Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Sunday, June 11, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:14AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 02:17:26 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
 
>> ? we've had the same 4 guys dominating over a decade. when a top
>> youngster?
 
>Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?
 
your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
"greatest players in history." duly noted.
 
 
>> > Same could have said around 1968-69 when stars from fifties came to tour and instantly were top dogs. Rock'n roll examples like Tomic, Gulbis and Kyrgious have always been and maybe earlier (Nastase, Gerulaitis) they were actually winning slams.
 
>> key phrase: they were actually winning slams.
 
>Yet, Running 100m 10sec flat would have easily brought OG during all 70:ies events. Now with this time you will fight for final outer tracks.
 
i'm sure kyrgios could beat borg, if you take kyrgios' 2017 level VS
borg's 1980 level. what does that have to do with anything?
 
>.mikko
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:15AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:25:59 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.com>
wrote:
 
>> train to be fast, so beating the clock is a key performance indicator.
 
>You can look at thing like, how many ranking points do you need to have
>to be ranked #100? Does that increase/decrease in time?
 
irrelevant cause you're still playing the opponents of the day to get
those points. practice up on your #s pelle. :-)
 
 
bob
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Jun 11 05:38AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:14:14 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> >Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?
 
> your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
> "greatest players in history." duly noted.
 
3rd time: they actually have a fact based case - many good names do not have that luxury and digging through evidence pile can reveal items like...."Gee, that Hoad guy actually never won anything but some amateur slams".
 
If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
 
Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.
 
.mikko
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 11 03:40PM +0300

On 11.6.2017 15:15, bob wrote:
>> to be ranked #100? Does that increase/decrease in time?
 
> irrelevant cause you're still playing the opponents of the day to get
> those points. practice up on your #s pelle. :-)
 
:)
 
The assumption is that if you have to have more points for #100 in 2017
than in 2000, then presumably the #100 ranked player in 2017 is better
in 2000. And anybody playing that guy in 2017 will face a fiercer
opposition.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:56AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 05:38:39 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
 
>> your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
>> "greatest players in history." duly noted.
 
>3rd time:
 
4th but who's counting.
 
>they actually have a fact based case - many good names do not have that luxury and digging through evidence pile can reveal items like...."Gee, that Hoad guy actually never won anything but some amateur slams".
>If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
>Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.
 
ok, finally was able to bait you out.
 
disclaimer: i don't rate anything pre open, simply cause:
(1) the obvious amateur issue, i.e. the changing times of $$ vs titles
vs which slam titles.
(2) i wasn't alive to see it. i like to see - or at least be alive
during the - times i'm going to form this type of opinion on.
 
i'd have fed in a tier of his own, except for the H2H with nadal, only
1 clay slam and no OG. everyone has some flaws, those are fed's. if
fed had only 1 of those flaw, i'd have him in his own tier. fed surely
has the GOAT hardware (atm), but if we're going to pick a tier i've
got fed, nadal, sampras, borg, laver. same as you!
 
laver earned it in the 60s, borg 70s, sampras 90s, fed 2000s, rafa
2010s. only decade missing is 80s. 80s was fairly deep IMO - mcenroe,
lendl, becker.
 
bob
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 11 10:57PM +1000

On 11/06/2017 10:38 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>> "greatest players in history." duly noted.
 
> 3rd time: they actually have a fact based case - many good names do not have that luxury and digging through evidence pile can reveal items like...."Gee, that Hoad guy actually never won anything but some amateur slams".
 
> If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
 
 
Not bad, but I have a slight problem with Federer. Tilden & Pancho
seemed to be able to win at will, even giving opponents head starts etc.
They certainly were the best of their generation at peak.
Unfortunately for Roger he looked 2nd fiddle to his main rival, & not
just on clay. I agree if we ignore Rafa then Fed would be a good candidate.
 
 
 
> Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.
 
I kinda have McEnroe & Hoad in a special bubble. While they may be
behind in sheer numbers, the quality of their peaks is considered by
many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 11 04:00PM +0300

On 11.6.2017 15:56, bob wrote:
> fed had only 1 of those flaw, i'd have him in his own tier. fed surely
> has the GOAT hardware (atm), but if we're going to pick a tier i've
> got fed, nadal, sampras, borg, laver. same as you!
 
Djok with his NCYGS HAS to be tier 1. Besides, he's the (sunk) BOAT.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 11 11:01PM +1000

On 11/06/2017 10:40 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> than in 2000, then presumably the #100 ranked player in 2017 is better
> in 2000. And anybody playing that guy in 2017 will face a fiercer
> opposition.
 
That would only be true if the conditions are similar in 2017 to
previous eras, otherwise it's apples/oranges comparison.
 
We know today there is little difference between the surfaces, & no
variety in opponent styles. That means the higher your ranking the more
points you will accumulate, as your style will prevail everywhere as
there are no 'booby traps'. Those are critical issues that distort a
direct comparison - ie 'wow this orange is much better than this apple',
rather than 'this orange is better than that orange'.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 09:09AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:00:33 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.com>
wrote:
 
>> has the GOAT hardware (atm), but if we're going to pick a tier i've
>> got fed, nadal, sampras, borg, laver. same as you!
 
>Djok with his NCYGS HAS to be tier 1. Besides, he's the (sunk) BOAT.
 
djok's results aren't tier I yet IMO. but he does have a claim to HC
BOAT.
 
bob
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Jun 11 06:12AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:58:01 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> > If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
 
> Not bad, but I have a slight problem with Federer. Tilden & Pancho
> seemed to be able to win at will, even giving opponents head starts etc.
 
Fed's absolute numbers are just too good compared to other open era greats. You have to use "soft values" like gutfeelings/methinks/other subjective proritization to degrade his position.
 
 
> I kinda have McEnroe & Hoad in a special bubble. While they may be
> behind in sheer numbers, the quality of their peaks is considered by
> many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.
 
Those peers and experts are 100y old. Same thing as declaring WW Beetle from '57 the greatest car ever..
 
.mikko
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 11 04:20PM +0300

On 11.6.2017 16:01, Whisper wrote:
>> fiercer opposition.
 
> That would only be true if the conditions are similar in 2017 to
> previous eras, otherwise it's apples/oranges comparison.
 
Not, really. Who cares how you play. If you win, you're the better player.
 
> We know today there is little difference between the surfaces,
 
We don't really know this. We do know that around 2002 a couple of
things changed, which did slow some things down. That's 15 years ago,
however. My hunch is, that things have changed a bit since.
 
& no
> variety in opponent styles.
 
That's true. But they have been converging all the time --> what is
optimal 52 weeks out of 52.
 
> That means the higher your ranking the more
> points you will accumulate, as your style will prevail everywhere as
> there are no 'booby traps'.
 
That's assuming the surfaces really are the same. One look at what Rafa
has done makes you question that.
 
> Those are critical issues that distort a
> direct comparison -
 
Not really. A win is a win is a win.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 11 11:27PM +1000

On 11/06/2017 11:12 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>> many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.
 
> Those peers and experts are 100y old. Same thing as declaring WW Beetle from '57 the greatest car ever..
 
> .mikko
 
I keep disagreeing with all your analogies because they are very poor.
There is a *reason* for cars to improve, for track runners to run faster
etc. There is never any reason for the quality of tennis to improve.
All you have to do is beat the players in your era. Are you saying if
current guys aren't as good as past eras they wouldn't win slams?
That's clearly wrong as somebody will win them, irrespective of player
quality.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 11 04:24PM +0300

--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 09:07AM -0400

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:10AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 06:17:47 -0400, StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> hmmm. 15 yrs & consistent, are you calling me federer-esque? next
>> thing people will be calling me "the great man." :-)
 
>We already do. :)
 
when carey says it it'll be etched in stone. lol
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:12AM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:56:37 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> sets.
 
>> bob
 
>Federer and Djokovic aren't Nadal at the FO. You keep saying Stan did this and that to Federer and Djokovic on clay but it's a dumb comparison to Nadal on clay. Nadal won't let Wawrinka do to him what he did to Djokovic at the FO 2015.
 
my contention is this isn't the same rafa and it may not be up to him.
in rafa's favor, it's going to be 90deg during the match and he had a
walkover SF while 32yo stan went 5.
 
> I think Wawrinka will come to play and may even win the first set but eventually Nadal will wear him down with a mixture of offense and defense. Let's see.
 
bob
Geeam <sonnygaart@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 05:49AM -0700

Everything is set for Nadal. Perfect court, ideal weather. Only if Wawrinka could constantly hit through him, Nadal would be in trouble, but I don't see that happening. So IMO it's most likely Nadal in three. But there are no excuses. If Stan beats Rafa, it would be a monumental achievement.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 11 11:02PM +1000

On 11/06/2017 10:49 PM, Geeam wrote:
> Everything is set for Nadal. Perfect court, ideal weather. Only if Wawrinka could constantly hit through him, Nadal would be in trouble, but I don't see that happening. So IMO it's most likely Nadal in three. But there are no excuses. If Stan beats Rafa, it would be a monumental achievement.
 
I endorse this analysis.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 07:57AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:16:30 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> She seemed OK at the trophy ceremony,
 
>....& that's the problem. She should have been inconsolable - led 64 30
>against a newbie ffs.
 
maybe been halep's problem all along. she's just not that tough a
competitor.
 
bob
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 11 10:47PM +1000

On 11/06/2017 9:57 PM, bob wrote:
 
> maybe been halep's problem all along. she's just not that tough a
> competitor.
 
> bob
 
Or coming from an impoverished background she's very happy earning
millions. Her driving force is most likely money & not glory.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 11 05:43AM -0700

Turns out she needs a wild card for US open. Let's see whether USTA follows the FF lead. I highly doubt it
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:20AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 05:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> bob
 
>You know Bob, there is this thing called Google. Perhaps you should use it?
>http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/all/29297/10-Things-to-Know-About-Tennis-New-Bad-Girl---Jelena-Ostapenko/1/
 
this says practically nothing.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:23AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 05:00:59 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> play worse, their game must begin to falter. the opponent raising
>> their level doesn't indicate a choke.
 
>You can ask all you want but it won't matter. At 6-4, 3-0 Halep reverted to her past usual bad body language and poor attitude on court and because of it started to play worse and her head wasn't clear.
 
? perhaps her "body language" was when she realized the opponent was
starting to play better and she knew she couldn't?
 
i admit she's not a tough competitor, but i have a hard time calling
yesterday's match a "choke." she was beaten by a better player who was
entirely in control of the match, win or lose.
 
> Her negative mentality didn't help her. It was a choke of the highest order despite the fact that Ostapenko also raised her level. Halep should have absolutely won that match with that type of scoreline. Somebody with a more solid mentality wouldn't have let it slip.
 
bob
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 11 03:23PM +0300

On 11.6.2017 15:01, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> bob
 
> You know Bob, there is this thing called Google. Perhaps you should use it?
 
> http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/all/29297/10-Things-to-Know-About-Tennis-New-Bad-Girl---Jelena-Ostapenko/1/
 
Dorky link, thanks ... NOT! There's NOTHING there.
 
What else is the WTA good for than catfights. If you promise us one,
please deliver or STFU!
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:06AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:09:04 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
>> So my question is why can't nadal win 14 FO if no one can stop him on clay and simply pass Federer?
 
>er, nobody is just given 5 more FO's. Only 2 guys in history have won
>as many as 5, yet you want to just gift Rafa 5 more just like that?
 
especially at nadal's age and fragile physical condition? PWL is drunk
tonight.
 
bob
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