[77chawzence]

I suppose it is worth looking into but I don't find the evidence particularly persuasive. Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean that it will or did happen. It seems to me that they only look at the first two seeds over 10 years worth of tournaments which makes for a very small sampling. Unless I missed it (I read the information last night so I perhaps could have forgotten) it doesn't take into consideration at all who else was in their quarter; who they faced in the second round etc. Additionally rankings are not necessarily the most honest reflection of the desirability of facing a person in the draw -- I think there are a lot of people who would rather face Woz in the first round of the US Open than Serena regardless of their rankings.

The draw isn't an experiment that is looking to be replicated they get the results once and they go with it. The odds of winning a lottery are astronomically small as well (and why I don't play) but to the person who wins I'm sure they don't care about how unlikely it was-- they are going to cash the checks anyway.

I think that it is good that the USTA is willing to look into this but as Woody is pointing out we seem to be doing a lot of guessing about what exactly the information they have released means. I've read the extended "how it was done" portion but I don't think it directly explains all of the information and figures they have provided. I'm sure their results are valid I'm just not sure that it demonstrates anything of importance other than that it is worth looking into. But I am certainly not the most statistically inclined TATuer...