Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 02:49PM -0700

There a TV show on now about Ivanka Trump, they trying to call her the "Real First Lady" cos she's more about than Melania! :) they said Ivanka could become President, that would rule! she is very beautiful it has to be said, I'd definitely vote for her! it would be wonderful if after The Donald, she then became the next President! the Hillary fans wouldn't know what to say!
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 17 12:31PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:53:34 AM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:37:02 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
 
> > It does matter. I wonder why he didn't pick the Agassi-Rafter matches of 2000-2001 in that case.
 
> Because the ATP tour is not restricted to a handful of top 10 players and their rare GS semifinal encounters in the late 1990s. I think Pelle is trying to have a general discussion.
 
Sure, for general discussion, we can compare the 177 ranked baseliner against the 176 ranked S/V'er shown in Pelle's clip.
 
 
 
> > How good was he compared to Henman, Rafter both in ranking and performance ?
 
> Again with the scope shifting. Henman and Rafter were great S/V players priming in the late 1990s, but we should not forget that they were also good ground-stroke makers.
 
All great S/V players had relatively great groundstrokes - Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Henman, Mac etc. It comes with the package of being a great S/V player because you have to play from the baseline too when receiving and you have to be good enough from the baseline to rally and create opportunities to come to the net. Why should we exclude that ?
 
 
> Llodra, on the other hand, is primarily a doubles player, 3 times doubles GS champ, a great S/V player by any measure, but compared to Henman/Rafter not so great a baseliner. Also, and this is crucial, he is NOT playing in the 1990s.
Why is this crucial? Because the court surfaces are not the same as in the late 1990s. They are in general (especially Wimbledon) much slower and more homogenized. What's more, the number of fast surface tournaments have dropped. So who knows? If Wimbledon was as fast as in the 1990s, maybe Llodra too would make it to the semis/finals of Wimbledon.
 
Let's make a fair comparision between Llodra and Henman. They had an overlap from 1999 when Llodra turned pro and 2007 when Henman retired. Having turned pro in 1999, Llodra's initial best performance was in 2004 (highest ranking of 38) when he was 24 yrs old, and then in 2010-2011 (by which point Henman had retired).
 
So comparing their performances in 2004:
 
 
Slam W/L:
 
Llodra - 6-3
Henman - 16-4
 
Master's 1000:
 
Llodra - 0-3
Henman - 16-9
 
Total W/L for the year:
 
Llodra - 20-12
Henman - 44-12
 
Age in 2004:
 
Llodra - 24 yrs
Henman - 30 yrs.
 
IOW, Henman was actually past his prime by then and still did better than Llodra.
 
Get this, they played each other once at the FO that year and Henman won. And then this, Henman also beat world #1 and, at the time, 2-slam champ Federer that year at Rotterdam.
 
 
Looking at their career stats in the 2000's since we know that the surface slowdowns happened then:
 
From 2001-2007, Llodra's W/L is 159-139 and Henman's W/L for that period is 237-127.
 
Looking at all these stats, it's clear that Llodra is not even at the level of a Henman, whether it's the 1990's peak Henman or the 2000's Henman..
 
 
 
> You do not take these factors into account in a deliberate fashion and just bring up Henman/Rafter's late 1990s performance and ranking whenever it's convenient to dismiss players Llodra as poor examples of S&V players. This is highly disingenuous. The efficiency of a S&V tennis player depends on many different factors such as average surface speed and bounce, the level of the field on fast surfaces, the availability of fast surface tournaments, the state of racket technology available to the receiver of the volley, etc. It is clear that in the late 1990s, all of these factors were much more advantageous to S&V players than in the late 2010s. Take Wimbledon as an example. The surface is objectively shown to be slower and bouncier, making the return of volley much easier, even more so due to racket tech improvement. What's more, the number of fast, low-bounce tournaments have dwindled so there is less opportunity for s&v players to take advantage of niche tournaments to boost their overall ranking. And the nail in the coffin is that on the homogenized surfaces of today, there is a throng of highly efficient baseliners ready to take out a S&V more than ever before, especially when they know that all the chips are in their favor.
 
> So bringing up late 1990s ranking and slam performance to dismiss legit examples like Llodra as "poor" is at willful ignorance best, dishonesty at worst.
 
That's why I posted stats only for the 2000's above. And I posted a 7 year period to account for ups-and-downs, pre-peaks and post-peaks.
 
> > Yes, against poor examples.
 
> As I said, it doesn't matter. If you deliberately set your scope withing late 90s top ten volleyers and late 90s GS quarters/semis/finals, ignore all other changes that have happened on the tour and sweepingly call everything else poor examples, there is no general discussion possible. It's hopeless. You are a hopeless biased-for-90s poster.
 
Well, at least I am not disingenuous so as to compare two players not even in the same ballpark of performance or rankings. How would you react if I took how Henman performed against a baseliner like Nicolas Massu and came to the conclusion that baseliners have no change against S/V'ers. You want to make a fair comparision, compare two players in the same ranking bracket.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 18 12:49AM +0300

On 17.5.2017 22:31, Shakes wrote:
>> think Pelle is trying to have a general discussion.
 
> Sure, for general discussion, we can compare the 177 ranked baseliner
> against the 176 ranked S/V'er shown in Pelle's clip.
 
Arnab is correct. The point of the point was:
1) to put the hypothesis that adjusting to different opponents is a
brain racking experience into a different light. Agassi wins the point
by doing what he does day in day out. However, don't take me wrong. I
agree with the hypo to some extent. To which, I'm not sure yet myself.
2) to illustrate that the groundgame was not nearly a finished product
in 1992. S&V was. Saceanu would have won the point against somebody
staying 1m behind the BL. Agassi steps in, and the attacker turns into a
defender.
 
The point is not to compare Agassi to Saceanu.
 
I'm not of course saying that this is the end all, be all of anything
either. 2) doesn't apply to all points and Agassi still lost matches and
lost them to S&Vers too.
 
But it is an example of one of the many changes that all seem to put the
volleyer at a disadvantage.
 
The numbers game will do, and did, the rest.
 
 
> All great S/V players had relatively great groundstrokes
 
:) Nice way of spinning this.
 
- Edberg,
> Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Henman, Mac etc.
 
:)
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: May 17 01:13PM -0700

If Nadal wins RG this year he will have 15 slams to Pete's 14. Would Rafa then eclipse Pete in the GOAT rankings?
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: May 17 04:18PM -0400

On 5/17/2017 4:13 PM, Scott wrote:
> If Nadal wins RG this year he will have 15 slams to Pete's 14. Would
> Rafa then eclipse Pete in the GOAT rankings?
 
You do realize this simple seed will cause headaches and aggravation for
weeks and months to come on rst?
 
Are you are sadist?
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 17 11:22PM +0300

17.5.2017, 23:13, Scott kirjoitti:
> If Nadal wins RG this year he will have 15 slams to Pete's 14. Would Rafa then eclipse Pete in the GOAT rankings?
 
In my opinion with 10 RG titles Nadal would hold the greatest tennis
record ever and would eclipse everyone.
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: May 17 01:45PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 4:18:58 PM UTC-4, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> You do realize this simple seed will cause headaches and aggravation for
> weeks and months to come on rst?
 
> Are you are sadist?
 
If we can keep the trolls of this thread we can have a serious discussion about slam quality vs. quantity. Unfortunately, the trolls won't stay away. :(
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: May 17 05:08PM -0400

On 5/17/2017 4:22 PM, TT wrote:
>> Rafa then eclipse Pete in the GOAT rankings?
 
> In my opinion with 10 RG titles Nadal would hold the greatest tennis
> record ever and would eclipse everyone.
 
 
Here we go:
 
Troll #1.
 
 
Trolls:
 
1. TT
2.
3.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 02:19PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 4:22:30 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> > If Nadal wins RG this year he will have 15 slams to Pete's 14. Would Rafa then eclipse Pete in the GOAT rankings?
 
> In my opinion with 10 RG titles Nadal would hold the greatest tennis
> record ever and would eclipse everyone.
 
LOL. Do you see what I mean about your propensity to worship to the extreme at the House of Nadal? Keep it in your pants. Goodness me.
 
10 FOs would give him 15 slams. He needs 4 more to eclipse Roger in the real world not the fantasy world you inhabit. *rolls eyes*
 
On topic, it's a tough call but with that 15th slam I think Nadal would slightly eclipse Sampras. Sampras has the better #1 stats and dominated at two slams and Nadal has the CGS and the GOAT FO record but with all things considered plus that additional slam over Sampras, I think you have to give it to Nadal if he wins 15.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 02:26PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:09:05 PM UTC-4, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> 1. TT
> 2.
> 3.
 
The bad thing about Nadal doing well is that TT comes out of the woodwork with his gibberish and lustful fixation on Nadal. When Nadal was losing, TT kept a lid on it for the most part. The only thing that will silence TT is if after Nadal wins #10, Roger wins titles or does better than Nadal from Wimbledon to the WTF.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 17 02:39PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:19:45 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> LOL. Do you see what I mean about your propensity to worship to the extreme at the House of Nadal? Keep it in your pants. Goodness me.
 
> 10 FOs would give him 15 slams. He needs 4 more to eclipse Roger in the real world not the fantasy world you inhabit. *rolls eyes*
 
> On topic, it's a tough call but with that 15th slam I think Nadal would slightly eclipse Sampras. Sampras has the better #1 stats and dominated at two slams and Nadal has the CGS and the GOAT FO record but with all things considered plus that additional slam over Sampras, I think you have to give it to Nadal if he wins 15.
 
CGS is a plus over Sampras, but of course one must consider that Wimbledon has way more cachet than the FO. IMO it would take at least one more non-clay slam for the Howler Monkey to edge ahead of One-Dollar Pete.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 02:39PM -0700

with Rios, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Moya, Ferrero, etc. as one of the worst performing #1 players of all time?
 
Just wondering. ;)
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 02:21PM -0700

Hello Everybody Fans,
 
Long time no hear from Me. I hope you are all well. I am.
 
It is with not much regret that I have to announce that the French Open, in France, that normally takes place in Paris (also in France coincidentally) has been cancelled this year.rollandGarros - Copy
 
Rafaello's winning run on the dirty clay has brought back some memories that should have stayed as memories. It almost began to feel like 2008 all over again.
 
Therefore, I have concluded that I should focus My efforts where My heart lies, on the beautiful green green grass of home. I will likely play at Gerry Halliwell Weber's tournament in Hallay as he has Me on some sort of binding contract *where someone pays you money for doing what they tell you to do.
 
Naturellement, I will play at Wimbledon. Mr. Wimbledon always sends me a 'Save the date' card each year, which is nice. If you want to come and see Me be sure to get Centre Court tickets.
 
Love and best wishes,
PF xx
 
https://pseudofedblog.com/2017/05/15/roland-garros-2017/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 02:29PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:21:38 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> Naturellement, I will play at Wimbledon. Mr. Wimbledon always sends me a 'Save the date' card each year, which is nice. If you want to come and see Me be sure to get Centre Court tickets.
 
 
You forgot this part: "I will play at Wimbledon where I will crush my slam pigeon Andy Murray once again!"
 
:)
Tim <firemonkey@gatty.co.uk>: May 17 08:12PM +0100

On 17/05/2017 17:55, TT wrote:
>> Nadal 198.21, Federer 201.79
 
> Indoor hard is not a surface.
 
> Also, 3 matches is too few for statistical analysis, as is 6.
 
 
I agree. We should only base the comparison on meet ups on Nadal's best
surfaces and ignore the rest.
 
After all who wants to be bothered with facts.
 
--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 17 01:11PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:00:07 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> > That's why those samples sizes (in Fed's favour) are so small.
 
> Too small to draw conclusions on. Plus indoor hard is not a surface,
> it's just part of the matches played on hard.
 
The distinction is ATPs not mine. There is also carpet which they never met on but there is little doubt how that would go. Or how things would have panned on blue clay if Nadal and Djokovic hadn't got it shut down. Or the USO where Nadal and federer never met.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 17 11:14PM +0300

17.5.2017, 22:12, Tim kirjoitti:
 
> I agree. We should only base the comparison on meet ups on Nadal's best
> surfaces and ignore the rest.
 
> After all who wants to be bothered with facts.
 
Dumb comment, it's you who is ignoring facts here. 'Indoor hard' is of
course a subset of hard court matches, taking it as separate entity and
then extrapolating is disingenuous to say the least.
 
...Might as well begin counting by events. Davis Cup Nadal 100% etc...
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 17 11:20PM +0300

17.5.2017, 23:11, arahim kirjoitti:
 
>> Too small to draw conclusions on. Plus indoor hard is not a surface,
>> it's just part of the matches played on hard.
 
> The distinction is ATPs not mine.
 
It's still wrong, plus you're using it wrong...
Desperate stuff.
 
> There is also carpet which they never met on but there is little doubt how that would go. Or how things would have panned on blue clay if Nadal and Djokovic hadn't got it shut down.
 
Not to forget indoor clay. And wood.
 
> Or the USO where Nadal and federer never met.
 
Nadal would probably have won...
 
And, it was actually Federer who failed to make the appointment, all
three times Nadal got there.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 17 02:14PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 1:21:58 AM UTC+10, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> I disagree. It's one way to show how much the overall h2h stat itself is misleading.
 
> > the important stats is how well they did against the pool of competitors they faced. Purely on the stats you showed Nadal should also have more hard court slam titles because most of the slam are played in outdoor venues, but the reality is Federer won more on hard court because he was superior against the same competition they both faced.
 
> Fair enough. Still doesn't make it meaningless. A perhaps more fair statistical analyses would be a breakdown of h2h between varying surface speeds. Still, the outdoor h2h stat tells us that the matchup favours Rafa, in those conditions, regardless of who is the better overall player.
 
Tennis tournaments are not about just two players, it is fair comparison if the tour is only contested by just two player not a 100 players. And it is a comparison not giving you an overall picture of why Federer is ahead of Nadal in non clay court surfaces.
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 17 02:15PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:55:27 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> > Nadal 198.21, Federer 201.79
 
> Indoor hard is not a surface.
 
> Also, 3 matches is too few for statistical analysis, as is 6.
 
For Slams Nadal started playing in 2003 at Wimbledon. Until last year Federer had played in all slams that Nadal had.
From 2003 Wimbledon to now there have been 55 slams. Federer has skipped 2, playing 53. Nadal skipped 8, playing 47. None of the skipped slams were common.
 
Federer 8, Nadal 2
 
Federer won 18 (three of these Nadal skipped and already counted above), Nadal won 14 so Federer an additional 15, Nadal 14.
 
Total so far
Federer 23, Nadal 16 (ie 39 of the 55 slams)
 
So there are 16 slams where both showed up but neither won. Who kept the date or progressed further?
 
Federer was in 4 finals he lost that were not against Nadal since those are already counted for Nadal wins. So he obviously kept the date here but Nadal didn't. Nadal too was in 4 finals he lost that were not against Federer so he obvously kept the date here but Federer didn't. So four to each.
 
Total so far
Federer 27, Nadal 20
 
with 8 slams to go where neither was absent, or won, or was in the final.
 
 
2003 USO Federer 4R, Nadal 2R Federer
2005 AO Federer SF, Nadal 4R Federer
2008 AO Federer SF, Nadal SF Even
2011 AO Federer SF, Nadal QF Federer
2013 W Federer 2R, Nadal 1R Federer
2015 AO Federer 3R, Nadal QF Nadal
2015 FO Federer QF, Nadal QF Even
2016 AO Federer SF, Nadal 1R Federer
 
Federer 5, Nadal 1
 
Total
Fedrer 32, Nadal 21
 
If one does not want to count skipped (by either) slams
 
Federer 24, Nadal 19
 
If the 8 slams where both were present but neither won or made the final are also taken out:
 
Federer 19, Nadal 18
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 17 02:18PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:20:49 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> Nadal would probably have won...
 
> And, it was actually Federer who failed to make the appointment, all
> three times Nadal got there.
 
True and Nadal failed to make the appointment the 7 times Federer was there.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: May 17 09:04PM +0100

On 16/05/2017 20:45, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> | Is that what you fedfans do when watching your idol? You sick fucks.
 
> court1 is such a great gal! Btw, I secretly idolize her...oops ;-)
 
> FF
 
She is rst's femme fatale (btw, my knowledge of film noir is extensive).
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 17 12:40PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:55:38 AM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:10:48 PM UTC+10, Jason White wrote:
 
> > Nobody forced McEnroe and Edberg to play S/V at the French. If their groundstrokes and baseline game weren't good enough, too bad. Today's champs are slightly better at closing the deal. Would love to see those old guys bring their weak S/V shit to wimbledon today. They would win nothing.
 
> For Mac and Edberg s/v was their best percentage play and during their era, the fast hard court and grass court allowed their style of game to be more effective then on a slow court. Both guys were No.1 during their career so their ground strokes were good against the world class players back in their era. I wouldn't care if they can't win anything in today's environment after all that is just pure and meaningless speculation, and we could be saying the same thing thirty years later about Federer and Nadal.
 
Nice post.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 12:36PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:05:52 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> Are you insinuating that there is a gender bias here? :)
 
I'm doing more than insinuating. :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 12:34PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:55:47 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> Maybe your hero Bouchard can try to be a bit more like Murray and win Wimbledon one day LOL
 
Why aren't you or why isn't anybody bitching about Lendl as a coach the way they did about Mauresmo now that Murray has completely crapped his pants since being #1 and winning the WTF in 2016? Under Mauresmo he was winning clay tournaments and now he is having trouble making it past the R16 and he's losing to every schmoe. I haven't checked but is this the worst clay season in his career?
 
Not a peep from anybody about Murray's problems and how that may in anyway be related to Lendl as a coach yet Murray loses one match when Mauresmo was his coach and fans and the press couldn't stop blaming her. What happened to Lendl as this great male influence and FORCE of a coach Iceberg? *rolls eyes*
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment