Draw Fixing: An Official Study

by noleisthebest Mon 16 Apr 2012, 7:09 pm

First topic message reminder :

The link below shows a talk by an Estionian researcher Katarina Pijetlovic, giving an exposition on draw fixing at a Corruption in Sport Symposium in Koln.

Katarina's talk starts at around 13 minutes:

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

She examines the pattern of draws at slam tournaments (French Open was not part of the study) between 2007-2011, drawing the conclusion that ITF organised draw fixing on behalf of Nike seeing that Djokovic fell in Federer's half of the draw statistically virtually impossible 12 out of 12 times.

Roland Garros was not taken into the study as it showed a healthy 50/50 pattern.

Interesting facts, e.g. I didn't know that seeds 3 and 4 are drawn by hand unlike all the other seeds/players that are computer drawn.
Draws are apparently public and televised, but not really accessible anywhere on Youtube.

To me, the most blatant example of draw fixing was the Isner Mahut match played in the first round last year ON COURT 18, just like at the record breaking match the year before!!!

Katarina did the research hoping it would interest sports journalists and encourage them to contact the players and ITF.

So far nothing came out of it.

Have a look with an open mind and share your thoughts.

by lydian Wed 18 Apr 2012, 3:54 pm

Tenez wrote: When discussing Nadal and Sampras with Lydian this is a constant! I have argued for what 5 years with Lydian but those 2 players carry far too much emotion to get a proper admission of facts from Lydian.

He would even go as far as saying Pete and Nadal don;t know what they are talking about if they contradict him. No kidding.

Perhaps you can do me the courtesy of talking to me rather than behind my back in 3rd person. I find your comments as usual somewhat self-satisfying in your perennial pursuit to be the intellectually superior alpha-male of 606v2. You seem to always respond to anyone who doesnt agree with you that they dont know what they're talking about. Talk about arrogance! Its no wonder you like Federer so much....birds of a feather and all that.
Then you say admission of facts. What facts? That the draws are rigged? They're not fact (and there have been plenty of counters - from myself included) but you're talking on this thread like draw rigging is now indeed a fact...and lo and behold anyone who disagrees with you...me, Laverfan, M4C, HB, newballs, etc...we're all told we dont know what we're talking about! Only Tenez as usual gets it! Thank goodness you're here to formulate our thoughts for us thats all I can say...

Anyway...au revoir forum, I really cant abide to reside in the same "space" as this guy. Oh, and Tenez I wont be sending you a personal message like you did me a couple of weeks back asking where else you should join because you didnt like the place anymore...remember? Didnt take you long to come back though did it seen as you're not popular anywhere else Wink

Ciao.

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:03 pm

Tenez you say I have logical flaws but then say nothing that disagrees with anything I said. It seems you misunderstand to be honest. What flaws are you on about? There aren't any.

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:08 pm

Henman Bill wrote:Tenez you say I have logical flaws but then say nothing that disagrees with anything I said. It seems you misunderstand to be honest. What flaws are you on about? There aren't any.

The fact that you are still considering sequences when sequences (the order of which results happen) is irrelevant when considering the chance of a player has to fall in the same draw as another.

Here the oddity is the Djoko/Fed pairing. The question is what are the chance of this happening 12 slams in a row. And you do not seem surprised by pretty low stat. As TA says, if people don't (want to) see it, then there is little we can do.

If you do see like us, you should clearly see the strange stat and not simply strange events happen (which we all agree with).

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:09 pm

Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:
Again, you really don't know what you are talking about I am afraid.

Where is the logic in that statement?

None. Just trust me.

Tenez, do try to stop being such a rude pillock, if you can.

This farce of a study doesn't prove anything about draw rigging in tennis - as has been pointed out the methodology is completely flawed.

by noleisthebest Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:10 pm

reckoner wrote:
Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:
Again, you really don't know what you are talking about I am afraid.

Where is the logic in that statement?

None. Just trust me.

Tenez, do try to stop being such a rude pillock, if you can.

This farce of a study doesn't prove anything about draw rigging in tennis - as has been pointed out the methodology is completely flawed.

NO it hasn't and if you don't like it, just live with it.

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:12 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
reckoner wrote:
Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:
Again, you really don't know what you are talking about I am afraid.

Where is the logic in that statement?

None. Just trust me.

Tenez, do try to stop being such a rude pillock, if you can.

This farce of a study doesn't prove anything about draw rigging in tennis - as has been pointed out the methodology is completely flawed.

NO it hasn't and if you don't like it, just live with it.

It's a rubbish "study"! Live with that, batgirl!

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:19 pm

Nothing will be done in the end, the ITF would admit guilt if they decided to change their drawing prodcedures.

by noleisthebest Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:22 pm

reckoner wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
reckoner wrote:
Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:
Again, you really don't know what you are talking about I am afraid.

Where is the logic in that statement?

None. Just trust me.

Tenez, do try to stop being such a rude pillock, if you can.

This farce of a study doesn't prove anything about draw rigging in tennis - as has been pointed out the methodology is completely flawed.

NO it hasn't and if you don't like it, just live with it.

It's a rubbish "study"! Live with that, batgirl!

BTW, Reckoner, I owe you an apology, it was not you who sent me that PM, it was somebody else. I just saw the name of the message in bold letters (reckoner) and thought it was from you. It was late, and one of my regrettable senior moments Sorry

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:22 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nothing will be done in the end, the ITF would admit guilt if they decided to change their drawing prodcedures.

I think this study may have had an impact already. Knowing it's out there and some have already observed the weird pattern is enough to prevent further happening. If anything, the fact the AO12 was clearly broadcast with Clijters showing everybody how clean they were, etc...

by noleisthebest Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:23 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nothing will be done in the end, the ITF would admit guilt if they decided to change their drawing prodcedures.

so long as the healthy trend continues at RG Whistle

NOt holding my breath though, expecting Isner, Ferrer, Fed, Belucci in Nole's half.

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:24 pm

I'm not sure what procedures could be brought in to prevent rigging in any case. If there's sufficient pecuniary motive it'll happen.

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence but no hard statistical evidence for it provided for it by this "study" or by the cargo cult mathematics on this thread however.

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:26 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nothing will be done in the end, the ITF would admit guilt if they decided to change their drawing prodcedures.

so long as the healthy trend continues at RG

NOt holding my breath though, expecting Isner, Ferrer, Fed, Belucci in Nole's half.

Forgot Dolgo!

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:27 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
reckoner wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
reckoner wrote:
Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:
Again, you really don't know what you are talking about I am afraid.

Where is the logic in that statement?

None. Just trust me.

Tenez, do try to stop being such a rude pillock, if you can.

This farce of a study doesn't prove anything about draw rigging in tennis - as has been pointed out the methodology is completely flawed.

NO it hasn't and if you don't like it, just live with it.

It's a rubbish "study"! Live with that, batgirl!

BTW, Reckoner, I owe you an apology, it was not you who sent me that PM, it was somebody else. I just saw the name of the message in bold letters (reckoner) and thought it was from you. It was late, and one of my regrettable senior moments

Ah ok NITB, well I appreciate that. I'll try not to let our previous clash colour our future exchanges. Draw Fixing: An Official Study - Page 8 732107

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:32 pm

TA....

Lendl vs Wilander (9 matches. 5 in the finals, 4 in the same half)

1988 USO W Mats Wilander (SWE) 4 W 7-5, 6-2, 3-6, 7-6
1987 USO W Mats Wilander (SWE) 3 W 6-7, 6-0, 7-6, 6-4
1987 FO W Mats Wilander (SWE) 4 W 7-5, 6-2, 3-6, 7-6
1985 FO F Mats Wilander (SWE) 4 L 6-3, 4-6, 2-6, 2-6
1984 FO S Mats Wilander (SWE) 4 W 6-3, 6-3, 7-5
1983 AO F Mats Wilander (SWE) 3 L 1-6, 4-6, 4-6
1983 USO Q Mats Wilander (SWE) 5 W 6-4, 6-4, 7-6
1982 USO R16 Mats Wilander (SWE) 11 W 6-2, 6-2, 6-2
1982 FO R16 Mats Wilander (SWE) L 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 2-6

Depending the subjectivity and desire to discard, FO, or opposite halves, calculate the probability and come up with your own 'conspiracy'. Laugh

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:36 pm

The Federer-Soderling sequence of results is the kind of slight oddity that is statistically inevitable given the many tournaments and possible matchups. Just a kind of case of 3 buses inevitably coming at once.

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:37 pm

lydian wrote:
Tenez wrote: When discussing Nadal and Sampras with Lydian this is a constant! I have argued for what 5 years with Lydian but those 2 players carry far too much emotion to get a proper admission of facts from Lydian.

He would even go as far as saying Pete and Nadal don;t know what they are talking about if they contradict him. No kidding.

Perhaps you can do me the courtesy of talking to me rather than behind my back in 3rd person. I find your comments as usual somewhat self-satisfying in your perennial pursuit to be the intellectually superior alpha-male of 606v2. You seem to always respond to anyone who doesnt agree with you that they dont know what they're talking about. Talk about arrogance! Its no wonder you like Federer so much....birds of a feather and all that.
Then you say admission of facts. What facts? That the draws are rigged? They're not fact (and there have been plenty of counters - from myself included) but you're talking on this thread like draw rigging is now indeed a fact...and lo and behold anyone who disagrees with you...me, Laverfan, M4C, HB, newballs, etc...we're all told we dont know what we're talking about! Only Tenez as usual gets it! Thank goodness you're here to formulate our thoughts for us thats all I can say...

Anyway...au revoir forum, I really cant abide to reside in the same "space" as this guy. Oh, and Tenez I wont be sending you a personal message like you did me a couple of weeks back asking where else you should join because you didnt like the place anymore...remember? Didnt take you long to come back though did it seen as you're not popular anywhere else

Ciao.

Please don't tar all federer fans - or indeed Federer with the same brush!

Lydian, this forum would be poorer without your contributions so I do hope you reconsider after some time has passed.

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:41 pm

Tenez wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:Tenez you say I have logical flaws but then say nothing that disagrees with anything I said. It seems you misunderstand to be honest. What flaws are you on about? There aren't any.

The fact that you are still considering sequences when sequences (the order of which results happen) is irrelevant when considering the chance of a player has to fall in the same draw as another.

Here the oddity is the Djoko/Fed pairing. The question is what are the chance of this happening 12 slams in a row. And you do not seem surprised by pretty low stat. As TA says, if people don't (want to) see it, then there is little we can do.

If you do see like us, you should clearly see the strange stat and not simply strange events happen (which we all agree with).

Don't agree that I have any logical flaws considering sequences. I'd prefer to agree to disagree on this one though.

Yes it is an odd coincidence but in my opinion not enough to be complelling evidence of draw fixing (let's agree to disagree on that point as well) and also I think there just isn't enough motive for slam organisers to make the fix (again, you disagree, so let's agree to disagree).

I think you see where I'm going with this. Things could change but to me it looks like everyone has had their say and the thread has run its course.

I suggest we either move on to talk about the US early rounds draws instead, or just wind the thread up?

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:43 pm

reckoner wrote:
lydian wrote:
Anyway...au revoir forum, I really cant abide to reside in the same "space" as this guy. Oh, and Tenez I wont be sending you a personal message like you did me a couple of weeks back asking where else you should join because you didnt like the place anymore...remember? Didnt take you long to come back though did it seen as you're not popular anywhere else

Ciao.

Please don't tar all federer fans - or indeed Federer with the same brush!

Lydian, this forum would be poorer without your contributions so I do hope you reconsider after some time has passed.

I am very

at this as well as furious

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:49 pm

Henman Bill wrote:I suggest we either move on to talk about the US early rounds draws instead, or just wind the thread up?

Right. So what do you make of that USO first draw oddity?

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012, 4:52 pm

Wow you really have turned into Sincere_Analyst, well done.

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:00 pm

Tenez wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:I suggest we either move on to talk about the US early rounds draws instead, or just wind the thread up?

Right. So what do you make of that USO first draw oddity?

You should look for the Socal thread on this subject and continue.

by sportslover Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm

reckoner wrote:Wow you really have turned into Sincere_Analyst, well done.

I think you mean Simple_Analyst, a good poster! - what ever happened to him, was he banned or what?

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:03 pm

Tenez wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:I suggest we either move on to talk about the US early rounds draws instead, or just wind the thread up?

Right. So what do you make of that USO first draw oddity?

I haven't looked at it (much) yet actually. I was hoping someone else could provide the starting point for the discussion and I could join in later tonight or tomorrow. I am working at the moment and pretty busy will be working until at least 6 or 7.

by reckoner Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:04 pm

sportslover wrote:
reckoner wrote:Wow you really have turned into Sincere_Analyst, well done.

I think you mean Simple_Analyst, a good poster! - what ever happened to him, was he banned or what?

No, I meant Sincere_Analyst from 606.

And yeah I think Simple_Analyst was banned, not sure though.

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:04 pm

Laverfan, sorry if I'm being thick but I don't see a recent thread by Socal, was it an older one? Thing it would take me a while to dig through old threads and find it...anyhow, I am shutting down the internet for a while as I've got to finish a job or two at work.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:11 pm

ah excellent, let us now talk of a study that looks somewhat more serious! give me some time to read through the whole article in detail but from some skim-reading this is a brief summary:

1) ESPN calculated average difficulty of R1 opponents for top two seeds at each of the last ten years (11 for Wimbledon). To do this first of all they assigned a ranking rangeing from 1 to 128 for each player in the draw (thus the top ranked player in the draw was given n°1, the lowest ranked 128). For the 96 non seeded players they assigned a difficulty coefficient rangeing from 0.995 for the 33rd ranked player to 0.005 for the 128th (and I suppose varying linearly - though this isn't specified). They then averaged out the difficulty level of the opponents of the top 2 seeds over ten years.

mild criticism: obviously the difficulty coefficient is a very simplified model that doesn't take into account form, surface skill, etc. However, as a first approximation it seems pretty decent and does give you some idea.

2) the findings: are discussed here
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn-analysis-finds-top-seeds-tennis-us-open-had-easier-draw-statistically-likely
skim-reading, it seems the average rank of first round opponents at the Us over ten years was around the 97-98 mark (men and women), whereas the expected value would be around the 80-81 mark. It also seems they did 1000 simulations (of ten years of random draws for the top 2 seeds for men and women at each of the slams). They found the percentage of draws which were as easy (I suppose this means "at least as easy") as the Us Open draws were incredibly low (none for the women, 3 for the men), between 30 and 40% at Wimbledon, and around 70% for the men and above 90% for the women at the remaining two slams.

3) Conclusions: regarding the first result (average first round opponent's difficulty at the US) we have a sample size of fourty (two seeds, ten years, men and women) which is reasonable though still small. The gap to the mean is however quite large (average difference of 18 "ranking" places out of 96 = 0.2). I'm trying to understand the simulations things a bit better. In particular, what do they mean by "percentage of simulations which had as easy first round opponents as the reality". There does however seem to be something in it, certainly regarding the US.

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:33 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LmcCJAb2iM

This Widmaier is so funny. Lying with a straight face. 1 chance in a 1000 and then 3 chance in a 1000 over 10 years!

Are we supposed to believe the programmers of the sorting app left it to chance?

Sure. Some will believe it's luck again.

PLease list your name there so we know who they are:

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 5:35 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:There does however seem to be something in it, certainly regarding the US.

what 1 in 300k? you are generous. Weird things happen you know. Wink

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 18 Apr 2012, 6:01 pm

Tenez wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:There does however seem to be something in it, certainly regarding the US.

what 1 in 300k? you are generous. Weird things happen you know.

what is this "1 in 300k"?

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 6:14 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Tenez wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:There does however seem to be something in it, certainly regarding the US.

what 1 in 300k? you are generous. Weird things happen you know.

what is this "1 in 300k"?

the chance of having the no higher ranked players in the women and men top seeds (1in 1000) AND (3 in 1000). Listen to the guy there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LmcCJAb2iM

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 6:29 pm

MfC...

The issues I have with the USO/ESPN study...

1. Linear scale used to assign ranks of 33-128 are not based on ATP Rankings.

"Those rankings, along with the placements for the 32 seeded players, were used to re-rank the players 1-128 -- the total number of players in a Grand Slam tournament. So if a player was ranked 575th in the ATP rankings and that was the second-worst ranking among all players in the draw, he was re-ranked 127th."

2. The 'Table A' and 'Table B' shows ONLY USO. Why not show the other slams for relative comparison?

3. Said Dr. Swift: "Their argument that 10 years of data is not a big enough sample size is invalid."

Compare this to 12vs12 data points and you can see that the 12vs12 is a 'sham'.

PS: That finding didn't surprise Scoville Jenkins, who in 2004 was ranked 1,433rd in the ATP singles rankings when he scored a wild-card entry into the U.S. Open. That made him the lowest-ranked player among the 128 entries in the men's tennis tournament.

How can this player be assigned a relative rank of 128 and the corresponding degree of difficulty be the same as say Baghdatis (a qualifier in 2004) who was ranked #237 by ATP - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=23.08.2004&r=201&c=#

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 6:49 pm

laverfan wrote:MfC...

The issues I have with the USO/ESPN study...

1. Linear scale used to assign ranks of 33-128 are not based on ATP Rankings.

"Those rankings, along with the placements for the 32 seeded players, were used to re-rank the players 1-128 -- the total number of players in a Grand Slam tournament. So if a player was ranked 575th in the ATP rankings and that was the second-worst ranking among all players in the draw, he was re-ranked 127th."

2. The 'Table A' and 'Table B' shows ONLY USO. Why not show the other slams for relative comparison?

3. Said Dr. Swift: "Their argument that 10 years of data is not a big enough sample size is invalid."

Compare this to 12vs12 data points and you can see that the 12vs12 is a 'sham'.

Prophets would get a hard times with your kind! I can imagine Moses opening the Red see in front of your eyes and you woudl just look at it with dead eyes explaining that the moon's gravity forces can do just that every 10 million years. Draw Fixing: An Official Study - Page 8 1347041234

Draw Fixing: An Official Study - Page 8 1347041234

by newballs Wed 18 Apr 2012, 6:52 pm

MfC certainly this study does put together a compelling argument that there's something fishy with the US Open draws.

Although it appears that the US draws are (shall we say) more liable to throw up easy matches for the top seeds in their first rounds than the other slams when was the last time you thought "wow that's a potential banana skin" in any of the slam first round matches.

The only one that springs to mind for me - and in fact the player in question lost - was when Hewitt as defending champion got Karlovic in the opening match at Wimbledon way back when a decade ago.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 18 Apr 2012, 7:02 pm

Tenez wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Tenez wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:There does however seem to be something in it, certainly regarding the US.

what 1 in 300k? you are generous. Weird things happen you know.

what is this "1 in 300k"?

the chance of having the no higher ranked players in the women and men top seeds (1in 1000) AND (3 in 1000). Listen to the guy there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LmcCJAb2iM

that's empirical, right? based on the simulations. So if we're being technical it's not really a probability. Having said that, using the theory of large deviations I'm sure you can find decent bounds for the probability of both men and women's top seeds average first round opponent over the last ten years being "ranked" above 95 say. Anyone?

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 18 Apr 2012, 7:05 pm

laverfan wrote:MfC...

The issues I have with the USO/ESPN study...

1. Linear scale used to assign ranks of 33-128 are not based on ATP Rankings.

"Those rankings, along with the placements for the 32 seeded players, were used to re-rank the players 1-128 -- the total number of players in a Grand Slam tournament. So if a player was ranked 575th in the ATP rankings and that was the second-worst ranking among all players in the draw, he was re-ranked 127th."

2. The 'Table A' and 'Table B' shows ONLY USO. Why not show the other slams for relative comparison?

3. Said Dr. Swift: "Their argument that 10 years of data is not a big enough sample size is invalid."

Compare this to 12vs12 data points and you can see that the 12vs12 is a 'sham'.

PS: That finding didn't surprise Scoville Jenkins, who in 2004 was ranked 1,433rd in the ATP singles rankings when he scored a wild-card entry into the U.S. Open. That made him the lowest-ranked player among the 128 entries in the men's tennis tournament.

How can this player be assigned a relative rank of 128 and the corresponding degree of difficulty be the same as say Baghdatis (a qualifier in 2004) who was ranked #237 by ATP - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=23.08.2004&r=201&c=#

1. I already mentioned. I agree it's not a perfect system of doing it, but as a first approach it's OK.

2. The other slams showed results much closer to what you'd expect apparently (but yes it would be nice to have the data there).

3. absolutely. 10 years of data isn't too bad (just for the US, that's 40 elements of data which is starting to get somewhere).

by lags72 Wed 18 Apr 2012, 7:05 pm

newballs - snap ! I found myself recalling that particular match just earlier today over on another lively thread (mental toughness etc)

But I'm really not sure it was seen as a true banana skin at the time - not in the way that a Karlovic draw would come to be seen once Ivo had climbed the rankings. Back then Karlo would only have got into Wimby as either a quali or maybe even WC, I imagine his ranking was really low. A pretty dramatic loss for Hewitt.

That first round exit still stands - I think - as the only case ever (?) of a defending Wimbledon champ going out in R1 ........

by Tenez Wed 18 Apr 2012, 7:11 pm

It seems the other slams are not twicking much the first rounds. It may happen that they are not rigging any semis either. Impossible to say bar the weird 12/12.

But the USO (their software as they will of course blame someone else, bad manip or else) clearly does.

I was always sceptical with the introduction of HE cause likewise, it;s also a technology manipulated by men. And when there is a will there is a way! BUt I guess that's another matter.

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 7:21 pm

Tenez wrote:

Prophets would get a hard times with your kind! I can imagine Moses opening the Red see in front of your eyes and you woudl just look at it with dead eyes explaining that the moon's gravity forces can do just that every 10 million years.

by barrystar Wed 18 Apr 2012, 7:22 pm

newballs wrote:MfC certainly this study does put together a compelling argument that there's something fishy with the US Open draws.

Although it appears that the US draws are (shall we say) more liable to throw up easy matches for the top seeds in their first rounds than the other slams when was the last time you thought "wow that's a potential banana skin" in any of the slam first round matches.

The only one that springs to mind for me - and in fact the player in question lost - was when Hewitt as defending champion got Karlovic in the opening match at Wimbledon way back when a decade ago.

One reason why there are very few first round horrors these days is because since Wimbledon 2001 there are now 32 seeds instead of the old 16.

The 32 seeds were introduced as part of the Wimbledon charm offensive to stop no shows by top-ranked clay-court specialist. That was also probably the last truly fast Wimbledon won, famously, by Goran the WC ranked 125.

When Hewitt face Karlovic in 2003 the latter was a Qualifier ranked 203.

If there had been an equivalent study for Wimbledon both Goran in 2001 and Karlovic in 2003 would have been ranked as below average strength 1st round draws.

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 8:08 pm

From AO, ATP Ranking History from 2001-2012 R1 opponents for #1 and #2 seeds. (Numbers in parentheses indicate ATP Ranking around January of the corresponding year).

2001 Kuerten vs Gaudio (#38)
2001 Safin vs Galo Blanco (#117)

2002 Hewitt vs Alberto Martin (#39)
2002 Kuerten vs Julien Boutter (#49)

2003 Hewitt vs Magnus Larsson (#155)
2003 Agassi vs Brian Vahaly (#93)

2004 Roddick vs Fernando Gonzalez (#35)
2004 Federer vs Alex Bogomolov Jr. (#117)

2005 Federer vs Fabric Santoro (#65)
2005 Roddick vs Irakil Labadze (#75)

2006 Federer vs Denis Istomin (#195)
2006 Roddick vs Michael Lammer (#220)

2007 Federer vs Diego Hartfield (#109)
2007 Nadal vs Robert Kendrick (#90)

2008 Federer vs Bjorn Phau (#194)
2008 Nadal vs Victor Troicki (#126)

2009 Nadal vs Christophe Rochus (#75)
2009 Federer vs Andreas Seppi (#35)

2010 Federer vs Igor Andreev (#37)
2010 Nadal vs Peter Luczak (#70)

2011 Nadal vs Marcos Daniel (#93)
2011 Federer vs Lukas Lacko (#97)

2012 Djokovic vs Paolo Lorenzi (#108)
2012 Nadal vs Alex Kuznetsov (#169)

Highest rank faced by #1/#2 is #35 (Federer vs Seppi and Roddick vs Gonzalez).

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 8:55 pm

From W, ATP Ranking History from 2001-2011 R1 opponents for #1 and #2 seeds. (Numbers in parentheses indicate ATP Ranking around June of the corresponding year).

2001 Sampras vs F Clavet (#77)
2001 Agassi vs Peter Wessels (#93)

2002 Hewitt vs Jonas Bjorkman (#60)
2002 Safin vs Cedric Pioline (#93)

2003 Hewitt vs Karlovic (#203)
2003 Agassi vs Jamie Delgado (#456)

2004 Federer vs Bogdanovic (#295)
2004 Roddick vs Y-T Wang (#182)

2005 Federer vs Paul-Henri Mathieu (#58)
2005 Roddick vs Jiri Vanek (#97)

2006 Federer vs Gasquet (#66)
2006 Nadal vs Alex Bogdanovic (#135)

2007 Federer vs Temuraz Gabashvili (#85)
2007 Nadal vs Mardy Fish (#36)

2008 Federer vs Hrbaty (#272)
2008 Nadal vs Andreas Beck (#123)

2009 Murray (Nadal withdrew after the draw) vs Robert Kendrick (#76)
2009 Federer vs Yen-Hsun Lu (#64)

2010 Federer vs Falla (#65)
2010 Nadal vs Nishikori (#204)

2011 Nadal vs Michael Russell (#91)
2011 Djokovic vs Chardy (#54)

Highest rank faced by #1/#2 is #36 (Nadal vs Mardy Fish).

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 10:18 pm

I see this as a more interesting debate than the the 12/12 one which many of us were able to instantly pick multiple holes in. While the academic at the conference made some glaring errors, the ESPN stats look more credibly researched and presented and did well to get a maths prof to back them up.

Also, it's less cherry picked. Instead of taking 4 years that suit they took a complete decade and took every complete year since the 32 system came in I think. Instead of randomly picking and combining 3 tournaments they focus on only one, which actually strengthens the argument, since a fixing at one tournament makes more sense than a co-ordination at other tournaments.

Is the sample size large enough? Hard to say but I think I'll trust the stats prof for now. It would be nice for a journalist to pay another staffs prof from a top University for a second opinion though.

I would have thought a proper stats prof would have been able to absolutely determine the probability of an average of 0.326 or lower by the way, not run simulations, but I could be wrong.

As conspiracies theories go, this is more credible than most. I need to look into the data a little more though. I don't see any obvious holes at first glance although I do have one or two issues, but not with the data itself (so far).

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 10:21 pm

Using the ranking to determine difficultly is not perfect but it's as good as any other system. Discrepancies with ranking determining difficultly should even themselves out as well. I have no issue with that. It was probably the right choice.

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 10:30 pm

The issues I do have with this are:

1 - Motive: While I do acccept that they wanted to keep the top 2 seeds in for as long as possible to boost attendance, TV revenue and media interest, and this IS motive for a fix, is it ENOUGH of a motive? My argument would be that seeds #1 and #2 ought to be able to despatch the say #40 and #50 ranked players with ease anyway most of the time, so yes an alleged fix would boost the chance of the top 2 players staying in the tournament, but only a little. So why risk your reputation for such minimal gain.

2 - It's obvious - why make it so obvious in ranking terms. If you are going to fix players #1 and #2 an easy draw why not be cuter about it..e.g. you could give them a #40 or #50 ranked player who is rubbish off clay, or is carrying an injury according to little known locker room talk, or is a player on the way down with a 0-10 record against his opponent. Then you could fix the draw and prevent it being statistically detetectable. (Mind you Costa, a clay courter, was the only player with a ranking under 60!)

These are not knockout blows though, maybe minor issues. In fact a simple explanation could be that the fixers are dumb.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 18 Apr 2012, 10:34 pm

Henman Bill wrote:I see this as a more interesting debate than the the 12/12 one which many of us were able to instantly pick multiple holes in. While the academic at the conference made some glaring errors, the ESPN stats look more credibly researched and presented and did well to get a maths prof to back them up.

Also, it's less cherry picked. Instead of taking 4 years that suit they took a complete decade and took every complete year since the 32 system came in I think. Instead of randomly picking and combining 3 tournaments they focus on only one, which actually strengthens the argument, since a fixing at one tournament makes more sense than a co-ordination at other tournaments.

Is the sample size large enough? Hard to say but I think I'll trust the stats prof for now. It would be nice for a journalist to pay another staffs prof from a top University for a second opinion though.

I would have thought a proper stats prof would have been able to absolutely determine the probability of an average of 0.326 or lower by the way, not run simulations, but I could be wrong.

As conspiracies theories go, this is more credible than most. I need to look into the data a little more though. I don't see any obvious holes at first glance although I do have one or two issues, but not with the data itself (so far).

actually determining the exact probability is quite a complicated computation. At first glance I'm not entirely sure how to do it. What should have been relatively easy however is applying Cramer's theorem for large deviations to get a good upper bound for the probability in question (Cramer's theorem basically says that this probability decays exponentially fast away from the average, so even with only 40 draws to use - men and women, 1 and 2 seeds - you should get a low probability). I could probably work it out, but not until Friday evening as it will take a while.

by Chydremion Wed 18 Apr 2012, 10:38 pm

Really some people are so naive. Will use every argument they can find to say that nothing is wrong. Ok even if the study is not 100% correct, you never asked any questions when slam after slam Djokovic ended in Federer's half?
The study is incorrect because some material was left out (actually not some random and unfitting material, but the french open in its whole, so it gives a good view of the non-clay slams, and you should realise on clay it didnt matter if Djokovic ended in Nadal's half) but of course big business motives to fix the draw can't possibly be true because the world has never seen corruption before...
Long live fairy tales.

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 10:46 pm

Mad for Chelsea, yes I would be interested to see that if you can do it.

by Henman Bill Wed 18 Apr 2012, 10:59 pm

I think that whether there is draw fixing or whether this is an unlucky coincidence the US Open should now change to a new draw provider. The draw provider should be chosen by the ATP+WTA or another body without the US Open's input, and never communicate directly with the US Open, providing draw results directly to ATP authorities. If they just do that they can eliminate doubt for the future.

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 11:08 pm

Chydremion wrote:Really some people are so naive. Will use every argument they can find to say that nothing is wrong.

Are you saying that anyone questioning the slam being rigged is naive? chin

Chydremion wrote:Ok even if the study is not 100% correct, you never asked any questions when slam after slam Djokovic ended in Federer's half?

How long has Djokovic been in the Top 4?

Chydremion wrote:but of course big business motives to fix the draw can't possibly be true because the world has never seen corruption before...
Long live fairy tales.

Not every financial transaction is motivated by greed. Is it? There is corruption, but it does not imply it is omnipresent and every one is corrupt.

Djokovic at slams (some interesting matches)....

2010 USO R128 Viktor Troicki (SRB) 47 W 6-3, 3-6, 2-6, 7-5, 6-3
2010 W R128 Olivier Rochus (BEL) 68 W 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
2010 FO Q Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 27 L 6-3, 6-2, 2-6, 6-7(3), 4-6
2010 AO Q Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 10 L 6-7(8), 7-6(5), 6-1, 3-6, 1-6

2009 USO R32 Jesse Witten (USA) 276 W 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(2), 6-4
2009 W Q Tommy Haas (GER) 34 L 5-7, 6-7(6), 6-4, 3-6

2008 USO R16 Tommy Robredo (ESP) 15 W 4-6, 6-2, 6-3, 5-7, 6-3
2008 W R64 Marat Safin (RUS) 75 L 4-6, 6-7(3), 2-6

2007 is too far back for Djokovic. Compare these to the year 2011 for Djokovic. Wink

No amount of rigging can generate such matches, can it?

by **laverfan** Wed 18 Apr 2012, 11:08 pm

Henman Bill wrote:I think that whether there is draw fixing or whether this is an unlucky coincidence the US Open should now change to a new draw provider. The draw provider should be chosen by the ATP+WTA or another body without the US Open's input, and never communicate directly with the US Open, providing draw results directly to ATP authorities. If they just do that they can eliminate doubt for the future.

Did you mean ITF?

by Sponsored content