PDA

View Full Version : Proof That USO Draw Is Fixed (At Least For Top 2 SEEDS)


SAISAI-GOAT
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:51 PM
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn-analysis-finds-top-seeds-tennis-us-open-had-easier-draw-statistically-likely

Caro and Vera will get cakewalk draws this year :facepalm:

Wiggly
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:57 PM
Interesting that it only happens in New York.

As long as the matches aren't fixed, it's all right.

Nobody would be surprise to learn that they try to put some players in the same half to get the best match-ups for the SFs and the F. Very likely.

Still, the tournament director would most probably want to "protect" the Sisters and Maria instead of Caroline and Vera.

flareon
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:03 PM
did caro not play a gullickson last year?

SAISAI-GOAT
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:04 PM
Still, the tournament director would most probably want to "protect" the Sisters and Maria instead of Caroline and Vera.

yeah but the study only focused on the top 2 SEEDS instead of American players ... anyway, the USO has for years protechted Agassi, Roddick, Serena, Venus, Capriati etc. :oh:

DragonFlame
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:09 PM
That's so interesting! :eek: I'm enjoying this read.

Maybe new software for the usopen? I hope we hear more from this.

atominside
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:12 PM
Please put Serena far from Maria :sobbing:

theFutureisNow
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:13 PM
I'm a little suspicious that they did this analysis incorrectly. Did they use relative rankings or actual rankings?

If they ranked bad players at 1500 instead of 128, then a couple truly random results could completely skew their findings, plausibly giving us the 98 number(versus an expected average of 80) that they find so suspicious.

Why I am suspicious is because the French Open women's draw is nearly as hard in the opposite direction. Also, the 95% Australian Open figure sticks out. Are they going to make the case that the French rigged the draw to screw over the top ranked women?

These extreme values in both directions make me think they might have incorrectly used actual instead of relative rankings.

Wert.
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:17 PM
:scared:

@little levity
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:18 PM
In their analysis, they said they used a 'Random-Number-Generator', no kidding. I've been doing the very exact thing for the past 6 years to select my lotto numbers. How much have I won to-date? (I hear you ask) about £89! I always knew the lotto was rigged, now I have my proof, thanks!

Ballbasher
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:22 PM
Just imagine they get Venus in R1 now. :rolls:

The Witch-king
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:30 PM
Funny how the examples are all American.

Kworb
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:33 PM
1995

[1] Graf vs. #22 Coetzer
[2] Seles vs. #44 Dragomir

1996

[1] Graf vs. #29 Basuki
[2] Seles vs. #65 Miller

1997

[1] Hingis vs. #103 Jones
[2] Seles vs. #84 Boogert

1998

[1] Hingis vs. #139 Olsza
[2] Davenport vs. #75 Cristea

1999

[1] Hingis vs. #74 Peschke
[2] Davenport vs. #36 Morariu

2000

[1] Hingis vs. #101 Jidkova
[2] Davenport vs. #29 Leon Garcia

2001

[1] Hingis vs. [WC] #336 Granville
[2] Capriati vs. [Q] #142 Hopmans

2002

[1] S. Williams vs. [WC] UNR Morariu
[2] V. Williams vs. [Q] #214 Lucic

2003

[1] Clijsters vs. [WC] #290 Liu
[2] Henin vs. [Q] #129 Kapros

2004

[1] Henin vs. [Q] #126 Vaidisova
[2] Mauresmo vs. #83 Irvin

2005

[1] Sharapova vs. #62 Daniilidou
[2] Davenport vs. #40 Li

2006

[1] Mauresmo vs. [Q] #131 Barrois
[2] Henin vs. #45 Camerin

2007

[1] Henin vs. [Q] #145 Goerges
[2] Sharapova vs. #51 Vinci

2008

[1] Ivanovic vs. #57 Dushevina
[2] Jankovic vs. [WC] #512 Vandeweghe

2009

[1] Safina vs. [WC] #167 Rogowska
[2] S. Williams vs. [WC] #103 Glatch

2010

[1] Wozniacki vs. [WC] UNR Gullickson
[2] Clijsters vs. #104 Arn

SAISAI-GOAT
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:39 PM
2009-2010 :facepalm:

doooma6816
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:47 PM
Please put Maria and Serena on opposite side of the draw:unsure:

theFutureisNow
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:55 PM
So 6 of the seeds were average to below average, when you would expect 10.

Still, 20 is a very small sample.

This is similar to asking what the probability of flipping coin <= 6 times out of 20 is.
I'm not sure, but I think the answer is 6%.

While 6% does seem like a low figure, it is certainly probable enough that these results could possibly still be explained away as a random coincidence. 1 in 17 events happen all the time.

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:59 PM
It's not 'proof', in absolute terms, but the teaching scandal in Atlanta, for example, didn't have deviates as large as that, and people are getting fired over it.

OTOH, it's maybe a lifetime event for some players. A couple years ago Christina McHale played Sharapova in a night match at the Open. I think was 17. She looked like a frightened mouse before she walked out there, but that may well be the biggest crowd she ever appears before in her life.

DefyingGravity
Aug 22nd, 2011, 07:59 PM
2008 is a flaw, with Ana Ivanovic opening against a top 60 player with that 10 year and 2005 with both Sharapova and Davenport getting Li and Daniilidou. That's an incredibly difficult draw in 2005, with Li still rising and getting better while Daniilidou had upset Henin at Wimbledon.

pav
Aug 22nd, 2011, 08:07 PM
I'll have you know Bepa is quite capable of losing in the first round if the draw is fixed, fair, fucked up, or cakewalked :)

edificio
Aug 22nd, 2011, 08:49 PM
I don't see proof in that story.

duhcity
Aug 22nd, 2011, 09:12 PM
I doubt they're fixing 1r opponents.
But since Fed and Nadal have not been #1 and #2, they've ended up on opposite sides of draws more then statistically likely :shrug:

Miracle Worker
Aug 22nd, 2011, 09:26 PM
It will be strange if Caroline draws in first round Jelena Jankovic. So it obvious she will draw someone below 33 spot in ranking.

mckyle.
Aug 22nd, 2014, 05:15 AM
Top 2 seeds get wildcards again. It seems like this happens at the US Open far too often.

Mynarco
Aug 22nd, 2014, 05:33 AM
Conspiracy :eek:

2013: Serena got Schiavone (#54), Azarenka got Pfizenmaier (#99);
2012: Azarenka got Panova (#76), Radwanska got Bratchikova (#94);
2011: Wozniacki got NLV (#125), Zvonareva got SFG (#116)

Adrian.
Aug 24th, 2014, 04:46 PM
schiavone isn't really easy :P

toxina90
Aug 24th, 2014, 04:49 PM
schiavone isn't really easy :P

I'd love to agree, but Schiavone's inspired challenging days are over :sad:

Représailles
Aug 24th, 2014, 05:26 PM
I'd love to agree, but Schiavone's inspired challenging days are over :sad:

Still but were not talking about top 10 level, she remains a quality opponent to take serious.

Simugna Help
Aug 24th, 2014, 05:28 PM
I doubt they're fixing 1r opponents.
But since Fed and Nadal have not been #1 and #2, they've ended up on opposite sides of draws more then statistically likely :shrug:

those endless Nadal-Murray and Federer-Djokovic semis (even before Djokovic surpassed Roger in the rankings) :zzz:

Robson Bouchard
Aug 24th, 2014, 09:07 PM
All draws are rigged to a certain extent. If you know the right person/people they can fix it and not just the draw. :)

fouc
Aug 24th, 2014, 09:29 PM
and 2014:
(1) Serena vs. (#103) Townsend
(2) Halep vs. (#583) Collins

Whitehead's Boy
Aug 24th, 2014, 09:58 PM
There is no way they would take the risk to fix the draw only to protect the number 1 and 2 seed for one match.

Having said that, considering this:

After being presented with the "Outside the Lines" analysis, Swift conducted his own study of the opponents of the top two seeds and found that only four times in 1 million simulations did he come up with an average ranking equal to or easier than what was actually observed in the men's and women's draws over the last 10 years. "By itself, the U.S. [Open] numbers are weird," he said. "And then they're also weird in comparison to the other three Grand Slams. So you've got a double argument of weirdness here. Something weird is going on."

Their algorithm def. needs to be checked. But if there is an issue with the algorithm and it tends to pick players ranked lower first, then we would observe the same pattern in the rest of the draw and not just for the first two seeds. The fact that they're silent about finding out any other pattern in the last 10 years probably means they haven't found any. I can't see why an algorithm would be faulty only for the first 2 seeds only, but if it were the case, then the fault in the algorithm would easily be spotted.

nfl46
Aug 24th, 2014, 10:37 PM
I am not sure how Taylor got Serena in the first round. Its clear as day what they were trying to do. Taylor could have possibly won a couple of matches at the Open.

MichaelN
Aug 24th, 2014, 11:04 PM
I am not sure how Taylor got Serena in the first round. Its clear as day what they were trying to do. Taylor could have possibly won a couple of matches at the Open.

This.

fufuqifuqishahah
Aug 24th, 2014, 11:24 PM
how is the draw conducted

dencod16
Aug 25th, 2014, 03:12 AM
how is the draw conducted

non-seeded players are drawn randomly by a computer.

JN
Aug 25th, 2014, 03:32 AM
I am not sure how Taylor got Serena in the first round. Its clear as day what they were trying to do. Taylor could have possibly won a couple of matches at the Open.

This.

darrinbaker00
Aug 25th, 2014, 03:37 AM
I am not sure how Taylor got Serena in the first round. Its clear as day what they were trying to do. Taylor could have possibly won a couple of matches at the Open.

She still can, you know. Anyone can be beaten at any time.

iGOAT
Aug 25th, 2014, 05:31 AM
This is called luck of the draw. Coincidences like this happen. They obviously can't just rig it :weirdo:.

JAS_
Aug 25th, 2014, 07:00 AM
This is called luck of the draw. Coincidences like this happen. They obviously can't just rig it :weirdo:.

Really? It's not obvious at all. How can we be sure that they don't rig it?
For example, those "randomly" drawn numbers by the computer - the draw comes filled with them. How do we know they are random and not programmed? There is simply no way for us to know, we have to go by their word. So, it's up to each one of us whether to believe them or not.

mckyle.
Aug 25th, 2014, 07:12 AM
The #1 and/or #2 seeds drawing a wildcard has happened way too many times over the last 15 years for it to be coincidental.

ivanban
Aug 25th, 2014, 09:18 AM
This is called luck of the draw. Coincidences like this happen. They obviously can't just rig it :weirdo:.

If a computer program is made to draw highest seeds only against players ranked bellow #50 in 1r, then it surely can be rigged.
Why did they abandon the old way of doing the draw is beyond me :confused:

Juju Nostalgique
Aug 25th, 2014, 10:43 AM
Is this an AMAZING FEET? :shrug:

TrollPova
Aug 25th, 2014, 10:59 AM
Is this an AMAZING FEET? :shrug:

If Taylor wins it would be an amazing FEET :eek:

StephenUK
Aug 25th, 2014, 11:00 AM
All grand slam draws since 2001 have been fixed to the extent that since no 2 seed Venus Williams was upended by Barbara Schett, then ranked about 21, in the first round of Roland Garros in 2001, the number of seeds was inflated from 16 to 32 to remove the threat of top 30 opposition facing top seeds in slams ever again, allegedly because American TV complained. These were always THE danger matches eg Steffi Graf losing to Lori McNeil 1r Wimbledon, I think Lori was top 20 then. Far more top seeds would lose 1r in slams now if they could possibly face today's 17-32 ranked players 1r.

HippityHop
Aug 25th, 2014, 12:14 PM
Right now Serena's problem is that she is more vulnerable to players outside the top ten than to players inside the top ten. :(

kassipops
Aug 25th, 2014, 01:29 PM
I am not sure how Taylor got Serena in the first round. Its clear as day what they were trying to do. Taylor could have possibly won a couple of matches at the Open.

Minimise the number of US players in the second round? :confused: Something that their success as an organisation is judged upon and may affect ticket sales?

Even if Taylor were persona non grata it makes zero financial sense to deliberately scupper her tournament chances.

Bad Blood
Aug 25th, 2014, 01:35 PM
Minimise the number of US players in the second round? :confused: Something that their success as an organisation is judged upon and may affect ticket sales?

Even if Taylor were persona non grata it makes zero financial sense to deliberately scupper her tournament chances.

for ratings they would do this obviously. Taylor is not basically a shoo in to win a few matches to meet Serena so the earlier the better

nfl46
Aug 25th, 2014, 01:57 PM
Minimise the number of US players in the second round? :confused: Something that their success as an organisation is judged upon and may affect ticket sales?

Even if Taylor were persona non grata it makes zero financial sense to deliberately scupper her tournament chances.

Picture this:

2014 US Open - Arthur Ashe Stadium (Night Match)

Defending Champion: African American - Serena Williams
Rising 18-year-old American tennis star: African American - Taylor Townsend

Williams is going for her 1st Slam of the year, and 18th Grand Slam overall
Townsend is appearing in her third Grand Slam, and hoping for first win over world number 1 and tennis legend, Serena Williams

..........poor Taylor, the USTA hates her...even though they had nothing to do with this...I'm sure they had someone who does the draw the (f) over her. Sadly, we live in a world where its all about politics and money! Networks would do anything for ratings. Hell, I'm surprised Venus is on the opposite side and they didn't have her meet Serena early on.

sweetpeas
Aug 25th, 2014, 03:18 PM
They never protected the Sisters!Lmao

Sarindipity
Aug 25th, 2014, 03:24 PM
Can someone give me a Too Long; Didnt Read version of this article?