Why I don't think the draw-rigging theory holds up to scrutiny

I know Tenez and a few others believe that Slam draws are frequently rigged; a few reasons why I believe the actual evidence behind it is scarce.

1/ There is no hard evidence- ie not even reports of any sort of corruption when it comes to draws. However I will concede that circumstantial evidence is all we'd be likely to have either way.

2/ It's quite easy to make it seem as if it's rigged against the player you like, and for the player you dislike. I'm not going to name any particular player here, but I've noticed a trend that if a particular player gets a good draw there's an article hinting/implying that something dodgy is going on; but meanwhile if he gets a bad draw there is no mention at all of the difficulty of a draw. Players will naturally get good draws sometimes, and bad draws sometimes.

3/ One of the main 'scandals' was the frequency of 'Fed vs Djoko' and 'Nadal vs Murray' in slam semis for a sustained period of a few years. No doubt it's a statistical oddity, and I can understand if people want to consider explaining it as a conspiracy. However this sort of thing, if let's say the ITF/ATP/sponsors do have the power to rig draws, why would they continuously pair the same two players against each other? It would just draw attention to their rigging... they would need to have serious reasons to do so. Which brings me onto point number 4.

4/ There is no real reason for rigging the semi-final seed pairings as they did, and if there was; I don't see why people are suggesting it was put into place to help Nadal. This I suspect is the problem with conspiracy theories based on circumstantial evidence, people can just fit it to whatever story they like. Federer actually had a better H2H vs Djokovic than Murray (infact he's always been behind Murray in H2H); while in slams Murray actually did much better than Djokovic against Nadal until 2011 (Wimbledon 2011 was actually Djokovic's first win against Nadal in slams... Murray beat Rafa in 2008 US and 2010 AO). So the fact people who propose the draw rigging, and then draw conclusions which fit their theory (rather than what would make sense with the H2H at the time) is pretty suspicious.

I think in general this theory is the sign of people who tend to think that society or organisations work against them whenever they notice a statistical oddity which can be viewed as one that doesn't suit them.

To answer your question from the other thread.

I can imagine many many ways a draw can be rigged- even live and drawn from a hat. If computer generated- it's a no brainer. Any programmer with a degree could rig the computer to "randomly" create the desired scenario, and who would check or catch it? The tournament organizers who paid the programmer to set up the best moneymaking course for the tourny? The Atp who knows what is going on and also has a financial interest?

If hand drawn- there are plenty of ways- just from my Vegas days- the tricks I've seen would boggle your mind, weighted cards, bags with dividers in them where the person pulls from a predetermined section, brail on the sides of the cards so the person feels around and grabs what they want. Now I know factually many shenanigans that go on behind the scenes in sports- including tennis, but I have never been told of a tennis draw rig or how it's done, but I do know and have witnessed things 1000 times crazier and more shocking in many different sports- so it's barely even phases me to think of how easy it would for a draw to be rigged.

I've seen a fighter carry weighted strips in his "private" area to make weight! Strip to his underwear and shown on national tv so the sport powers could show how honest they are! I've been in a room where some of the most famous and beloved boxers have been given specific instructions of how long to carry the other fighter before going for the kill, (so the gamblers would bet more and more) - then if the fighter did his job, but then when allowed to go all out couldn't knock out the other guy- was told he would be 100% to win if it went to the judges. Draw rigging is a joke compared to what goes on in real life.

Btw- go to the us open draw thread and see what I said about being on Feds website forum and we were told by a poster who the 1st two rounds of opponents were - 30 minites BEFORE those guys were drawn at the "live draw.

Your last paragraph above and certainly what I've witnessed in your postings show an incredible naive view on the way business of sports works. This isn't an insult because there is nothing wrong with being so- but you are either very gullible in believing on the show put before you by the powers that run things, or naive. I know you are hopelessly blinded to reality when it comes to Nadal, but I also think you just don't get what goes on overall.

Now, I also don't think that the draw rigging is even considered cheating by the powers. The players still have to go out and play. I truly don't beleive tennis and most sports have the problem that boxing had where outcomes were predetermined, but there surely is help being given to the top draws where it can be. Do you really not think the organizers of those little South American clay tournies nadal plays go out of their way to lay the clay to the likings of the nadal team? Like I said- I know my home facility does everything it can to cave to the demand of someone like the Williams dad (a true piece of work btw). It's just seen as a little help for someone who is making the tourny far more money than another player.

I do say that it is possible that the draws are rigged, and I imagine if some powerful people really wanted it they could make it happen, but I don't see anything to suggest that a) they have any real motivation to, and b) any real evidence that they've taken this step looking at the draws.

All players have got some hard draws and some easy draws; fans of players always complain that 'their' favourite player always gets the bad draws, but then don't complain when he/she gets an easy draw... I notice this in football fans as well as tennis fans.

truffin wrote:Btw- go to the us open draw thread and see what I said about being on Feds website forum and we were told by a poster who the 1st two rounds of opponents were - 30 minites BEFORE those guys were drawn at the "live draw.

I didn't know about this but it sounds interesting, tell me more

I recounted it in the us open draw thread I started on here, but basically- I was on the official fed forum chatting with some friends before the draw was to take place. A well known poster posts that a buddy of his at atp just texted him that fed was going to play matzovic in 1st round and possibly goth in 2nd. We say cool and start taking about how they are huge servers,etc and someone posts - hold on- this isn't right info- draw hasn't even started, they are drawing the woman right now and men's draw is 30 minutes away. The poster with the info says all he knows is his friend who works at atp and is in New York just texted him with it. I check and sure enough the "live" draw isn't even close to happening. So we think it's just bad info.. Live draw happens and - sure enough- they drAw out matzovic and goth!!

That's strange don't you think? Now, some started posting how it could be innocent and it could be. Someone suggested that the nonseeded players get drawn behind the scenes first to save time. Maybe- but the Us Open was presenting it as live as it happens.

Could it be his buddy didn't realize the timing was off when he texted? Thought his friend would keep it private? Or maybe it's completely innocent.

Same time- I hardly think federer with his unprecedented ability to make it to the later rounds really needed hand picked 1at and second rounds, so why bother? But I've seen powers in charge do uneccasary things like that before too.


About your post before- what motivation? Again - it shocks me you don't get this. It's to do what they can to help along the scenario to create the most money making matches. Plain and simple.

You say all players get easy and hard draws which is 100%,true, but have you noticed how the draws on federers best surfaces tend to be harder on paper and nadals draws on those same (his weaker) surfaces tended to be easier during the top fedal years. And then when it was clay or a better nadal surface it would flip and fed would get the easier route and nadal the harder? The obvious reasoning- give the player on the weaker surface a boost so he has a better chance of getting to the blockbuster final where nadal on clay and federer everywhere else would be waiting even with their tougher draw.

Did you notice how federer got brutal draws in 2013 when he was half broken in his words and the powers prob assumed their top moneymaker was fading and couldn't make it to final with the little help a draw could give. then this year his draws have been kinder on paper as he proved at the AO that he was back and was still the top draw so the powers saw that it would be most beneficial to help where they could.

Now to show again it's just about money and not helping a player just for the heck if it, federer has been royally screwed several tournament having to play all night matches to draw the ratings.

Can you not see at Basel that the TD has looked like a complete fool by investing in nadal and he not showing up the past two years and that to save face he needs nadal to win some matches and pay for his fees at the gate? And sure enough, nadal is given a cake walk right when he needs it most- sick and on his weak surface. And federer who is in form and lookjt dominant is seen as not needing the help and given the harder slot.

Do you wonder why the us open was dramatically slowed in 2010 when all the press and powers wanted nadal to win it to continue the narrative of his first all surface dominant season, how wtf was dramatically slower last year again when evryone was saying this was nadals year.
Now this year have you noticed as federer and djokovic have been the stories that the tournaments have been said to be quicker? Why the change? Perhaps to help the moneymakers of the moment?

Now I'm just riffing here, but- again- as much as all this sounds like conspiracy stuff- I've personally been around stuff on sports that dwarf those type happenings.

It's really the same with the doping and why I shake my head so much as some of your blindness. The worst you see people speculate about tennis isn't a drop in the hat of what goes on in other sports- so I know it's that bad and probably far worst than what that say in tennis.

As far as I am concerned, draw rigging prevented Djokovic and Federer winning more slams.
They were drawn 12/12 in the same half in Wimbledon, USO and AO.
"Surprisingly", not on clay.

So much was done to artificially help Nadal win slams on hard courts.

And they are still rigging draws for him, even on clay.
Just look at what easy draw he had in RG this year compared to Djokovic, esp in early rounds.

noleisthebest wrote:As far as I am concerned, draw rigging prevented Djokovic and Federer winning more slams.
They were drawn 12/12 in the same half in Wimbledon, USO and AO.
"Surprisingly", not on clay.

LOL

This is a perfect example of how you always try to bend reality to your wishes - even convincing yourself that clay is different enough that it does not matter there, but matters elsewhere.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:As far as I am concerned, draw rigging prevented Djokovic and Federer winning more slams.
They were drawn 12/12 in the same half in Wimbledon, USO and AO.
"Surprisingly", not on clay.

LOL

This is a perfect example of how you always try to bend reality to your wishes - even convincing yourself that clay is different enough that it does not matter there, but matters elsewhere.

I am stunned by your own bending of reality here SB. Are you seriously trying to compare 2s and 1 with 9?????? Of course the FO has to be considered differently in that study asNadal clearly struggled to win outside Clay when it all started...and of course it corresponded with Nole's rise.! And being able to rig one draw doesn;t mean they can rig them all.

I am not saying all 3 other slams were rigged, maybe 2 of them came up with that strange pattern and only one riggged, maybe 2 rigged and one did not but the fact is the 3 having that bizarre draw....4 consecutive years is certainly more than fishy.

Only credulous, naive people woudl not even question it.

Besides the ESPN study is simply proof that draws are rigged. it's one chance in a million or something like that that they are not.

To deny that one one has to be an idiot, a step above being naive!

I think Truffin was right in saying that it is certainly possible for the draws to be rigged, if powerful people wanted it I'm sure things such as 'live draws' could still be tampered with.
I just wanted to clear that up before moving forward.
The question for me is not whether they can be rigged, but what the likelihood of it actually taking place is.

truffin wrote:You say all players get easy and hard draws which is 100%,true, but have you noticed how the draws on federers best surfaces tend to be harder on paper and nadals draws on those same (his weaker) surfaces tended to be easier during the top fedal years. And then when it was clay or a better nadal surface it would flip and fed would get the easier route and nadal the harder?

I've not noticed this at all, certainly not any obvious trend; as far as I've seen both Federer and Nadal have got hard and easy draws on different surfaces.

Again, I think it's so so easy to claim any draw that takes place is rigged. If Federer gets a hard draw 'aah see I told you so, the people in power want Federer to be involved in blockbuster matches'; if Federer gets a easy draw 'aah see I told you so, the people in power want Federer to get a easy route through to the final'.

I feel for some people in this debate the actual evidence is irrelevant- they will look at any draw and come to the same conclusion- the draw is rigged. As I've just shown it's very easy to do.

Let's have a look at one from NITB:

noleisthebest wrote:And they are still rigging draws for him, even on clay.
Just look at what easy draw he had in RG this year compared to Djokovic, esp in early rounds.

In RG Djokovic probably had a harder draw...ok; but what about Aus Open where Nadal has a miles harder draw ?
Oh that's right- you won't mention it.
So if you keep selectively mentioning the times when Nadal gets a easy draw, and forget the ones where he gets a hard draw, you create a totally misled inaccurate impression.

OK now to talk about the main conspiracy, the semi-final pairings' I talked about it in the OP but people didn't bother reading that paragraph clearly:

noleisthebest wrote:As far as I am concerned, draw rigging prevented Djokovic and Federer winning more slams.
They were drawn 12/12 in the same half in Wimbledon, USO and AO.

Tenez wrote:Nadal clearly struggled to win outside Clay when it all started...and of course it corresponded with Nole's rise.! ...
Besides the ESPN study is simply proof that draws are rigged.

Out of all the logic, this is the most twisted- probably the textbook example of 'I will make the evidence fit my pre-conceived ideas'.

Points I'd like to make:
a) If there was some sort of joint effort to do the 12/12 it's ridiculous as it would bring attention to the draw rigging... so they would have serious reason to do so
b) Let's be honest... there's no tennis reason (it could be due to betting market maybe)- but there's no tennis reason to have this pairing constantly playing
c)The idea this helped Nadal, as both Tenez and NITB said, and stopped Federer, as NITB explicitly said, is beyond a joke. Murray's H2H overall and in Slams were better than Djokovic's against Nadal.. (it took Djokovic until 2011 to beat Nadal in slam, Murray had already done so twice). And for Federer, his H2H against Djokovic was much better than his losing H2H against Murray.
So to first take a leap of faith that this 'proves' draw rigging, and then to also conclude that it helped Nadal and not Federer is an absolute joke. Truffin is right, it is possible that draw rigging takes place, but these arguments made by you guys are so unconvincing it's unreal.

Kimmy, I have no desire to argue the same debate again just because you have a different name.

We've been over this one more than once.
I gather you don't want to see the obvious, and that's fine.

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:As far as I am concerned, draw rigging prevented Djokovic and Federer winning more slams.
They were drawn 12/12 in the same half in Wimbledon, USO and AO.
"Surprisingly", not on clay.

LOL

This is a perfect example of how you always try to bend reality to your wishes - even convincing yourself that clay is different enough that it does not matter there, but matters elsewhere.

I am stunned by your own bending of reality here SB. Are you seriously trying to compare 2s and 1 with 9?????? Of course the FO has to be considered differently in that study asNadal clearly struggled to win outside Clay when it all started...and of course it corresponded with Nole's rise.! And being able to rig one draw doesn;t mean they can rig them all.

I am not saying all 3 other slams were rigged, maybe 2 of them came up with that strange pattern and only one riggged, maybe 2 rigged and one did not but the fact is the 3 having that bizarre draw....4 consecutive years is certainly more than fishy.

Only credulous, naive people woudl not even question it.

Do you really think it's my wish draws are/were rigged?
Not only are draws rigged, matches are fixed, too.
And not just the unimportant ones in challengers....

Although I know I shouldn't, I still keep being amazed at people's inability to accept that sport is dirty just like any other business.
How many times have both Toni and his nephew mentioned phrase "good for The Show" every time Nadal was sanctioned for time between the points, or Toni warned for coaching from the stands...having the audacity to publicly call good umpires uselless and question their existence?
Wasn't the Uncle one who said Nadal would play USO but he needed kind draw in the first few rounds...

Has anyone else in the history of tennis been able to throw their weight around in such an obvious way?

Lance Armstrong once thought he was untouchable too...

In all this the only small consolation is that Nadal was stopped in his slam rampage.

Nitb,

I have no problem with the notion that draws may be rigged etc., it is just that the reasoning you are using to get there is so slanted. Even if say you end up getting to the right answer, it will be by coincidence.

Here is the original, full debate from 606v2 during which Tenez and I got banned from that forum.

http://www.606v2.com/t27820-draw-fixing-an-official-study?

It is clear you do have a problem with draws being rigged.
After all, the Official Study was not mine... however, it was a perfect and valid study and proof that supported the suspicion and conviction I had long before it came out.

Bottom line, after that study came out, the irregularity at USO suddenly stopped.

noleisthebest wrote:however, it was a perfect and valid study and proof that supported the suspicion and conviction I had long before it came out.

Go on then, in my post at 2:40pm I made 3 points against this theory, let's see if you have any rebuttal at all.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:however, it was a perfect and valid study and proof that supported the suspicion and conviction I had long before it came out.

Go on then, in my post at 2:40pm I made 3 points against this theory, let's see if you have any rebuttal at all.

Let's not flog a dead horse here, shall we?

It would be more interesting if you could tell us how Nadal is doing these days...
Is he going to win anything soon?

noleisthebest wrote:
Let's not flog a dead horse here, shall we?

I have not seen one person, you or anyone defending your position, attempt rebuttal against the 3 points I've raised. Infact I don't think I've argued this against you, the only time I remember debating this was against Laverfan on v2 (when you weren't on there)- and I said the fact the seedings are balanced does not quell suspicion.
Anyway, if you can't respond to the points I've raised, which is clear; there's no point asking you to.

noleisthebest wrote:
It would be more interesting if you could tell us how Nadal is doing these days...
Is he going to win anything soon?

Slightly off topic for this thread, but I can reply anyway.
No, unfortunately this is the end of the road for Nadal, he has permanently declined to the extent he can't even cope with players such as Klizan and Lopez. Forgetting winning tournaments, soon his ranking will plummet.

Where do you see Nadal this time next year, then?

noleisthebest wrote:It is clear you do have a problem with draws being rigged.

Why do you think so?

noleisthebest wrote:however, it was a perfect and valid study

That is exactly the issue; it was definitely not a valid study.

I had such a good read re-reading the thread NITB.

here are some extracts I enjoyed particularly.

by Tenez on Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:21 pm
Henman Bill wrote:although we can see Tenez making an argument the other way so we have arguments on both sides here.

Yes and beginning of 2008 Nadal had 3 FOs no slam outside. That is a bit more than "an other side" isn't it?

I am sure you realise it's much more likely that Nadal winning his first 3 slams at the FO were just down to chance (1 in 32) than getting 12/12.

SO that's my argument for the sceptics. I say that Nadal is no better on clay than anywhere else. He was just lucky that his first 3 slams were at the FO and only conspiracionists woudl say he was better on clay over 5 sets cause they have only 32/33 chance to be right.


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 100 billion years.

To SB: Do you really grasp the ESPN study? "Intriguing" shoudl not be the word. It's a clear proof of rigging...if not rigging a software coding malfunction (cough cough). There is no way around that. You elaborate as much as you can to sit in the middle of the fence. The truth on the other hand takes side.

We will see at the nest USO that suddenly this "bug" is fixed....even if that requires rigging the draw to "force" top seed players to have highly ranked opponents.

And again
That again is going to great lengths to reduce the chance by 1000 (1000 different angles). You will find a hard time looking at a draw from 1000 rigging valid point angles....unless you consider that one angle would be to rig the draw to favour lower ranked players.

It's almost a signature that you do not wish to see rigging there.

As we say in my native language "you are drowning in a glass of water". I woudl be curious to see who buys your argument the

This one was funny too :

SB to Laverfan
laverfan, not really sure what to make of your contributions on this thread. There are bits of this thread which are really just math/stats and where there really is not that much to argue and there are bits (interpretation of the results, possible motives, etc etc) which are open for argument. You are spending a lot of time poking into the ones which are really not up for debate. On top of that, you are doing it in a rather unfocused and haphazard way. I find it even more puzzling because I do not have you under the posters that are trying to always be right at any cost. So why these attacks in an area where you do not appear to be an expert?

I had such a good read re-reading the thread NITB.

here are some extracts I enjoyed particularly.  

Henman Bill wrote:although we can see Tenez making an argument the other way so we have arguments on both sides here

.

Yes and beginning of 2008 Nadal had 3 FOs no slam outside. That is a bit more than "an other side" isn't it?

I am sure you realise it's much more likely that Nadal winning his first 3 slams at the FO were just down to chance (1 in 32) than getting 12/12.

SO that's my argument for the sceptics. I say that Nadal is no better on clay than anywhere else. He was just lucky that his first 3 slams were at the FO and only conspiracionists woudl say he was better on clay over 5 sets cause they have only 32/33 chance to be right.

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 100 billion years.  

To SB:

Do you really grasp the ESPN study? "Intriguing" shoudl not be the word. It's a clear proof of rigging...if not rigging a software coding malfunction (cough cough). There is no way around that. You elaborate as much as you can to sit in the middle of the fence. The truth on the other hand takes side.

We will see at the nest USO that suddenly this "bug" is fixed....even if that requires rigging the draw to "force" top seed players to have highly ranked opponents.

And again
That again is going to great lengths to reduce the chance by 1000 (1000 different angles). You will find a hard time looking at a draw from 1000 rigging valid point angles....unless you consider that one angle would be to rig the draw to favour lower ranked players.

It's almost a signature that you do not wish to see rigging there.

This one was funny too :

SB to Laverfan
laverfan, not really sure what to make of your contributions on this thread. There are bits of this thread which are really just math/stats and where there really is not that much to argue and there are bits (interpretation of the results, possible motives, etc etc) which are open for argument. You are spending a lot of time poking into the ones which are really not up for debate. On top of that, you are doing it in a rather unfocused and haphazard way. I find it even more puzzling because I do not have you under the posters that are trying to always be right at any cost. So why these attacks in an area where you do not appear to be an expert?

Out of all the logic, this is the most twisted- probably the textbook example of 'I will make the evidence fit my pre-conceived ideas'.

Points I'd like to make:
a) If there was some sort of joint effort to do the 12/12 it's ridiculous as it would bring attention to the draw rigging... so they would have serious reason to do so
b) Let's be honest... there's no tennis reason (it could be due to betting market maybe)- but there's no tennis reason to have this pairing constantly playing
c)The idea this helped Nadal, as both Tenez and NITB said, and stopped Federer, as NITB explicitly said, is beyond a joke. Murray's H2H overall and in Slams were better than Djokovic's against Nadal.. (it took Djokovic until 2011 to beat Nadal in slam, Murray had already done so twice). And for Federer, his H2H against Djokovic was much better than his losing H2H against Murray.
So to first take a leap of faith that this 'proves' draw rigging, and then to also conclude that it helped Nadal and not Federer is an absolute joke. Truffin is right, it is possible that draw rigging takes place, but these arguments made by you guys are so unconvincing it's unreal.


^To add to that I would like to make a fourth point:
d) -If we take the 12 slams in question, any possible pairing would be statistically unlikely (i.e. they would all be (1/2)^12. The question is not whether this outcome of these 12 events are statistically unlikely, the question is whether it is engineered in a way that makes such an obvious benefit that it is likely to be rigged. The idea the study 'proves' anything is laughable. Looks at my point c) to see why this certainly did not obviously benefit Nadal.

noleisthebest wrote:Where do you see Nadal this time next year, then?

I'm not sure, maybe struggling on the Challenger circuit or something; but the good news is I saw him personally this year:

http://www.606v2.com/t55488-a-message-from-it-must-be-love-meeting-rafael-nadal-my-birthday-some-tennis-analysis

Tenez wrote: I had such a good read re-reading the thread  NITB.
here are some extracts I enjoyed particularly

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 100 billion years.  

Me, too.
I didn't  even notice your Moses post at the time, that was excellent!
The thread had everything: tantrums, bans, proper debate, lots of humour, people were coming and going...stats were marched, coins tossed and retossed...
Some were really trying hard to make such a simple matter complicated...all in all a fascinating study of characters!

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Where do you see Nadal this time next year, then?

I'm not sure, maybe struggling on the Challenger circuit or something; but the good news is I saw him personally this year:

http://www.606v2.com/t55488-a-message-from-it-must-be-love-meeting-rafael-nadal-my-birthday-some-tennis-analysis

I'm very happy you met your hero, it obviously meant a lot to you. I saw him practice in Wimbledon, this summer, too, by sheer accident of course.
Even then he managed to sit down on a chair and frown about something...must have been the early signs of appendicitis

Thanks
Yes I think that chair must have caused the appendicitis, Nadal always gets injured by chairs

I injure chairs, chairs don't injure me!