Djoker has legit boat claims

[Whisper]

Well done.

Just so strong on many levels.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[John Liang]

Now you are going to predict Djoker been GOAT end of this year and that will probably jinx him again.

[Whisper]

On 27/01/2019 10:58 pm, John Liang wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:56:17 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>> Well done.
>>
>> Just so strong on many levels.
>>
>
>

> Now you are going to predict Djoker been GOAT end of this year and that will probably jinx him again.
>

lol I did that after 2016 FO & he fell off a cliff for 2 yrs.

: )

I think Djoker has learnt from that & will stay strong next couple of yrs.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 27/01/2019 13.56, Whisper wrote:
>
> Well done.
>
> Just so strong on many levels.
>

Not long ago he was the weakest #1 ever.

[Whisper]

Evidence based analysis is the only way to go. Fanboyism is a waste of
time.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 27/01/2019 14.07, Whisper wrote:
> On 27/01/2019 11:06 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 27/01/2019 13.56, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>> Well done.
>>>
>>> Just so strong on many levels.
>>>
>>
>> Not long ago he was the weakest #1 ever.
>>
>>
>
> Evidence based analysis is the only way to go.  Fanboyism is a waste of
> time.
>

The evidence was there then.

[Whisper]

No, that's called wishful thinking. eg you don't get credited with 7
AO's until you win 7 AOs. Sorry but that's what I mean by evidence
based. Coulda-woulda is another ng for fantasies.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 27/01/2019 14.12, Whisper wrote:
> On 27/01/2019 11:10 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 27/01/2019 14.07, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2019 11:06 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2019 13.56, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just so strong on many levels.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not long ago he was the weakest #1 ever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Evidence based analysis is the only way to go.  Fanboyism is a waste
>>> of time.
>>>
>>
>> The evidence was there then.
>>
>
>
> No, that's called wishful thinking.

Having perhaps the best year in tennis history is wishful thinking?

[Whisper]

What yr was that & when did I say it was weakest no.1?

[Makarand Patil]

If Djoker wins NCYGS again (which I don't think he would), he would have a serious GOAT claim. Two NCYGS is just phenomenal! Nevertheless, as absurd as it might sound at this moment, I do think Nextgen would break through this year. Medvedev gave a genuinely tough fight to Djoker. The match would have gone Medvedev's way if he had more strength/stamina. Coric is also someone to watch out for at the French.

[Whisper]

On 27/01/2019 11:28 pm, Makarand Patil wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 3:56:17 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:
>> Well done.
>>
>> Just so strong on many levels.
>>
>>
>

> If Djoker wins NCYGS again (which I don't think he would), he would have a serious GOAT claim. Two NCYGS is just phenomenal! Nevertheless, as absurd as it might sound at this moment, I do think >Nextgen would break through this year. Medvedev gave a genuinely tough fight to Djoker. The match would have gone Medvedev's way if he had more strength/stamina. Coric is also someone to watch >out for at the French.
>

Tsitsipas is the only obvious multi slam champ as far as I can see.
Also Djoker didn't play as well v Med as he did v Rafa so the young guys
might have to wait a couple more yrs.

[FOTA]

Those GOAT claims just got a lot stronger.

[Whisper]

Sure did. Djoker seemed to relish in the pressure of winning 7th AO
rather than be intimidated. I think he'll really give calendar slam a
good shake, which would take him to 18 slams & 2nd place. It all hinges
on FO. Rafa losing there could really knock the wind out of his sails &
allow Djoker to run rampant.

[Pelle Svanslös]

After AO 2015. BTW, you substracted AO results to get to the conclusion.
The same AO that now makes him a BOAT candidate.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.tennis/Whisper$20Djokovic$20weakest$20$231$20ever%7Csort:relevance/rec.sport.tennis/h7vgtFrpFEM/iDusjWNoQm4J

"Not sure why rst is nutsing out over Djoker's 'superiority'? He's one
of the weakest no.1 players of any era. "

[Manuel aka Xax]

Ouch, is that a painful quote ? :-)

[Whisper]

Have to go back & check but I recall thinking that Djoker only won 2
blue chip slams in his career over a 2 month period. Take that out & he
looked incredibly weak by all time standards. Something like that,
which was factual. My thinking was he better get cracking & start
winning more big slams to be goat level.

Of course I'm an evidence based analyst so assessment changes as more
evidence comes in. Only fanboys ignore all evidence & just go on love.

: )

[kaennorsing]

Op zondag 27 januari 2019 13:28:39 UTC+1 schreef Makarand Patil:

Every single time when we get a little glimmer of hope for one of these youngsters to do something substantial they completely fall apart, entirely disappoint us and continue to shit the bed (as Drew used to say).

[SliceAndDice]

Yep, I think the women's game is more interesting at the moment. We have a bonafide new superstar (Osaka) and some others knocking on the door. To be fair, Osaka did not have to deal with 3 Serenas like Tsitsipas/Zverev etc have to.

[John Liang]

If you look back you said Djoker was one of the weakest No.1 in the beginning of 2015, at that time Djoker has already won 5 AO, 2 Wimbledon and 1 USO, even with that result it is not an evidence-based analysis to suggest he was the weakest No.1 when you have Kafelnikov, Moya, Muster type before him. Those players won just 1 or 2 grand slams compare to 8 that Djoker won at the time. It is also stupid to take out slams that is already won as the basis of your argument, what do you think if we take those FO won by Moya or Muster or Kafelnikov in just two weeks? What do they have without those FOs? Muster will be just clay court tune-up king..

[Whisper]

Rst has some strange people lol. This quote would be funny if it were
made today. 4 yrs ago was a different story.

[Whisper]

The context was no.1 goat level types. Of course guys like Rios are the
big clown no.1's, but they were never goat candidates. I was concerned
at the number of blue-chip slam finals Djoker was losing - about 8 at
that point?



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[John Liang]

I found it is really strange that you say this because Djoker at the time has already won 5 AO, 2 Wimbledon and 1 USO, that is 8 grand slams more than Mac, Wilander, Edberg and Becker, he was playing with a competition that has Federer and Nadal. An 8-time slam champion is a weak No.1 and what about the four I just mentioned and then there is Murray, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Roddick, Ferrero, Muster, Moya, Safin and Rios. There is 25 No.1 in the history of Open tennis and with even 8 slam wins Djoker is around somewhere in the middle in term of achievement, you must have shit in your head to think he was a weak No.1 when there were so many No.1 with far less achievement on board.

[John Liang]

Even if that is true, Djoker has 8 slams and in front of 15 other players that ranked No.1 even with Connors and Lendl

[arahim]

Surely, the GOAT claim is based on 7543, no? Djokovic still 4th on it. That's the evidence/fact for GOAT, no?

[joh]

Whisper will say anything. No self respect.

[ahonkan]

On Sunday, 27 January 2019 17:37:39 UTC+5:30, Whisper wrote:

> Evidence based analysis is the only way to go. Fanboyism is a waste of
> time.

The only new 'evidence' that has made you jump on the Djoker bandwagon is
the walloping he gave to your last great hope to top Fed's slam count, Rafa.
If your criteria to determine GOAT/BOAThood are so fickle as to force you to change your tune completely after 1 bad loss, they are worth.

You have been beating Rafa's drum for the last 10 years *only* because you
saw him as the best chance to break Fed's records. We all know you hate Fed
(who, we know, is your favourite player) because he has erased your original
and forever hero Sampras (who, we know, is not your favourite player) from
the tennis record books. We have seen you change the goalpost every time Fed
broke one more Sampras record (7543, slam count, wimby count, YEC titles,
weeks at #1 etc) and now the only 'record' he holds is 6 straight YE #1s.
To call YE#1 as a 'record' is a stretch since it's only incidental.

But this AO loss has convinced you that Nadal the OTP (One Trick Pony) is less likely to overtake Fed's slam count (4 more FO's are going to be tough and a distribution of 15 FO & 6 other slams is going to skew the argument even more against Rafa's BOAThood) and hence your newfound love for Djoker.

Unless the GenNext breaks through this year or early next year, every slam
from here on is Djoker's to lose. Fed is history and Rafa may win 1 more FO,
but that's it. I agree with you that Tsitsi's star shines the brightest,
but Djoker has a great chance to break most of Fed's important records and
become the BOAT/ GOAT.

[ahonkan]

On Monday, 28 January 2019 13:19:15 UTC+5:30, ahonkan wrote:
> If your criteria to determine GOAT/BOAThood are so fickle as to force you to change your tune completely after 1 bad loss, they are worth.

Let me try again:
If your criteria to determine GOAT/ BOAThood are so fickle as to force you to
change your tune completely after 1 bad loss, they are worthless.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Substracting is ignoring evidence. "I'm a fanboi!"

[Whisper]

Wouldn't this have been discussed at the time? Why are we digging up 4
yr & 15 yr old posts to discuss? I would never rate Djoker with 8 slams
behind guys who won a lot less. This is dumb. Show me a post where I'd
rate Djoker's 7543 rating at the time below a guy with lower 7543?

My biggest criticism of Djoker was at a time when he only won 1 wim & 1
USO out of the blue-chips. I was concerned about him losing 7 or 8 blue
chip slam finals & only doing well at AO.

I think we have enough to discuss with recent developments compared to
what a player won at an earlier pt in time. Completely pointless.
Let's make our time on rst all about quality & not waste time repeating
the same stuff from yrs ago. Just leads to a complete waste of time.

[Whisper]

There are bonuses implied for things like non-calendar slams, goat at a
slam, 11 FOs etc which I haven't quantified.

[John Liang]

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:09:02 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/01/2019 5:08 pm, John Liang wrote:
> > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 2:49:41 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> >>> If you look back you said Djoker was one of the weakest No.1 in the beginning of 2015, at that time Djoker has already won 5 AO, 2 Wimbledon and 1 USO, even with that result it is not an evidence-based analysis to suggest he was the weakest No.1 when you have Kafelnikov, Moya, Muster type before him. Those players won just 1 or 2 grand slams compare to 8 that Djoker won at the time. It is also stupid to take out slams that is already won as the basis of your argument, what do you think if we take those FO won by Moya or Muster or Kafelnikov in just two weeks? What do they have without those FOs? Muster will be just clay court tune-up king..
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The context was no.1 goat level types. Of course guys like Rios are the
> >> big clown no.1's, but they were never goat candidates. I was concerned
> >> at the number of blue-chip slam finals Djoker was losing - about 8 at
> >> that point?
> >
> > Even if that is true, Djoker has 8 slams and in front of 15 other players that ranked No.1 even with Connors and Lendl
> >>
>
> Wouldn't this have been discussed at the time? Why are we digging up 4
> yr & 15 yr old posts to discuss? I would never rate Djoker with 8 slams
> behind guys who won a lot less. This is dumb. Show me a post where I'd
> rate Djoker's 7543 rating at the time below a guy with lower 7543?

Then why would you say he was the weakest No.1 when we already knew at that stage his slam record was superior to at least a dozen No. 1. Yes, this is dumb. You need to acknowledge you were dumb to make that comment.

>
> My biggest criticism of Djoker was at a time when he only won 1 wim & 1
> USO out of the blue-chips. I was concerned about him losing 7 or 8 blue
> chip slam finals & only doing well at AO.

Your comment was shortly after his win in AO he won 2 Wimbledon already and 1 USO. Besides we all know AO in the last twenty years is not comparable to the time when Johan Kriek was the two-time champion. AO draws the best quality players since mid-80s.

[Whisper]

On 28/01/2019 6:49 pm, ahonkan wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 January 2019 17:37:39 UTC+5:30, Whisper wrote:
>
>> Evidence based analysis is the only way to go. Fanboyism is a waste of
>> time.
>
> The only new 'evidence' that has made you jump on the Djoker bandwagon is
> the walloping he gave to your last great hope to top Fed's slam count, Rafa.
> If your criteria to determine GOAT/BOAThood are so fickle as to force you to change your tune completely after 1 bad loss, they are worth.

I haven't written Rafa off at all. I'm wondering if he'll try anything
different next time for eg. This win just adds hugely to Djoker's
goat/boat claims. 2 goat level players facing off in a slam final &
both well rested & close to peak - you betcha it's big. Just like Fed's
win over Rafa in 2017 was big too.

>
> You have been beating Rafa's drum for the last 10 years *only* because you
> saw him as the best chance to break Fed's records. We all know you hate Fed

I don't hate Fed at all. I just don't think he's perfect like the
Fedfans do. That's why the Fedfans hate me. I'm honest & prepared to
call Rafa or Djoker better if that's what the evidence shows. Fedfans
don't care much about evidence if it doesn't promote Fed. That's
hilarious to me.

> (who, we know, is your favourite player) because he has erased your original
> and forever hero Sampras (who, we know, is not your favourite player) from
> the tennis record books. We have seen you change the goalpost every time Fed
> broke one more Sampras record (7543, slam count, wimby count, YEC titles,
> weeks at #1 etc) and now the only 'record' he holds is 6 straight YE #1s.
> To call YE#1 as a 'record' is a stretch since it's only incidental.

It's the main no.1 record. It means you collected the most points in
that tennis season - ie you won the points race for that year.

>
> But this AO loss has convinced you that Nadal the OTP (One Trick Pony) is less likely to overtake Fed's slam count (4 more FO's are going to be tough and a distribution of 15 FO & 6 other >slams is going to skew the argument even more against Rafa's BOAThood) and hence your newfound love for Djoker.

It would be silly to rule Rafa out of slam chase. He could conceivably
win 3 slams this yr.

It sounds like you're jealous that Djoker/Rafa are getting all the
attention right now. That's what happens when you make slam finals.
Fed can get the spotlight back if he makes Wimbledon final.

>
> Unless the GenNext breaks through this year or early next year, every slam
> from here on is Djoker's to lose. Fed is history and Rafa may win 1 more FO,
> but that's it.

I wouldn't make that call just yet. Rafa didn't drop a set making the
final here, & has made 5 slam finals in last 2 yrs (defaulting from 2
slams as well). Things can change in tennis overnight.

> I agree with you that Tsitsi's star shines the brightest,
> but Djoker has a great chance to break most of Fed's important records and
> become the BOAT/ GOAT.
>

Of course. There's no reason why Djoker shouldn't break them if he's
good enough. Sure as a fan it might hurt you having Fed at say no.3 on
slam ladder, but it's just a game at the end of the day.

: )

[Whisper]

It would be retarded to not consider new evidence right? What if Djoker
wins calendar slam this yr? Ignore it? Fickle to consider it as a
goat/boat marker?

[Whisper]

On 28/01/2019 8:27 pm, John Liang wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:09:02 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>> On 28/01/2019 5:08 pm, John Liang wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 2:49:41 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>>>>> If you look back you said Djoker was one of the weakest No.1 in the beginning of 2015, at that time Djoker has already won 5 AO, 2 Wimbledon and 1 USO, even with that result it is not an evidence-based analysis to suggest he was the weakest No.1 when you have Kafelnikov, Moya, Muster type before him. Those players won just 1 or 2 grand slams compare to 8 that Djoker won at the time. It is also stupid to take out slams that is already won as the basis of your argument, what do you think if we take those FO won by Moya or Muster or Kafelnikov in just two weeks? What do they have without those FOs? Muster will be just clay court tune-up king..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The context was no.1 goat level types. Of course guys like Rios are the
>>>> big clown no.1's, but they were never goat candidates. I was concerned
>>>> at the number of blue-chip slam finals Djoker was losing - about 8 at
>>>> that point?
>>>
>>> Even if that is true, Djoker has 8 slams and in front of 15 other players that ranked No.1 even with Connors and Lendl
>>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't this have been discussed at the time? Why are we digging up 4
>> yr & 15 yr old posts to discuss? I would never rate Djoker with 8 slams
>> behind guys who won a lot less. This is dumb. Show me a post where I'd
>> rate Djoker's 7543 rating at the time below a guy with lower 7543?
>
> Then why would you say he was the weakest No.1 when we already knew at that stage his slam record was superior to at least a dozen No. 1. Yes, this is dumb. You need to acknowledge you were dumb to make that comment.
>

But even if true wouldn't it have been resolved 4 yrs ago? I can go
through the archives & rehash 1,000's of threads. Who wants to see that?

[John Liang]

Yes, you can go through archives but it is still dumb thing to say a 8 slam winner is a weak No.1. Hard is it to accept that was a dumb thing to post? Pretty hard ...

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Man you don't get anything. I'm shocked.

Whisper compared Djokovic to similar guys with already significant
slam counts and weeks at #1.
Guys like McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, etc. Not guys like Rios or
Kafelnikov. lol


McEnroe, Connors had 7 blue chip slams, even Lendl had 6, Becker
and Edberg and Wilander 4, Djokovic at the time only 3.


Hewitt 2. Do you get it now?



Really, like he says now, wouldn't this been discussed at the time?

If he had said something outrageous, it would have been discussed
then.


--

[Whisper]

Completely out of context as usual.

[John Liang]

Shock been making dumb comment. No surprise here you are sucking up to him.

>
> Whisper compared Djokovic to similar guys with already significant
> slam counts and weeks at #1.
> Guys like McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, etc. Not guys like Rios or
> Kafelnikov. lol

And the last two guys you mentioned were NO.1 and when he said Djoker was the weakest No.1 those dozen guys were obviously in the comparison.

>
>
> McEnroe, Connors had 7 blue chip slams, even Lendl had 6, Becker
> and Edberg and Wilander 4, Djokovic at the time only 3.

But he was still far away from being the weakest No.1 with 8 grand slams, and winning AO in last 25 years still required great effort and certainly more than when Kreik was winning in early 80s, he won those beating some true greats like Federer and Nadal

>
>
> Hewitt 2. Do you get it now?


>
>
>
> Really, like he says now, wouldn't this been discussed at the time?
>
> If he had said something outrageous, it would have been discussed
> then.

And if he said something outrageously stupid then it is up to him to acknowledge it and admit he was wrong.
>
>
> --

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 28/01/2019 11.44, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/01/2019 6:51 pm, ahonkan wrote:
>> On Monday, 28 January 2019 13:19:15 UTC+5:30, ahonkan  wrote:
>>> If your criteria to determine GOAT/BOAThood are so fickle as to force
>>> you to change your tune completely after 1 bad loss, they are worth.
>>
>> Let me try again:
>> If your criteria to determine GOAT/ BOAThood are so fickle as to force
>> you to
>> change your tune completely after 1 bad loss, they are worthless.
>>
>
>
> It would be retarded to not consider new evidence right?

We've had the same evidence before and you dismissed it. One slam win
out of 15 turns the weakest #1 into a BOAT candidate.

There's a piece missing here. Could it be the starfucking piece?

[Whisper]

It's no ordinary win. He's all time goat at AO, & beat a co-goat level
player easily in straight sets. Nadal has made 25 slam finals, & this
is the only time he got thrashed in 3 sets.

>
> There's a piece missing here. Could it be the starfucking piece?
>

What's missing is your objectivity.

[John Liang]

Yes, 8 slam winner would be the weakest No.1 in any era, only true retard would come out with this sort of opinion.

[Whisper]

On 28/01/2019 9:10 pm, John Liang wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:55:51 PM UTC+11, *skriptis wrote:
>> John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>>

>> McEnroe, Connors had 7 blue chip slams, even Lendl had 6, Becker
>> and Edberg and Wilander 4, Djokovic at the time only 3.
>
> But he was still far away from being the weakest No.1 with 8 grand slams, and winning AO in last 25 years still required great effort and certainly more than when Kreik was winning in early 80s, he won those beating some true greats like Federer and Nadal
>>
>>
>> Hewitt 2. Do you get it now?

>>
>> Really, like he says now, wouldn't this been discussed at the time?
>>
>> If he had said something outrageous, it would have been discussed
>> then.
>
> And if he said something outrageously stupid then it is up to him to acknowledge it and admit he was wrong.
>>

I'm almost tempted to go back & put this in context, but not worth it.
What's the point? Everyone knows where I stand on 7543 & slam counts,
so obviously he can't be weaker than guys who won less at the time. I
can easily negate this by saying he was one of the weakest no.1's when
compared to guys who won more blue-chips (7543) etc. You're better off
arguing me on pts I don't deny & try & prove my logic wrong.

You want me to say I thought Rios, Moya & Muster were stronger no.1's
than Djoker at the time, & then call me an idiot for it. Really? You
must have a lot of time on your hands.

[Whisper]

lol

You must have OCD right?

[John Liang]

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:23:43 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/01/2019 9:10 pm, John Liang wrote:
> > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:55:51 PM UTC+11, *skriptis wrote:
> >> John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >>
> >>
> >> McEnroe, Connors had 7 blue chip slams, even Lendl had 6, Becker
> >> and Edberg and Wilander 4, Djokovic at the time only 3.
> >
> > But he was still far away from being the weakest No.1 with 8 grand slams, and winning AO in last 25 years still required great effort and certainly more than when Kreik was winning in early 80s, he won those beating some true greats like Federer and Nadal
> >>
> >>
> >> Hewitt 2. Do you get it now?
>
> >>
> >> Really, like he says now, wouldn't this been discussed at the time?
> >>
> >> If he had said something outrageous, it would have been discussed
> >> then.
> >
> > And if he said something outrageously stupid then it is up to him to acknowledge it and admit he was wrong.
> >>
>
> I'm almost tempted to go back & put this in context, but not worth it.
> What's the point? Everyone knows where I stand on 7543 & slam counts,
> so obviously he can't be weaker than guys who won less at the time. I
> can easily negate this by saying he was one of the weakest no.1's when
> compared to guys who won more blue-chips (7543) etc. You're better off
> arguing me on pts I don't deny & try & prove my logic wrong.

Do go back, nobody is stopping you here. but to claim he was the weakest No.1 or one of the weakest No.1 at the time he was ahead of more than a dozen guys is stupid, and his result at the time did not support the argument.

>
> You want me to say I thought Rios, Moya & Muster were stronger no.1's
> than Djoker at the time, & then call me an idiot for it. Really? You
> must have a lot of time on your hands.

That is what you said wasn't it. You said he was the weakest No.1 of any era. It is Monday and a public holiday ...

[Whisper]

If I thought that I wouldn't deny it. I never deny any of my claims.
This is just another example of you misinterpreting what I said. Why
would I deny something I thought at the time? It's a miscommunication
or trolling. I'd guess the former in this case.

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le lundi 28 janvier 2019 03:37:20 UTC+1, Whisper a écrit :
> On 28/01/2019 5:12 am, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> > Le dimanche 27 janvier 2019 18:39:34 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös a écrit :

> >> On 27/01/2019 14.15, Whisper wrote:
> >>> On 27/01/2019 11:14 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >>>> On 27/01/2019 14.12, Whisper wrote:
> >>>>> On 27/01/2019 11:10 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >>>>>> On 27/01/2019 14.07, Whisper wrote:

> >>>>>>> On 27/01/2019 11:06 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On 27/01/2019 13.56, Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well done.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Just so strong on many levels.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Not long ago he was the weakest #1 ever.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Evidence based analysis is the only way to go.  Fanboyism is a
> >>>>>>> waste of time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> The evidence was there then.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, that's called wishful thinking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Having perhaps the best year in tennis history is wishful thinking?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What yr was that & when did I say it was weakest no.1?
> >>>
> >>
> >> After AO 2015. BTW, you substracted AO results to get to the conclusion.
> >> The same AO that now makes him a BOAT candidate.
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.tennis/Whisper$20Djokovic$20weakest$20$231$20ever%7Csort:relevance/rec.sport.tennis/h7vgtFrpFEM/iDusjWNoQm4J
> >>

> >> "Not sure why rst is nutsing out over Djoker's 'superiority'? He's one
> >> of the weakest no.1 players of any era. "
> >
> > Ouch, is that a painful quote ? :-)
> >
>
>
> Rst has some strange people lol. This quote would be funny if it were
> made today. 4 yrs ago was a different story.

Don't make your own case even worse.
4 years ago it was also a foolish claim.
Only a serious biased + stubborn + "tier 3" man might write such thing after Nole 2011's run.

Can't you see the more you argue with J Liang replies, the more you dig your own "tennis analyst" (I consider myself as tennis amateur, by the way) grave ?

[John Liang]

Someone with a better mind would admit he was wrong at the time, he could easily just said he did not think carefully enough when he made that comment.

[StephenJ]

All those things are nice and noteworthy, but bottom line is, as long as
Fed has the most slams he'll be regarded as open-era GOAT. Nadal and
Joker know that so they are doing what they can to catch him.

It's a marvelous thing to watch because there's genuine uncertainty. On
one hand, a guy like Nadal could win FO/W/USO and catch Fed in just 8
months. Or Joker could do the same and pass Rafa in 8 months. Or Fed
could win W/USO and extend his lead again.

Nobody knows, because in tennis you can win 3 slams in a little over 3
months and make huge legacy strides, or you might never win another,
e.g., when Mac won W 84 you'd have been put in a straightjacket and
hauled off to the loony bin if you suggested he'd never win another one,
but that's what happened. Lots of examples both ways.


--
before agriculture, food-finding was the only occupation
for humans.

- Alan Weisman

[arahim]

Djokovic's record had advanced from where it was four years ago a lot and he had 6 AO titles as well while Nadal had lost all but one AO final. Yet based on his form that you saw in the opening round right before the final you were predicting beast mode straight set victory for Nadal. It was not just Djokovic's record from some time ago but his current record and form that was available as fact and evidence. Basically, the prediction was based on your perception of current form in your imagination with no basis in fact or reality. If it was and Nadal just had a bad day or injury you should not now turn on him completely in support of a player who to you demonstratively could not beat the beast mode that you saw.

[RaspingDrive]

"Beast mode" is more bullshit from Whisper.

[Whisper]

lol, er no.

: )

[Whisper]

You'd have to be pretty thick to think anyone ever thought guys like
Moya/Muster/Rios were ever better than Djoker.

[Whisper]

Good post.

Rafa can turn things around with a 12th FO - he's just 2 behind Fed
then. Djoker is looking fit enough to get to 18 any time in next yr or 2.

What are the odds they all end up on 20?

That would be kinda fitting in a way. All 3 have had claims to
goat/boat so 20 all would shut all the fan fuckers out forever.

: )

[Whisper]

On 29/01/2019 2:57 am, arahim wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 1:09:02 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:

>>
>> I think we have enough to discuss with recent developments compared to
>> what a player won at an earlier pt in time. Completely pointless.
>> Let's make our time on rst all about quality & not waste time repeating
>> the same stuff from yrs ago. Just leads to a complete waste of time.
>>
>
> Djokovic's record had advanced from where it was four years ago a lot and he had 6 AO titles as well while Nadal had lost all but one AO final. Yet based on his form that you saw in the >opening round right before the final you were predicting beast mode straight set victory for Nadal.

Yes, that's how it looked. I'd make the same call again if it happened
again, but after this AO experience I'd qualify it with 'as long as he
doesn't shit the bed in the final'.

I'm not minimizing Djoker's win as it now looks like he woulda won
anyway as he raised his own game to the highest level possible.

>It was not just Djokovic's record from some time ago but his current record and form that was available as fact and evidence. Basically, the prediction was based on your perception of current >form in your imagination with no basis in fact or reality.

er, that's the definition of 'based on reality' - current form. The
form you displayed yrs ago is a minor factor compared to current form.

> If it was and Nadal just had a bad day or injury you should not now turn on him completely in support of a player who to you >demonstratively could not beat the beast mode that you saw.
>

I saw Rafa playing his best stuff & Djoker a bit below his best.
However after the Nishikori default he raised his game to peak level.
He himself said the semi & final were his best ever matches at AO. We
should take that at face value as he's obviously a highly intelligent guy.

[John Liang]

Not as thick as someone who says a player like Djoker who won 8 slam in 2015 is one of the weakest NO.1 in ANY ERA.

[arahim]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 3:39:51 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:
> On 29/01/2019 2:57 am, arahim wrote:
> > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 1:09:02 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I think we have enough to discuss with recent developments compared to
> >> what a player won at an earlier pt in time. Completely pointless.
> >> Let's make our time on rst all about quality & not waste time repeating
> >> the same stuff from yrs ago. Just leads to a complete waste of time.
> >>
> >
> > Djokovic's record had advanced from where it was four years ago a lot and he had 6 AO titles as well while Nadal had lost all but one AO final. Yet based on his form that you saw in the >opening round right before the final you were predicting beast mode straight set victory for Nadal.
>
>
> Yes, that's how it looked. I'd make the same call again if it happened
> again, but after this AO experience I'd qualify it with 'as long as he
> doesn't shit the bed in the final'.
>
> I'm not minimizing Djoker's win as it now looks like he woulda won
> anyway as he raised his own game to the highest level possible.
>

So was Djokovic in the final above or below the Nadal beast mode? :) I suppose you are saying he was since he according to you is now the boat contender so must be above all his contemporaries.

[Sawfish]

Whisper, you remind me of my brother. He has this notion of some kind of
cosmic balance.

I liked your story about nearly drowning, and what life actually meant.
Personally, I think it was dead on the money, and a good way to approach
life.

BTW, your story was similar to what happened to me. As you told it I
could almost feel mine...

I used to like to body surf, and at that time lived in a small town on
the central CA coast. I'm guessing I was about 30 when this happened.

A friend and myself liked to try to ride virtually anything, but in
point of fact, there isn't much big on the Central CA coast that doesn't
close out over ~6 feet.

In late summer we heard there was an major storm in the south Pacific,
and we thought that this might offer some surf--this was often the case
with typhoons. We'd get pretty even sets near 6 feet, lot of space
between peaks. From the headlands, it looked like wide-wale corduroy.

So we got out the and the peaks were way the fuck out there, the tops
were about even with the deck of the fishing pier, and there was a lot
of white water out front.

Challenging, and if I had been alone, or older, I would have walked
away, but being with another male contemporary, we kinda egged each
other into going out.

It was very hard to get past the shoreward whitewater, which was
stacking up to head high. We both got through that, but behind it was
still turbulent, all mixed up, and relatively deep at maybe 8 feet or
so. I was touching bottom occasionally, so it wasn't real far down there.

But trying to get out further and go under the face, there was no way. I
kept trying and got a bit further out, but was in a constant fight just
to maintain orientation. I lost that, too, and struggled for my life,
essentially, for what seemed like two hours. Likely was about 10
minutes, maybe less.

The bay arced way around to the south, ending up at a rocky point. I
washed out of the whitewater down there, probably about 300-400 meters
from where I went in, with no clue as to ever moving south. I imagine I
sorta rolled up on the sand like a water logged piece of driftwood.

I had gone in with this big old floppy Voit Viking fin that I had found
on the beach years before. That was gone, and my trunks were almost gone
too.

My friend came down the beach and told me that he had never gotten past
the first wash, and was getting a bit worried.

We bought a half gallon of rose and drank it on the beach before going home.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx

[StephenJ]

>On 1/29/2019 5:21 AM, Whisper wrote:

> What are the odds they all end up on 20?
>
> That would be kinda fitting in a way.  All 3 have had claims to
> goat/boat so 20 all would shut all the fan fuckers out forever.

That would be very ironic indeed. :)

[arahim]

If 20 to 14 has not and with the current 20 to 17 it has not (until it gets overturned) then why would 20 all?

[Whisper]

You're stupid.

: )

[Whisper]

On 30/01/2019 12:59 am, arahim wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 3:39:51 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:
>> On 29/01/2019 2:57 am, arahim wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 1:09:02 AM UTC-8, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we have enough to discuss with recent developments compared to
>>>> what a player won at an earlier pt in time. Completely pointless.
>>>> Let's make our time on rst all about quality & not waste time repeating
>>>> the same stuff from yrs ago. Just leads to a complete waste of time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Djokovic's record had advanced from where it was four years ago a lot and he had 6 AO titles as well while Nadal had lost all but one AO final. Yet based on his form that you saw in the >opening round right before the final you were predicting beast mode straight set victory for Nadal.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's how it looked. I'd make the same call again if it happened
>> again, but after this AO experience I'd qualify it with 'as long as he
>> doesn't shit the bed in the final'.
>>
>> I'm not minimizing Djoker's win as it now looks like he woulda won
>> anyway as he raised his own game to the highest level possible.
>>
>
> So was Djokovic in the final above or below the Nadal beast mode? :) I suppose you are saying he was since he according to you is now the boat contender so must be above all his contemporaries.
>
>

Looks like it now, but hard to judge given Rafa was so intimidated.
That's props to Djoker for psyching him out. It would have to take a
goat level player to psyche Rafa out mentally.

[Whisper]

On 30/01/2019 2:02 am, StephenJ wrote:
> >On 1/29/2019 5:21 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> What are the odds they all end up on 20?
>>
>> That would be kinda fitting in a way.  All 3 have had claims to
>> goat/boat so 20 all would shut all the fan fuckers out forever.
>
>
> That would be very ironic indeed. :)
>
>

Reasonable odds of it happening. I can make a case for each guy being
the best, so 20 all would settle it. They are equal overall.

: )

[Whisper]

Because it's the same era. Comparing to Laver's 11 slams is pointless
due to different conditions, but Fed v Rafa v Djoker is the same era.
They took turns ranking no.1 & winning slams over more than a decade.
Easily comparable.

[John Liang]

I outsmart you in everything for the last 20 years. This is the reason why Manuel is kind enough to ask you to at least hide your stupidity in this thread.

[kaennorsing]

Op woensdag 30 januari 2019 10:25:21 UTC+1 schreef Whisper:

> On 30/01/2019 2:02 am, StephenJ wrote:
> > >On 1/29/2019 5:21 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >
> >> What are the odds they all end up on 20?
> >>
> >> That would be kinda fitting in a way.  All 3 have had claims to
> >> goat/boat so 20 all would shut all the fan fuckers out forever.
> >
> >
> > That would be very ironic indeed. :)
> >
> >
>
>
> Reasonable odds of it happening. I can make a case for each guy being
> the best, so 20 all would settle it. They are equal overall.
>
> : )

If they all make 20 Federer would remain GOAT since he got there first. Not even considering 7543/W titles, which will still be pointing to Fed. :-)

So assuming Fed is done winning himself they need to make 21 slams - at least. So minimum 4 more for Rafa, 6 more for Djoker... Can one of them do it?

[arahim]

If he is in beast mode he must have some inkling of it. Why would a player who is known for his mental strength and who is in beast mode get psyched?

[Sawfish]

To me, that's it right there: this part is perhaps over-rated.

> and who is in beast mode get psyched?
>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> https://www.avg.com

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[StephenJ]

Could just be specific to a couple of opponents on some surfaces. With
just about everyone, mental strength is heavily influenced by confidence
you have vs opponents.

E.g., Martina Navratilova didn't have 2 psychologists and 3 therapists
traveling with her to keep her mindset positive for her matches vs #130.
They were for when she faced Evert and (later) Graf.

[StephenJ]

If they all finish with 20, different analysts will argue for different
guys. Personally, I would still tip Fed because of 8 Wimbledons (unless
of course Joker ties him by winning 5 more Wimbledons himself), but the
bottom line is there wouldn't be a consensus, they would be co-GOATS,
open era.

[Sawfish]

EGGZ-ACTLY!!!

In a nutshell, he's scared of Djokovich (except maybe on clay), and
everyone else is scared of him.

Look at it as compared to women's tennis. Up until a few years ago,
virtually all female pros were scare witless of Serena--and possibly
some of the men, too...

It's not quite the same on the men's side, but up until a few years ago,
Rafa inspired this kind of reflexive defeatism, and he could sense this.
It was never as uniform and airtight as with Serena, but we're talking
about essentially the same thing.

I'll venture a sort of reactionary comment here, partly overstating for
clarity and effect, but at the core I tend to believe it...

There is something lacking in the current generational ethos on the
men's side, and maybe it reflects the general contemporary male
population in all industrialized nations. They do not seem to be as
ruthless or as dogged as a Connors or a MacEnroe, for example, or even
Agassi.

These are the guys going up against Rafa, and they're overly influenced
by his reputation, which is understandable, but they'll have to get past
this to beat him regularly.

What'll happen, probably, is that he'll wear out before they grow some
balls...

>
> E.g., Martina Navratilova didn't have 2 psychologists and 3 therapists
> traveling with her to keep her mindset positive for her matches vs
> #130. They were for when she faced Evert and (later) Graf.

I wonder how many therapists Connors carried on his payroll? ;-)

>
>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--Sawfish

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:01:48 PM UTC+2, sawfish wrote:
> There is something lacking in the current generational ethos on the
> men's side, and maybe it reflects the general contemporary male
> population in all industrialized nations. They do not seem to be as
> ruthless or as dogged as a Connors or a MacEnroe, for example, or even
> Agassi.

Then there was Gerulaitis who at some point was combined 0-30 against Borg & Connors.

Connors/Mac/Agassi are tier3 greats with 7-8 slams and #1 creds.

You are expecting todays's bottom top10 to have a similar mindset? Same as you would ask it from Rainer Schuttler, Gred Rusedski, Cedric Pioline, Maliwai Washington, Jakob Hlasek, Gene Mayer, Eddie Dibbs or Harold Solomon.

> These are the guys going up against Rafa, and they're overly influenced
> by his reputation, which is understandable, but they'll have to get past
> this to beat him regularly.

Aura of a champion. Connors/Borg/Mac/Lendl/Sampras all had it. They won a lot of matches already in locker room without any ball hit.

.mikko

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 05:12:45 -0800, arahim wrote:

> If he is in beast mode he must have some inkling of it. Why would a
> player who is known for his mental strength and who is in beast mode get
> psyched?

https://quarterarcade.com/Media/Thumbs/0013/0013266-altered-beast.jpg

[Sawfish]

On 1/31/19 10:48 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:01:48 PM UTC+2, sawfish wrote:
>> There is something lacking in the current generational ethos on the
>> men's side, and maybe it reflects the general contemporary male
>> population in all industrialized nations. They do not seem to be as
>> ruthless or as dogged as a Connors or a MacEnroe, for example, or even
>> Agassi.
> Then there was Gerulaitis who at some point was combined 0-30 against Borg & Connors.
>
> Connors/Mac/Agassi are tier3 greats with 7-8 slams and #1 creds.
>
> You are expecting todays's bottom top10 to have a similar mindset? Same as you would ask it from Rainer Schuttler, Gred Rusedski, Cedric Pioline, Maliwai Washington, Jakob Hlasek, Gene Mayer, Eddie Dibbs or Harold Solomon.

But there are also Gilberts and Cricksteins who lack the full game, but
not the grit.

>
>> These are the guys going up against Rafa, and they're overly influenced
>> by his reputation, which is understandable, but they'll have to get past
>> this to beat him regularly.
> Aura of a champion. Connors/Borg/Mac/Lendl/Sampras all had it. They won a lot of matches already in locker room without any ball hit.
>
> .mikko

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[guypers]

who is in your tier 2?

[MBDunc]

Tier3: Budge, Rosewall, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi (barely),

Tier2: Borg, Djokovic, Nadal, Laver, Tilden

Tier1: Federer, Pancho, Sampras

.mikko

[guypers]

See Tilden, Laver, Pancho,Budge play live?

[Sawfish]

Mikko, you seem like a pretty good guy. Do you realize that now that
you've published this, there'll be people on RST that will hunt you down
with dogs?

;^)

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[PeteWasLucky]

> Fed is history

Let's mark this, we will need to look back on it.

[MBDunc]

perjantai 1. helmikuuta 2019 2.37.38 UTC+2 sawfish kirjoitti:
> >> who is in your tier 2?
> > Tier3: Budge, Rosewall, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi (barely),
> >
> > Tier2: Borg, Djokovic, Nadal, Laver, Tilden
> >
> > Tier1: Federer, Pancho, Sampras
> >
> > .mikko
>
> Mikko, you seem like a pretty good guy. Do you realize that now that
> you've published this, there'll be people on RST that will hunt you down
> with dogs

I have published more huntable stuff many times (r.s.t since 1993). Why should I care anyway or take anything personnally? This is just tennis discussion - fun/entertaiment/hobby - with no hard feelings attached.

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 31/01/2019 10:53 pm, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op woensdag 30 januari 2019 10:25:21 UTC+1 schreef Whisper:
>> On 30/01/2019 2:02 am, StephenJ wrote:
>>> >On 1/29/2019 5:21 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>> What are the odds they all end up on 20?
>>>>
>>>> That would be kinda fitting in a way.  All 3 have had claims to
>>>> goat/boat so 20 all would shut all the fan fuckers out forever.
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be very ironic indeed. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Reasonable odds of it happening. I can make a case for each guy being
>> the best, so 20 all would settle it. They are equal overall.
>>
>> : )
>
> If they all make 20 Federer would remain GOAT since he got there first.

Perhaps he should come last as he won most of them before the other 2
hit their straps? Seems reasonable.

[arahim]

Sampras won all before the other two showed up:)

[ahonkan]

Everybody knows that 5 years is a tennis half-generation if not whole generation.
That is also approximately the length of one's peak.
Fed, being 5-6 years older than Rafa & Djoker, naturally hit his peak
before them and was on the way down when the other two hit their peaks. The
fact that Fed managed to win a few more during their peaks is a tribute to
his longevity.

[Whisper]

Fanciful narrative. Fed himself said last week he'd beat the 'young
punk' 2004 version as he's a better player overall than in his youth.

[ahonkan]

On Thursday, 31 January 2019 21:31:48 UTC+5:30, sawfish wrote:

>
> In a nutshell, he's scared of Djokovich (except maybe on clay), and
> everyone else is scared of him.
>
> Look at it as compared to women's tennis. Up until a few years ago,
> virtually all female pros were scare witless of Serena--and possibly
> some of the men, too...
>
> It's not quite the same on the men's side, but up until a few years ago,
> Rafa inspired this kind of reflexive defeatism, and he could sense this.
> It was never as uniform and airtight as with Serena, but we're talking
> about essentially the same thing.

I agree with you, but you will have a hard time convincing Iceberg. Icey
claims that only Fed intimidates rivals to the extent that they are ready
to roll over by the time they reach the court. OTOH, he says that everybody
is pumped to play extra-hard vs Rafa and that's why he loses to people like
Rosol, Dustin Brown and the like even at the Slams.

[ahonkan]

On Friday, 1 February 2019 12:44:35 UTC+5:30, Whisper wrote:

> Fanciful narrative. Fed himself said last week he'd beat the 'young
> punk' 2004 version as he's a better player overall than in his youth.

You are known to cherry-pick even mid-game scores to support your wild
hypotheses. So no surprise that you would pick a random statement from
Fed as 'proof' that he is better today than in 2004. Not just his results
but his reduced foot speed, the reduced power of his shots, the reduced
effectiveness of his serve support my claim that Fed has been off-peak since
2010 despite minor successes here and there (or benefitting from absence of
Djoker and Murray in 2017-18).

[Whisper]

Fed was very serious. He really thinks he'd beat the 2006 version. You
have to admit Fed knows the game pretty well right?

[ahonkan]

On Friday, 1 February 2019 12:57:09 UTC+5:30, Whisper wrote:

> Fed was very serious. He really thinks he'd beat the 2006 version. You
> have to admit Fed knows the game pretty well right?

You know these players never admit to their weaknesses in public. Do you
expect him to admit that he's slower / less powerful/ a worse server today
than he was 13 years ago? Do *you* believe it? I for sure don't.

[MBDunc]

perjantai 1. helmikuuta 2019 9.27.09 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
> Fed was very serious. He really thinks he'd beat the 2006 version. You
> have to admit Fed knows the game pretty well right?

Would Fed 2006 beat Fed 2018? In one selected match it is propably 50/50

But full season of matches: say 10 matches -> 7-3 to 2006 Fed. 2006 Fed was able to play 100 matches / year. Now 2018 Fed has to skip months and arrange his play schedule way more carefully for to get fully fit 50 matches/year.

Agassi also said that Agassi 2005 is a lot better player than Agassi 1995.

All this is probably true = you are better player as age goes on but as like Connors said: 1992 I was as good as a player I had ever been, but my legs....

Or Bruguera 2000 "I am a lot better player now than 1994, but that 1994 version would still beat me".

See "beast mode" discussions. More than actual peak playing capabilities -> are you able to summon your zone/beast mode frequently enough / when it matters?

.mikko

[Whisper]

I believe Fed believes it. Not just him, but most players believe it.
You need that kind of ego/thinking to do what they do. Confidence is
everything & you can't fake it. Whether he's right or wrong is
subjective - that's why we have all these arguments. Fans argue their
fave is always past peak to explain losses, & the top players always
think they are better due to experience/technique etc.

Many fans think Sampras played his best ever match in his very last win
at USO 2002, even though clearly he wasn't as dynamic about the court as
he was at 24.

What do I believe? Yes I think it's certainly possible great players
can be better 'tennis players' in their twilight yrs, even though they
may be a little slower around the court. They know their own
strengths/weaknesses, have more refined instincts in tight situations,
just a lot more experience & confidence to produce what's needed.
Federer is right imo - 2017 Wimbledon champ Fed may well beat all
earlier versions of Fed as he's far more experienced.

[Whisper]

So Federer was correct. He certainly wasn't smiling when he said it -
deadly serious.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Where did he say it?

[Whisper]

Oz open the other day - watched it.

[Sawfish]

I guess I needed to use the smilie...

Do you remember me from then? That was pre-Sawfish days, was probably
Makule (Mah-coo-lay..."old" in Hawaiian) Fool, or Cloudburst.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish

[Sawfish]

None of this really matters, either here, or in the real world...

RST is just drinking with a bunch of colorful characters in a bar,
figuratively...

[StephenJ]

I think that the player in question can know e.g. that his
skill/experience level in 2017 at age 33 is higher than it was in 2007
at age 23, and he can know that his reflexes and knees at 33 don't work
quite as well as they did at 23.

What he can't really know is how the balance works out, whether the
increase in technical skill/experience offsets or is offset by the
decline in physical capability. Results are really our only guide to that.

That said, one reason I think that we've seen a return to guys being
effective well in to their 30s (as opposed to the late 1970s to early
2000s period when 30 was basically the wall) is because improvements in
equipment and in training methods allow a Fed or Nadal or Joker to slow
the decline of the body while the experience keeps increasing.



--
before agriculture, food-finding was the only occupation
for humans.

- Alan Weisman

[Whisper]

Correct. The biggest difference is the inability to recover quickly &
play your your A game the next day, like you did easily in your 20's.
Federer made 2017 Wimbledon & 2018 AO finals without dropping a set.
That's amazing & tells us he was able to play at a very high level,
arguably his best ever level at those slams.

>
> That said, one reason I think that we've seen a return to guys being
> effective well in to their 30s (as opposed to the late 1970s to early
> 2000s period when 30 was basically the wall) is because improvements in
> equipment and in training methods allow a Fed or Nadal or Joker to slow
> the decline of the body while the experience keeps increasing.
>

Yes, plus there are very few players who are obsessed with winning slams
& being a goat level player. Most pros have Berdych/Tomic mentality -
just do enough to stay in the game & keep those millions$ rolling in.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 6:09:57 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> Yes, plus there are very few players who are obsessed with winning slams
> & being a goat level player.

Well, Becker/Wilander? Both deflated instantly when they got #1 spot first time. Where they obsessed about being goat level players? What about Borg/Mac who both did run away/took hiatus? Their obsession?

> Most pros have Berdych/Tomic mentality -
> just do enough to stay in the game & keep those millions$ rolling in.

Apples and oranges. Mostly it is about abilities and hitting the wall earlier than top champs.

It just does not help for being most mentally dedicated weightlifter if an opponent muscles 100lbs more. Same applies to tennis: maybe the ultimately best fighters and tennis mental geniuses are actually playing in challengers.

.mikko

[StephenJ]

Motivation is multi-faceted, but it is possible that these current
champs have learned from the past. E.g., the guys that came after in the
1980s and 1990s knew that the Borg/Mac/Vitas generation of the 1970s
indulged heavily in all the vices and decadences that professional
wealth and fame afforded and ran in to trouble as a result. So nowadays,
top players are maybe more likely to live clean and focused during their
playing years.

Also, in the early 2000s, Agassi kind of showed that through training
you could break through the 30-barrier and stay viable as a slam winner
beyond that point, and so a Federer sees that and doesn't have the same
mindset about 30 that say a Becker or Edberg or Sampras did.

I think learning is something that happens as time goes by.

[Sawfish]

Up until the last two paragraphs I thought we were talking about sex
again...  ;^)

>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>

[John Liang]

On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 3:09:57 AM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:

> >
>
>
> Yes, plus there are very few players who are obsessed with winning slams
> & being a goat level player. Most pros have Berdych/Tomic mentality -
> just do enough to stay in the game & keep those millions$ rolling in.

Berdych/Tomic type lack the ability to win grand slam. To win a grand slam in this era they need to beat at least two of Nadal/Djokovic/Federer who are all time great. Berdych on some occasions beat one of the big 3 but it is very rare, when a player like Berdych been dominated by those three it is not just mental battle but his skill level is not up there with the top 3. Tomic is even more off the ball park. You are probably the only 3 or 4 people here who thought he was some sort of grand slam contender but most people don't.