.

Djokovic has been #1 for 53 weeks, but since he is less marketable, than, say, an aging Federer at 31 yo, he is not given his 'due'.

Am I correct?

[laverfan]

Isn't everything LF?

Which pains me no end, because there is so much to the sport, than a specific player.

If I have to believe 'rigging', I am absolutely horrified that a gentlemanly sport played in all white is no better than Cosa Nostra.

[Sponsored content]