Young guns clay vs hard

[TT]

CAREER MATCH WIN%

THIEM
0.725 Clay
0.537 Hard
Better surface CLAY, probability 98%

KYRGIOS
0.670 Hard
0.583 Clay
Better surface HARD, probability 69%

ZVEREV
0.620 Clay
0.562 Hard
Better surface CLAY, probability 69%

GOFFIN
0.608 Clay
0.608 Hard
Better surface CLAY, probability 50%

[Patrick Kehoe]

Thiem looks like he's the guy who will win a LOT of clay court events, heading forward... made for the clay, really... likely multiple French Opens in the future...

He's going to be a factor on hardcourt too, sort of transition his game as he gains a more refined all court approach... he's already in possession of a big serve and big groundies... he'll likely work on his front court game to hone his net play because he's going to need that against NK, Zverev, Dimi, Raonic, even Goffin etc...


Kyrgios will have an all around game, for the most part... he's a shot maker behind that big serving game... clay will be a challenge because he's not looking like a guy who will be too interested in mega-physical matches during the bulk of his career... and fair enough... his game has other virtues (which are obvious)... but, here and there he'll make some noise on the clay, when the spirit moves him :))

Zverev will be thee all court player of this young generation... he's got the complete game... Thiem will have to use his physicality against him to gain small margins as they battle over the coming decade... and will his lean frame become injury prone? Clay tennis doesn't help with longevity, for the most part... so, Zverev will have his share of clay titles, over the next 7 or 8 seasons... contesting some FO Finals one would think... and certainly will be a key guy at the other majors...

Goffin is a clay courter+... he's not gifted with any MASSIVE component like the other guys, who can generate various elements of power tennis... Goffin has to be super fit, consistent, focus and play tactically water-tight tennis to get past the guys with complete games and have power facets within their tennis... so, he's going to have the more difficult and exacting time of it to make his game and what he does well solve the issues the other guys will be offering at the Masters level and the Majors...


P

[TT]

Nice post. Looking up these stats I was a bit surprised to learn that
Goffin has same win% on clay and hard - as he has so far impressed me
more on clay.

Also rather surprising that Zverev has better win% on clay than on hard.
Although I've seen him play on clay and he's good, clearly feels at home
on it. His best surface could be grass though.

[*skriptis]

Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

You both guys do realize Goffin was born in 1990? It's 2017 now.

He doesn't belong into these conversations, or if he does, fine,
but Raonic and Nishikori deserve a mention, Cilic and del Potro
too, Dimitrov etc.


--

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 15 mei 2017 18:30:23 UTC+2 schreef Patrick Kehoe:

If Thiem is going to win multiple FO's he'll have to start soon... He'll be 24 in a few months and clay is a young man's game, traditionally.

Overall I think the current crop of 'young guns' will be overshadowed by a younger crop of great players, some yet unknown 16-18 year olds... Or at least I hope that's the case, for tennis' sake.

[Court_1]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:30:23 PM UTC-4, Patrick Kehoe wrote:

> Thiem looks like he's the guy who will win a LOT of clay court events, heading forward... made for the clay, really... likely multiple French Opens in the future...

Really? Tell me which tournaments Thiem has won so far? Rio? At his age he should be beating these ancient players like Nadal on clay over and over again. But instead what happens? He loses in straights every time. I posted this in another thread but the only way he will win any important clay tournament is if Nadal drops dead. He couldn't get by Goffin on clay recently in MC and yet people think he is some kind of clay titan? *rolls eyes* At almost age 24 how many slams and Masters 1000s did Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Fed,etc. have? He's very competent on clay but he should be doing more.

> He's going to be a factor on hardcourt too,

Oh please! Everybody and his mother can beat Thiem on hc! Take a look at some of the names of players he's lost to this year alone on hc--Pierre-Hugues Herbert, Querrey, Goffin, Daniel Evans, Dimitrov.

> Kyrgios will have an all around game, for the most part... he's a shot maker behind that big serving game... clay will be a challenge because he's not looking like a guy who will be too interested in mega-physical matches during the bulk of his career... and fair enough... his game has other virtues (which are obvious)... but, here and there he'll make some noise on the clay, when the spirit moves him :))

The only younger player I find interesting to watch despite his despicable work ethic and attitude.

> Zverev will be thee all court player of this young generation... he's got the complete game... Thiem will have to use his physicality against him to gain small margins as they battle over the coming decade... and will his lean frame become injury prone? Clay tennis doesn't help with longevity, for the most part... so, Zverev will have his share of clay titles, over the next 7 or 8 seasons... contesting some FO Finals one would think... and certainly will be a key guy at the other majors...

He could be a force or he could be a Berdych type player or lesser player than that. We'll have to see. He's too bloody tall with toothpicks for legs and he loses focus a lot for a young player.

> Goffin is a clay courter+... he's not gifted with any MASSIVE component like the other guys, who can generate various elements of power tennis... Goffin has to be super fit, consistent, focus and play tactically water-tight tennis to get past the guys with complete games and have power facets within their tennis... so, he's going to have the more difficult and exacting time of it to make his game and what he does well solve the issues the other guys will be offering at the Masters level and the Majors...

Solid top ten player who can be fun to watch but that's all. He's a level 2 guy. It tells you how bad the current clay field is if he's a top contender.

[TT]

15.5.2017, 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Really? Tell me which tournaments Thiem has won so far? Rio? At his age he should be beating these ancient players like Nadal on clay over and over again.

That's typically unfair. It's not like Federer for example EVER managed
to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
as many as Lendl and Wilander.

And I don't see how Rafa's age is relevant the way he's playing
currently...

> Solid top ten player who can be fun to watch but that's all. He's a level 2 guy. It tells you how bad the current clay field is if he's a top contender.
>

In that case the hard the court field must be even worse since Goffin
has exactly same win% on hard.

[Court_1]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:00:55 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> 15.5.2017, 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> > Really? Tell me which tournaments Thiem has won so far? Rio? At his age he should be beating these ancient players like Nadal on clay over and over again.
>
> That's typically unfair. It's not like Federer for example EVER managed
> to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
> as many as Lendl and Wilander.

It's not unfair at all. Federer lost many times to Nadal on clay but he did beat Nadal a couple of times at clay tournaments and early on he made the matches highly competitive going the distance in many of their clay encounters. He wasn't losing in straights every time. Plus, by his early twenties he was winning slams/Masters 1000s everywhere. What has Thiem won?

> And I don't see how Rafa's age is relevant the way he's playing
> currently...

I see. But when a 36 year old Federer beats a youngster you have the opposite reaction, i.e. why the hell can't this loser beat an old man? It's unprecedented that none of these younger generation players can beat these older great players. It's a problem.

> > Solid top ten player who can be fun to watch but that's all. He's a level 2 guy. It tells you how bad the current clay field is if he's a top contender.
> >
>
> In that case the hard the court field must be even worse since Goffin
> has exactly same win% on hard.

There are more players who are competent on hc than there are on clay. That's only logical considering hc tournaments make up over 70% of the tennis year.

On clay currently there is Nadal who is the GOAT on clay and then there are level 2 players like Thiem/Goffin. Djokovic is a top tier clay player but he's in another world at the moment. Murray is competent on clay but he's in the Twilight Zone for now. Federer is competent on clay but he's absent. Wawrinka is excellent on clay but there is a good chance Zombie Stan will show up at the FO. Del Potro is good on clay so let's see if he can do anything.

[John Liang]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:00:55 AM UTC+10, TT wrote:
> 15.5.2017, 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> > Really? Tell me which tournaments Thiem has won so far? Rio? At his age he should be beating these ancient players like Nadal on clay over and over again.
>
> That's typically unfair. It's not like Federer for example EVER managed
> to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
> as many as Lendl and Wilander.

But Federer managed to beat just about every other players on clay during his peak and was prevented to win more FO by one player. With Federer you always knew during his peak years he had the 2nd best chance to win a clay court major after Nadal, I just don't get the same feeling with Thiem at the moment.

>
> And I don't see how Rafa's age is relevant the way he's playing
> currently...
>
> > Solid top ten player who can be fun to watch but that's all. He's a level 2 guy. It tells you how bad the current clay field is if he's a top contender.
> >
>
> In that case the hard the court field must be even worse since Goffin
> has exactly same win% on hard.

60% is pretty poor for a very good player. That is why he has not win big tournament. He won 2 titles in his career, hardly surprise when he is winning 3 out of every five matches, most of the tournament would have players playing 4 or 5 matches to win a tournament.

[TT]

16.5.2017, 0:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:00:55 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>> 15.5.2017, 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> Really? Tell me which tournaments Thiem has won so far? Rio? At his age he should be beating these ancient players like Nadal on clay over and over again.
>>
>> That's typically unfair. It's not like Federer for example EVER managed
>> to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
>> as many as Lendl and Wilander.
>
> It's not unfair at all. Federer lost many times to Nadal on clay but he did beat Nadal a couple of times at clay tournaments

Yes, at Hamburg and Madrid when Nadal had knee problems after marathon
matches. Not much different from Thiem's win. So your comparison is
still unfair.

>> currently...
>
> I see. But when a 36 year old Federer beats a youngster you have the opposite reaction, i.e. why the hell can't this loser beat an old man?

No, that's you.

> It's unprecedented that none of these younger generation players can beat these older great players. It's a problem.
>

The age remains irrelevant if these older players are able to still play
their best as Federer has done on HC and Nadal on clay this year.


>> In that case the hard court field must be even worse since Goffin

>> has exactly same win% on hard.
>
> There are more players who are competent on hc than there are on clay. That's only logical considering hc tournaments make up over 70% of the tennis year.
>

I don't think so... all top players are baseliners and come from clay
countries. This applies to 'youngsters' as well apart from Kyrgios.

Even Murray has game and stamina to suit clay, and practised in Spain
when young - yet he is not good enough to make a serious impact on clay
but often loses on early rounds. Maybe that's because the field is so
strong.

As for Goffin, he seems to be more impressive on clay yet has equally
good winning percentage on hard... now that would logically mean that
the level on clay is actually higher than it is on hard.

> On clay currently there is Nadal who is the GOAT on clay and then there are level 2 players like Thiem/Goffin. Djokovic is a top tier clay player but he's in another world at the moment. Murray is competent on clay but he's in the Twilight Zone for now. Federer is competent on clay but he's absent. Wawrinka is excellent on clay but there is a good chance Zombie Stan will show up at the FO. Del Potro is good on clay so let's see if he can do anything.
>

Same applies for HC this year.

And you can't use Federer's absence since he's skipping clay because he
doesn't believe he can win on it. That hardly suggests that the level of
competition is bad.

[TT]

16.5.2017, 0:48, John Liang kirjoitti:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:00:55 AM UTC+10, TT wrote:
>> 15.5.2017, 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> Really? Tell me which tournaments Thiem has won so far? Rio? At his age he should be beating these ancient players like Nadal on clay over and over again.
>>
>> That's typically unfair. It's not like Federer for example EVER managed
>> to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
>> as many as Lendl and Wilander.
>
> But Federer managed to beat just about every other players on clay during his peak and was prevented to win more FO by one player. With Federer you always knew during his peak years he had the 2nd best chance to win a clay court major after Nadal, I just don't get the same feeling with Thiem at the moment.
>

Who has Thiem lost to on clay this year?

Rio: Won the title
MC: lost to Goffin
Barcelona: lost to Nadal in the final
Madrid: lost to Nadal in the final

[Court_1]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:19:43 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> > It's not unfair at all. Federer lost many times to Nadal on clay but he did beat Nadal a couple of times at clay tournaments
>
> Yes, at Hamburg and Madrid when Nadal had knee problems after marathon
> matches. Not much different from Thiem's win. So your comparison is
> still unfair.

Nadal had knee problems so that's why Fed beat him? You sound like the Fed nutters who talk about Fed's mono when he reached every slam final that year. Shut up. Comparing Thiem to Federer is insanity. Thiem's won nothing of relevance so far. If he were such a clay beast, he should have won some Masters 1000s on clay by now or how about some 500s on clay? How many of those has he won? I don't feel like checking.

> > I see. But when a 36 year old Federer beats a youngster you have the opposite reaction, i.e. why the hell can't this loser beat an old man?
>
> No, that's you.

Weren't you calling Kyrgios a loser/choker when he lost that close match to Fed in Miami?

> > It's unprecedented that none of these younger generation players can beat these older great players. It's a problem.
> >
>
> The age remains irrelevant if these older players are able to still play
> their best as Federer has done on HC and Nadal on clay this year.

No it doesn't only mean that. It also means the youngsters aren't good enough.

> > There are more players who are competent on hc than there are on clay. That's only logical considering hc tournaments make up over 70% of the tennis year.
> >
>
> I don't think so... all top players are baseliners and come from clay
> countries. This applies to 'youngsters' as well apart from Kyrgios.

Yet most can't win two clay matches in a row?

> Even Murray has game and stamina to suit clay, and practised in Spain
> when young - yet he is not good enough to make a serious impact on clay
> but often loses on early rounds. Maybe that's because the field is so
> strong.

LOL, no. It's because Murray's not good enough on clay.

> As for Goffin, he seems to be more impressive on clay yet has equally
> good winning percentage on hard... now that would logically mean that
> the level on clay is actually higher than it is on hard.

He's a level two player across the board. Zzzzzz.

> > On clay currently there is Nadal who is the GOAT on clay and then there are level 2 players like Thiem/Goffin. Djokovic is a top tier clay player but he's in another world at the moment. Murray is competent on clay but he's in the Twilight Zone for now. Federer is competent on clay but he's absent. Wawrinka is excellent on clay but there is a good chance Zombie Stan will show up at the FO. Del Potro is good on clay so let's see if he can do anything.
> >
>
> Same applies for HC this year.

But there are more players who can cause upsets on hc.

> And you can't use Federer's absence since he's skipping clay because he
> doesn't believe he can win on it. That hardly suggests that the level of
> competition is bad.

He doesn't want to injure his old body grinding it out on clay with people 5-12 years younger. He could probably beat this Murray and Djokovic easily on clay. Perhaps Thiem/Goffin/Kyrgios/Zverev could give him trouble and for sure Nadal would. It's much better for him to focus on Wimbledon to the WTF where he has a much better chance to do damage.

[TT]

16.5.2017, 1:39, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:19:43 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>>> It's not unfair at all. Federer lost many times to Nadal on clay but he did beat Nadal a couple of times at clay tournaments
>>
>> Yes, at Hamburg and Madrid when Nadal had knee problems after marathon
>> matches. Not much different from Thiem's win. So your comparison is
>> still unfair.
>
> Nadal had knee problems so that's why Fed beat him? You sound like the Fed nutters who talk about Fed's mono when he reached every slam final that year. Shut up. Comparing Thiem to Federer is insanity. Thiem's won nothing of relevance so far. If he were such a clay beast, he should have won some Masters 1000s on clay by now or how about some 500s on clay? How many of those has he won? I don't feel like checking.
>
>

And how many did Federer win during his 100 year career when Nadal
played in the tournament...

>>> I see. But when a 36 year old Federer beats a youngster you have the opposite reaction, i.e. why the hell can't this loser beat an old man?
>>
>> No, that's you.
>
> Weren't you calling Kyrgios a loser/choker when he lost that close match to Fed in Miami?
>
>

I don't think so.

>>> It's unprecedented that none of these younger generation players can beat these older great players. It's a problem.
>>>
>>
>> The age remains irrelevant if these older players are able to still play
>> their best as Federer has done on HC and Nadal on clay this year.
>
> No it doesn't only mean that. It also means the youngsters aren't good enough.
>
>

OF COURSE they are not good enough if Rafa does his best stuff on clay.

I think Kyrgios has beaten big three.

>>> There are more players who are competent on hc than there are on clay. That's only logical considering hc tournaments make up over 70% of the tennis year.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so... all top players are baseliners and come from clay
>> countries. This applies to 'youngsters' as well apart from Kyrgios.
>
> Yet most can't win two clay matches in a row?
>
>

?

>> Even Murray has game and stamina to suit clay, and practised in Spain
>> when young - yet he is not good enough to make a serious impact on clay
>> but often loses on early rounds. Maybe that's because the field is so
>> strong.
>
> LOL, no. It's because Murray's not good enough on clay.
>
>

There you go. Others are better.

>> As for Goffin, he seems to be more impressive on clay yet has equally
>> good winning percentage on hard... now that would logically mean that
>> the level on clay is actually higher than it is on hard.
>
> He's a level two player across the board. Zzzzzz.
>
>

Probably.

>>> On clay currently there is Nadal who is the GOAT on clay and then there are level 2 players like Thiem/Goffin. Djokovic is a top tier clay player but he's in another world at the moment. Murray is competent on clay but he's in the Twilight Zone for now. Federer is competent on clay but he's absent. Wawrinka is excellent on clay but there is a good chance Zombie Stan will show up at the FO. Del Potro is good on clay so let's see if he can do anything.
>>>
>>
>> Same applies for HC this year.
>
> But there are more players who can cause upsets on hc.
>
>

Links?

[John Liang]

Who were the top players in Rios ?

> MC: lost to Goffin
> Barcelona: lost to Nadal in the final
> Madrid: lost to Nadal in the final

Good performance but Federer did that for years and also slams. Has Thiem reached a slam final ? Not yet. Goffin is even further away.

[TT]

I believe Kehoe was talking about the future.

[TT]

TT kirjoitti 15.5.2017 klo 19:05:
> CAREER MATCH WIN%
>
> THIEM
> 0.725 Clay
> 0.537 Hard
> Better surface CLAY, probability 98%
>

And then Thiem beats Nadal at Rome...

> ZVEREV
> 0.620 Clay
> 0.562 Hard
> Better surface CLAY, probability 69%
>

And then Zverev beats Djokovic at Rome and wins the tournament.

I must be some sort of sage.

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 4:54:20 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> TT kirjoitti 15.5.2017 klo 19:05:
> > CAREER MATCH WIN%
> >
> > THIEM
> > 0.725 Clay
> > 0.537 Hard
> > Better surface CLAY, probability 98%
> >
>
> And then Thiem beats Nadal at Rome...

And then swiftly bends over for Djokovic the next day.

What is with Djokovic? He's turned into Dimitrov!

[TT]

I need to watch the highlights before making RG predictions. Didn't
watch either match but it puzzles me how Thiem beats Rafa in straights
and then loses to Djokovic 1 and 0 who then loses to Zverev. Some weird
results there...

Simple explanation would be that Thiem played really badly against
Djokovic, had a hangover or something.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Both Thiem and Rafa played way too much recently so I expected
Thiem to lose to Rafa.

It might seem strange given the fact Rafa is older. But it's only
best of 3, and he knows how to pace himself better and is an
animal. Thiem seems to have a habit of exhausting himself. So the
key thing was that Thiem was also tired. So it's a tired guy vs
tired old animal. I backed tired animal.

However, Nadal lost. Thiem was probably super pumped up, wanting
to avenge his recent loses, and Nadal probably took foot off his
gas pedal, thinking a loss to Thiem is a nice way to preserve
himself from further grind in Rome. After all he did beat him
couple of times so no big deal losing to him. He probably also
liked the fact of avoiding Djokovic before FO. Having beaten him
decisively in Madrid he could only lose to him or be challenged
unnecessary in Rome. At best it would give Djokovic more time to
practise and feel Nadal e.g. top opponents which is something
Nadal has no reason to give him. Djokovic is already down
mentally so he could only profit from Rafa match.


So next round even more tired Thiem collapsing vs Djokovic is not
strange. 0 and 1 is misleading. But Djokovic played well vs both
delpo and Thiem and would have won both matches regardless. Maybe
beats Thiem 64 75.

Thiem said to ATP site that Djokovic is a bad matchup for him.


However, final showed exactly why I said it's probably too late
for Djokovic for FO.

After 2 solid and 2 great performances he plays a weak match, not
going after winners at all (as opposed to earlier 4 rounds when
he outwinnered opponents)

Consistency, I guess is a problem, insecurity creeped in and he
started feeding Zverev with practice shots like he does to
Wawrinka, not even trying to hit winners, and sending his ball
10% less deep and less fast that would bother Zverev. Good bye
then.

Yeah, Zverev played well.










--

[bob]

On Tue, 23 May 2017 23:54:22 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>TT kirjoitti 15.5.2017 klo 19:05:
>> CAREER MATCH WIN%
>>
>> THIEM
>> 0.725 Clay
>> 0.537 Hard
>> Better surface CLAY, probability 98%
>>
>
>And then Thiem beats Nadal at Rome...

i tried to warn you last week, but damn you don't listen son.

>> ZVEREV
>> 0.620 Clay
>> 0.562 Hard
>> Better surface CLAY, probability 69%
>>
>And then Zverev beats Djokovic at Rome and wins the tournament.
>
>I must be some sort of sage.

>
>
>> GOFFIN
>> 0.608 Clay
>> 0.608 Hard
>> Better surface CLAY, probability 50%

bob

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:04:09 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> >And then Thiem beats Nadal at Rome...
>
> i tried to warn you last week, but damn you don't listen son.

Listen to what? Nadal losing to Thiem at a clay warm-up when he had already thrashed Thiem in straights at the two prior clay warm-ups? Thiem isn't going to beat Nadal at the FO! He probably won't make it to Nadal.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 24.5.2017 1:04, TT wrote:
> Court_1 kirjoitti 24.5.2017 klo 0:40:
>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 4:54:20 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>>> TT kirjoitti 15.5.2017 klo 19:05:
>>>> CAREER MATCH WIN%
>>>>
>>>> THIEM
>>>> 0.725 Clay
>>>> 0.537 Hard
>>>> Better surface CLAY, probability 98%
>>>>
>>>
>>> And then Thiem beats Nadal at Rome...
>>
>> And then swiftly bends over for Djokovic the next day.
>>
>> What is with Djokovic? He's turned into Dimitrov!
>>
>
> I need to watch the highlights before making RG predictions. Didn't
> watch either match but it puzzles me how Thiem beats Rafa in straights
> and then loses to Djokovic 1 and 0 who then loses to Zverev. Some weird
> results there...

Not really. Rafa needed a loss, he got it. Djok played great in two
matches on a Saturday from Hell, was knackered in the final.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 3:30:40 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> Not really. Rafa needed a loss, he got it. Djok played great in two
> matches on a Saturday from Hell, was knackered in the final.

Pipe Cleaner, one of the fittest players on tour, was knackered in the final after taking ONE game off of Thiem in straights and thrashing Del Potro 6-1,6-4. That sure must have been physically taxing for Djokovic! *rolls eyes*

Maybe you haven't noticed, but your hero Djokovic has been playing like crap for a year? That Rome final vs Zverev was more of the same for Djokovic.

[The Iceberg]

why are you obsessed that Thiem will be a clay court great? one match vs a knackered Nadal and then 60 61 to Djoker doesn't really indicate that. Also as I've repeatedly said, he puts so much into everything, he gets tired at the end. Goffin is like a much lower version of Denko. Zverev, fair enough, he just won Rome as the youngest player since Nadal!

[TT]

Court_1 kirjoitti 25.5.2017 klo 3:17:
> Maybe you haven't noticed, but your hero Djokovic has been playing like crap for a year?

No no no... the level is just that high that his best is not good
enough! :-P