PDA

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


NA-GOAT
Aug 22nd, 2011, 05:51 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, 05:57 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, 06:03 PM
did caro not play a gullickson last year?

NA-GOAT
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:04 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, 06:09 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, 06:12 PM
Please put Serena far from Maria :sobbing:

theFutureisNow
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:13 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, 06:17 PM
:scared:

@little levity
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:18 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, 06:22 PM
Just imagine they get Venus in R1 now. :rolls:

The Witch-king
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:30 PM
Funny how the examples are all American.

Kworb
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:33 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

NA-GOAT
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:39 PM
2009-2010 :facepalm:

doooma6816
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:47 PM
Please put Maria and Serena on opposite side of the draw:unsure:

theFutureisNow
Aug 22nd, 2011, 06:55 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, 06:59 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, 06:59 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, 07:07 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, 07:49 PM
I don't see proof in that story.

duhcity
Aug 22nd, 2011, 08:12 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, 08:26 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.