USO draw analysis
TT
1st - unknown
2nd - Riba/Berlocq
3rd - DENKO/Dodig
4th - Dolgo/Gasquet
QF - MONFILS/BERDYCH
SF - FEDERER/Tsonga/Fish
FEDERER
1st - Giraldo
2nd - Bellucci
3rd - Tomic/Cilic
4th - Troicki/Stepanek/Kohli
QF - TSONGA/Verdasco/Fish
SF - DJOKOVIC/Berdych
Tsonga has Lu in 1st round.
MURRAY
1st - Devvarman
2nd - Haase
3rd - Lopez
4th - Wawrinka
QF - DELPO/Söderling/Simon/Isner?
SF - NADAL/Ferrer
NADAL
1st - Golubev
2nd - Mahut
3rd - Nalbandian/Ljubicic
4th - Youzhny/Melzer
QF - FERRER/RODDICK/Almagro?
SF - MURRAY/DELPO
jdeluise
On 25-Aug-2011, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> Tsonga has Lu in 1st round.
Lu can be dangerous if Tsonga is having a bad day.
uly...@mscomm.com
TT
Yup. Hard to say who has tough draw...
I'm not happy at all with Rafa's draw though, even if seeds lose there
are tough hombres to take their place so it's very unlikely to really
open up.
So far bettors think that Murray has an easy draw...and yes not many
traps out there and he has a good record against Delpo.
Shakes
> DJOKOVIC
>
> 1st - unknown
> 2nd - Riba/Berlocq
> 3rd - DENKO/Dodig
> 4th - Dolgo/Gasquet
> QF - MONFILS/BERDYCH
> SF - FEDERER/Tsonga/Fish
>
> FEDERER
>
> 1st - Giraldo
> 2nd - Bellucci
> 3rd - Tomic/Cilic
> 4th - Troicki/Stepanek/Kohli
> QF - TSONGA/Verdasco/Fish
> SF - DJOKOVIC/Berdych
>
> Tsonga has Lu in 1st round.
>
> MURRAY
>
> 1st - Devvarman
> 2nd - Haase
> 3rd - Lopez
> 4th - Wawrinka
> QF - DELPO/S�derling/Simon/Isner?
> SF - NADAL/Ferrer
>
> NADAL
>
> 1st - Golubev
> 2nd - Mahut
> 3rd - Nalbandian/Ljubicic
> 4th - Youzhny/Melzer
> QF - FERRER/RODDICK/Almagro?
> SF - MURRAY/DELPO
Djok and Fed have good draws. No serious threats until QF. Nadal has a
potentially tricky draw on paper. I think Murray has a tough draw.
Devvarman, Haase, Lopez can be troublesome on a good day. Wawrinka too.
TT
> Djoker has a cakewalk draw up to the semis.
Maybe...but there are some potential traps...Denko rd3, Gasquet next
round and Berdych in quarters. So I wouldn't say it's that easy, if
those players find their form.
Federer vs. Tomic rd3 could be interesting...they've never met before...
If Tomic gets past Cilic that is.
number_six
1. They drew from the trophy and scrapped the computer.
2. Harrison vs. Cilic, Isner vs. Baghdatis first rounds.
3. Garcia-Lopez vs. Gimeno-Traver -- you can't script that.
And, as an interesting bonus, #1 Djokovic vs. Qualifier, and #2 Nadal
vs. #97 Golubev maintains the divergence -- as discussed in the recent
ESPN findings -- between the actual difficulty of the first-round
opponents for the top two seeds, and the *expected* difficulty of
those opponents.
TT
> Opening arguments that draw was legit this year --
>
> 1. They drew from the trophy and scrapped the computer.
Did they draw everything...and did they draw actual names/rankings so
that the only way to cheat would be if the person who draws was corrupt?
And did the person doing the physical draw actually read the tickets or
just hand them to the corrupt official...
:)
>
> 2. Harrison vs. Cilic, Isner vs. Baghdatis first rounds.
>
> 3. Garcia-Lopez vs. Gimeno-Traver -- you can't script that.
>
> And, as an interesting bonus, #1 Djokovic vs. Qualifier, and #2 Nadal
> vs. #97 Golubev maintains the divergence -- as discussed in the recent
> ESPN findings -- between the actual difficulty of the first-round
> opponents for the top two seeds, and the *expected* difficulty of
> those opponents.
>
There you go.
Now of course above fact and that Murray is on Nadal's side again would
suggest that indeed the draw is rigged...if not now - then previously,
since the odds are just damn too big.
felangey
> If Tomic gets past Cilic that is.>
I don't think Tomic would trouble Fed at all....he will lap that kinda play
right up.
felangey
> suggest that indeed the draw is rigged...if not now - then previously,
> since the odds are just damn too big.
You gotta figure that they figure they keep trying for the nostalgic "big
final". Notwithstanding though....it would have been fitting if there was at
least a possibilty of a Djoke Fed final...given they have been the best two
players there over the course. Shame.
TennisGuy
Actually I think Tomic could be a severe test for Federer, given his
current movement. I hope I'm wrong though.
felangey
current movement. I hope I'm wrong though.<
Not chance mate....not that pitty patty bollocks....Fed's court smarts are
way too good.
Pelle Svanslös
Of the top 8 1, 3, 7, 8 are distributed in the top half. 2, 4, 5, 6 in
the bottom half.
Shouldn't seeds 5 and 6 be in different halves as would 7 and 8? The
placement of seeds isn't balanced as it is now.
TT
He's sort of Murray-like, so not a certainty.
TT
They have?
I don't recall Djoker winning it.
TT
Court smarts is not going to beat Tomic, imo.
jdeluise
On 25-Aug-2011, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> Court smarts is not going to beat Tomic, imo.
No? What will, sweaty topspin?
TT
Power, serve....Tomic's poor play/serving.
felangey
:)
TT
>> No? What will, sweaty topspin?
>
> :)
>
>
Well, sweaty endless slicing won't do it.
number_six
Yes, the guy read the names out loud as he drew from the
trophy...tournament referee Brian Early looked on, his placid exterior
masking the abject horror he was no doubt experiencing.
Re the Nadal /Murray question, I think that's a red herring. Longish
runs of like outcomes on a 50/50 throw are fully expected from time to
time. What bothered me was the significant difference between the USO
and the other majors -- for both the men *and* the women! -- with
regard to average difficulty of first-round opponents for the top two
seeds.
I don't expect those first-round opponents to be ranked #80 -- I just
expect that over sufficient time, the average ranking of all such
opponents should approach 80. Either ten years wasn't sufficient
time, or some legerdemain was going on.
Notwithstanding his obligatory anti-Fed bias, Whisper's joke at the
end of this earlier thread was actually quite funny --
TT
> Re the Nadal /Murray question, I think that's a red herring. Longish
> runs of like outcomes on a 50/50 throw are fully expected from time to
> time.
I believe that's a fallacy...since long runs actually are not as common
place as people think.
For example average amount of coin tosses to get 10 consecutive heads is
2000 flips. Now how many years is 2000 slams...correct, 500
years...while tennis is over 100 years old.
Superdave
>Djoker has a cakewalk draw up to the semis.
nadal has one up to the final. gross really.
number_six
Ten in a row? We're not up to ten in a row yet, even if it seems that
way!
felangey
> place as people think.
I don't think that is correct. For starters people in general do not believe
in the likelyhood of long streaks. It's called the 'representativeness
heuristic'.
> For example average amount of coin tosses to get 10 consecutive heads is
> 2000 flips. Now how many years is 2000 slams...correct, 500 years...while
> tennis is over 100 years old.
Variance being what it is, it doesn't matter what the 'average' is in any
given example. Just ask any of the numpties who have lost the shirt from
their back employing the Martingale betting strategy.
Court_1
> Djoker has a cakewalk draw up to the semis.
So does Nadal. I mean Ferrer or Almagro his Spanish puppets or
Roddick? LMAO! Please. If Nadal can't get to the SF with this draw he
should retire immediately.
MBDunc
> DJOKOVIC
>
> 1st - unknown
> 2nd - Riba/Berlocq
> 3rd - DENKO/Dodig
> 4th - Dolgo/Gasquet
> QF - MONFILS/BERDYCH
> SF - FEDERER/Tsonga/Fish
Djoko has the easiest first four rounds. Three months ago also QF
would have consiseded cakewak but Monfils/Berdych played a good
summer.
> FEDERER
>
> 1st - Giraldo
> 2nd - Bellucci
> 3rd - Tomic/Cilic
> 4th - Troicki/Stepanek/Kohli
> QF - TSONGA/Verdasco/Fish
> SF - DJOKOVIC/Berdych
Almost as easy as Djoker. QF is potentially trickier but again Tsonga/
Fish are not Mr. Consistencies out there and might as well lose and
give
Fed a cakewalk to SF.
> Tsonga has Lu in 1st round.
>
> MURRAY
>
> 1st - Devvarman
> 2nd - Haase
> 3rd - Lopez
> 4th - Wawrinka
> QF - DELPO/Söderling/Simon/Isner?
> SF - NADAL/Ferrer
Tricky draw with potentially problematic QF.
> NADAL
>
> 1st - Golubev
> 2nd - Mahut
> 3rd - Nalbandian/Ljubicic
> 4th - Youzhny/Melzer
> QF - FERRER/RODDICK/Almagro?
> SF - MURRAY/DELPO
On paper the most difficult draw óf top4 seeds (first four rounds) but
QF is (even with potetntial Ferrer there) probably the least
dangerous.
.mikko
ahonkan
Yes. Rafa draws the mental midget Murray yet again
while Fed has a showdown with the world's best player
for the 4th time in 4 slams this year. Defly rigged :-)
kaennorsing
> On 25.8.2011 19:59, TT wrote:
>
> Of the top 8 1, 3, 7, 8 are distributed in the top half. 2, 4, 5, 6 in
> the bottom half.
Where do you get this? Is this the actual draw or policy?
> Shouldn't seeds 5 and 6 be in different halves as would 7 and 8? The
> placement of seeds isn't balanced as it is now.
And why shouldn't 1 be with 4 and 2 with 3?
Makes more sense to me. The way it is the top half is tougher and
seeds 5-8 aren't going to change it.
Iceberg
totally ignore that Ferrer has beaten Nadal at a slam on HC?
bob
>DJOKOVIC
>1st - unknown
>2nd - Riba/Berlocq
>3rd - DENKO/Dodig
>4th - Dolgo/Gasquet
>QF - MONFILS/BERDYCH
monfils, although he's a sissy, could be trouble.
>SF - FEDERER/Tsonga/Fish
>FEDERER
>1st - Giraldo
>2nd - Bellucci
>3rd - Tomic/Cilic
>4th - Troicki/Stepanek/Kohli
>QF - TSONGA/Verdasco/Fish
tsonga again - this is funny.
>SF - DJOKOVIC/Berdych
>Tsonga has Lu in 1st round.
>MURRAY
>1st - Devvarman
>2nd - Haase
>3rd - Lopez
>4th - Wawrinka
>QF - DELPO/S�derling/Simon/Isner?
>SF - NADAL/Ferrer
>
>NADAL
>
>1st - Golubev
>2nd - Mahut
>3rd - Nalbandian/Ljubicic
>4th - Youzhny/Melzer
>QF - FERRER/RODDICK/Almagro?
>SF - MURRAY/DELPO
don't know why, think this is murray's chance to win 1.
bob
bob
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 25, 2:21 pm, "ulys...@msomm.com" <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>> Djoker has a cakewalk draw up to the semis.
>
>So does Nadal. I mean Ferrer
this the same ferrer that i called lame and everybody said he was
great when he beat injured nadal at AO?
bob
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>On 25 elo, 20:59, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> DJOKOVIC
>>
>> 1st - unknown
>> 2nd - Riba/Berlocq
>> 3rd - DENKO/Dodig
>> 4th - Dolgo/Gasquet
>> QF - MONFILS/BERDYCH
>> SF - FEDERER/Tsonga/Fish
>
>Djoko has the easiest first four rounds. Three months ago also QF
>would have consiseded cakewak but Monfils/Berdych played a good
>summer.
>
>> FEDERER
>>
>> 1st - Giraldo
>> 2nd - Bellucci
>> 3rd - Tomic/Cilic
>> 4th - Troicki/Stepanek/Kohli
>> QF - TSONGA/Verdasco/Fish
>> SF - DJOKOVIC/Berdych
>
>Almost as easy as Djoker. QF is potentially trickier but again Tsonga/
>Fish are not Mr. Consistencies out there and might as well lose and
>give
>Fed a cakewalk to SF.
fish was almost my pick for a final.
TT
>> I believe that's a fallacy...since long runs actually are not as common
>> place as people think.
>
> I don't think that is correct. For starters people in general do not believe
> in the likelyhood of long streaks. It's called the 'representativeness
> heuristic'.
>
That's not what I've read...
A teacher said to students that their homework was to flip a coin 100
times in a row...and they could really do it or just make it up.
...Teacher could tell from the excessive amount of consecutive series
which students had made it up and which actually threw the coin.
>> For example average amount of coin tosses to get 10 consecutive heads is
>> 2000 flips. Now how many years is 2000 slams...correct, 500 years...while
>> tennis is over 100 years old.
>
> Variance being what it is, it doesn't matter what the 'average' is in any
> given example. Just ask any of the numpties who have lost the shirt from
> their back employing the Martingale betting strategy.
>
>
How do you bet your shirt on roulette anyways?
TT
Not very strong argument...
There was zero chance for Rafa drawing Djokovic in the semis, you know.
felangey
> which students had made it up and which actually threw the coin.
I don't think that is correct either. The tale is actually that the teacher
could tell which students had made it up *by the lack* of consecutive runs
in their work. People don't believe in the likelyhood of streaks....if you
are making up the data...you don't put more than 5 in a row by and large.
Whereas in 200 coin flips, the chances of *not* getting a run of more than 5
is only 3.47.
http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/images/streaks.pdf
> How do you bet your shirt on roulette anyways?
Well, by shirt I mean 'everything they have', but the Martingale system
started out on coin toss wagering.
TT
> > ...Teacher could tell from the excessive amount of consecutive series
>> which students had made it up and which actually threw the coin.
>
> I don't think that is correct either. The tale is actually that the teacher
> could tell which students had made it up *by the lack* of consecutive runs
> in their work. People don't believe in the likelyhood of streaks....if you
> are making up the data...you don't put more than 5 in a row by and large.
> Whereas in 200 coin flips, the chances of *not* getting a run of more than 5
> is only 3.47.
>
> http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/images/streaks.pdf
>
Oookay, remembered it backwards...
Pelle Svanslös
> On 25 aug, 22:31, Pelle Svanslös<pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>> On 25.8.2011 19:59, TT wrote:
>>
>> Of the top 8 1, 3, 7, 8 are distributed in the top half. 2, 4, 5, 6 in
>> the bottom half.
>
> Where do you get this? Is this the actual draw or policy?
Those are from the actual draw. What I did was to try to figure out how
they place seeds.
How I thought it would be, was they'd pick pairs (1,2), (3,4), ... and
coin toss the first of the pair into one half, then put the other in the
opposing half. It doesn't seem to work that way.
Looking at the draw, you see that the top 4 follow that pattern. Seeds
from 5-8 don't, seeds 9-16 once again do. Then the remaining are placed
so that each eight looks like (if the seedings pan out):
1-8
25-32
17-24
9-16
The question still stands. Why weren't (5,6) and (7,8) put into opposing
halves like the rest from 1-16? USTA Shenanigans?
>> Shouldn't seeds 5 and 6 be in different halves as would 7 and 8? The
>> placement of seeds isn't balanced as it is now.
>
> And why shouldn't 1 be with 4 and 2 with 3?
>
> Makes more sense to me. The way it is the top half is tougher and
> seeds 5-8 aren't going to change it.
There shouldn't be fixed slots. That would amount to the same SFs, QFs
across slams. Nobody wants that.
drew
> totally ignore that Ferrer has beaten Nadal at a slam on HC?
Nadal was injured....doesn't count. :-)
drew
>
> I don't think that is correct either. The tale is actually that the teacher
> could tell which students had made it up *by the lack* of consecutive runs
> in their work. People don't believe in the likelyhood of streaks....if you
> are making up the data...you don't put more than 5 in a row by and large.
> Whereas in 200 coin flips, the chances of *not* getting a run of more than 5
> is only 3.47.
Intuitively most people believe that randomness follows certain
rules.
drew
>
> Variance being what it is, it doesn't matter what the 'average' is in any
> given example. Just ask any of the numpties who have lost the shirt from
> their back employing the Martingale betting strategy.
Martingale works.....most of the time. :-)
ahonkan
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
> >On Aug 25, 2:21 pm, "ulys...@msomm.com" <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> >> Djoker has a cakewalk draw up to the semis.
>
> >So does Nadal. I mean Ferrer
>
> this the same ferrer that i called lame and everybody said he was
> great when he beat injured nadal at AO?
>
> bob
Yeah, right. Tsonga beat an injured Nadal at AO '08.
Sod beat an injured Rafa at FO '09. Fed beat an injured
Rafa at W '06 & '07. Roddick, Blake, Youzhny, Ferrer
& Delpo beat an injured Rafa at USO over the years.
Djoker beat an injured Rafa at W '10. Everybody beats
an injured Rafa every year at the Masters Cup.
You have been spending far too much time in
Fantasyland!
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> this the same ferrer that i called lame and everybody said he was
> great when he beat injured nadal at AO?
We talked about this before, you need to actually watch the match before
drawing conclusions about it. Ferrer played a great match and deserves the
credit for stopping the NCYGS.
ahonkan
You want Rafa to face his 'bunny' (& 5-time champion) Fed
and not Murray, who has made it to as many USO finals as
Rafa himself! Either you have lost confidence in your man or
have started making excuses way to early. Or you feel that
Rafa's chances of defending his 1st non-clay GS improve when
Fed or Murray take Djoker out since Rafa is incapable of
doing so any more?
ocea naut
Nadal does not have the variety to beat Nole 2.0 that Fed and Murray
have.
bob
wrote:
no, you exagerate, i only believe his only slam losses where injured
were FO to sod and AO to ferrer. 09 USO, while way out of form whle
recovering, he wasn't technically injured.
bob
bob
wrote:
rather he appeard to play a great match when the opponent couldn't
properly run.
bob