Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Monday, May 8, 2017

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 07 08:53PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 8:39:16 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> mikko also claimed it was mathematically impossible to have a clown
> era. which i disagree with strongly.
 
> bob
 
There is, arguably, no clown era. It is possible that a WoO presents itself according to a Poisson process with rate (e.g., once every 4 or 5 years) that can be estimated from historical data. All GOAT contenders like Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djok played/play for periods of time that presumably allowed the occurrence of a Poisson event (WoO in this case). Other random models could be considered.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 07 08:59PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> greatest players in history. no borg, no laver, no sampas, no lendl,
> no becker, no agassi - nope. all 3 that happen to be within 5 years of
> each other's peaks.
 
Three great players in history can occur within a short span of time.
 
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 07 10:17PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 5:44:12 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> i say it's fishy. mathematically unlikely. there's something else
> going on.....
 
> bob
 
There is never going to be a consensus on this. My question about this is not so much on the probability of having 3 of the greatest champions (in terms of slam counts) in one era, but on the probability of having all three of them being career slammers. That is something, IMO, that has been influenced by other factors than just the talent of those 3 champions.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 08 02:06AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:17:07 AM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> > going on.....
 
> > bob
 
> There is never going to be a consensus on this. My question about this is not so much on the probability of having 3 of the greatest champions (in terms of slam counts) in one era, but on the probability of having all three of them being career slammers. That is something, IMO, that has been influenced by other factors than just the talent of those 3 champions.
 
If three high achievers is possible, the CGS is not far behind. Each achiever wants to emulate and transcend the other. They work very hard, are very focused, and leave nothing to chance. Federer kept knocking on the door until Nadal relented and had the exquisite talent to capitalize on the WoO at its first availability. Nadal did the same and in fact went one up to upset Federer on grass and HC. Who will grudge him his wins against a strong GOAT contender, even if bob and his ilk object (the last added for rhetorical effect he he)? Djok kept knocking until Nadal relented and then had to wait for a while more to get his CGS. Their work ethic is arguably second to none.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:52PM +1000

> There's no great mystery...they're the first full generation to have a laser focus on the slams and to never voluntarily skip any. Everyone says Sampras started the slam count. They're just perfecting the career approach to maximize slams. If Sampras was any good on slow surfaces and Agassi had Djok's dedication and didn't skip his best slam until 1995 they'd have 18/12 too.
 
How about flip it & ask how many slams would current guys have if they
played in earlier eras? Go on I dare you.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:55PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 1:59 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
>> no becker, no agassi - nope. all 3 that happen to be within 5 years of
>> each other's peaks.
 
> Three great players in history can occur within a short span of time.
 
 
 
Perhaps, but far more likely 3 great players 'of an era' can occur.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:57PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 3:17 PM, Shakes wrote:
 
>> bob
 
> There is never going to be a consensus on this. My question about this is not so much on the probability of having 3 of the greatest champions (in terms of slam counts) in one era, but on the probability of having all three of them being career slammers. That is something, IMO, that has been influenced by other factors than just the talent of those 3 champions.
 
That's why I ask how would these guys go in earlier eras playing under
those conditions. Would Rafa really make 5 Wimbledon finals v Sampras,
Mac, Laver etc?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 09:10PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 7:06 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
>>> bob
 
>> There is never going to be a consensus on this. My question about this is not so much on the probability of having 3 of the greatest champions (in terms of slam counts) in one era, but on the probability of having all three of them being career slammers. That is something, IMO, that has been influenced by other factors than just the talent of those 3 champions.
 
> If three high achievers is possible, the CGS is not far behind. Each achiever wants to emulate and transcend the other.
 
 
Stan could be the 4th CGS winner of this era in a couple months.
 
That means in last 8 yrs (2009 Fed, 2010 Nadal, 2016 Djokovic & 2017
Wawrinka) we saw 4 different guys do it - average every 2 yrs.
 
Laver did it in 1962 & Emerson in 1964. Between 1964 & 2009 - that's 45
years - only Agassi managed to achieve it.
 
1 guy in 45 yrs, against maybe 4 guys in an 8 span.
 
bob is right - smells fishy.
heyguys00@gmail.com: May 08 05:47AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 7:10:32 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> years - only Agassi managed to achieve it.
 
> 1 guy in 45 yrs, against maybe 4 guys in an 8 span.
 
> bob is right - smells fishy.
 
No one is denying the current state of the tour is different than the past. That's been true throughout history, though, between surface switches, slam prioritization, equipment advances, training advances, medical advances, etc.
 
Really this era is just the full-scale modernization of the slam hunt that Sampras started. Fed/Djok are more or less the evolution of Sampras/Agassi with the benefit of some surface homogenization thrown in (but way less homogeneous than when 3/4 of the slams were grass, so surface similarity can't be the sole reason for high slam counts). The real anomaly is Nadal. We've never really seen anything like him before. He's skewing everyone's analysis and making them look for more than is there IMO, when really he's an aberration.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:15AM -0500

> On 5/7/2017 8:44 PM, heyguys00@gmail.com wrote:
> There's no great mystery...they're the first full generation to have a laser focus on the slams and to never voluntarily skip any. Everyone says Sampras >started the slam count. They're just perfecting the career approach to maximize slams. If Sampras was any good on slow surfaces and Agassi had Djok's >dedication and didn't skip his best slam until 1995 they'd have 18/12 too.
 
But ... Sampras will have had more slams at age 30 than Joker has and
the same number of slams as Nadal at age 31, so those two really haven't
perfected anything beyond Sampras, at least not yet.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:36PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 7:38 AM, Scott wrote:
 
> It will be one big server against another, both competing with snowshoes.
 
Tennis has been boring even with Fed in the field. But yes I agree it
will be much worse without him.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:10PM +1000

On 7/05/2017 10:10 PM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> But the fact that even after that loss and drop, Sampras was still
> ranked higher than Fed, and would remain so the rest of 2001, indicates
> clearly that he was still closer to his peak than Fed was to his.
 
Fed was winning titles in 2001 so was closer to his peak than Sampras,
who couldn't win a chook raffle for 2 yrs.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:13PM +1000

On 7/05/2017 10:15 PM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> Same with USO, that's why even during that stretch, he always made USO
> finals playing lights out tennis there.
 
It may have looked like 'lights out' tennis to newbies, but the reality
is 'lights out' Sampras should be able to win a tune-up somewhere in 2
yrs.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:23PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 2:19 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> by then, ranking meant 0 to sampras. the fact he was ranked 12 should
>> tell you something.
 
> yep just really good to have official confirmation of what is quite obvious really to anyone who's watch/studied him during this time.
 
2001 was the 1st time I didn't tip Sampras to win Wimbledon. In fact I
recall tipping Goran to win the title after his win over Roddick in 3rd
rd, & Sampras was still in the tournament. It's in the archives you can
look it up.
 
I don't use reverse jinx like some here, so for me to not back Sampras
at Wimbledon after 10 yrs backing him tells you where his game was at.
 
Some say it was 'lights out' from Sampras, but hey everyone has an opinion.
 
: )
 
 
 
 
 
--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:24PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 2:23 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> Same with USO, that's why even during that stretch, he always made USO
>> finals playing lights out tennis there.
 
> was he really up for and fully motivated when he played George Bastl at Wimbledon?
 
That was Sampras 'all guns blazing' - not as good as 'lights out' v Fed.
 
: )
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:30PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 3:33 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> There's no way around it: Neither was peak, but Pete was closer to his
> peak than Fed was to his. Every indicator says so.
 
Not every indicator - eg the ability to actually win a tournament. Fed
much closer to his peak having won a title just before that 2001 match &
made several finals. Sampras was a burntout shell.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 08 08:25PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 2:52 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
 
>> That happened well over 12,000 days ago, probably longer than you have
>> been alive. So I doubt it's happening this year.
 
> I'm talking about serve volleying from the baseline, not the traditional serve volley.
 
 
Pretty sure that's illegal?
 
Sampras would have won 40 slams if he s/v'd from baseline.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 08 12:05PM +0300

8.5.2017, 3:04, bob kirjoitti:
 
>> Just 35 %!
 
> for le pen to get into a runoff would be unthinkable 5 yrs ago, no?
 
> bob
 
You're defending fascist Le Pen now?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 08 02:15AM -0700

Maybe because they are better than this
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3880355
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 08 04:48AM -0500

On Mon, 8 May 2017 12:05:51 +0300, TT <ascii@dprk.kp> wrote:
| 8.5.2017, 3:04, bob kirjoitti:
|> On Sun, 7 May 2017 11:01:33 -0700 (PDT), calimero377@gmx.de wrote:
|>
|>> Just 35 %!
|>
|> for le pen to get into a runoff would be unthinkable 5 yrs ago, no?
|>
|> bob
|>
|
| You're defending fascist Le Pen now?
|
 
What is a a fascist?
 
FF
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 08 12:15PM +0300

8.5.2017, 3:18, bob kirjoitti:
>> opposite.
 
> ??
 
> bob
 
Comey outed the new investigation on Hillary emails just before the
election while not saying a word about investigation on Trump&Russia. As
partisan as it gets and his defence on the matter in front of a
committee a week ago was just laughable and disingenuous.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 08 02:08AM -0700

Ten years of the proposed tax cut is enough to make Trump and his inner circle ten times richer.
These tax cuts are never for us.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 07 08:44PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 8:34:12 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> i might've made a bet about fed 2012, but i doubt it. and it wouldn't
> be with any mother n law. i doubt i'd ever bet against federer, minus
> VS nadal at FO.
 
Definitely you were ruing on losing some bet after Federer won the 2012 Wimbledon. I am not good at getting the links, but I trust my memory in these things. Of course, you need not take my word for it.
 
 
> >> record books, but my father knows little about tennis.
 
> >Maybe you should listen to your dad more? :)
 
> lucky guess.
 
Such is the great man's game!
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 07 08:46PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 8:36:09 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> this "golden retriever" as everybody here calls him, now at 30 slowed
> down, playing differently in a way i can clearly see. has nothing to
> do with fed.
 
Lost his aura of invincibility. Everyone fancies bashing him up on HCs. Some succeed.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 07 08:38PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 8:30:40 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> if his goal was to win FO, he wouldn't be skipping 2 months of clay
> preps.
 
> bob
 
Every slam he plays, his goal is to win it. He has said so explicitly about FO recently. Got it?
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