Message from discussion Nish bagels Raonic
Received: by 10.224.189.75 with SMTP id dd11mr15880144qab.6.1349821368405;
Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.79.7 with SMTP id h7mr1752489yhe.2.1349821368374; Tue, 09
Oct 2012 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.8.131.52; posting-account=_EwXpwoAAAA0p46cpdrHFG6p8JaBL4-y
<firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1;
Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.2; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Subject: Re: Nish bagels Raonic
From: Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 22:22:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Oct 9, 6:10=A0pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:00=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 10:12=A0pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 8, 8:48=A0pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> > > > 8.10.2012 23:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> > > > > =A0 I am
> > > > > sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Na=
> > > > > 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
That's not a Top 10; it's seven guys.
> June 21, 1993--Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Bruguera, Ivanisevic,
> Lendl, Stich.
> Dec. 27, 2004--Federer, Roddick , Hewitt, Safin, Moya, Agassi, Gaudio.
> 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
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."