With some players in unusually great form, others at alarmingly poor levels, and still more either injured or simply inactive, the rankings have not come close to telling the ATP’s true story at any point this season. As such, draws have been wildly skewed on a consistent basis.
Although this one is not as lopsided as, say, Indian Wells was, the French Open is no exception to the recent rule. The oddsmakers’ top three French Open favorites—Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Dominic Thiem—all find themselves in the bottom half of the draw. Djokovic’s section is especially difficult, also being the proud home of Thiem and David Goffin.
Murray’s quarter
Murray is the No. 1 player in the world and has to be considered the favorite to emerge from his section of the draw, but he may not be the trendy pick. That distinction could belong to Alexander Zverev, who has been outstanding the whole way this season and is coming off the biggest title of his career at the Rome Masters. Other contenders in this relatively up-for-grabs quarter are Kei Nishikori, Tomas Berdych, Pablo Cuevas, and—if he is close to 100 percent—Juan Martin Del Potro.
Although Murray and Zverev are on a collision course for the quarterfinals, neither one will have an easy time advancing that far. The top-seeded Scot opens with solid clay-courter Andrey Kuznetsov in round one, would likely meet Martin Klizan after that, and could run into Del Potro in the last 32. Zverev has to begin his campaign against Fernando Verdasco, while Pablo Cuevas—who sent one of the shots of the year past the German in Madrid—is a potential third-round adversary.
Best first-round matchup – (9) Alexander Zverev vs. Fernando Verdasco
This may not be the section’s most competitive contest unless Verdasco gets it together in a hurry, but it is certainly the most intriguing of the entire first round. A red-hot Zverev recently captured the Rome title, and in a relatively soft top half of the draw there is no telling how far he could go in Paris. Although Verdasco is not in his best form at the moment, he is no stranger to the opening-round upset. The Spaniard sent countryman Rafael Nadal packing early from the 2016 Australian Open following a 7-6(6), 4-6, 3-6, 7-6(4), 6-2 stunner.
[polldaddy poll=9756131]
Best potential second-round matchup – Karen Khachanov vs. (13) Tomas Berdych
Best potential third-round matchup – (1) Andy Murray vs. (29) Juan Martin Del Potro
Possible surprises – Murray is slumping, Nishikori is doing the same on a smaller scale, and Del Potro is once again dealing with injuries. No seed in the top quarter—not even Zverev—is entirely reliable. Klizan is prone to catching fire at any moment and he is due to make a big run on clay, which should be his best surface even though that has not always been the case in the past. Fellow unseeded floater Hyeon Chung has played well this spring. His nearest seeds are Sam Querrey (first round) and Nishikori (third round), which is not necessarily an easy draw but also far from impossible.
[polldaddy poll=9756123]
Wawrinka’s quarter
The entire top half of the bracket is wide open, and Wawrinka’s section is especially so. While the talent level is absolutely off the charts in this part of the draw, none of that talent is being put to good use at the moment. Consider the names here: Wawrinka, Marin Cilic, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Gael Monfils, Richard Gasquet, Nick Kyrgios, Fabio Fognini, and Dustin Brown. That’s two Grand Slam champions, one slam finalist, others would could be or should be slam finalists…and Dustin Brown.
One of those aforementioned players has to pick up the pace for the French Open, right? The question is which one will it be. Gasquet made a run to the quarterfinals last spring and has reached at least the fourth round in five of his last six appearances, but he has played only three matches since late February due to appendicitis. Monfils is an impressive 28-10 lifetime at Roland Garros and is a former semifinalist (2008), but he missed the tournament last year and once again has physical issues. Cilic, Tsonga, and Kyrgios have never been at their best on clay. As such, this should be Wawrinka’s time to shine again—and he warmed up nicely for the upcoming fortnight by advancing to the Geneva final.
Best first-round matchup — Dustin Brown vs. (15) Gael Monfils
Monfils made a debut appearance in the World Tour Finals last year, but he has been an injury-plagued disaster this season ever since losing to Nadal in the Australian Open fourth round. Even Monfils must admit that he has no real chance of doing anything at Roland Garros. As such, the Frenchman may be in exhibition mode to even more significant extent than usual—and that’s saying a lot. With Brown on the other side of the net, no matchup in tennis has greater potential for pure entertainment. Expect the highlight reel (and the lowlight reel, for that matter) to be extensive.
[polldaddy poll=9756133]
Best potential second-round matchup – (30) David Ferrer vs. Feliciano Lopez
Best potential third-round matchup – (12) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga vs. (18) Nick Kyrgios
Possible surprises — Identify the most vulnerable of this seeded contingent and you will find the floaters most likely to cause a stir in Paris. Monfils seems to be the most injured, Kyrgios is probably the least motivated (playing poorly, recent death in the family, grass season on the horizon), and Ferrer is undoubtedly playing the worst. Brown has a chance to reach at least the third round, while Philipp Kohlschreiber and Feliciano Lopez could reach the second week if they get through difficult openers (against Kyrgios and Bjorn Fratengelo, respectively).
[polldaddy poll=9756125]
Nadal’s quarter
The bottom half of the draw is far tougher with Nadal, Djokovic, Thiem, and Goffin all down there, but Nadal does not have to worry about any of those other three until at least the semifinals. His own quarter, on the other hand, should give the nine-time champion nothing more than a routine trip to the semis. Nadal’s road begins with Benoit Paire and will likely be followed by Robin Haase, Gilles Simon (or Viktor Troicki), Jack Sock (or Roberto Bautista Agut), and then either Milos Raonic, Grigor Dimitrov, or Pablo Carreno Busta.
Like the Spaniard, fifth-seeded Milos Raonic—even on clay—should enjoy an easy path to the fourth round. The other two sections in this quarter, however, could deliver some outstanding matches. Potential third-rounders include Dimitrov vs. Carreno Busta and Sock vs. Bautista Agut. Sock, though, has the toughest road of those four men with Jiri Vesely in the opening round and possibly an in-form Aljaz Bedene in the second.
Best first-round matchup — (14) Jack Sock vs. Jiri Vesely
Again?!?! Yes, Sock and Vesely will be facing each other for the third time this season and for the third time this spring. Sock has won each of their previous encounters to improve to 3-0 lifetime in the ATP-level head-to-head series, but he needed a third-set tiebreaker before getting the job done on the red clay of Rome. It would be in Vesely’s best interest to avoid tiebreakers, because in two such situations against Sock he has won a grand total of one point—compared to Sock’s 14.
Best potential second-round matchup – (31) Gilles Simon vs. Viktor Troicki
Best potential third-round matchup – (20) Pablo Carreno Busta vs. (11) Grigor Dimitrov
Possible surprises — Unless something unforeseen befalls Nadal (like it did last year at Roland Garros), everyone else is playing for second, third, and fourth place here. With neither Raonic nor Dimitrov at their best on the red stuff, a confident Carreno Busta has a great chance of becoming Nadal’s foe in what would be the lesser-heralded Spaniard’s first-ever Grand Slam quarterfinal. Bedene is an amazing 27-4 in his last 31 matches (qualifying and Challengers included), so he has an outside chance of setting up a fourth-round date with Nadal.
[polldaddy poll=9756126]
Djokovic’s quarter
Welcome to the Group of Death. It’s not exactly loaded from top to bottom like the Nadal-Federer-Del Potro-Kyrgios-Zverev quarter in Indian Wells, but the three-horse race between Djokovic, Thiem, and Goffin could be more exciting than a Belmont Stakes with a Triple Crown contender. Although the rest of the section is relatively uninspiring, Monte-Carlo runner-up Albert Ramos-Vinolas, Budapest champion Lucas Pouille, Marrakech winner Borna Coric, and Houston champ Steve Johnson will have hopes of crashing the party.
This in an absolute nightmare draw for Thiem, who may have to face good friend and familiar foe Goffin in the fourth round before a quarterfinal showdown with Djokovic. The seventh-ranked Austrian is 0-5 lifetime against Djokovic and 1-11 in total sets, with his only victorious set ending 12-10 in a tiebreaker and all 11 of his set losses being 6-4 or worse. Djokovic is on the easier side of this quarter but could be troubled by Diego Schwartzman in the third round and either Ramos-Vinolas or Pouille in the last 16.
Best first-round matchup — (Q) Paul-Henri Mathieu vs. (10) David Goffin
Not too much unlike Zverev vs. Verdasco, this is unlikely to be the most competitive first-round affair. But the atmosphere will be nothing short of a circus. Not only is Mathieu a well-respected Frenchman, but he is also playing in his final French Open. Moreover, he was controversially denied a main-draw wild card and had to play his way in—which he successfully did. That will only make his fan support even more rabid. Speaking of the fans, this is as close to a home tournament as it can possibly get for Goffin. The Belgians were out in force, and extremely loud, throughout their man’s run to the quarterfinals in 2016.
Best potential second-round matchup – Borna Coric vs. (25) Steve Johnson
Best potential third-round matchup – (16) Lucas Pouille vs. (19) Albert Ramos-Vinolas
Possible surprises — Rarely is Djokovic more vulnerable than anyone else near him in draws, but with both Thiem and Goffin in the other half of this section, there is not much room for surprise in that pod. Anything other than a Thiem-Goffin fourth-rounder would be a considerable shock. But if the second-ranked Serb’s struggles continue, Ramos-Vinolas could emerge as a quarterfinal opponent for either Thiem or Goffin.
[polldaddy poll=9756127]
[polldaddy poll=9752115]
who ya got?
Cant believe how wrong you have gotten the whole Monfils situation. There have been so many instances when Gael has been injured or in bad form before RG but has done tremendously here. One of them being in 2014 when he came in to RG injuref and without any matches under his belt and yet managed to push Andy Murrat to 5 sets in the QF (which he should have won).
As far as Gael us concerned, i am pretty sure he believes he can do great things here thats why ge pulled out of Rome to have an extended training program.
No
I hope you are right.
Unfortunately, I will be.
At the top I actually think Del Po vs Almagro is the most exciting second round matchup. But Khachanov has a chance at upsetting Berdych in what could be an awesome second round encounter. Also I think Herbert could give Zverev all sorts of problems in the second round.
Delpo not playing well, if Almagro’s injury is not so serious, Almagro should be able to beat this Delpo. Berdych is playing well at the moment, beating Raonic to reach the Lyon final, so I think he’ll handle Khachanov alright.
Zverev shouldn’t have any problem with Herbert in BO5.
Second section doesn’t really have too many popcorn second round matches. I would say Tsonga vs Edmund is a really good one. Ferrer and Lopez too but I have a feeling Frantagelo is gonna score the first round upset.
Third section I actually am interested and that first match for Rafa. I can see Paire snatching a set but no more than that. And the possible Robredo vs Dimitrov and Troicki vs Simon are good ones. All the potential third round matchups between seeds are good ones. PCB and Grigor could be a great match along with Sock vs RBA. I’m a Muller fan so I would be interested in a match between him and Raonic.
Rafa is not going to lose a set, not until at least the QF imo.
I don’t see Paire taking a set off Rafa. I think Rafa would have to be off his game for that to happen.
Best round one matches in bottom section for me are Pouille vs Benneteau and Ivo vs Tsitsipas. Upset potential in both. Best second round matchup is definitely Johnson vs Coric. Also best third round is as you said Pouille vs ARV.
Does anyone else think Tsonga could reach the final of the French Open this year? He won two tournaments already this year in Rotterdam and Marseille and has a fairly good draw to the quarters assuming Kyrgios doesn’t find form. In the quarters he would face most likely Wawrinka which he can beat on clay and then most likely Nishikori or del Potro in the semis, as I don’t think Murray will (in this state of form) be able to pass 3 former/present top 10 players and if he does beat Nishikori then he will have a lot of hours already spent on the court which helps Tsonga. I know this seems unlikely but I just got some feeling that if Tsonga is really there this year and with the French crowd behind him, he may be able to give one last good shot. Is it just me? or does anyone else feel the same?
Well the problem is Tsonga would much rather play Stan on hard. You said “Wawrinka which he can beat on clay” but Tsonga and wawrinka favors wawrinka most on clay. Even with the huge crowd support in the RG 2015 semis, Stan beat Jo in four.
I don’t see Tsonga going deep here. He hasn’t done much lately. He’s not playing the way he was a few years ago when he got to the semis.
It is true that clay favors Stan. I think this is where Stan will heat up and make a good run. He got in some extra match play this week and should be ready to finally do something.
And he’s got Cilic to take care of first, who is playing well on clay this year. Stan even more difficult.
Tsonga has to get past Cilic first; Cilic is playing well on clay this season, surprisingly. I think it’s a Stan vs Cilic QF in that section, but Stan has to beat Monfils first in R4 (if Stan can survive till then, I think he can beat Monfils and then Cilic).
See Nadal, semis: Wawrinka defeats Nishikori, Nadal defeats Djokovic. Final: Nadal beats Wawrinka
Nishikori won’t survive till then, he will most likely fall to A Zverev in R4. Zverev can go far in that section if Murray is subpar again but I think Berdych will beat Murray to face Zverev. Zverev may reach the SF to face Stan most likely, unless Cilic or Tsonga or Monfils can get past Stan to reach the SF.
That half of the draw is quite interesting because there’s no clear favorite except maybe A Zverev but he’s too inexperienced in BO5 so not a big fav. The other top players are not playing that well at the moment making so making things not so predictable.
Thiem v Goffin in the fourth round would be a cracker.
Also Pouille v Ramos-Vinolas in the third,
As for Kyrgios, disappointing right now. Kohlschreiber likely to upset, winner to play Anderson , who could be the dark horse.
Just don’t feel that Joker is focused enough to go far. really like Thiem to win it all.
How could Thiem survive Goffin, then Djoko, then Rafa and then most like Stan or Zverev or even Murray?? He’s no Rafa on clay! Furthermore, he doesn’t look that physically or mentally fresh after so many matches so far this season. He had to fight so hard in many matches so far, not going to help physically.
While Zverev, like Delpo, plays with easy power; Thiem is like Stan, plays with more brute force and hard hitting. Thiem looked rather spent by Rome whilst Zverev still looked rather fresh in that Rome final. It’s more likely that Zverev reaches the final than Thiem doing so imho.
I feel it will be a Rafa/Djoko SF. No matter how poorly Djoko plays, he’s still able to struggle his way through the draw and imo only Rafa could stop him. Thiem and Goffin, after battling each other, won’t have much left to stop Djoko.
I think it may be Berdych/Zverev and Stan/Cilic QFs in the other half of the draw; it will be interesting to see Stan vs Zverev in the SF as they’ve not met on clay this season.
Rationalizations, back tracking and bet hedging are everywhere.
#NolesBack
Only Rafa can stop a “struggling” Djoko in Paris.
Yet apparently he was too inconsistent losing to almost anyone before then?
#NolesBack
I had a dream three nights ago, before the draw was even out…In my dream Rafa was playing Zverev for the title…?
@Nats!…For me,it’s not a dream…it’s a reality!!..I picked them both for the final in my Bracket!!hahaha…I don’t know the ending of your dream Nats..but i picked Rafa for the win!!!Woohoo!!
On paper it is Murray v/s Wawa and Rafa v/s Djoko and if Wawarinka can reach the semis then I too pick him to win it all … http://www.138mph.com/murraywawarinka-and-djokovicnadal-on-same-sides-of-the-draw/
Is nobody discussing here the curious coincidence that Rafa and Nole have been in the same half of the draw in ALL tournaments this year, and have been in the same half in most of the slams in the last couple of years. This has been going on for quite a while now. It has become almost a reliable fact. Some commenters like Hawkeye have therefore predicted it, lol!
Or are you guys not discussing this because you consider it an open secret? 😉
My most burning question isn’t so much if the draw is truly random or not. It could be random of course, but the probability is fairly small.
But if it’s not totally random: how is the manipulation done technically? Wouldn’t that be a great question for James Randi? But wait – as a professional sceptic he would probably suggest that I’m a conspiracy monger, lol! I would have to ask him nicely: “Dear James Randi, if you wanted to manipulate the draw of a certain tennis tournament, knowing the specific procedures – how would you do it?”
Here’s how I would do it. Let us say Muzz is 1 and Djok is 2 and Rafa is 4 and the chips are being drawn from a big cup. I put two chips both reading 3 into the cup. Obviously 3 would be drawn and would be in top half. This automatically means 4 would be in the bottom half.
Now rigging the unseeded portion is easy as it is not done in public and the riggers can do what they like and flash it on the screen on the Big Day. As position of seeds no 1 & 2 are fixed, riggers have already predetermined most of the Quarters of these two seeds. By forcing 3 to be in the top half, I have also rigged the quarters of 3 and 4 as far as the unseeded portion is concerned. Rigging positions of the remaining seeds 5-32 is a bit tricky but it is possible that this portion is not rigged. Also if it is required to be rigged, I am sure a professional magician can easily suggest how to do it.
Incidentally we have already had huge debates on this topic with Fed fawns revealing aplenty their confusion regarding differences between facts, most probable events and assumptions. Also confusion between population and sample.
Mary says AT 1:39 PM: “I put two chips both reading 3 into the cup.”
In Paris, they put No.3 and 4 into the cup:
https://www.facebook.com/RolandGarros/videos/10155351388364920/
If you read my post carefully, you will see I was outlining what I would do if I wanted to rig the draw, not about any actual draw. You are telling me they put chips 3 and 4 in Paris. That is what the rules require them to do. The question is, did they? Are you sure they put 3 and 4 in the cup? I did not see the draw and the link you gave doesn’t show the replay.
True
Mary (AT 2:29 PM),
Watch the video (I posted) between the -29:52 and -29:22 min. marks.
🙂
What is certainly not done: nobody officially checks afterwards, if the number which remained in the cup is the correct one…
I guess, there’s also no lawyer present who checks if everything is aboveboard, as is required for lotteries.
Mary, that’s one possibility, but at least as far we have apparently witnessed, it wasn’t done in such an obvious way in Paris. Either it wasn’t rigged after all, and we are looking at a ridiculous series of coincidences, or the trick must be a bit more sophisticated than that.
I’m sure it’s possible, though.
I would need to see the whole procedure live in order to discover a potentially weak spot. As I said – a case for James Randi.
the numbered chips in Paris seem to be two circular connected objects. Maybe one circle reads 3 and the other 4 so the rep shows the number he wants? But from the low probability of the event, I am certain it is not random. How they do it is not very clear but I am sure it is easier than making the Empire State Building vanish which magicians do with aplomb!
“I put two chips both reading 3 into the cup. Obviously 3 would be drawn and would be in top half”
You would not be able to do this, at least not generally, as they take out both chips. Also they usually have a player do it, or sometimes a ball kid or other fairly random individual. Sometimes they even make a point of showing them. Guess the magician will have to find another way (the arguments seem to be becoming more farcical by the day).
“Fed fawns revealing aplenty their confusion regarding differences between facts, most probable events and assumptions”
I like how you throw in the ‘fed fawns’ ad hominem, as if delusional Federer obsessives are the only kinds of people who would ever dispute the likelihood of this conspiracy theory, when y’know, in reality, the vast majority of people (including plenty of Rafa fans) would be disinclined to believe it.
“facts, most probable events and assumptions. Also confusion between population and sample”
I don’t think you’ve ever once demonstrated these things, you just seem to keep repeating them over and over, perhaps hoping that doing so will somehow make it true/make people believe it. I’ve previously dismantled both those claims after you asked me about them, and you were apparently unwilling or unable to even respond.
@littlefoot – It would be good if someone like James Randi investigated this phenomenon, because they’d inevitably show that there isn’t any evidence for the theory besides an anomalous stat. Not that doing so would stop people believing in it, though.
THD
So why are you so keen on believing there is no hanky panky? Sports is full of dark doings. Interesting that you refuse to consider anything fishy happening in tennis. Can it be because all the low probability events happening indicate shady doings on behalf of your idol? hmmmm…
Re samples and population, you made some bizarre claim about the sample being biased which made no sense as we were dealing with the population, not sample. All other points were proved but sadly logic cannot convnce someone who is irrational.
“So why are you so keen on believing there is no hanky panky? ”
I am not ‘so keen’ on believing there is nothing go on (have you ever wondered if you’re a bit too keen to believe that there is, that perhaps you *want* to believe this stat because it supports your pre-concieved belief that Rafa is being screwed over?), I just don’t think there’s sufficient evidence in this case. It’s possible I’m wrong, of course.
“Interesting that you refuse to consider anything fishy happening in tennis”
Completely false, I’ve said on more than one occasion that it’s more than likely there is some corruption going on. It would be very surprising if there was no doping go on undetected/unannounced, for instance. Players I like might well even be dopers. I’m not at all naive to the possibility of corruption in tennis, which could manifest itself in any number of ways.
“Re samples and population, you made some bizarre claim about the sample being biased which made no sense as we were dealing with the population, not sample.”
I didn’t make any bizarre claim at all, the bias claim was in relation to a stat that was *not* about population. Again, I’ve already addressed this point, my response in full is on Rafa’s page.
“All other points were proved but sadly logic cannot convnce someone who is irrational.”
Oh, the irony. Even here, you’ve again ignored the points I’ve made in my post, and instead, perhaps by way of distraction, brought up questions I’ve already answered.
Also, Federer is not my idol, never has been. I actually made a long post on that just yesterday.
ThinWhiteDuke, all someone like James Randi could do, would be an evaluation if cheating is possible at all. Showing that it is possible doesn’t necessarily mean it really happened or it didn’t happen. But in my mind a number of red flags are up.
Duke, you are very patient in continuing to return to this theme. Indeed you have previously dismantled the claims made on the other side. I’m still waiting for someone to respond to your cogent arguments.
Joe Smith, it’s indeed an unpleasant theme, and I would be perfectly content to let it go if it can be shown that a specific drawing procedure is fool proof. But as long as the numbers continue to be so lopsided and as long as we see drawing routines like the one linked by Hawkeye, which have indeed a whiff of a slight of hands, it’s a legitimite concern. I’m sure, tennis, just like other sports, isn’t squeaky clean. And the concern that the drawings might be manipulated to a certain extent has even been raised by mathematicians. A couple of years ago a thesis by a mathematician has been hotly discussed which looked at the numbers and concluded that a certain amount of manipulation was very likely. And there has been a study by ESPN which demonstrated that at the US Open the computer generated draw was apparently manipulated for years so that the top stars received always low ranked and easy first round opponents in order to prevent early upsets, which are bad for tv ratings. This was hotly discussed for a while and then it got quietly brushed under the carpet.
I’m not even arguing that potential routinely performed manipulations are always in favor or against the interest of certain players. But tennis is a capitalist venture, and financial interests might well generate shady dealings – like in other sports, too.
Littlefoot, do you have a reference to the mathematical thesis to which you refer? Does it specifically single out the pairing of Rafa and Novak in the same half of the draw in the tournaments under discussion? I’m aware of the ESPN study, and I’ve said many times that draw fixing with a clear economic benefit to the sport -including minimizing high-profile early upsets- would not be a surprise.
However, TWD’s careful arguments elsewhere on this site specifically examined the claim that Rafa and Nole were deliberately put into the same half of the draw in a certain subset of slam tournaments. The motive for doing that is far less obvious (I’m not sure, for instance, that Mary and Hawkeye even agree on what the alleged motive is). Until a motive is specified, there’s not much to discuss. And once one is specified -e.g. to prevent others from equaling Fed’s slam record – then many of the objections raised by TWD (and me) have to be faced.
Joe Smith, I’m not even sure if Mary, Hawkeye and I agree as far as motives for manipulations go 😉 We would have to exchange our exact thoughts on this.
I agree with you that a clear cut motive is needed.
I will try to find the paper of the mathematician again. It was published at a German University and caused a bit of a stir here. It wasn’t looking at the recent string of Novak and Rafa always being in the same half. It was analysing an earlier period a couple of years ago when Novak, Rafa and Fed were occupying the spots one, two and three, and the study concluded that statistics suggest that tournaments might tamper with draws because they were mightily interested in facilitating Fedal finals, which are – like it or not – the prime product of professional men’s tennis. When Roger and Rafa stopped showing up regularly in the latter stages of a tournament the statistical anomalies interestingly stopped, too. The problem is of course that it isn’t enough to look at the bare numbers, because they change with the ranking and form of the players. The study was interesting and of course controversial.
They have not been in the same half in Doha, which does’t really invalidate my point.
Rafa did not participate in Doha 2017. He was in Brisbane. So despite the best will in the world, the poor riggers couldn’t put Rafa in Nole’s half!
Besides it is only a 250 event, so not really worth rigging.
LittleFoot, it is now nine times in a row dating back to last year that Rafa and Nole have been “randomly” drawn in the same half.
Easy to do. I’ve reviewed quite a few draws on youtube. Many of them have a player (such as last year’s champ, draw the numbers but they don’t look at them. They are handled to an official who announces the number. Just one of many ways.
https://youtu.be/I0R9a49qSQE?t=975
Hawkeye, I’m sure there are many technical ways to manipulate draws. But I’m a sucker for details. I want to know how precisely it could be done.
It would be extremely easy of course if the player who performs the draw is in it, too. But while players might suspect something, I really do not believe they’re actively involved. So, if I were a player performing the draw, I certainly would look at the number before handing it to an official.
I forgot where, but I once saw a draw where the players drew envelopes which were handed to an official who then opened them and took out a number which was then shown (I think it was a Year-End Championship). Such a procedure would of course be extremely easy to manipulate in a number of ways. They way they perform the draw at the FO would require a bit more sophistication, if really something fishy has been going on.
At the French Open , it looks like each chip is composed of two flat cylinders fitted together. So either could be the base and the other the lid with one reading 3 and the other 4. The one who drew the chip did not look at the number. The official did something with the chip and then displayed it with the base showing # 3 and the lid facing the other way. If he had wanted to show 4, he would just have to display the lid as the base by displaying the other side.
The chips seem to be closed, so the drawer – in this case Serena – cannot even see which number she drew. That’s probably the reason why she doesn’t even take a look. The official seems to do something with the chips, and only then it’s held up and the draw gets announced.
The video linked by Hawkeye – the draw ceremony from RG 2014 – shows indeed a procedure which technically could probably be easily manipulated. That doesn’t mean it has been done, but that it could be done.