> > > I am
> > > sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
> > > Djokovic or Murray.
> > Those bastards! How dare they!
> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> in the top ten?
This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
the duds from the past.
Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
blips.
Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
career).
<arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:00:31 AM UTC+6, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
>Nice post. I have always wondered why some of Court_1's posts remind me strongly of Whimpy's odious trolling. This post lays bare the connection.
> On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, drew wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2:51 pm, number_six wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 1:18 am, phamquangt.wrote:
>>>> Some more work needed on stamina, obviously.
>>> Yesterday, Raonic was reminding me of another player and I couldn't
>>> readily think of the other guy's name.
>>> Then I remembered him -- the hair, the headband, and the height --
>>> Milan Srejber!I
>> I saw that guy in Montreal many years ago. He was really one of the
>> lowest
>> skill guys I've seen play pro tennis....geez, I'd almost forgotten
>> that guy but some
>> Czech guys I know even said that Milan's game was really shitty so the
>> memory
>> stuck with me.
>> Nice win for Nishikori. I think both guys have a future. I'd like to
>> see Milos get more
>> consistent off the ground and be able to put more consistent pressure
>> on the server. Otherwise
>> I can't see him making an impact at the top of the game.
> Yes, Srejber was an ungainly clodhopper.
> Milos also has the babyface -- and of course the hair /headband /
> height already mentioned -- but it ends there. Raonic is a far better
> athlete than Srejber ever was.
er, 'athlete' is not a word I associate with Raonic lol.
> On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>> 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>> I am
>>>> sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
>>>> Djokovic or Murray.
>>> Those bastards! How dare they!
>> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
>> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
>> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
>> in the top ten?
> This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> the duds from the past.
> Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> blips.
Clerc & Mayer were excellent talents. I really liked Gene's style & he was fun to watch - very deceptive player & got to no.4 in rankings.
> Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> career).
Is this an argument for today's sops being better to watch?
> > On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>> 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>> I am
> >>>> sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
> >>>> Djokovic or Murray.
> >>> Those bastards! How dare they!
> >> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> >> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> >> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> >> in the top ten?
> > This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> > You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> > people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> > the duds from the past.
> > Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> > and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> > Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> > Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> > players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> > of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> > year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> > blips.
> Clerc & Mayer were excellent talents. I really liked Gene's style & he
> was fun to watch - very deceptive player & got to no.4 in rankings.
> > Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> > No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> > clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> > was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> > end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> > final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> > for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> > career).
> Is this an argument for today's sops being better to watch?
No, as you are well aware, it's an argument for the fact that the
presence of some weak/nondescript players (by historical standards) in
a Top 10 does not invalidate that Top 10. If it did, most years in
tennis history would be "clown eras."
> > On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, drew wrote:
> >> On Oct 7, 2:51 pm, number_six wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 1:18 am, phamquangt.wrote:
> >>>> Some more work needed on stamina, obviously.
> >>> Yesterday, Raonic was reminding me of another player and I couldn't
> >>> readily think of the other guy's name.
> >>> Then I remembered him -- the hair, the headband, and the height --
> >>> Milan Srejber!I
> >> I saw that guy in Montreal many years ago. He was really one of the
> >> lowest
> >> skill guys I've seen play pro tennis....geez, I'd almost forgotten
> >> that guy but some
> >> Czech guys I know even said that Milan's game was really shitty so the
> >> memory
> >> stuck with me.
> >> Nice win for Nishikori. I think both guys have a future. I'd like to
> >> see Milos get more
> >> consistent off the ground and be able to put more consistent pressure
> >> on the server. Otherwise
> >> I can't see him making an impact at the top of the game.
> > Yes, Srejber was an ungainly clodhopper.
> > Milos also has the babyface -- and of course the hair /headband /
> > height already mentioned -- but it ends there. Raonic is a far better
> > athlete than Srejber ever was.
> er, 'athlete' is not a word I associate with Raonic lol.
If you were comparing him to Srejber, I daresay you might!
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:00:31 AM UTC+6, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> Nice post. I have always wondered why some of Court_1's posts remind me strongly of Whimpy's odious trolling. This post lays bare the connection.
Court_1 is obvious in displaying its hatred of tennis by ranting repeatedly about the alleged hopelessness of most tennis players. Its knowledge level seems reciprocal to its contempt which is sky high.
> On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>> 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>> I am
>>>> sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
>>>> Djokovic or Murray.
>>> Those bastards! How dare they!
>> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
>> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
>> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
>> in the top ten?
> This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> the duds from the past.
> Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> blips.
> Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> career).
Court_1 is longing for the glorious times when everyone in the Top 40 is an all time great with at least 8 slams! ;)
On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> in the top ten?
Tipsy's really good, great sometimes. I don't think it's a lack of
motivation holding
most of these guys back but it's certainly not hard to make a good
living in the top fifty
so it might be an issue for some. I think making it to the top 10 is
a milestone it itself when
you consider how many people play this game around the world.
It may be frustrating to see the same guys making the semi's year in
and year out but as far
back as I can remember it has been this way....a few guys at the top
getting all of the silverware.
For a while in the 80s we had some great competition at the top with a
mixture of older and younger
players and some compelling rivalries...but it was still a core group
of 5 or 6 who really had a good
chance to win majors...so much the same as today really with a couple
more contenders.
> On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>> 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>> I am
>>>> sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
>>>> Djokovic or Murray.
>>> Those bastards! How dare they!
>> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
>> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
>> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
>> in the top ten?
> This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> the duds from the past.
> Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> blips.
> Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> career).
Good post. Ferrer, Berdych, Delpo and Tsonga definitely can challenge past top tenners. Hell, they can beat current top 4...
Tipsy is not that bad. He's a tennis player prototype, if they upgraded his game a bit he would make a passable Djokovic.
Almagro sort of actually is (bad). But a dangerous bad. :)
> > > > I am
> > > > sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
> > > > Djokovic or Murray.
> > > Those bastards! How dare they!
> > I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> > win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> > ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> > in the top ten?
> This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> the duds from the past.
> Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> blips.
> Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> career).
No, I don't think it is fallacious at all. I think you are cherry-
picking here to prove your point. Of course there were years in the
past where the top ten players were not spectacular but if you look at
most years compared to the current top ten players below the top three
or four, this is a very weak crop.
Just randomly look at a few years and see who was in the top ten. For
example I just randomly picked the following:
How on earth can you compare chumps like Berdych, Monaco and Tsonga to
the top ten players in the lists above? I do think that this era has a
very strong top three but below that? Come on Joe!
> > On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>> 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>> I am
> >>>> sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
> >>>> Djokovic or Murray.
> >>> Those bastards! How dare they!
> >> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> >> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> >> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> >> in the top ten?
> > This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> > You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> > people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> > the duds from the past.
> > Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> > and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> > Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> > Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> > players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> > of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> > year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> > blips.
> > Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> > No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> > clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> > was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> > end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> > final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> > for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> > career).
> Good post. Ferrer, Berdych, Delpo and Tsonga definitely can challenge
> past top tenners. Hell, they can beat current top 4...
No they can't challenge many of the past top ten players. And how
often do these players actually beat the top four? Very rarely.
> Tipsy is not that bad. He's a tennis player prototype, if they upgraded
> his game a bit he would make a passable Djokovic.
> Almagro sort of actually is (bad). But a dangerous bad. :)
Tipsy is THE reason this current top ten is a joke.
> On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> > win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> > ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> > in the top ten?
> Tipsy's really good, great sometimes. I don't think it's a lack of
> motivation holding
> most of these guys back but it's certainly not hard to make a good
> living in the top fifty
> so it might be an issue for some. I think making it to the top 10 is
> a milestone it itself when
> you consider how many people play this game around the world.
> It may be frustrating to see the same guys making the semi's year in
> and year out but as far
> back as I can remember it has been this way....a few guys at the top
> getting all of the silverware.
> For a while in the 80s we had some great competition at the top with a
> mixture of older and younger
> players and some compelling rivalries...but it was still a core group
> of 5 or 6 who really had a good
> chance to win majors...so much the same as today really with a couple
> more contenders.
I am not saying reaching the top ten isn't a milestone, I am saying
that the players ranked 5-10 are weak in comparison to many past
years. I can't see how anybody fails to see it.
> On Oct 9, 1:00 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> > > > 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> > > > > I am
> > > > > sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
> > > > > Djokovic or Murray.
> > > > Those bastards! How dare they!
> > > I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> > > win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> > > ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> > > in the top ten?
> > This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> > You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> > people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> > the duds from the past.
> > Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> > and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> > Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> > Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> > players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> > of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> > year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> > blips.
> > Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> > No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> > clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> > was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> > end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> > final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> > for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> > career).
> No, I don't think it is fallacious at all. I think you are cherry-
> picking here to prove your point.
On the contrary, as I've said, *most* years feature at least a few
"dodgy" players in the Top 10. It's the rule, not the exception, for
the Top 10 to be a mix of true greats, solid slam threats, and mere
also-rans. You can verify this easily just by looking at the lists.
> Of course there were years in the
> past where the top ten players were not spectacular but if you look at
> most years compared to the current top ten players below the top three
> or four, this is a very weak crop.
> Just randomly look at a few years and see who was in the top ten. For
> example I just randomly picked the following:
> June 20,1983--Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Noah, Vilas, Wilander.
That's not a Top 10; it's six guys. What about the *rest* of them?
> May 22, 1989--Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Muster, McEnroe
> How on earth can you compare chumps like Berdych, Monaco and Tsonga to
> the top ten players in the lists above?
Your analysis is totally distorted. You are comparing the *worst*
players (by your lights) of today's Top 10 with the *best* players of
other Top 10s. What kind of approach is that? I might ask how on earth
Anders Jarryd, Henrik Sundstrom, and Eliot Teltscher (1984 Top 10) can
compare to Fed, Djoker, and Nadal. Therefore 1984 was an era dominated
by chumps?
I'll just repeat what I said to Whisper in this thread: The presence
of some weak/nondescript players (by historical standards) in a Top 10
does not invalidate that Top 10. If it did, most years in tennis
history would be "clown eras."
> > On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>> 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>> I am
> >>>> sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
> >>>> Djokovic or Murray.
> >>> Those bastards! How dare they!
> >> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
> >> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
> >> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
> >> in the top ten?
> > This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
> > You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
> > people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
> > the duds from the past.
> > Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
> > and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
> > Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
> > Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
> > players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
> > of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
> > year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
> > blips.
> > Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
> > No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
> > clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
> > was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
> > end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
> > final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
> > for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
> > career).
> Court_1 is longing for the glorious times when everyone in the Top 40 is
> an all time great with at least 8 slams! ;)
Not the top 40, I am talking about the top 10! Is it too much to ask
to have many of these players win more than an occasional match
against the top four and more than a few piddly ATP events? For
christsakes, even Roddick managed to win over 30 titles including some
Masters 1000 events and his slam of course.
On Oct 9, 6:22 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, as I've said, *most* years feature at least a few
> "dodgy" players in the Top 10. It's the rule, not the exception, for
> the Top 10 to be a mix of true greats, solid slam threats, and mere
> also-rans. You can verify this easily just by looking at the lists.
Yes, a few dodgy players in past top ten lists but not often 6 or 7
out of ten!
> > Just randomly look at a few years and see who was in the top ten. For
> > example I just randomly picked the following:
> > June 20,1983--Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Noah, Vilas, Wilander.
> That's not a Top 10; it's six guys. What about the *rest* of them?
Seven guys out of the top ten who were multiple slam winners and won
many other big ATP titles. You can't say the same about players ranked
5-10 today.
> Your analysis is totally distorted. You are comparing the *worst*
> players (by your lights) of today's Top 10 with the *best* players of
> other Top 10s. What kind of approach is that? I might ask how on earth
> Anders Jarryd, Henrik Sundstrom, and Eliot Teltscher (1984 Top 10) can
> compare to Fed, Djoker, and Nadal. Therefore 1984 was an era dominated
> by chumps?
It is not distorted at all. I am comparing top ten players in many
(not all) past years to today's top ten and the evidence is clear--
today's top ten is weak compared to those years. It is not just by my
judgement, the achievements of those past top ten players are much
greater than today's 5-10 ranked players.
> On Oct 9, 11:59 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/9/2012 1:00 AM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 10:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 8:48 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>> 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>> I am
>>>>>> sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
>>>>>> Djokovic or Murray.
>>>>> Those bastards! How dare they!
>>>> I just mean we need to see a young talent already who is motivated to
>>>> win big consistently. I mean Tipsarevic and Juan Monaco in the top
>>>> ten? You have to be kidding me. This is a strong era with those duds
>>>> in the top ten?
>>> This is the same argument Whisper often makes, and it's fallacious.
>>> You can usually find slamless, forgettable players in the top 10, but
>>> people either forget or (in Whisper's case) pretend to forget about
>>> the duds from the past.
>>> Take 1981, for example. The year-end top 4 were Mac, Lendl, Connors,
>>> and Borg. Wow -- all-time strong era, right? Except that at No. 5 was
>>> Jose-Luis Clerc, at No. 7 was Gene Mayer, at No. 8 was Eliot
>>> Teltscher, and at No. 10 was Peter McNamara (Peter McNamara!). Good
>>> players at their best, but collectively, these four had a grand total
>>> of 0 slams and 0 slam finals -- for their careers. And these were the
>>> year-end rankings, remember. These guys weren't just brief midyear
>>> blips.
>>> Did you know that Kent Carlsson finished the mighty year of 1998 at
>>> No. 6 in the world? The guy was so damages he could barely play off
>>> clay, and he never played Wimbledon once in his entire career! Yet he
>>> was just one spot away from a year-end Top 5 ranking. The 1999 year-
>>> end Top 10 featured Thomas Enqvist at No. 4 (at least he made one AO
>>> final in his career), Nicolas Kiefer at No. 6 (0 slams, 0 slam finals
>>> for career), and Nicolas Lapentti at No. 8 (0 slams, 0 slam finals for
>>> career).
>> Court_1 is longing for the glorious times when everyone in the Top 40 is
>> an all time great with at least 8 slams! ;)
> Not the top 40, I am talking about the top 10!
Why don't you do the math?
Top 10, at least 8 slams each = at least 80 slams between them = at least 20 years worth of slams.
See what is wrong with that picture?
You are either pretending to be extraordinarily dumb in that an actual time like that is possible or ...
>>> May 22, 1989--Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Muster, McEnroe
>> >That's not a Top 10; it's seven guys.
> Seven guys out of the top ten who were multiple slam winners and won
> many other big ATP titles. You can't say the same about players ranked
> 5-10 today.
Care to tell us how many slams they had back then?
Lendl 7, Edberg 3, Wilander 7 were recent slam winners.
Becker 2, Agassi 0, Muster 0.
McEnroe 7 (last slam win in 1984)
In any case, 26 slams between them. Fedal have won more slams than all of your candidates combined.
> I am not saying reaching the top ten isn't a milestone, I am saying
> that the players ranked 5-10 are weak in comparison to many past
> years. I can't see how anybody fails to see it.
Because it is not true?
You want to be systematic? Pick a calendar week and look at the Top 10 that week over the years.
List them all along with how many slams each had at the time of the ranking.
Then get back if you have an actual finding worth ranting about.
> I am not saying reaching the top ten isn't a milestone, I am saying
> that the players ranked 5-10 are weak in comparison to many past
> years. I can't see how anybody fails to see it.
Alternatively you could say the top 4 from past years were weaker than they
are today.
> It is not just by my
> judgement, the achievements of those past top ten players are much
> greater than today's 5-10 ranked players.
That's because the top four today have effectively built a blockade against
other players winning slams, whereas they were unable to do so in the past.
You're only looking at this from one angle.
