Topic: OFFICIAL 2012 U.S. OPEN (MEN)

[Gawdblessya]

Controversy at the outset.    It helps to see what is being discussed - thanks for the link Babblelot. 

It is time for an independent review / assessment of this matter.  USTA have had problems with this issue before & it is disappoiting that it arises again. 

And I'm not sure why there is no universal definition / application of a random draw. Is there a reason why the process varies from tournament to tournament?   

[Bazcovic]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn-analysis-finds-top-seeds-tennis-us-open-had-easier-draw-statistically-likely

Wow, this article is so flawed and plain pathetic. A probability simulation analysis conducted by ESPN. These guys make television, not mathematically robust and scientifically sound analyses.

When you talk about "on average", that could mean a sample of millions. You cannot talk about averages without mentioning confidence intervals or other estimators. All the conclusions could be meaningless if there sample size is insufficient (i.e., no statistical power). The article only mentions "tens of thousands", which sounds a lot, but nothing else. In fact, the mentioned sample is not the statistical sample. Per grand slam there is 1 draw each year. So there statistical sample is only 100 or so, which is obviously not enough to test these claims with e.g. 95% confidence.

Furthermore, why they used simulation is beyond me. You can use basic probability theory to validate a supposed "random" draw through exact and robust mathematical methods. For instance, the drawing of the No. 1&3 and No. 2&4 seeds could be tested according to a Binomial distribution with p=.5 and N the (independent) draws. If we take N=20 (Djokovic/Federer), then they should be drawn in the same half of the draw 10 times, on average. However, there is a 82.4% chance that a random sample of 20 draws results in a number <> 10. In the words of ESPN: "On average the draw is rigged in 82.5 of the time".

[Bazcovic]

I guarantee you if Nole and Roger weren't ranked 1 and 2 they would be in the same half again, and again AND AGAIN  . except at RG. I happen to know something about statistics. check out how many times they were in the same half while being 1 and 3 and vice versa. it's like (sorry, can't remember exactly) but it's like 16/20 or so. I don't know if draws are rigged or not, but I find it extremely strange. just saying bud, nothing against your or Shank's opinion. but yeah, Roger, regardless being ranked 1 of 2502 happens to get the silliest draws in tennis history. so I think I'm getting paranoid too.  I can pull out some stats, but it's being discussed to death on so many tennis boards ...

You happen to know something about statistics. Yet, you find it "strange" that "it's like 16/20 or so".

Regardless of whether your number (16/20) is correct, there exists a non-zero probability that 20 random draws can produce this number. E.g. 7.8% that 20 draws result in 14-15-16-17-18-19-20 / 20.

This is not paranoia, but simple statistics.

[mtt]

This is such bull...
There are no "easy" draws, only draws which look like they are...
As often pointed out here, and in the media, any player can beat any other player any day...
All it takes isn above par performance from the supposedly weaker player, and an below par performance fomr the shoo-in...

Nadal's wimbledon draw looked like a cake-walk, and we all kow what happened...
So did Fed's... Benneteau in the 3rd round... piece of cake, right ? Took him 5 sets and a closed roof to win that one...

[Gawdblessya]

As I understand it, the point is not one of easy draws but of whether they are random or not.   Maybe I've missed something.

[masterclass]

2012 US Open Draw Quality Analysis by Masterclass

The 2012 US Open is the finale in the US Open Hardcourt series of events and final major of the year.
Chief among the missing for this tournament is world #3 Rafael Nadal who is still not in condition to play.

In the top list of those present, world #4 Andy Murray should hope that he has recovered from his hangover following his massive Olympics performance. He made an early exit in Toronto as expected, but Cincinnati was dismal for him. How did 31 year old Federer manage to recover from the Olympics to run away with the Cincinnati crown and Murray did not? Ask yourself that before a potential Federer-Murray matchup on Super Saturday. But even before a semifinal, Murray might have to face the big serving Milos Raonic. Curiously, enough, Milos has a 1-0 record against Murray thanks to a win on clay, but their record also includes two withdrawals by Murray this year, once in Miami and once in Toronto. If Murray should get by Milos, then he may have to face world #6 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Tsonga has been somewhat unpredictable since losing to Nole at Roland Garros, but maybe he is ready for a good fight again.

World #2 Novak Djokovic appeared too pooped emotionally to pop in the Cincinnati final after defending his Toronto title, and we shall see if he has recovered sufficiently in the US Open. Even though he has received a rather favorable draw in terms of drawing Ferrer, it would not surprise me to see him go out earlier. Since Wimbledon, he has not beaten anyone of real quality except for beating his subpar countryman Tipsarevic in Toronto, and a hurting Del Potro in Cincinnati. Something in Nole's psyche just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe if he gets a good win or two earlier, he'll right himself by the time he reaches the business end of the tournament.

World #1 Roger Federer seems rather fresh off his Cincinnati win, starting practice at Arthur Ashe in mid-week. Mardy Fish is probably the main danger to him. If he gets past him, then it's difficult to see anyone except a hot Berdych giving him trouble until potentially Murray in the semifinal. #5 David Ferrer's part of the draw seems to have some potential stoppers in it, including Tommy Haas, Richard Gasquet, and maybe even Lleyton Hewitt and it will be interesting to see if David can make it to the quarters.

#7 Tomas Berdych had taken a nosedive in form since the clay season, and is desperately trying to regain it in Winston-Salem. Will that effort tire him for the US Open?  Can #9 Janko Tipsarevic and #10 John Isner bounce back from their weak Cincinnati efforts? They may meet each other in the 4th round. Who will prevail on US soil? And what about the only slam winner outside the top 3 since 2005, #8 Juan Martin Del Potro? Will his left wrist be recovered sufficiently to go deep in the US Open? He faces perhaps his toughest opponent of his section in the opening round in David Nalbandian, but if he can get by him, he should get through to the quarterfinal unless Andy Roddick gets back on track and surprises.

Here is my draw quality analysis (quality does not include the section heads).
Each Qualifier is treated equally (as if ranked 200th). Anyone ranked above 200 is treated as 200.
MQF - Masterclass Quality Factor - a lower number means stronger quality (factor primarily based on player rankings, but can be adjusted by class, event history, current form, etc.)

By sixteenth section (4th round heads)
MQF - Section Name
110 - #1 seed Roger Federer
100 - #16 seed Gilles Simon

77 - #11 seed Nicolas Almagro
78 - #6 seed Tomas Berdych
--------------------------------------
78 - #3 seed Andy Murray
90 - #15 seed Milos Raonic

138 - #12 seed Marin Cilic
78 - #5 seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
--------------------------------------
117 - #8 seed Janko Tipsarevic
55 - #9 seed John Isner

117 - #13 seed Richard Gasquet
77 - #4 seed David Ferrer
--------------------------------------
75 - #7 seed Juan Martin Del Potro
77 - #10 seed Juan Monaco

86 - #14 seed Alex Dolgopolov
114 - #2 seed Novak Djokovic
--------------------------------------

Sixteenth Summary - John Isner has the highest quality in his section while Marin Cilic has by far the weakest with 4 qualifiers in his section. Del Potro heads the next toughest section with Monaco, Ferrer, Almagro, Berdych, Murray, and Tsonga section having almost the same quality. Then there is a bit of a jump in weakness to the Dolgopolov and Raonic sections and then a further weakening to the Simon and Federer sections. Finally, Djokovic, Gasquet, and Tipsarevic have the weakest sections except for Cilic's.

By Eighth (QF Heads)
MQF - Section Name
99 - #1 seed Roger Federer
73 - #6 seed Tomas Berdych

79 - #3 seed Andy Murray
102 - #5 seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
-----------------------------------------
81 - #8 seed Janko Tipsarevic
91 - #4 seed David Ferrer

72 - #7 seed Juan Martin Del Potro
94 - #2 seed Novak Djokovic

Eighth Summary - Del Potro and Berdych have the toughest sections, followed by Murray and Tipsarevic. Then the easier 4 are Ferrer and Djokovic, then Federer, and finally Tsonga with the easiest.

By Quarter (SF Heads)
MQF - Section Name
83 - #1 seed Roger Federer
88 - #3 seed Andy Murray

83 - #4 seed David Ferrer
81 - #2 seed Novak Djokovic

Quarter Summary - By now the draw has evened itself out a bit relative to the heads, but now Djokovic has a slightly tougher overall section quality over Ferrer and Federer, with Murray having the easier quality inherited from Tsonga/Cilic.

By Half (Final Heads)
MQF - Section Name
84 - #1 seed Roger Federer
81 - #2 seed Novak Djokovic

Half Summary - Djokovic has a slightly tougher overall quality in his half than Federer.

Respectfully,
masterclass

[oracle86]

I guarantee you if Nole and Roger weren't ranked 1 and 2 they would be in the same half again, and again AND AGAIN  . except at RG. I happen to know something about statistics. check out how many times they were in the same half while being 1 and 3 and vice versa. it's like (sorry, can't remember exactly) but it's like 16/20 or so. I don't know if draws are rigged or not, but I find it extremely strange. just saying bud, nothing against your or Shank's opinion. but yeah, Roger, regardless being ranked 1 of 2502 happens to get the silliest draws in tennis history. so I think I'm getting paranoid too.  I can pull out some stats, but it's being discussed to death on so many tennis boards ...

Here are the semifinal line-ups [actual and seeded] of the 4 Slams over the past 10 years:

AUSTRALIAN OPEN:

2003 - [9] Andy Roddick vs [31] Rainer Schüttler & Wayne Ferreira vs [2] Andre Agassi - [1-3 & 4-2]     
2004 - Marat Safin vs [4] Andre Agassi & [3]Juan Carlos Ferrero vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Marat Safin & [3] Lleyton Hewitt vs [2] Andy Roddick - [1-4 & 3-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs [21] Nicolas Kiefer & [4] David Nalbandian vs Marcos Baghdatis - [1-3 & 4-2]
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [6] Andy Roddick & [12] Tommy Haas vs [10] Fernando González - [1-4 & 3-2]
2008 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Novak Djokovic & Jo-Wilfried Tsonga vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2009 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [14] Fernando Verdasco & [7] Andy Roddick vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2010 - [1] Roger Federer vs [10] Jo-Wilfried Tsonga & [14] Marin Čilić vs [5] Andy Murray [1-3 & 4-2]
2011 - [7] David Ferrer vs [5] Andy Murray & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2012 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [4] Andy Murray & [3] Roger Federer vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 4 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 6 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals 4 times - twice as 1-3 [2008 and 2010] & twice as 2-3 [2009 and 2011], but have actually played in the semifinals twice - once as 1-3 [2008] and the other as 2-3 [2011].

FRENCH OPEN:

2003 - [9] Albert Costa vs [3] Juan Carlos Ferrero &  Martin Verkerk vs [7] Guillermo Coria - [1-3 & 4-2]
2004 - [8] David Nalbandian vs Gastón Gaudio & [3] Guillermo Coria vs   [9] Tim Henman - [1-4 & 3-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Rafael Nadal & [12] Nikolay Davydenko    vs Mariano Puerta - - [1-4 & 3-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] David Nalbandian & [4] Ivan Ljubičić vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Nikolay Davydenko & [6] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]
2008 - [1] Roger Federer vs Gaël Monfils & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]
2009 - [23] Robin Söderling vs [12] Fernando González & [5] Juan Martín del Potro vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-3 & 4-2]
2010 - [5] Robin Söderling vs [15] TomᚠBerdych & [22] Jürgen Melzer vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]
2011 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [4] Andy Murray & [3] Roger Federer vs [2] Novak Djokovic - [1-4 & 3-2]
2012 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [3] Roger Federer & [6] David Ferrer vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 4 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 6 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals thrice - as 2-4 [2009], 3-2 [2011] and 3-1 [2012], but have actually played in the semifinals twice - as 3-2 [2011] and as 3-1 [2012].

WIMBLEDON:

2003 - [5] Andy Roddick vs [4] Roger Federer & [13] Sébastien Grosjean vs Mark Philippoussis - [1-4 & 3-2]
2004 - [1] Roger Federer vs [10] Sébastien Grosjean & Mario Ančić vs [2] Andy Roddick - [1-3 & 4-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Lleyton Hewitt & [12] Thomas Johansson vs [2] Andy Roddick - [1-3 & 4-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs Jonas Björkman & [18] Marcos Baghdatis vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2] 
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [12] Richard Gasquet & [4] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2008 - [1] Roger Federer vs Marat Safin & Rainer Schüttler vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2009 - [6] Andy Roddick vs [3] Andy Murray & [24] Tommy Haas vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-3 & 4-2]
2010 - [12] TomᚠBerdych vs [3] Novak Djokovic & [4] Andy Murray vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2011 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [4] Andy Murray &  vs [12] Jo-Wilfried Tsonga vs [2] Novak Djokovic - [1-4 & 3-2]
2012 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [3] Roger Federer & [4] Andy Murray vs [5] Jo-Wilfried Tsonga - [1-3 & 4-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 7 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 3 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals a total of 4 times - twice as 1-3 [2008 and 2010], once as 2-4 [2009] as 3-2 [2011] and as 3-1 [2012] but have actually played in the semifinals just once as 3-1 [2012].

US OPEN:

2003 - [1] Andre Agassi vs [3] Juan Carlos Ferrero vs [4] Andy Roddick   vs [13] David Nalbandian - [1-3 & 4-2]
2004 - [1] Roger Federer vs [5] Tim Henman & [4] Lleyton Hewitt vs Joachim Johansson - [1-3 & 4-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Lleyton Hewitt & Robby Ginepri [7] Andre Agassi - [1-3 & 4-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs [7] Nikolay Davydenko & [9] Andy Roddick vs Mikhail Youzhny - [1-4 & 3-2]
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Nikolay Davydenko & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [15] David Ferrer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2008 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [6] Andy Murray & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2009 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Novak Djokovic & [3] Rafael Nadal vs [6] Juan Martin Del Potro - [1-4 & 3-2]
2010 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [12] Mikhail Youzhny & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2] 
2011 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [3] Roger Federer & [4] Andy Murray vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2012 - [1-3 & 4-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 5 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 5 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals 4 times - twice as 2-3 [2008 & 2010], once as 1-4 [2009] and the other as 3-1 [2011], and have actually played in the semifinals all 4 times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the last 40 Slams, 1-3 4-2 and 1-4 3-2 have occurred 20 times each. That implies that there is no discrepancy overall, as ideally we would expect a 50% chance of the draw being either way.

Over the last 5 years [2008-2012], Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals 15 times out of 20 - once as 1-4, 4 times as 1-3, once as 2-4, 4 times as 2-3, twice as 3-2, and thrice as 3-1. Federer-Djokovic GS semifinals have occurred 9 times - once as 1-4, once as 1-3, thrice as 2-3, once as 3-2 and thrice as 3-1.

I think comparing the seed match-ups is a more accurate way of comparing than simply Player A vs Player B. 

[Dallas]

Now that we've gotten all the stats, history, probabilities, etc, of the 'draw' out... LET'S TALK ABOUT THE US OPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[mtt]

As I understand it, the point is not one of easy draws but of whether they are random or not.   Maybe I've missed something.

May be you missed something, I don't know...

But the whole controversy about the supposedly rigged draws stems from the hypothesis that organizers rig the draw to make it easier for certain players...

Funny thing is, it's supposedly always rigged in Fed's favor, nobody else's...

[mtt]

On another topic, USO related :

Lukas Rosol, the Nadal-slayer, 4th seeded in the qualifying tournament is out in the 3rd round, loosing 6-3, 6-3 against Guido Pella of Argentina, seeded 31....

[Dallas]

On another topic, USO related :

Lukas Rosol, the Nadal-slayer, 4th seeded in the qualifying tournament is out in the 3rd round, loosing 6-3, 6-3 against Guido Pella of Argentina, seeded 31....

Seems like Rosol's '15 minutes of fame' are up....  He can say he got hot that ONE time... He'll probably watch that match over and over for the rest of his life!

[Gawdblessya]

Masterclass  -  thanks for your analysis.  I enjoy reading your take on things very much, and look forward to more as the USO progresses.   Much will obviously depend on how they are playing as things get underway, but I just can't see anyone other than Djokovic / Federer or Murray playing the final at this stage.   Del Potro could be a candidate, but he has recently looked less compelling than at the Olympics SF given his injury.   I agree that Djokovic has looked less assertive of recent, but he defended Toronto & got to the final in Cincinnati.  I expect to see him in the final.   

For no particular reason other than that it is my feeling, nothing more, I think Murray will win this title.   

ORACLE86 - Your analysis is very interesting. Seedings rather than players does seem the probable factor. 

Dallas - Rosol managed to achieve something that few, including Federer,  have achieved in how he beat Nadal, and if he savours that moment for ever, I for one won't begrudge it to him.   All I know is that to have been able to play like that in even one match is special.  He was inspired, and had the balls to believe he could do it. 

[FedFanForever]

Seems like Rosol's '15 minutes of fame' are up....  He can say he got hot that ONE time... He'll probably watch that match over and over for the rest of his life!

Damn you Rosol!! But it means that Rafa is vulnerably to these fluky players, it won't be Rosol next time.

[Dallas]

Masterclass  -  thanks for your analysis.  I enjoy reading your take on things very much, and look forward to more as the USO progresses.   Much will obviously depend on how they are playing as things get underway, but I just can't see anyone other than Djokovic / Federer or Murray playing the final at this stage.   Del Potro could be a candidate, but he has recently looked less compelling than at the Olympics SF given his injury.   I agree that Djokovic has looked less assertive of recent, but he defended Toronto & got to the final in Cincinnati.  I expect to see him in the final.   

For no particular reason other than that it is my feeling, nothing more, I think Murray will win this title.   

ORACLE86 - Your analysis is very interesting. Seedings rather than players does seem the probable factor. 

Dallas - Rosol managed to achieve something that few, including Federer,  have achieved in how he beat Nadal, and if he savours that moment for ever, I for one won't begrudge it to him.   All I know is that to have been able to play like that in even one match is special.  He was inspired, and had the balls to believe he could do it.

Actually, I am agreeing with you. Rosol should cherish this for the rest of his life. And Roger has beaten Nadal a Wimbedon before so how did Rosol manage to do something that Roger didn't? I didn't get that part.

[Gawdblessya]

..................
And Roger has beaten Nadal a Wimbedon before so how did Rosol manage to do something that Roger didn't? I didn't get that part.

Yes of course he has, Dallas!  But not in a GS since 2007 I think - he last did so at Wimbledon that year in 5 sets.  My comment says "in how he did it".  I thought it was just remarkable.   

[Dallas]

It was remarkable. And even though some folks said that Nadal was injured in that match - I didn't see any evidence that he was. I only saw that Rosol was in a ZONE in that match. That was one of the best matches I've seen someone play against Nadal.

[Alex]

Donald Young is taking Roger down. aha, you heard it here first  . Herc, please get me another scotch 

[jesse james]

I guarantee you if Nole and Roger weren't ranked 1 and 2 they would be in the same half again, and again AND AGAIN  . except at RG. I happen to know something about statistics. check out how many times they were in the same half while being 1 and 3 and vice versa. it's like (sorry, can't remember exactly) but it's like 16/20 or so. I don't know if draws are rigged or not, but I find it extremely strange. just saying bud, nothing against your or Shank's opinion. but yeah, Roger, regardless being ranked 1 of 2502 happens to get the silliest draws in tennis history. so I think I'm getting paranoid too.  I can pull out some stats, but it's being discussed to death on so many tennis boards ...

Here are the semifinal line-ups [actual and seeded] of the 4 Slams over the past 10 years:

AUSTRALIAN OPEN:

2003 - [9] Andy Roddick vs [31] Rainer Schüttler & Wayne Ferreira vs [2] Andre Agassi - [1-3 & 4-2]     
2004 - Marat Safin vs [4] Andre Agassi & [3]Juan Carlos Ferrero vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Marat Safin & [3] Lleyton Hewitt vs [2] Andy Roddick - [1-4 & 3-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs [21] Nicolas Kiefer & [4] David Nalbandian vs Marcos Baghdatis - [1-3 & 4-2]
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [6] Andy Roddick & [12] Tommy Haas vs [10] Fernando González - [1-4 & 3-2]
2008 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Novak Djokovic & Jo-Wilfried Tsonga vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2009 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [14] Fernando Verdasco & [7] Andy Roddick vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2010 - [1] Roger Federer vs [10] Jo-Wilfried Tsonga & [14] Marin Čilić vs [5] Andy Murray [1-3 & 4-2]
2011 - [7] David Ferrer vs [5] Andy Murray & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2012 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [4] Andy Murray & [3] Roger Federer vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 4 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 6 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals 4 times - twice as 1-3 [2008 and 2010] & twice as 2-3 [2009 and 2011], but have actually played in the semifinals twice - once as 1-3 [2008] and the other as 2-3 [2011].

FRENCH OPEN:

2003 - [9] Albert Costa vs [3] Juan Carlos Ferrero &  Martin Verkerk vs [7] Guillermo Coria - [1-3 & 4-2]
2004 - [8] David Nalbandian vs Gastón Gaudio & [3] Guillermo Coria vs   [9] Tim Henman - [1-4 & 3-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Rafael Nadal & [12] Nikolay Davydenko    vs Mariano Puerta - - [1-4 & 3-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] David Nalbandian & [4] Ivan Ljubičić vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Nikolay Davydenko & [6] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]
2008 - [1] Roger Federer vs Gaël Monfils & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]
2009 - [23] Robin Söderling vs [12] Fernando González & [5] Juan Martín del Potro vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-3 & 4-2]
2010 - [5] Robin Söderling vs [15] TomᚠBerdych & [22] Jürgen Melzer vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2]
2011 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [4] Andy Murray & [3] Roger Federer vs [2] Novak Djokovic - [1-4 & 3-2]
2012 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [3] Roger Federer & [6] David Ferrer vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 4 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 6 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals thrice - as 2-4 [2009], 3-2 [2011] and 3-1 [2012], but have actually played in the semifinals twice - as 3-2 [2011] and as 3-1 [2012].

WIMBLEDON:

2003 - [5] Andy Roddick vs [4] Roger Federer & [13] Sébastien Grosjean vs Mark Philippoussis - [1-4 & 3-2]
2004 - [1] Roger Federer vs [10] Sébastien Grosjean & Mario Ančić vs [2] Andy Roddick - [1-3 & 4-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Lleyton Hewitt & [12] Thomas Johansson vs [2] Andy Roddick - [1-3 & 4-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs Jonas Björkman & [18] Marcos Baghdatis vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-4 & 3-2] 
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [12] Richard Gasquet & [4] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2008 - [1] Roger Federer vs Marat Safin & Rainer Schüttler vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2009 - [6] Andy Roddick vs [3] Andy Murray & [24] Tommy Haas vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-3 & 4-2]
2010 - [12] TomᚠBerdych vs [3] Novak Djokovic & [4] Andy Murray vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2011 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [4] Andy Murray &  vs [12] Jo-Wilfried Tsonga vs [2] Novak Djokovic - [1-4 & 3-2]
2012 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [3] Roger Federer & [4] Andy Murray vs [5] Jo-Wilfried Tsonga - [1-3 & 4-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 7 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 3 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals a total of 4 times - twice as 1-3 [2008 and 2010], once as 2-4 [2009] as 3-2 [2011] and as 3-1 [2012] but have actually played in the semifinals just once as 3-1 [2012].

US OPEN:

2003 - [1] Andre Agassi vs [3] Juan Carlos Ferrero vs [4] Andy Roddick   vs [13] David Nalbandian - [1-3 & 4-2]
2004 - [1] Roger Federer vs [5] Tim Henman & [4] Lleyton Hewitt vs Joachim Johansson - [1-3 & 4-2]
2005 - [1] Roger Federer vs [3] Lleyton Hewitt & Robby Ginepri [7] Andre Agassi - [1-3 & 4-2]
2006 - [1] Roger Federer vs [7] Nikolay Davydenko & [9] Andy Roddick vs Mikhail Youzhny - [1-4 & 3-2]
2007 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Nikolay Davydenko & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [15] David Ferrer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2008 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [6] Andy Murray & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2]
2009 - [1] Roger Federer vs [4] Novak Djokovic & [3] Rafael Nadal vs [6] Juan Martin Del Potro - [1-4 & 3-2]
2010 - [1] Rafael Nadal vs [12] Mikhail Youzhny & [3] Novak Djokovic vs [2] Roger Federer - [1-4 & 3-2] 
2011 - [1] Novak Djokovic vs [3] Roger Federer & [4] Andy Murray vs [2] Rafael Nadal - [1-3 & 4-2]
2012 - [1-3 & 4-2]

1-3 4-2 has occurred 5 times while 1-4 3-2 has occurred 5 times over the past decade.

Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals 4 times - twice as 2-3 [2008 & 2010], once as 1-4 [2009] and the other as 3-1 [2011], and have actually played in the semifinals all 4 times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the last 40 Slams, 1-3 4-2 and 1-4 3-2 have occurred 20 times each. That implies that there is no discrepancy overall, as ideally we would expect a 50% chance of the draw being either way.

Over the last 5 years [2008-2012], Federer and Djokovic were seeded to play in the semifinals 15 times out of 20 - once as 1-4, 4 times as 1-3, once as 2-4, 4 times as 2-3, twice as 3-2, and thrice as 3-1. Federer-Djokovic GS semifinals have occurred 9 times - once as 1-4, once as 1-3, thrice as 2-3, once as 3-2 and thrice as 3-1.

I think comparing the seed match-ups is a more accurate way of comparing than simply Player A vs Player B.

There's no overall discrepancy in terms of the 1-3 4-2 and 1-4 3-2 ratio, but what's fascinating is that Djoko and Fed have been scheduled to meet in the semis in 15 out of the last 20 slams. That number accords with what i think might be the general assumption that Djoko and Fed tend to be on the same side of the draw when not seeded one and two.
The 15 out of 20 semi meetings over the last 5 years doesn't represent 50% because randomly generated sequences don't necessarily give statistically neutral outcomes with small (statistically insignificant) randomly determined events.
I could flip a coin 10 times and it could land on heads every time (gamblers fallacy)-if i did that 100 times it's statistically more significant, and the statistical significance would increase as the numbers rise.
  This is exactly the problem with determining which side of the draw the top four will play randomly-it's theoretically possible to get surprisingly similar results with short sequences(20 is short), and that's exactly what has happened. In fact theoretically there's nothing to have prevented Djoko and Fed being on the same side of the draw every time for the last five years (unless they're seeded 1 and 2).

[swish]

It was remarkable. And even though some folks said that Nadal was injured in that match - I didn't see any evidence that he was. I only saw that Rosol was in a ZONE in that match. That was one of the best matches I've seen someone play against Nadal.

Nadal wasn't injured but may have been feeling something.
 
From what I heard what he has now is a condition that just requires rest.
Everything else is fine, ligaments and tendons.
 
If he has surgery then the condition will be fixed permanently but he doesn't want that.
 
 

[Babblelot]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn-analysis-finds-top-seeds-tennis-us-open-had-easier-draw-statistically-likely

Wow, this article is so flawed and plain pathetic. A probability simulation analysis conducted by ESPN. These guys make television, not mathematically robust and scientifically sound analyses.

When you talk about "on average", that could mean a sample of millions. You cannot talk about averages without mentioning confidence intervals or other estimators. All the conclusions could be meaningless if there sample size is insufficient (i.e., no statistical power). The article only mentions "tens of thousands", which sounds a lot, but nothing else. In fact, the mentioned sample is not the statistical sample. Per grand slam there is 1 draw each year. So there statistical sample is only 100 or so, which is obviously not enough to test these claims with e.g. 95% confidence.

Furthermore, why they used simulation is beyond me. You can use basic probability theory to validate a supposed "random" draw through exact and robust mathematical methods. For instance, the drawing of the No. 1&3 and No. 2&4 seeds could be tested according to a Binomial distribution with p=.5 and N the (independent) draws. If we take N=20 (Djokovic/Federer), then they should be drawn in the same half of the draw 10 times, on average. However, there is a 82.4% chance that a random sample of 20 draws results in a number <> 10. In the words of ESPN: "On average the draw is rigged in 82.5 of the time".

You may be oversimplifiying, Bazzer. I didn't analyze EPSN's Alok Pattani's methodology, but Andrew Swift did.
Alok Pattani
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=6827

Dr. Andrew Swift, past chairman of the American Statistical Association's Section on Statistics in Sports and an assistant mathematics professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said the analysis and its methodology were sound.

"Any way you want to look at these, there is significant evidence here that these did not come from a random draw," he said.

Perhaps if you were privy to the same information as he, you might agree.

This article explains ESPN/Pattani's methodology.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how-espn-lines-analyzed-us-open-tennis-tournament-draw

A note about sample size

An initial look at the data and methodology led some USTA officials to question the study's sample size.

But sample size is properly accounted for in this analysis because the 10-year average from the actual U.S. Open draws was compared to 1,000 simulated 10-year averages, each created using the same draw procedure, making this an "apples-to-apples" comparison. From this simulated distribution of 10-year averages, ESPN was able to conclude that the margin of the discrepancy of the actual average rankings from what would be expected over a 10-year sample is outside that which would be reasonable by random chance. The 10-year period was selected because the seeding of 32 players in the Grand Slams started at the 2001 Wimbledon tournament, and there have been exactly 10 U.S. Opens since.

Said Dr. Swift: "Their argument that 10 years of data is not a big enough sample size is invalid."

There's a non-ESPN statistical analysis, as well, but I've yet to locate it. I remember seeing the presentation on video. It was a female statistician and she presented her analysis at a conference. In the meantime, how would you account for the discrepancy in the US Open findings vis-a-vis the other 3 slams?

Aside: we are told that #1 & #2 are placed then the remaining draw is random. But that's not entirely true. There are a lot of placed seeds. The top 32 are placed somewhat randomly, otherwise you could wind up with a really lopsided draw! It should be completely random only after the the final placed seeds are made.

Ah, I found this! 

The seed placement system is determined by a formula based on where the number 3 seed goes. Let's say that the #3 seed goes into the bottom half of the draw with #2. Then the #4 seed goes to the top half along with the 5th seed which is placed in the same quadrant as the #1 seed to meet in the Quarterfinals. As a result then the #6th seed is placed in the same quadrant as the #2 seed to meet in the Quarterfinals. it is done this way so the #2 seed does not have an unfair draw by having to always face higher seeds than the #1 seed. Because if they didn't do it this way, then the #2 seed would have both the #3 and #5 seeds on his half of the draw while the #1 seed would have the #4 and #6...this was determined as unfair by the players union committee. So both 4th and 5th seeds are on opposite sides of the draw from the 3rd and 6th seeds. If you think about it, it does make sense from a players standpoint.

and this...

Procedure for Placing Seeds
(1) Place Seed 1 on Line 1 and Seed 2 on Line 128 (128 draw).

(2) To determine the placement of the remaining seeds, draw
in pairs of two (Seeds 3 and 4) and groups of four (Seeds
5-8, 9-12 and 13-16) and groups of eight (seeds 17-24 and
25-32) from top to bottom as follows:

see page 25-26
http://beta.itftennis.com/media/64108/64108.pdf