Yup, looking at these stats puts a different complexion on the attitude of the tennis authorities (which in the case of the Davydenko-Arguello match screamed "cover up")
If someone announces to you that they've done some statistical analysis of 1500 players and they were shocked to find that a few of them of them fail a suspicion test at a 95% confidence threshold, you're going to question their grasp of statistics at least as much as the players' integrity.
And that's before you start considering that the "suspicious movement" flag they've chosen is a starting point for investigation by bookmakers rather than a sure indication of something being probably wrong, and their methodology for correcting outlying mispriced odds which differ from other bookmakers is laughably inadequate. Have a bookmaker whose opening price is 9.99 points longer than the average for the other bookies whose price correction moves it to 0.01 shorter than the other bookies? That's "suspicious", apparently.
And that's just looking at it from a pure statistics perspective and not assessing context which might exonerate them.
One of the listed names is a Grand Slam winner who [coincidentally] played his last single game this week to a rapturous crowd, and earned >$20M in prize money over the course of the career. It's possible he augmented that by throwing the odd match for 100k, but far more plausible his odds moving all over the place were the result of his form and injuries being all over the place in the latter part of his career.
(For the more forensic approach into Lleyton Hewitt's "suspicious" odds movements, someone wrote this:
http://www.sportdw.com/2016/01/tennis-fixing-buzzfeed-hewitt... )