Australian Open 2018

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:What a joke of a draw....


Another heavy fix for Nadal.
Or does BB think differently?

The ceremony was live....and fed participated to the draw I read.

Nadal is just a lucky man. A very lucky one. Even wheh he seems to have tough draws, they all vanish before meeting him.

The ceremony was live but the players/draws were picked by a computer not Federer's hand.

He was there just to wrap up the shame in nice tinsel.

I'd like to know your definition of "lucky" btw.

Ah - I did not know about that. It's true that Nadal has a cake draw till the Semi. That's huge.

On the other hand we do not know Stan or Djoko's form, so maybe Delpo is teh only serious contender for Federer.

But when you read a comment like "Nadal has 3 routine rounds to play himself in until the potentially tricky Dzumhur - then the QF looks OK for him, ..." from our balanced and self moderated poster Barry, you know Nadal has a ridiculously easy draw.

well, seeing draws like this, makes me lose interest in tennis.

But at least I have the pleasure of not having the need to wrap the truth up.

Nadal is the biggest cheat in sport.

The sooner he retires, the better.

He himself is ugly, his tennis is ugly and the whole machinery that is allowing him to be ugly is - yes, ugly!

Although these words may sound extreme to most here, I am actually being soft and self-moderated.

The only good news is that the surface is apparently even faster than last year and the ball "lively".

Hence the marshmallow draw for Neighdull.

The thing that annoys me most after Neighdull's candyfloss draw is that all talent is squashed in one quarter: Shapo, Rublev, Katch, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios, Dimi...

Rubi, being Russian has the toughest possible opponent for a seed - and inform come-back Ferrer!
Shapo playing Tsitsipas.

Everywhere you look in the draw it sucks.

But none of this matters...so long as KIA sells millions of cars in China...

noleisthebest wrote:well, seeing draws like this, makes me lose interest in tennis.

But at least I have the pleasure of not having the need to wrap the truth up.

Nadal is the biggest cheat in sport.

The sooner he retires, the better.

He himself is ugly, his tennis is ugly and the whole machinery that is allowing him to be ugly is - yes, ugly!

Although these words may sound extreme to most here, I am actually being soft and self-moderated.

But Federer being a bigger draw than Nadal, why would they facilitate Nadal over Fed?

One reason was clear when they clearly got found out between 08-11 as Fed could beat Djoko but Nadal struggled against him. Whereas now this is not quite true, unless they think Fed has still more chances to get to the final.

He might simply be lucky like he has been in the past. Maybe Dolgo will have a say!

I think the draw is a bad one and favours Nadal for the reasons we have discussed - although if Djoko and Stan are not fit, it's not a stinker for Fed who has the measure of all the guys in his side of the draw on a quick surface if he's in good nick (but has a more attritional route).  My first question is if there were a cheat going on to ensure that Nadal wins for the sponsors KIA, why would they speed up the surface, or is the conspiracy merely to engineer a Fedal final, so Fed gets the surface and Nadal the draw?

My other big problem with conspiracy theories like this is that quite a lot of people have to be in on the cheat for it to work, and I can't see that it would be worth the candle of KIA and the AO risking being exposed as draw-riggers for the sake of selling a few more cars, not to mention whoever is providing the software or other mechanism for the draw to take place.  With a draw of 128 it's a pretty high-risk strategy, since quite a lot can go wrong and the cheat would have to be very carefully managed because there has to be enough of a 'random' look about it not to be too obvious.  If caught the AO's credibility would be shot, along with KIA and others.  It's not as if Nadal is an extraordinary car-selling phenomenon in China - I'd say that the Shanghai crowd seem to go for Fed pretty strongly.

As for 08-11 - every result of a procession of 50/50 coin flips is equally probable and equally bizarre.  One flip does not alter the probability of the next and a what looks like a perfectly random series to the naked eye is just as odd as it coming up heads or tails every time.  I certainly begrudge not having seen more Nadal v. Djoko SF's during that period, but you need more evidence than just a sequence for a conspiracy - do you have more?

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:well, seeing draws like this, makes me lose interest in tennis.

But at least I have the pleasure of not having the need to wrap the truth up.

Nadal is the biggest cheat in sport.

The sooner he retires, the better.

He himself is ugly, his tennis is ugly and the whole machinery that is allowing him to be ugly is - yes, ugly!

Although these words may sound extreme to most here, I am actually being soft and self-moderated.

But Federer being a bigger draw than Nadal, why would they facilitate Nadal over Fed?

One reason was clear when they clearly got found out between 08-11 as Fed could beat Djoko but Nadal struggled against him. Whereas now this is not quite true, unless they think Fed has still more chances to get to the final.

He might simply be lucky like he has been in the past. Maybe Dolgo will have a say!

who is "he"?

barrystar wrote:As for 08-11 - every result of a procession of 50/50 coin flips is equally probable and equally bizarre.  One flip does not alter the probability of the next and a what looks like a perfectly random series to the naked eye is just as odd as it coming up heads or tails every time.  I certainly begrudge not having seen more Nadal v. Djoko SF's during that period, but you need more evidence than just a sequence for a conspiracy - do you have more?

Of course there is always a small chance (1/4096) that nadal avoiding Djoko outside his favourite slam for 4 years was pure luck.  If you know about probablity 1/4096 is not quite the same as 50/50. And if you doubt that, what about the womens top seeds avoiding the 33-64 ranked players for so long ( a chance in 1 million or so, I can't remember).

Barry, appearing balanced is not quite the same as being balanced. We know they can twist draws and they did it! So the 1/4096 should be looked at with a bit more doubt than you give it.

Likewise about Isner v Mahut meeting in the first round of the following year at Wimbledon...sure it can happen, but when you are in the business of making a show, that's a good starter while waiting for the main course!

I get that 1/4096 is 0.5 to the power of 12, but that is my point.  Every sequence outcome of 12 coin flips is 1/4096, so they are each equally probable or improbable.

I agree with you that Djoko v. Federer 12 times in a row outside RG demanded an explanation, but in the absence of more evidence, and against the improbability of the staff at 3 different slams being prepared to cheat to risk their credibility for a 'favourite' player (but not apparently the 4th - or were they in on it to give the faux impression of randomness?), that explanation satisfies me.

I don't know the story/maths of the women's thing you refer to, so this is about Nadal/Djoko/Fed only.

(ps - I am well aware that the appearance of balance is not the same thing as balance)

barrystar wrote:I get that 1/4096 is 0.5 to the power of 12, but that is my point.  Every sequence outcome of 12 coin flips is 1/4096, so they are each equally probable or improbable.

I am not sure I understand your point. Mine is pretty clear. The probability of Event A (flip of a coin) is not quite the same as the Event B (getting 12 toss of the coin right in a row)...even if we all agree that each time the coin is flipped, it's 50/50. The event has to be considered in its totality. The funny thing about it, is that as soon as the study about that oddity came out was reported to the AO organisers (oct 2012 I think), the sequence stopped and Nadal got Djoko on his side....you can almost call it a chance in 8.200.

I agree with you that Djoko v. Federer 12 times in a row outside RG demanded an explanation, but in the absence of more evidence, and against the improbability of the staff at 3 different slams being prepared to cheat to risk their credibility for a 'favourite' player (but not apparently the 4th - or were they in on it to give the faux impression of randomness?), that explanation satisfies me.

I have in my close family people who simply cannot see or envisage trickery or deceit...worse they can't even see it in politicians. If the world were full of those, we woudl not even have anti-doping agencies as they would simply trust everybody under "the innocent until proven guilty" concept. I am glad people are curious and pay attention to details cause without them the world would be an even worse place.

I don't know the story/maths of the women's thing you refer to, so this is about Nadal/Djoko/Fed only.

But that is a very important point in the debate. There is proof that the USO "cheated" by arranging easy first rounds for their women players. There is a smoking gun there. I am surprised you do not know about it as it was the nail on the coffin in our old V2 debate. It is under this very fact that the 1 in 4100 becomes really weird.

They had no fear of being caught cheating. and the good thing about having a computer sorting it out, is that you can always blame a "genuine" mistake in the algorithm! Haven't you thought of that either?

There are 4,096 possible sequences of twelve 50/50 events such as whether #3 seed is drawn with #1 or #2 seed in a Slam.  Hence the probability of one such sequence is 1/4096.  That is the same for each sequence, which is just as likely or unlikely as the other.  For example, whilst only the fourth of the sequences below looks random, the mathematical probability of each of them occurring is identical:

HHHHHHHHHHHH
TTTTTTTTTTTT
HTHTHTHTHTHT
HHHTTHTTHTTH

It's also worth pointing out that both Federer's and Djokovic's respective seedings changed during 2008-2011, so whilst the individual players were the same, their respective positions in the allocation arrangement differed, so we may be comparing apples with pears in terms of querying the sequence of the same individuals, but different seeds always being in the same half of the draw at AO/W/USO (but not RG).  Their seedings were:

                2008  2009  2010  2011
Djoko       3 3 3  3 4 4  3 3 3  3 2 1
Fed          1 1 2  2 2 1  1 1 2  2 3 3 

I haven't read up about your USO point, but if I assume there is something in it, that the USO cheated to help seeded US players in the women's draw, that doesn't prove that different people at Wimbledon and the Australian Open were willing to cheat to keep Djokovic and Nadal in different halves of the men's draw.  We mustn't forget that they were apparently not cheating at RG - so crookery at USO is probative of crookery at W/AO, but not RG?  I understand why the USO might cheat to help their women - that would be deplorable obviously - but why would AO/W risk everything, along probably with some ITF guys and some employees of the company providing the computing equipment, by fudging the men's draw to ensure that Fed/Djoko were always in the same half?  You say that the immediate response to this being pointed out was to change (AO 2012 there was a Fedal SF), but isn't it equally plausible that a cheat would not change just to show that it was random, rather than cheat the other way and look like they had been caught red-handed?

Once again we disagree; I understand your points, I hope you understand mine.  We have different thresholds before being prepared to make a firm allegation of conspiracy - I understand that too.  For me, the more different people likely to be involved who have a reputation to protect, the more reluctant I am to move from suspicion/wondering to making a concrete allegation.  Whoever is right or wrong, nothing is added to your argument by suggesting that I am a credulous naif who is unable to envisage trickery or deceit.

barrystar wrote:There are 4,096 possible sequences of twelve 50/50 events such as whether #3 seed is drawn with #1 or #2 seed in a Slam.  Hence the probability of one such sequence is 1/4096.  That is the same for each sequence, which is just as likely or unlikely as the other.  For example, whilst only the fourth of the sequences below looks random, the mathematical probability of each of them occurring is identical:

HHHHHHHHHHHH
TTTTTTTTTTTT
HTHTHTHTHTHT
HHHTTHTTHTTH

Nothing to do with sequence here I am afraid. On this occasion, the chance for Nadal not to have to play Djoko12 consecutive time, is not the same as the chance they play once, twice, thrice, or 6 timesetc....even though it is the same chance they are in the same draw 12 consecutive times. It seems something is escaping you here. Sequences is when you need an event to happen in a special order. herew it doesn't matter and if Nadal had to play Djoko twice or 3 times during those 12 consecutives slams, no-one would have picjed it up.

There is a very rare event here, you might say it's a piece of luck but it's a real piece of luck.

It's also worth pointing out that both Federer's and Djokovic's respective seedings changed during 2008-2011, so whilst the individual players were the same, their respective positions in the allocation arrangement differed, so we may be comparing apples with pears in terms of querying the sequence of the same individuals, but different seeds always being in the same half of the draw at AO/W/USO (but not RG).  Their seedings were:

                2008  2009  2010  2011
Djoko       3 3 3  3 4 4  3 3 3  3 2 1
Fed          1 1 2  2 2 1  1 1 2  2 3 3 

That's also irrelevant. In April 2008, Nadal says his toughest opponent is Djoko and not Federer. He stipulates it clearly in an interview (in Rome or Madrid I think)....and since then he doesn't have Djoko for 4 years outside his preferred slam. If the draw was rigged, the result looked after would be Nadal not drawing Djoko.

I haven't read up about your USO point, but if I assume there is something in it, that the USO cheated to help seeded US players in the women's draw, that doesn't prove that different people at Wimbledon and the Australian Open were willing to cheat to keep Djokovic and Nadal in different halves of the men's draw.  We mustn't forget that they were apparently not cheating at RG - so crookery at USO is probative of crookery at W/AO, but not RG?  I understand why the USO might cheat to help their women - that would be deplorable obviously - but why would AO/W risk everything, along probably with some ITF guys and some employees of the company providing the computing equipment, by fudging the men's draw to ensure that Fed/Djoko were always in the same half?  You say that the immediate response to this being pointed out was to change (AO 2012 there was a Fedal SF), but isn't it equally plausible that a cheat would not change just to show that it was random, rather than cheat the other way and look like they had been caught red-handed?

The point I agree with is that it's perfectly possible that only the USO were cheating, or maybe Wimbledon and the USO, any one of the 3 or the 3s. the fact that Nadal did not play Djoko for 4 years (outside finals) means at least one slam was cheating. But does it really matter which one?

Regarding why would risk cheating? to make more money. They woudl not be the first nor the last. We have seen how teh ATP was protecting Agassi when testing positive and how they gave Korda in because again he was not a big name. Other sport organisations like UCI have done much worse. And again, there was hardly any risk cause indeed 1/4100 can always happen...no tangible proof after all...when it comes to 1 in 1 million, like the USO, it is harder to explain...yet you don't even know about it.....so why would they care?

Once again we disagree; I understand your points, I hope you understand mine.  We have different thresholds before being prepared to make a firm allegation of conspiracy - I understand that too.  For me, the more different people likely to be involved who have a reputation to protect, the more reluctant I am to move from suspicion/wondering to making a concrete allegation.  Whoever is right or wrong, nothing is added to your argument by suggesting that I am a credulous naif who is unable to envisage trickery or deceit.

Do you have a threshold? Your threshold is when we finally don;t find WMDs in Irak or Lance is being found out...you don;t anticipate.

It is unusual, but excluding the French from the calculation messes it up. Quite obviously something can be shown to look absurd if we eliminate the occurances which would undermine that.

it was not as if meeting Djokovic at the French was ever exactly ideal for Nadal. It didn’t feel that way when he was dumped out in straight sets.

[quote="bogbrush"]It is unusual, but excluding the French from the calculation messes it up. Quite obviously something can be shown to look absurd if we eliminate the occurances which would undermine that.

Any slam but the French "could" mess it up....but the fact we are talking about Nadal's wishes here while the French was the slam and surface he largely dominated reinforces and not messes up the oddity.

I remember at the time I had noticed that Djoko was always on Fed's side, especially at the USO, and right after Nadal admits Djoko is his toughest opponent. But I had also noted before that that Nalbandian who was number 3 for a year or 2 while Nadal was number 2 or even going up the ranking that they were never in the same draw. I found it strange that those 2 never played being so highly ranked.....and the first time they met was in Madrid and and Paris 2007 ...after Nalby came back from injury and crushed him in the 2 tournaments. Maybe luck here..but weird again as I cannot remember 2 such high seeds avoiding each other for 3 years (Nadal won the FO in 2005).

it was not as if meeting Djokovic at the French was ever exactly ideal for Nadal. It didn’t feel that way when he was dumped out in straight sets.

Djoko had to wait 2015 (or was it 16?) to beat Nadal at the French.

This match-fixing theory based on the Federer-Djokovic run of SF draws is extremely flawed. My understanding is it relies entirely on Tenez’s belief that the organisers would have wanted a Fedal final and that Federer was seen as more likely to beat Novak. 

Even if we assume that was seen as the case as at the start of 2008, Novak promptly beat Federer in straight sets at the Australian. Rafa then beat Novak four times out of five (including the Queens final) in the run up to Wim 08. Why, given those results, would Wimbledon in 2008 have then concluded Fed was such a big favourite against Novak that it justified fixing the draw?

In fact from Aus 2008 to US 2010, Fed’s overall record against Novak was 2-2 in slams and 5-5 overall. However, we are asked to believe that the Australian Open in 2011 was so convinced Fed had a better shot at beating Novak than Rafa (despite Novak having beaten Fed in the last Slam and then Rafa having beaten him). It just makes zero sense.

Furthermore, the last two slams in this streak are Wimbledon and the US in 2011. However, Rafa and Novak couldn’t face each other in the SF in those events as they were the top two seeds. If the organisers were still so keen to get a Fedal match would they not have settled for a more or less guaranteed SF, rather than requiring Federer to now beat the all-conquering Djokovic? 

This is a statistical coincidence - no more or less.

The main idea with draw fixing for Nadal was not primarily to ensure Fedal finals, but to enable Nadal to get to the finals in the first place on non clay surfaces.

Especially before they were all heavily slowed down.

My worst memories were from USO, where Nole-Federer usually played their semi in night sessions with Nadal waiting fresh.
I think 2010 was the worst example.

I remember I was gutted at the time. 

Bottom line, Nadal was protected from all dangerous players especially Djokovic.

It is so obvious (especially in that study) I can’t believe people can’t see something staring them in the face like that.

Tenez wrote:
I have in my close family people who simply cannot see or envisage trickery or deceit...worse they can't even see it in politicians. If the world were full of those, we woudl not even have anti-doping agencies as they would simply trust everybody under "the innocent until proven guilty" concept. I am glad people are curious and pay attention to details cause without them the world would be an even worse place.

Same here.
What’s worse, those people are everywhere.

I genuinelly can’t get my head around their thinking.

And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

Tenez wrote:
Nothing to do with sequence here I am afraid. On this occasion, the chance for Nadal not to have to play Djoko12 consecutive time, is not the same as the chance they play once, twice, thrice, or 6 timesetc....even though it is the same chance they are in the same draw 12 consecutive times. It seems something is escaping you here. Sequences is when you need an event to happen in a special order. herew it doesn't matter and if Nadal had to play Djoko twice or 3 times during those 12 consecutives slams, no-one would have picjed it up.

There is a very rare event here, you might say it's a piece of luck but it's a real piece of luck.

If it's nothing to do with sequences, why did you say that the probability is 1/4096, which is the probability of the occurrence of any sequence of twelve 50/50 events - it wasn't my figure, it was yours?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I have in my close family people who simply cannot see or envisage trickery or deceit...worse they can't even see it in politicians. If the world were full of those, we woudl not even have anti-doping agencies as they would simply trust everybody under "the innocent until proven guilty" concept. I am glad people are curious and pay attention to details cause without them the world would be an even worse place.

Same here.
What’s worse, those people are everywhere.

I genuinelly can’t get my head around their thinking.

And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

Actually, what's really everywhere is people falling for stupid conspiracy theories.

Your last sentence is completely mental. You obviously have absolutely no idea of the true origins of the "Christ" stories, like virgin births, visits by kings, and all the other nonsense. Equating belief in all this conspiracy stupidity with belief in a divine being called Jesus Christ is the first thing you've said on these matters that I completely agree with.

BB,

Phrase “conspiracy theory” belongs to the dictionary of Novo govor.

Due to Unbelief, your thinking is limited to 2 dimensions, so it’s pointless to talk about the third dimension with you.

I am not saying this in a condescending way, just stating why we are stuck and keep going in circles.

I shall leave the ever patient Tenez to do the Sisyphus task here.

Not quite. I don't use the word sequence, you do. A sequence is a particular order at which events occur. There the chance of HHHHHHHH is indeed the same of any other order. But that's not the point. . No one would have cared or been able to raise questions about 99.4% of those. The fact Nadal mentions Djoko is his toughest opponent, or if Federer were to say Nadal is his worse opponent and both cases they don't draw each others for 4 years, then you look at the probability of this happening, regardless of the order.

In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

In a way it is linked to the other thread, some of you do not raise an eyebrow at something that has only been recorded once in 4 bilions years.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I have in my close family people who simply cannot see or envisage trickery or deceit...worse they can't even see it in politicians. If the world were full of those, we woudl not even have anti-doping agencies as they would simply trust everybody under "the innocent until proven guilty" concept. I am glad people are curious and pay attention to details cause without them the world would be an even worse place.

Same here.
What’s worse, those people are everywhere.

I genuinelly can’t get my head around their thinking.

And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

Actually, what's really everywhere is people falling for stupid conspiracy theories.

There are those who fall for stupid conspiracy theories, I agree, but there are those who systematically fall for those stupid manipulations. Aren't those who fell for Irak having WMDs or Lance and Froome being super heros any less stupid?

Most people would believe Nadal had OCD for instance when it was clear he was just trying to build a routine to extend time between points. He makes millions by carefully planning everything, others are just fans not caring about the ins and outs of tennis..and each time some credulity can be exploited it will. This btw perfectly fits Darwin evolution. Some species have evolved purely on deceiving others: cuckoo birds for instance.

This is why I do not label "conspiracy theories" as stupid as I have learnt that on many occasions the stupid ones are the gullible ones.

Slippy wrote:....
This is a statistical coincidence - no more or less.

Like Froome having twice the amount of drug allowed.

I read this this morning...make sure you don;t fall victim of those!

Forgot to post it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42460315

noleisthebest wrote:BB,

Phrase “conspiracy theory” belongs to the dictionary of Novo govor.

Due to Unbelief, your thinking is limited to 2 dimensions, so it’s pointless to talk about the third dimension with you.

I am not saying this in a condescending way, just stating why we are stuck and keep going in circles.

I shall leave the ever patient Tenez to do the Sisyphus task here.

I am delighted that I am incapable of believing that a guy related to a religious fundamentalist was born of a virgin (boy, gullible husband!), could transmute materials and come back to life.

There are actually 4 dimensions of spacetime.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I have in my close family people who simply cannot see or envisage trickery or deceit...worse they can't even see it in politicians. If the world were full of those, we woudl not even have anti-doping agencies as they would simply trust everybody under "the innocent until proven guilty" concept. I am glad people are curious and pay attention to details cause without them the world would be an even worse place.

Same here.
What’s worse, those people are everywhere.

I genuinelly can’t get my head around their thinking.

And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

Actually, what's really everywhere is people falling for stupid conspiracy theories.

There are those who fall for stupid conspiracy theories, I agree, but there are those who systematically fall for those stupid manipulations. Aren't those who fell for Irak having WMDs or Lance and Froome being super heros any less stupid?

Most people would believe Nadal had OCD for instance when it was clear he was just trying to build a routine to extend time between points. He makes millions by carefully planning everything, others are just fans not caring about the ins and outs of tennis..and each time some credulity can be exploited it will. This btw perfectly fits Darwin evolution. Some species have evolved purely on deceiving others: cuckoo birds for instance.

This is why I do not label "conspiracy theories" as stupid as I have learnt that on many occasions the stupid ones are the gullible ones.

Just because some people cheat doesn't mean all anomalies are evidence of cheating, and when the data has to be manipulated by excluding contrary findings then it falls apart.

We did land on the moon; America didn't crash the Twin Towers; there are no aliens at Roswell and Elvis is dead.

Tenez wrote:Not quite. I don't use the word sequence, you do. A sequence is a particular order at which events occur. There the chance of HHHHHHHH is indeed the same of any other order. But that's not the point. . No one would have cared or been able to raise questions about 99.4% of those. The fact Nadal mentions Djoko is his toughest opponent, or if Federer were to say Nadal is his worse opponent and both cases they don't draw each others for 4 years, then you look at the probability of this happening, regardless of the order.  

In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

In a way it is linked to the other thread, some of you do not raise an eyebrow at something that has only been recorded once in 4 bilions years.

This is correct. Although all outcomes are equally probable you are examining special case outcomes. But you're excluding the French and then back-filling a reason that doesn't stand up, because Djokovic has been the greater threat to Nadal on clay for many years. You put the French back in and the whole thing doesn't look so interesting.

You're also excluding the evidence barry has provided of his relative threat everywhere else. It annoys me when Nadal gets an easy draw but I don't reach for the tin foil hat.

bogbrush wrote:
We did land on the moon; America didn't crash the Twin Towers; there are no aliens at Roswell and Elvis is dead.

Good. You passed level 1!

Tenez wrote:In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

I do raise an eyebrow - I said that it calls for an answer, and I still think it's unusual, but am of the view that it is more likely to be a coincidence than something more sinister. 
There is a world of difference between that and confidently alleging that there is a certain dishonest conspiracy.

1/4096 is not such a significant figure in this case when you appreciate that it would have been unavoidably the inevitable probability of any outcome of 12 different draws over the years we are talking about, and when you exclude RG from overall consideration, and also fail to take into account the fact that their respective seedings changed over time.  For a conspiracy allegation to be credible you need to formulate a clear benefit that the conspirators consider merits taking the risks to attain - with Lance Armstrong it was obvious and I never believed him.  Neither you nor nitb have identified all the conspirators or a clear focused purpose of the conspiracy which it is likely that all the possible conspirators would buy into - these are people whose reputations for integrity in the context of organising a professional tennis tournament are crucial, perhaps the most valuable of their enduring assets.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:BB,
Phrase “conspiracy theory” belongs to the dictionary of Novo govor.
Due to Unbelief, your thinking is limited to 2 dimensions, so it’s pointless to talk about the third dimension with you.
I am not saying this in a condescending way, just stating why we are stuck and keep going in circles.
I shall leave the ever patient Tenez to do the Sisyphus task here.

I am delighted that I am incapable of believing that a guy related to a religious fundamentalist was born of a virgin (boy, gullible husband!), could transmute materials and come back to life.
There are actually 4 dimensions of spacetime.

Here is what the one whose birthday was celebrated a few weeks ago all across the world says about the likes you you:

“Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’; 3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites!You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed.”


I find this verse so amazingly relevant every day.

The most ridiculous is Hawkins sitting distorted in his wheelchair shaking his fist against God.

noleisthebest wrote:

Here is what the one whose birthday was celebrated a few weeks ago all across the world says about the likes you you:

“Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’; 3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites!You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed.”


I find this verse so amazingly relevant every day.

The most ridiculous is Hawkins sitting distorted in his wheelchair shaking his fist against God.

I think that's what you call a 'bootstraps' argument.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

I do raise an eyebrow - I said that it calls for an answer, and I still think it's unusual, but am of the view that it is more likely to be a coincidence than something more sinister. 
There is a world of difference between that and confidently alleging that there is a certain dishonest conspiracy.

1/4096 is not such a significant figure in this case when you appreciate that it would have been unavoidably the inevitable probability of any outcome of 12 different draws over the years we are talking about, and when you exclude RG from overall consideration, and also fail to take into account the fact that their respective seedings changed over time.  For a conspiracy allegation to be credible you need to formulate a clear benefit that the conspirators consider merits taking the risks to attain - with Lance Armstrong it was obvious and I never believed him.  Neither you nor nitb have identified all the conspirators or a clear focused purpose of the conspiracy which it is likely that all the possible conspirators would buy into - these are people whose reputations for integrity in the context of organising a professional tennis tournament are crucial, perhaps the most valuable of their enduring assets.

The purpose was to make more money. Tennis is a business.
Federer was steamrolling everyone in the early “naughties”, so tennis was partly boring with the lack of any rivaliries the 80s and 90s had had.

I also believe Nadal has backing from the very strong catholic church in Spain, he is the Spanish queen's beloved “son”.

Anything to keep the Spanish “happy” in their difficult economic crisis.
The old formula of bread and games if you like.

Not to mention the enormous selling potential to the rest of growing Latino world in US and South America.

To me he was the ugly version of Agassi.

That is why tennis business brains started helping Nadal to catch up on non clay surfaces...firstly by allowing him to break tennis rule of time betwen the points, then removing all the (for him) dangerous players from his path by rigging draws, providing slower surfaces by making them sandier than before, provoding bigger balls to help slow things down further etc...

I in particular was noticing this acutely as Nole was having the opposite treatment.

And at one stage Nadal even was granted power to ban Bernardes as his umpire since he had the guts to call time violation from time to time esp vs Fognini, upon  Nadal’s lengthy absence in 2013 (?).

It’s quite simple...

All you need to do is to go back to all those draws in which Djokovic was kept in Federer’s half (or Federer in Djokovic’s) and swap Federer’s name for Nadal’s. (and of course keep the scheduling the same)

And then see how many slams Nadal would have won.

And Federer.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

I do raise an eyebrow - I said that it calls for an answer, and I still think it's unusual, but am of the view that it is more likely to be a coincidence than something more sinister. 
There is a world of difference between that and confidently alleging that there is a certain dishonest conspiracy.

1/4096 is not such a significant figure in this case when you appreciate that it would have been unavoidably the inevitable probability of any outcome of 12 different draws over the years we are talking about, and when you exclude RG from overall consideration, and also fail to take into account the fact that their respective seedings changed over time.  For a conspiracy allegation to be credible you need to formulate a clear benefit that the conspirators consider merits taking the risks to attain - with Lance Armstrong it was obvious and I never believed him.  Neither you nor nitb have identified all the conspirators or a clear focused purpose of the conspiracy which it is likely that all the possible conspirators would buy into - these are people whose reputations for integrity in the context of organising a professional tennis tournament are crucial, perhaps the most valuable of their enduring assets.

Oh it calls for an answer....but you are not looking for answers. Interesting.

So you don;t answer the question. What is your threshold? Is the 1 in a million chance (seen at the USO seeding) enough...or again there is no certainty? Yes or no?
If you answer no certainty for the USO case, then obvisouly your threshold is beyond 1 in million. If you recognise they cheated (and please don't say you don't know about the case), that tells you slams, at least one of them can rig draw. So from there the 1 in 4100 takes a very different angle.

It's not rocket science and the numbers are there to tell me it is more likely that it is purposely organised to make everybody happy more than I am conspirer. Someone who don't question and believe everything he is told is as credulous as someone who believe in all conspirations.

The conspirators are unnamed "tennis business brains" whose motives included (a) making money by relieving the boredom of Federer's domination away from clay (b) keeping the Spanish people, church, and Queen happy in their difficult economic crisis and (c) pursuing the dollars of the Latino world.

I agree that it's quite simple - it quite simply doesn't get off the ground I'm afraid.

noleisthebest wrote:
The purpose was to make more money. Tennis is a business.

Indeed no different than any other business. Even Utility companies cheat. They make their billing so complicated they don't even understand it themselves with so many options we have no idea to find the cheaper provider. It's at every level....but for some reasons some think sport behaves differently.

Finding out that even paralympic atheltes were cheating gave us the real extend of human's nature.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

I do raise an eyebrow - I said that it calls for an answer, and I still think it's unusual, but am of the view that it is more likely to be a coincidence than something more sinister. 
There is a world of difference between that and confidently alleging that there is a certain dishonest conspiracy.

1/4096 is not such a significant figure in this case when you appreciate that it would have been unavoidably the inevitable probability of any outcome of 12 different draws over the years we are talking about, and when you exclude RG from overall consideration, and also fail to take into account the fact that their respective seedings changed over time.  For a conspiracy allegation to be credible you need to formulate a clear benefit that the conspirators consider merits taking the risks to attain - with Lance Armstrong it was obvious and I never believed him.  Neither you nor nitb have identified all the conspirators or a clear focused purpose of the conspiracy which it is likely that all the possible conspirators would buy into - these are people whose reputations for integrity in the context of organising a professional tennis tournament are crucial, perhaps the most valuable of their enduring assets.

Oh it calls for an answer....but you are not looking for answers. Interesting.

So you don;t answer the question. What is your threshold? Is the 1 in a million chance (seen at the USO seeding) enough...or again there is no certainty? Yes or no?
If you answer no certainty for the USO case, then obvisouly your threshold is beyond 1 in million. If you recognise they cheated (and please don't say you don't know about the case), that tells you slams, at least one of them can rig draw. So from there the 1 in 4100 takes a very different angle.

It's not rocket science and the numbers are there to tell me it is more likely that it is purposely organised to make everybody happy more than I am conspirer. Someone who don't question and believe everything he is told is as credulous as someone who believe in all conspirations.

Yes it calls for an answer, so I look at the surrounding evidence which provides an answer I am happy with: I think it's an unusual coincidence, not a conspiracy.

You can't identify a probability 'threshold' which can be applied to every allegation mechanistically, each one needs to be taken on its own merits.  The more extreme the probability the stronger the suspicion - 1 in a million is a strong starting point and might not be overcome by evidence to the contrary.  I have not looked at the USO case and I have not formed a view - my mind is open on that.  For the purpose of the Nadal/Djoko/Fed draw rigging argument I am prepared to assume that the USO cheated to support their female players - and I still can't accept that there was a conspiracy to rig draws away from RG to put Djoko on the opposite half to Nadal.

The nature of the allegation you make seems to shift - who are you saying was involved in the rigging, what was their aim, what did they gain?

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Not quite. I don't use the word sequence, you do. A sequence is a particular order at which events occur. There the chance of HHHHHHHH is indeed the same of any other order. But that's not the point. . No one would have cared or been able to raise questions about 99.4% of those. The fact Nadal mentions Djoko is his toughest opponent, or if Federer were to say Nadal is his worse opponent and both cases they don't draw each others for 4 years, then you look at the probability of this happening, regardless of the order.  

In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

In a way it is linked to the other thread, some of you do not raise an eyebrow at something that has only been recorded once in 4 bilions years.

This is correct. Although all outcomes are equally probable you are examining special case outcomes. But you're excluding the French and then back-filling a reason that doesn't stand up, because Djokovic has been the greater threat to Nadal on clay for many years. You put the French back in and the whole thing doesn't look so interesting.

No wrong. again it took Djoko many more years to beat Nadal over 5 sets. And the FO had no fear of Nadal not reaching the final.....whereas on the other 3 surfaces the odds were much slimmer and versus Djoko slimmer even. Besides, I am not saying the 3 slams cheated. Not enough data to prove that. But it seems pretty clear that at least one if not more were fixing. That's difficult to argue against.

You're also excluding the evidence barry has provided of his relative threat everywhere else. It annoys me when Nadal gets an easy draw but I don't reach for the tin foil hat.

No you don't we have had over 10 years of Nadal having easy draws so you are not the kind of guy who questions. You swallow the pill like many. And suddenly you realise millions have died, Bush and Blair made a fool of their people.

noleisthebest wrote:
And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

This is actually a very good analogy for the argument you're making on this thread.
Tenez, you've been outdone here by NITB, in terms of eloquence and accurate representation of the power of your argument.

DECIMA wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

This is actually a very good analogy for the argument you're making on this thread.
Tenez, you've been outdone here by NITB, in terms of eloquence and accurate representation of the power of your argument.

Hey Decy,

long time no post!
I was actually thinking about you yesterday wondering how you were.

I see you are fine.

DECIMA wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

This is actually a very good analogy for the argument you're making on this thread.
Tenez, you've been outdone here by NITB, in terms of eloquence and accurate representation of the power of your argument.

I will take this as a compliment. NITB has a logic from Venus and though it is very different from those who have a logic from Mars, they end up being right as often if not more.

Can anyone find a stat where seed number 1,2 and/or 3 of end up not in the same draw for 3 to 4 years in 3 out of 4 slams? I am 100% sure you will not find anything close to 1 in 200, let alone 1 in 4100! In fact the second closest case might be the one I referred to yesterday Nadal v Nalbandian!

Well, you knew something is dodgy and rotten if number one does not play number four by default and number two plays number three.

Otherwise, what are the perks of being a number one...


Btw, anyone remembers when seeds 1-4 started being "drawn"?
Or has it been like that from day one?

Wouldn't it be cool if there was no draw at all.

for example number one plays 128, etc...

Tenez wrote:Can anyone find a stat where seed number 1,2 and/or 3 of end up not in the same draw for 3 to 4 years in 3 out of 4 slams? I am 100% sure you will not find anything close to 1 in 200, let alone 1 in 4100! In fact the second closest case might be the one I referred to yesterday Nadal v Nalbandian!

You might struggle given that the Nadal/Djoko/Federer 'case' is not an example of what you describe as Djoko was #4 for W&USO 2009

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:BB,
Phrase “conspiracy theory” belongs to the dictionary of Novo govor.
Due to Unbelief, your thinking is limited to 2 dimensions, so it’s pointless to talk about the third dimension with you.
I am not saying this in a condescending way, just stating why we are stuck and keep going in circles.
I shall leave the ever patient Tenez to do the Sisyphus task here.

I am delighted that I am incapable of believing that a guy related to a religious fundamentalist was born of a virgin (boy, gullible husband!), could transmute materials and come back to life.
There are actually 4 dimensions of spacetime.

Here is what the one whose birthday was celebrated a few weeks ago all across the world says about the likes you you:

“Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’; 3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites!You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed.”


I find this verse so amazingly relevant every day.

The most ridiculous is Hawkins sitting distorted in his wheelchair shaking his fist against God.

This guy wasn't born on 25th December, that was a festival of an old religion that they grabbed hold of because it was already in place. Just like stories of virgin births, resurrection etc. all hail from older religions. It's the original pic'n'mix religion with a little of something for everyone, and the reassurance for old ladies that they're not about to vanish from existence.

Hawkins is a tit. A really brainy one I grant, but still one.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Not quite. I don't use the word sequence, you do. A sequence is a particular order at which events occur. There the chance of HHHHHHHH is indeed the same of any other order. But that's not the point. . No one would have cared or been able to raise questions about 99.4% of those. The fact Nadal mentions Djoko is his toughest opponent, or if Federer were to say Nadal is his worse opponent and both cases they don't draw each others for 4 years, then you look at the probability of this happening, regardless of the order.  

In your reasoning, you do not raise an eyebrow about that strange occurence. So this my question, what is your threshold? 1 in 10k? 1 in a Million? 1 in a Billion....

In a way it is linked to the other thread, some of you do not raise an eyebrow at something that has only been recorded once in 4 bilions years.

This is correct. Although all outcomes are equally probable you are examining special case outcomes. But you're excluding the French and then back-filling a reason that doesn't stand up, because Djokovic has been the greater threat to Nadal on clay for many years. You put the French back in and the whole thing doesn't look so interesting.

No wrong. again it took Djoko many more years to beat Nadal over 5 sets. And the FO had no fear of Nadal not reaching the final.....whereas on the other 3 surfaces the odds were much slimmer and versus Djoko slimmer even. Besides, I am not saying the 3 slams cheated. Not enough data to prove that. But it seems pretty clear that at least one if not more were fixing. That's difficult to argue against.

You're also excluding the evidence barry has provided of his relative threat everywhere else. It annoys me when Nadal gets an easy draw but I don't reach for the tin foil hat.

No you don't we have had over 10 years of Nadal having easy draws so you are not the kind of guy who questions. You swallow the pill like many. And suddenly you realise millions have died, Bush and Blair made a fool of their people.

Yeah, that sounds like me - the guy who wasted weeks trying to explain to you all that you've swallowed the biggest lies in history to make yourselves feel content.

The idea the repetition of the semi line up of 2008-mid 2011 was a conspiracy to help Nadal really lacks credibility at every possible level.
I'm not surprised fair minded Federer fans in Bogbrush and Barrystar have dismissed it.

BB and BS have already made strong enough counter arguments, but let me add a few more anyway:

-Tennis fans were getting bored of the same semi-final combo, I remember I was a the time and so were many others... why would they rig it for a combo that brought viewing figures down?
-Before 2011, Nadal's H2H vs Djokovic in Slams was 5-0. Meanwhile by 2010 Murray had already beaten Nadal twice in Slams, US'08 and AO'10. Djokovic did better in BO3 but didn't have the stamina in BO5 before 2011.
-If I were to make a conspiracy theory based on manipulating the statistics I could probably make a case for Fed- he owned Djokovic at the time but actually had a negative H2H vs Murray.
-The bias of Tenez to make this conspiracy theory and then pin it on helping Nadal, not even mention the fact the only discrepancy in H2H was on Fed's side... staggering

noleisthebest wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
And on top of that is their faces when you tell them stg obvious - they look at you like you’re crazy...

I am pretry convinced it’s spiritual, not even mental or rational.

They are the same people that even in Christ’s time always demanded “proof”, even when the proof Himself was in front of them.

This is actually a very good analogy for the argument you're making on this thread.
Tenez, you've been outdone here by NITB, in terms of eloquence and accurate representation of the power of your argument.

Hey Decy,

long time no post!
I was actually thinking about you yesterday wondering how you were.

I see you are fine.

Thank you, had exams so very busy!
Hope you had a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

You're also excluding the evidence barry has provided of his relative threat everywhere else. It annoys me when Nadal gets an easy draw but I don't reach for the tin foil hat.

No you don't we have had over 10 years of Nadal having easy draws so you are not the kind of guy who questions. You swallow the pill like many. And suddenly you realise millions have died, Bush and Blair made a fool of their people.

Yeah, that sounds like me - the guy who wasted weeks trying to explain to you all that you've swallowed the biggest lies in history to make yourselves feel content.

As was exemplified by the slightly heated debate last month, I don't agree on Bogbrush on a vast number of issues.
But the idea he's the type to not ask questions about what is seen as status quo is laughable.

Even I have to start questioning these draws.  If they don't to it open and to the public... then doubts are going to be there.  Esp when this keeps happening.

I certainly would not put it past the tournaments to rig draws, and the ESPN USO study was reasonably convincing.  But the Rafa vs Nole "study" is utter rubbish.  It may play well in Serbia but if you take it seriously either you do not understand stats or you are - to use an euphemism - being disingenuous.