Nish bagels Raonic

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

Some more work needed on stamina, obviously.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 2:18:30 PM UTC+6, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> Some more work needed on stamina, obviously.

David bagels Goliath?

[Professor X]

Just another berdych type (but not as good) score a biggish win, then
bottle it. ala USOpen berdy vs fed then vs murray.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

Raonic ran out of steam in the 3rd set. Three three-set matches in a row is too much for him apparently. Will have to get a trainer if he wants to progress at slams.

[felangey]

> Some more work needed on stamina, obviously.

I know not many will have watched Kei's matches this week....but I would
really encourage them to have a look at his Berdy and Raonic matches at
least. Everything that has been lamented as missing from the next generation
is right there. I have always been a big fan of this kids talent....but
competetively he has a tendancy towards the timid - and in that respect I
really hope this tournament was a departure for him as he was rock solid
from start to finish. Anyway, just brilliant tennis from the guy this
week....and some touching scenes of him enjoying the spoils!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hI1CWUIjUg

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

Yes, Nish played well, was calm and methodical and applied pressure on Raonic right through the match.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

Also worth noting that Raonic did not run out of steam in the 3rd set.
Nishikori returned Raonic's serve very well and was especially good at
manhandling 2nd serve returns from above shoulder level.

The post match ceremonial intro speech is still going on, I am told! ;)

[grif]

Raonic's style of serving huge bombs and first strike tennis isn't
exactly a generally taxing style anyway.

[TennisGuy]

On Oct 7, 10:29 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also worth noting that Raonic did not run out of steam in the 3rd set.

OK I didn't see any of the match.

Obviously someone here is right and someone is wrong.
Which one is it?
He either did run out of steam or he didn't.

pham says he did.
vari says he didn't.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

I stand by my assessment. Raonic, being the nice sportsman that he is,
probably said as much after the match.

Watch any Nishikori match from the QF on. Very enjoyable tennis.

[Court_1]

Vari is correct imo. Milos did not run out of steam, he was outplayed
in the third.

[Ulysses]

Milos sadly may have some of that Berdych factor in his psyche. He has
had a few tournaments where he knocks off a big gun only to lose to
his next opponent. I also wonder what's with his new hair and
headband? If he's even remotely trying to look like Federer, he needs
to ditch this look ASAP. Any comparison to Fed in the sartorial
elegance category means Milos comes in second place... by 8,546,893
miles.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

The winner/UEs would tell the story, unfortunately the stats are sketchy and don't show them. Raonic's ace/DF stats are 5/1 1st set, 8/1 2nd set and 1/1 3rd set, so I remain convinced he ran out or steam. (Not so obvious to the eye, because he's not a great mover anyway, but revealed by the reduced effectiveness of his shots). I'm not trying to remove anything from Nishi's performance, but as I said earlier he remained steady from beginning to end and did not suddenly become more brilliant in the 3rd.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

On 10/7/2012 1:41 PM, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> he remained steady from beginning to end and did not suddenly become more brilliant in the 3rd

Nishikori was not merely steady in the 3rd set, he was brilliant. We
must just agree to disagree.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:14:03 AM UTC+11, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:

> On 10/7/2012 1:41 PM, phamqu..@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> > he remained steady from beginning to end and did not suddenly become more brilliant in the 3rd
>
>
>
> Nishikori was not merely steady in the 3rd set, he was brilliant. We
>
> must just agree to disagree.

This is how Raonic saw it:

"In the third set I started to feel a bit heavy and was not moving well," said Raonic. "He kept going for his shots even more. I was a bit late on everything.

"The third set was not so different than the other two, but he was getting behind the ball and hitting deep," said Raonic. "He was preventing me from going forward and putting pressure on him."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/canada-s-milos-raonic-falls-in-japan-open-final-1.986924#ixzz28dhtKimM

[number_six]

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

Of course, Raonic is much the better player.

Great tournament from both finalists, even though Raonic went out with
the bagel. Nishikori showed a lot of tactical variety, bold
initiative, excellent ROS.

[drew]

On Oct 7, 2:51 pm, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com> 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.

[TennisGuy]

I read Milos passed the million dollar mark for the year with his
loss.
So all was not in vain. :)

[number_six]

On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, drew wrote:

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.

[Court_1]

On Oct 7, 12:37 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:32 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 12:19 pm, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 10:29 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Also worth noting that Raonic did not run out of steam in the 3rd set.
>
> > > OK I didn't see any of the match.
>
> > > Obviously someone here is right and someone is wrong.
> > > Which one is it?
> > > He either did run out of steam or he didn't.
>
> > > pham says he did.
> > > vari says he didn't.
>
> > Vari is correct imo. Milos did not run out of steam, he was outplayed
> > in the third.
>


> Milos sadly may have some of that Berdych factor in his psyche. He has
> had a few tournaments where he knocks off a big gun only to lose to
> his next opponent.

Oh please say it ain't so, another Berdych? It could be possible but
somehow I think Raonic is more driven than Berdych. Time will tell I
guess. He definitely needs to win big matches against the top players
more consistently rather than have a big win or two and then wither.
I am rooting for him that is for sure. Better him in the top ten than
some of these current flakes.

[Court_1]

On Oct 7, 2:33 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:14:03 AM UTC+11, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:

> > On 10/7/2012 1:41 PM, phamq...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> > > he remained steady from beginning to end and did not suddenly become more brilliant in the 3rd
>
> > Nishikori was not merely steady in the 3rd set, he was brilliant. We
>
> > must just agree to disagree.
>
> This is how Raonic saw it:
>
>  "In the third set I started to feel a bit heavy and was not moving well," said Raonic. "He kept going for his shots even more. I was a bit late on everything.
>
> "The third set was not so different than the other two, but he was getting behind the ball and hitting deep," said Raonic. "He was preventing me from going forward and putting pressure on him."
>

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/canada-s-milos-raonic-falls-in-japan-ope...

Does it really matter whether he faded out in the third because he
felt tired or not? The end result was the same--i.e. he lost the
match. Whatever the reason, he was outplayed by Nishikori in the third
set. He is 21 years old, surely fatigue should not be keeping him from
winning important matches consistently.

Whatever the reasons are, he needs to figure it out and step it up. I
don't want him to become another one of those players who linger
around in the top twenty like a walking corpse. It is time we had
another winner with a winning mentality on our hands isn't it? I am
sick of all of these guys in the top twenty who are not Roger, Nadal,
Djokovic or Murray.
Raonic and Nishikori both look like talented young up and comers.
Let's hope one or both can make the transition into the big leagues.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:20:58 AM UTC+11, Court_1 wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:33 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:14:03 AM UTC+11, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>
> > > On 10/7/2012 1:41 PM, phamq...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > he remained steady from beginning to end and did not suddenly become more brilliant in the 3rd
>
> >
>
> > > Nishikori was not merely steady in the 3rd set, he was brilliant. We
>
> >
>
> > > must just agree to disagree.
>
> >
>
> > This is how Raonic saw it:
>
> >
>
> >  "In the third set I started to feel a bit heavy and was not moving well," said Raonic. "He kept going for his shots even more. I was a bit late on everything.
>
> >
>
> > "The third set was not so different than the other two, but he was getting behind the ball and hitting deep," said Raonic. "He was preventing me from going forward and putting pressure on him."
>
> >
>
> > http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/canada-s-milos-raonic-falls-in-japan-ope...
>
>
>
> Does it really matter whether he faded out in the third because he
>
> felt tired or not?

Does anything we say in rst matter? :)

> The end result was the same--i.e. he lost the
>
> match. Whatever the reason, he was outplayed by Nishikori in the third
>
> set.

The good thing is that he was outplayed, he didn't simply tomic away his match. So there's hope.

> He is 21 years old, surely fatigue should not be keeping him from
>
> winning important matches consistently.
>
>
>
> Whatever the reasons are, he needs to figure it out and step it up.

Isn't it the sacred duty of rst-ers to figure it out for him? :)))

[Court_1]

On Oct 8, 5:09 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:20:58 AM UTC+11, Court_1 wrote:

> > Does it really matter whether he faded out in the third because he
>
> > felt tired or not?
>
> Does anything we say in rst matter? :)

Good point!

> > The end result was the same--i.e. he lost the
>
> > match. Whatever the reason, he was outplayed by Nishikori in the third
>
> > set.
>
> The good thing is that he was outplayed, he didn't simply tomic away his match. So there's hope.

True. Tomic just seems like he is above it all and doesn't think he
has to beat the lesser players first to get to the better players. I
don't get that vibe from Raonic at all.

> > He is 21 years old, surely fatigue should not be keeping him from
>
> > winning important matches consistently.
>
> > Whatever the reasons are, he needs to figure it out and step it up.
>
> Isn't it the sacred duty of rst-ers to figure it out for him? :)))

I sure hope not. :) Let's hope he can figure it all out just fine on
his own! :)

[TT]

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!

[Court_1]

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?

[Joe Ramirez]

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).

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 4:00:31 PM UTC+11, 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.
>
>

Were they end-of-year blips? There's no difference, a blip is a blip.

>
> 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).

Same comment.

[Arnab]

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.

[Dave Hazelwood]

whisper is to sampras as courtie is to nadal.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 4:00:31 PM UTC+11, Joe Ramirez wrote:

It doesn't take a great IQ to work out that in a zero-sum game, when somebody does better, somebody else does worse...

[Whisper]

er, 'athlete' is not a word I associate with Raonic lol.

[Whisper]

On 9/10/2012 4:00 PM, 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.

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?

[Joe Ramirez]

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."

And my ref. to Carlsson should be 1988, not 1998.

[number_six]

If you were comparing him to Srejber, I daresay you might!

[Vari L. Cinicke]

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.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

Court_1 is longing for the glorious times when everyone in the Top 40 is
an all time great with at least 8 slams! ;)

[drew]

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.

[TT]

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. :)

[Court_1]

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:

June 20,1983--Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Noah, Vilas, Wilander.
May 22, 1989--Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Muster, McEnroe
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? I do think that this era has a
very strong top three but below that? Come on Joe!

[Court_1]

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.

[Court_1]

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.

[Joe Ramirez]

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.

Ditto.

> 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

[Court_1]

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.

[Court_1]

Go stare at your Berdshit posters above your bed! :)

[Court_1]

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?
>
> > 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.

> 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.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

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 ...

[Vari L. Cinicke]

On 10/9/2012 6:52 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>>> 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.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

On 10/9/2012 6:18 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> 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.

[jdeluise]

On 9-Oct-2012, wrote:

> 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.

[jdeluise]

On 9-Oct-2012, wrote:

> 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.

[Court_1]

Who cares how many slams they had back then? The point is they were
part of a stronger past top ten group and had better and greater
achievements overall (not just slams but other ATP titles) than
today's 5-10 ranked players. WTF is it that you don't understand about
that fact? Guys like Berdych and Tsonga are not going to suddenly go
on a tear and win multiple slams, they are in their late 20's already!

[Court_1]

I already did pick a few calendar weeks and look at the top ten. I
listed a few examples above. Can't you read?

[Court_1]

On Oct 9, 7:34 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On  9-Oct-2012,  wrote:

> > 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,

I don't believe that is the whole story. Sure today's top four are
strong and have managed to build a blockage against the rest winning
slams but in my opinion that is also because 5-10 are fairly weak.
Surely they should have been able to achieve more than they have--i.e.
win some other important ATP titles. They don't because they are
inconsistent head cases for the most part.

That is why I can't wait for some younger players to break through
already! Do I really want to be watching Isner and Berdych choke away
big matches for the next few years? Truth is I can't stand watching
them unless they are playing Federer in a big match.

> whereas they were unable to do so in the past.
> You're only looking at this from one angle.

No, I have looked at it from that angle many times.

[jdeluise]

On 9-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't believe that is the whole story. Sure today's top four are
> strong and have managed to build a blockage against the rest winning
> slams but in my opinion that is also because 5-10 are fairly weak.

The trouble is it's really difficult to objectively measure this. My take
is that it's much more *likely* to have a really excellent top 4 at any
given time than to have a really poor 5+. My guess is an instance of a
particularly weak field (in "absolute terms", whatever that is) would only
occur in an exceptionally unusual period, such as during war or during the
early days of the sport when it lacked participation and standardization.

[jdeluise]

On 9-Oct-2012, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My guess is an instance of a
> particularly weak field (in "absolute terms", whatever that is) would only
> occur in an exceptionally unusual period, such as during war or during the
> early days of the sport when it lacked participation and standardization.

Some posters also use the prevailing tactics of an era to determine its
strength. For example, the lack of S/V is used as evidence of the weakness
of the current era to some. But we know that there are (or have been) a few
serve and volleyers on the tour that have not succeeded so its clearly not
serve and volley alone that makes the difference....

[Shakes]

On Oct 9, 5:23 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Depth/competition is, for all practical purposes, relative.

For example, it doesn't matter that Fed/Nadal/Djok are a 9 on a scale
of 1-10 while Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander were only a 7.5, when there
were more guys closer to Lendl's/Becker's/Edberg's/Wilander's level
during that era than there are guys closer to Fed's/Nadal's/Djok's
level in the current era. This is because, one of the commonly used
mantras is that the whole "field" is improving.

Also, while I've bemoaned the demise of S/V, I've never said that S/V,
by itself, makes an era a strong one. But I believe that overcoming
high caliber players of a variety of styles is more difficult than
overcoming high caliber players of a more narrow spectrum.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

No. You don't get to cherry pick. Same week, every year. Can you comprehend?

Since you picked this week to grouse about, look at the Top 10 every year and look at how many of the Top 10 are slam winners. Current Top 10 has 5 slam winners with a total of 35 slams.

Go for it. You have nothing but a bad attitude so far.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

I think it is actually the opposite. During most of the last decade, not only the top two players are exceptionally good, their styles are completely opposite and exceptionally complementary. So it has been almost impossible to beat the two of them in a row to win a slam, because even if you are in great form, what works against one probably won't work against the other.

[Court_1]

You must be dense. Out of those 35 slams 33 are held by Federer,
Djokovic and Nadal. I am not suggesting that the top four today are
weak, only the players ranked 5-10. Are you seriously trying to tell
me that players like Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer and Monaco are stronger
players than the players I have listed in the past top tens above--
i.e. players like Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Muster,
McEnroe from May of 1989 for example? Do you not see that the talent
was more spread out in those top ten lists I have posted? Because if
you can't see the difference you need a lobotomy.

[Court_1]

That is not necessarily true at all. The point is that players like
Berdych, Monaco, Isner, Tsonga are not good enough to win slams unless
they are able to somehow fluke a win out like Del Potro was able to do
against a complacent Federer and a Nadal not at his best that year.
They are streaky players who can't seem to win big matches
consistently. I have no idea why people are failing to see this fact.
It is all there on paper.

If you put players like Agassi, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and Lendl(the
players in the top ten in May 1989) up against Federer, Nadal and
Djokovic, do you honestly think they would never be able to win a slam
against the top four? I mean, come on!

[jdeluise]

On 9-Oct-2012, wrote:

> They are streaky players who can't seem to win big matches
> consistently

Some of the greats you've listed were also this way, but didn't have the
pressure of *always* having to beat the four guys who are not only extremely
tough but also happen to be very consistent.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

Well, I think most of us will agree that by the time Djoker retires he will be at least as great as any of those you quoted, and probably greater. Yet it took him donkey years to get his second slam against Fedal. Note that in my argument I was referring to "top two players" and "most of the last decade", i.e. I was talking about the Fedal period (hey, it sounds good, like feodal period) not about the Big Three of Big Four periods.

[Vari L. Cinicke]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:35:00 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>
> You must be dense. Out of those 35 slams 33 are held by Federer,
> Djokovic and Nadal. I am not suggesting that the top four today are
> weak, only the players ranked 5-10. Are you seriously trying to tell
> me that players like Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer and Monaco are stronger
> players than the players I have listed in the past top tens above--
> i.e. players like Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Muster,
> McEnroe from May of 1989 for example? Do you not see that the talent
> was more spread out in those top ten lists I have posted? Because if
> you can't see the difference you need a lobotomy.

Your blather means nothing. The names you cherrypicked are from several tennis generations 2 of whom had no slams at that time and would have been dismissed by you.

You got nothing.

[Court_1]

No they were not inconsistent or at least not in the same way that
Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro are for example. Guys like Becker,
Wilander, Edberg, Muster, and Lendl (all in the top ten in May 1989)
have between 33-94 ATP singles titles each. How the hell can you
compare them to today's deadbeats ranked 5-10. There is simply no
comparison in my mind. We have to stop making excuses for Berdych, Del
Po, etc.---i.e. that they have too much pressure to beat the top four
consistently. The truth is they are not good enough, whether it is
skill-wise or mentally or a bit of both.

[Court_1]

On Oct 9, 10:13 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:35:00 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>
> > You must be dense. Out of those 35 slams 33 are held by Federer,
> > Djokovic and Nadal. I am not suggesting that the top four today are
> > weak, only the players ranked 5-10.  Are you seriously trying to tell
> > me that players like Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer and Monaco are stronger
> > players than the players I have listed in the past top tens above--
> > i.e. players like Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Muster,
> > McEnroe from May of 1989 for example?   Do you not see that the talent
> > was more spread out in those top ten lists I have posted?  Because if
> > you can't see the difference you need a lobotomy.
>


> Your blather means nothing.

Which clearly means that it does mean something to you or else you
would not be so annoyed by it. Truth hurts although I have no idea why
you would care if past top tens had more depth beyond the top three or
so. Why are you trying to argue against the obvious. To you Berdych,
Del Po and Tsonga > Wilander, Edberg and Becker? What a joke.

> The names you cherrypicked are from several tennis generations 2 of whom had no slams at that time and would have been dismissed by you.

LOL, you are too funny and you fail. There is no person on earth with
any tennis knowledge who could possibly claim that today's players
ranked 5-10 are better than those players in the past top ten lists I
cited. I could go on and on and look at 20 past top ten lists and
sure some would have some real flakes on the list but many don't have
as many flakes. I even cited a list from 2004 with players such as -
Federer, Roddick , Hewitt, Safin, Moya, Agassi, Gaudio. Many people on
here think 2004-2007 was a weak era but I disagree. Those names on
the top ten from the week I cited in 2004 are a much stronger top ten
than today's 5-10.

[Court_1]

That is because Djokovic was a flake early on even though he was
exceptionally talented. He was fairly weak mentally and would retire
if he had a sore throat remember? If he put the same energy back then
into beating Nadal and Federer he would have done so much more
consistently in slams. Guys like Wilander, Becker, etc were
consistently stronger mentally than Djokovic early on in their
careers. They faded out when they were older and had already won
multiple slams whereas Djokovic faded out mentally after some early
success and then regrouped to come back and win his three slams in
2011.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

Pure speculation. All we know is he couldn't beat Fedal until that miracle year. Of course if you start from the premise that players always lose because they are weak minded, not because their opponent is better, then it explains everything - just as religion explains everything.

[Joe Ramirez]

From 1973 through 2012 -- 40 years of computer rankings -- the average
(mean) number of slam winners in the year-end Top 10 has been 5.5.
This refers to players who had won at least one slam *by that point in
their careers*, including AOs won when good players didn't care about
that event and FOs won when a different one-hit-wonder clay specialist
popped up every year; future wins not counted. Also note that no year
ever exceeded eight slam winners in the Top 10.

So, an average of 4.5 players in every year's Top 10 have been players
with 0 slams on their resumes up to that point.

If you'd prefer to conduct a more elaborate analysis, perhaps looking
at slam finals as well as slams, or counting each player's number of
slams and/or slam finals, or taking future slam wins into account
somehow, be my guest. Obviously, the greater the monopolization of
slam wins by a few players, the fewer the slams available to convert
other top-tenners into slam winners.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

> On Oct 9, 6:52 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > 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.
>
>

You're comparing past TOP TEN with today's 5-10. What kind of comparison is that? Using that kind of comparison I can easily show that Australia is doing better than Spain or Switzerland at the moment!

[jlia...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:31:27 PM UTC+11, Court_1 wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:06 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:43:31 PM UTC+11, Court_1 wrote: > > On Oct 9, 9:25 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:30:40 AM UTC+11, Shakes wrote: > > > > > On Oct 9, 5:23 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On  9-Oct-2012, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > My guess is an instance of a > > > > > > > particularly weak field (in "absolute terms", whatever that is) would only > > > > > > > occur in an exceptionally unusual period, such as during war or during the > > > > > > > early days of the sport when it lacked participation and standardization. > > > > > > Some posters also use the prevailing tactics of an era to determine its > > > > > > strength.  For example, the lack of S/V is used as evidence of the weakness > > > > > > of the current era to some.  But we know that there are (or have been) a few > > > > > > serve and volleyers on the tour that have not succeeded so its clearly not > > > > > > serve and volley alone that makes the difference.... > > > > > Depth/competition is, for all practical purposes, relative. > > > > > For example, it doesn't matter that Fed/Nadal/Djok are a 9 on a scale > > > > > of 1-10 while Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander were only a 7.5, when there > > > > > were more guys closer to Lendl's/Becker's/Edberg's/Wilander's level > > > > > during that era than there are guys closer to Fed's/Nadal's/Djok's > > > > > level in the current era. This is because, one of the commonly used > > > > > mantras is that the whole "field" is improving. > > > > > Also, while I've bemoaned the demise of S/V, I've never said that S/V, > > > > > by itself, makes an era a strong one. But I believe that overcoming > > > > > high caliber players of a variety of styles is more difficult than > > > > > overcoming high caliber players of a more narrow spectrum. > > > > I think it is actually the opposite. During most of the last decade, not only the top two players are exceptionally good, their styles are completely opposite and exceptionally complementary. So it has been almost impossible to beat the two of them in a row to win a slam, because even if you are in great form, what works against one probably won't work against the other. > > > That is not necessarily true at all. The point is that players like > > > Berdych, Monaco, Isner, Tsonga are not good enough to win slams unless > > > they are able to somehow fluke a win out like Del Potro was able to do > > > against a complacent Federer and a Nadal not at his best that year. > > > They are streaky players who can't seem to win big matches > > > consistently. I have no idea why people are failing to see this fact. > > > It is all there on paper. > > > If you put players like Agassi, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and Lendl(the > > > players in the top ten in May 1989) up against Federer, Nadal and > > > Djokovic, do you honestly think they would never be able to win a slam > > > against the top four?  I mean, come on! > > Well, I think most of us will agree that by the time Djoker retires he will be at least as great as any of those you quoted, and probably greater. Yet it took him donkey years to get his second slam against Fedal. That is because Djokovic was a flake early on even though he was exceptionally talented. He was fairly weak mentally and would retire if he had a sore throat remember? If he put the same energy back then into beating Nadal and Federer he would have done so much more consistently in slams. Guys like Wilander, Becker, etc were consistently stronger mentally than Djokovic early on in their careers. They faded out when they were older and had already won multiple slams whereas Djokovic faded out mentally after some early success and then regrouped to come back and win his three slams in 2011.

I don't know that Becker was consistantly strong mentally. On quite a lot of occassion in particular in Australia Becker just melt away in the a tight match and who can forget that total melt down he had with Michael Stich in 91 Wimbledon final when he was the favourite to win that match. Djokovic may be mentally weak at begnining of his career but Becker was hardly ever a role model for him to follow in term of mental toughness.

[Arnab]

I don't think she is pretending.

[Arnab]

Court_1's posts consistently show a lack of objectivity and an absence of perspective. She has a found an opinion based not on logic but on her "gut feeling" mixed with a dash of her own "logic" and she is going to blindly stick to it and shout it at the top of her voice. This is a shouting contest for her.

Her basic trolling pattern is this: I have come to cherish an opinion of mine. Even if you point out that my logic is half-assed and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, "I don't care" (her most favorite line) and "You must be dumb" to not get my point (argument from shame, used frequently by trolls). And I am going to engage in a prolonged verbal faux-fight with you using all my repetitive shouting power. And I am going to insult you, put words in your mouth at every turn of paragraph.

A deplorable poster. A huge time-waster.

[Arnab]

Yeah, this is just another version of "clown era" bs thrown mainly at Fed back in 2004-5-6-7.

Then it became clown era where only two players excelled (2008-10)

Then with djokovic's rise it became top three vs the rest of the clowns.

Now it's top 4 vs the rest of the clowns.

A bankrupt idea that evolves with time.

[Arnab]

May of 1989, court_1 looking at the list :

Agassi has 0 slams --> clown according to court_1

Muster has 0 slams --> clown according to court_1

McEnroe has not won a slam in the previous 4 years ---> a "has-been", "washed up" clown according to court_1

[Whisper]

On 10/10/2012 9:52 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Oct 9, 6:22 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

I think the bottom line is the guys outside top 4 are virtually unknown
except by the hardest core fans. I presume Ferrer is top 10? The rest
I'd be guessing. Monaco really top 10? News to me.

This is because there is never any suspense when they play the top 3 or
4 - complete capitulation. They never get angry when they lose - just
grab the check & move on to next tournament. Who wants to watch that crap?

[Whisper]

On 10/10/2012 10:31 AM, jdeluise wrote:

> On 9-Oct-2012, wrote:
>
>> 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.
>


Doesn't ring true when you watch what's going on the court. These guys
are happy to make a great living & travel around the world. Beating the
top 4 is the furthest thing from their minds, judging by their behavior.

Then they turn around & also say this is the toughest era as the top 4
struggle in early rounds & there is danger in every rd. WTF? The top 4
make ever slam semi all yr round every year. It's the complete opposite
of being toughest era where you can lose early.

[Whisper]

On 10/10/2012 10:34 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> On 9-Oct-2012, wrote:
>

>> 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.
>

So that's your actual position, or just a possible argument someone can
make?

[Whisper]

That's right. In this 'narrow spectrum' if you're 5% better than
everyone, you can make that pay over & over. That's why the top players
today win many slams, career slams, 3 slams in a yr etc. This was all
rare before, but when it's a narrow spectrum it becomes commonplace.
You're essentially a 1-trick pony rather than Jack of all trades.

In a more diverse era you have other factors come into play beside just
being 5% better than everyone. You have more diverse surfaces & type of
opponents. That simply doesn't exist today.

[Arnab]

You seem to be more of a "angry reaction" fan and a "media exposure" fan than a real tennis fan?

[Arnab]

So when Del Potro worked his ass off to get better by heaps and beat Nadal and Fed in a row in USO 2008, that was no struggle, a cakewalk?

[Whisper]

It sure doesn't feel as interesting as other eras. I can't watch whole
matches anymore as I can't distinguish 1 point from another. However
when I pull out eg the '75 AO final between Jimbo & Newk I'm riveted to
the screen - so much diversity & tactics going on.

[Arnab]

I think there's a simple explanation for this. When you started watching tennis in the late 70s, you were a 20 year old kid. Now you're a 50+ year old geezer.

Your lack of interest is a reflection of your age, not the current tennis tour.

[Whisper]

So when Navratilova & Evert won every slam for 8 yrs in a row, it wasn't
because the rest of the top 10 was complete shite?

Those 2 are great players, but it also helped big time having Wendy
Turnbull, Carling Bassett & Kohde Kiltsch types as no.3 in the world.
Same thing in current men's game no doubt about it.

[Whisper]

I think Court_1 has might a water-tight case.

Can anyone name any great players outside of Navratilova/Evert '76 -'86?

[Whisper]

If you play in an era where the top couple players win everything & you
can't make much of a dent, then you're condemned to being forgotten
completely & regarded as a basketcase field. This doesn't detract from
the top players, just as Navratilova/Evert legacy is not diminished by
the joke competition.

[Whisper]

Did Navratilova/Evert play in a clown era, or where they all super
players, just that the top 2 were goddesses?

Before answering keep in mind Wendy Turnbull was no.3 & made slam finals.

[Whisper]

I'm one of the biggest tennis fans here - play at least 10 hrs a week,
read lots of books etc. Sadly modern tennis has regressed on many
levels so it's the least interesting period I've seen. Hope something
to make it interesting again.

Just about the only interesting thing today is the great records being
set on court - bit sad when the actual spectacle is underwhelming : (

[Whisper]

Not quite. 1st match I ever saw was 1980 Wimbledon final at age 14.

>
> Your lack of interest is a reflection of your age, not the current tennis tour.
>

Not really. I loved watching Henin for eg. It's all about the
diversity & style, as well as passion of the players.

[ahonkan]

On Oct 10, 2:40 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
> Not really.  I loved watching Henin for eg.  It's all about the
> diversity & style, as well as passion of the players.

Nobody is more passionate about tennis or
enjoys playing the game more than Fed and
yet he's the one you hate!
And the boy you tout the most these days
is the one who tanks matches even in GS!
Talk about hypocrisy!

[Whisper]

On 10/10/2012 9:41 PM, ahonkan wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:40 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not really. I loved watching Henin for eg. It's all about the
>> diversity & style, as well as passion of the players.
>
> Nobody is more passionate about tennis or
> enjoys playing the game more than Fed and
> yet he's the one you hate!

er, I've always said he's my fave player of this era. You guys just
can't accept I think Rafa is better than him h2h, & that he's not the boat.

Yes Fed has a love & passion for the game, but he is a bit more brittle
& self-doubting at the highest levels than other greats. I'm not
discounting all the 'soft' slams he won v Bagdities/Gonzalez types, but
they are what they are.

> And the boy you tout the most these days
> is the one who tanks matches even in GS!
> Talk about hypocrisy!
>

I've highlighted Sampras' weaknesses many times, including his mostly
half-arsed approach outside slams.

My views aren't radical. At respective peaks I'd pick Sampras & Rafa to
beat Fed, but obviously he has many admirable qualities overall.

[Shakes]

On Oct 9, 6:25 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:30:40 AM UTC+11, Shakes wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 5:23 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On  9-Oct-2012, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > My guess is an instance of a
>
> > > > particularly weak field (in "absolute terms", whatever that is) would only
>
> > > > occur in an exceptionally unusual period, such as during war or during the
>
> > > > early days of the sport when it lacked participation and standardization.
>

> > > Some posters also use the prevailing tactics of an era to determine its
>
> > > strength.  For example, the lack of S/V is used as evidence of the weakness
>
> > > of the current era to some.  But we know that there are (or have been) a few
>
> > > serve and volleyers on the tour that have not succeeded so its clearly not
>
> > > serve and volley alone that makes the difference....
>
> > Depth/competition is, for all practical purposes, relative.
>
> > For example, it doesn't matter that Fed/Nadal/Djok are a 9 on a scale
>
> > of 1-10 while Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander were only a 7.5, when there
>
> > were more guys closer to Lendl's/Becker's/Edberg's/Wilander's level
>
> > during that era than there are guys closer to Fed's/Nadal's/Djok's
>
> > level in the current era. This is because, one of the commonly used
>
> > mantras is that the whole "field" is improving.
>
> > Also, while I've bemoaned the demise of S/V, I've never said that S/V,
>
> > by itself, makes an era a strong one. But I believe that overcoming
>
> > high caliber players of a variety of styles is more difficult than
>
> > overcoming high caliber players of a more narrow spectrum.
>
> I think it is actually the opposite. During most of the last decade, not only the top two >players are exceptionally good, their styles are completely opposite and exceptionally > complementary. So it has been almost impossible to beat the two of them in a row to >win a slam, because even if you are in great form, what works against one probably >won't work against the other.

Playing against opponents of completely opposite styles calls for
mental, tactical adjustments that are otherwise not needed.

I wouldn't say that Fed and Nadal are completely opposite in function,
though they are opposite in form. At least, they are not stylistically
opposite to the same extent as a baseliner and S/V'er. So it doesn't
require as much adjustment as playing a Agassi followed by a Sampras,
or a Edberg and a Courier or Chang.

Even so, I still maintain that depth is relative. Fed and Nadal are
exceptional, but so were Sampras, Agassi; and Borg, Mac, Connors,
Lendl;. The truth is, due to a number of factors, back then, the rest
of the top guys (4-10) had a greater shot at upsetting the top dogs (1
- 3).

[Shakes]

Not really. Case in point is the USO 2007 F. Djok should've on the 1st
set, probably even the 2nd. The 2011 Djok would've sealed the deal.

Djok showed as early as 2007 (when he as just turning 20) that he had
the game to beat Nadal, Fed, Roddick (won Miami, Toronto etc. beating
all these guys). He just couldn't do it in the biggest matches. It
wasn't until the end of 2010 that he fixed that problem.

Same goes for Murray.

>All we know is he couldn't beat Fedal until that miracle year. Of course if you start from >the premise that players always lose because they are weak minded, not because >their opponent is better, then it explains everything - just as religion explains >everything.

Outside of the top 4, you are mostly right. Though there are head
cases like Berdych who still stand out.

[Court_1]

You are trying to use stats, in this case the mean number of slams in
every year's top ten. without looking at details and that can be
misleading. I am saying you have to move away from just restrictive
stats and actually look at the players 5-10 on today's list and
compare them to 5-10 on past lists. If I randomly take any past top
ten lists and look at the players and what those players have achieved
and compare it to players today such as Berdych, Monaco, Tsonga, etc.
and what they have achieved overall so far, I can't say today's
players have more impressive achievements than most (not all) top ten
players of the past. I am not just talking about slams only. Look at
overall titles and slam finals.

I will randomly pick just three right now:

July 17, 1995--Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Muster, Chang, Kafeinikov,
Ivanisevic, Ferreira, Stich, Rosset.
May 21, 2001--Kuerten, Safin, Agassi, Ferrero, Sampras, Hewitt,
Kafeinikov, Rafter, Norman, Grojean.
March 30, 1987--Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Noah, Wilander, Mecir, McEnroe,
Connors, Leconte, Gomez

Sure there are some weak links in the above lists but if you take a
quick scan of the players 5-10 and compare to today's players ranked
5-10--i.e. Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Tipsarevic and Monaco I
think overall you will find that most of those past players have
greater achievements. Again, I don't mean every single player but
many.

Why is it so hard for so many people to admit Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych,
Del Potro, Tipsarevic and Monaco may not be the strongest group of
players out there, I don't get it. It doesn't take anything away from
what Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have accomplished and they would have
accomplished great things in any era but that does not take away from
the fact that the current 5-10 ranked players are a level or two below
the talent of the top three players whereas in past years you may have
had talent levels which were equal to or at least more equal to the
top three, that is all I am saying.

[Arnab]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:40:18 PM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 8:00 PM, Arnab wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:56:45 PM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
>
> >> On 10/10/2012 12:25 PM, phamqu...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It sure doesn't feel as interesting as other eras. I can't watch whole
>
> >>
>
> >> matches anymore as I can't distinguish 1 point from another. However
>
> >>
>
> >> when I pull out eg the '75 AO final between Jimbo & Newk I'm riveted to
>
> >>
>
> >> the screen - so much diversity & tactics going on.
>
> >
>
> > I think there's a simple explanation for this. When you started watching tennis in the late 70s, you were a 20 year old kid. Now you're a 50+ year old geezer.
>
>
>
>
>
> Not quite. 1st match I ever saw was 1980 Wimbledon final at age 14.

Same ballpark.

Incidentally, you should apologize profusely whenever you talk authoritatively about any tennis player before 1980, especially anything about Hoad et al. You weren't even born back then. Probably didn't know what tennis was. Be humble.

>
>
> >
>
> > Your lack of interest is a reflection of your age, not the current tennis tour.
>
>
> Not really. I loved watching Henin for eg.

Henin played in the ATP tour? When?

> It's all about the
>
> diversity & style, as well as passion of the players.

I think it's all about your personal preferences. Which is fine. Don't get all self-righteous about it. This era is just like any other era. Too bad you don't like it. Stop whining.

[Court_1]

I am not saying Becker was stronger mentally throughout his career but
I think Becker was stronger mentally for the most part early on in his
career whereas Djokovic lost the plot early on and then regained it.
They have had different situations.

[Arnab]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:31:22 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:

> Even so, I still maintain that depth is relative. Fed and Nadal are
>
> exceptional, but so were Sampras, Agassi; and Borg, Mac, Connors,
>
> Lendl;. The truth is, due to a number of factors, back then, the rest
>
> of the top guys (4-10) had a greater shot at upsetting the top dogs (1
>
> - 3).

Interesting. Let's take an example of a relatively well-known top ten player in the early and mid 1990s. Why is that Michael Chang never beat Pete Sampras in a slam in the 1990s? Not even took Pete to a single five-setter during these encounters. This is what you call "a greater shot at upsetting" ?

[Court_1]

On Oct 10, 3:24 am, Arnab <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Court_1's posts consistently show a lack of objectivity and an absence of perspective. She has a found an opinion based not on logic but on her "gut feeling" mixed with a dash of her own "logic" and she is going to blindly stick to it and shout it at the top of her voice. This is a shouting contest for her.

Do you do anything on here but constantly criticize? You are way off,
I am one of the most objective posters on here, a quality which
obviously you can't relate to because all of your posts are soaked in
your blinding worship for Federer (Federer is my favorite player but I
don't think he is a God like some others seem to.)

You have never posted objectively as far as I can see and in most of
your arguments with Shakes, he has clearly been the more rational and
reasonable poster, no contest. Your problem is you have trouble
accepting opinions of posters who do not share your opinion about
certain players.

[Court_1]

On Oct 10, 4:36 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> They never get angry when they lose - just
> grab the check & move on to next tournament.

That is exactly it for me. Where are the players who show passion and
heart? To me it just seems as if many in the top 20 are content to
collect a first or second round check. I want to see some younger
players come around who have the heart to win big and not just be
content with beating a Federer or Nadal once every year, because
clearly players like Tsonga and Berdych have proven they are NOT those
guys and never will be, contrary to the fantasies or delusions that
many posters on RST seem to have on the subject.

[Arnab]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:01:22 PM UTC+6, Court_1 wrote:
> On Oct 10, 3:24 am, Arnab <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Court_1's posts consistently show a lack of objectivity and an absence of perspective. She has a found an opinion based not on logic but on her "gut feeling" mixed with a dash of her own "logic" and she is going to blindly stick to it and shout it at the top of her voice. This is a shouting contest for her.
>
>
>
> Do you do anything on here but constantly criticize?

It depends. I didn't criticize you when you used to be a good poster. Think of it as a reflection on how far you have descended.

> You are way off,
>
> I am one of the most objective posters on here, a quality which
>
> obviously you can't relate to because all of your posts are soaked in
>
> your blinding worship for Federer

"Blinding worship"? Example? I am a Federer fan, yes. But where did I "blindly worship" him?

> (Federer is my favorite player but I
>
> don't think he is a God like some others seem to.)

I don't think Federer is God. What gave off that vibe? Links?

>
> You have never posted objectively as far as I can see

And why should we take your words seriously? How can you be an objective bystanding observer about this? Who appointed you as such?

> and in most of
>
> your arguments with Shakes, he has clearly been the more rational and
>
> reasonable poster, no contest.

And your opinion about who is more rational and reasonable between me and Shakes has weight because...?

Look, Shakes has admitted many times that he is biased for 1990s style of tennis. He writes long posts and uses verbal trickery to get his agenda across. That's not rational or reasonable. I think you are impressed by his resilience, that's all.

> Your problem is you have trouble
>
> accepting opinions of posters who do not share your opinion about
>
> certain players.

Not really. Having a difference of opinion is fine in my eyes. But one has to distinguish between logical, rational, well-thought-out opinion that is based on reality and outlandish opinions based on one's bizarro fantasy, clairvoyance, gut feeling, or some other metaphysical bs. Once you have gone overboard with the latter kind, it was a matter of time that all

The problem doesn't lie with me. It's about you. In various threads for the past few months, even in this one, you have Ramirez, Vari, Ahonkan, Kehoe, felangey and a host of other people trying to show why your point of view doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Surely there's something wrong?

[Arnab]

There we are at last. Court_1 agrees with Whimpy. The circle is complete. :)