Federer's hints about his poor form....

by Tenez Sun 04 Sep 2011, 12:51 am

First topic message reminder :

Federer: But you find a way to win when maybe someone is not playing so well or when your opponent is playing well, and that's what the beauty is of this game, I think, is trying to find a way when you're not feeling great That's what I maybe was able to do today.

That, imo, kind of confirms he is not 100%.

by bogbrush Wed 07 Sep 2011, 3:24 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2. For all his 3 slams last year, Nadal played at least 1 top 5. Logic tells us this is not a disaster but logic is the strongest point of Federer fans is it? Haven't met one with it yet

What does that mean? "The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2"? It's not English.

If you meant that the most one can play is 2 then you're wrong, because they can play 3 but I can't say for sure until you rephrase it.

The greatest comeback ; Write English.
Seems you understand what has been written that 1 top 5 player has 2 chances of playing other players in the top 5 especially for Nadal who is seeded either 1 or 2, you get that sherlock?

Infact, in detail, it's more like 2 and half depending on whether the player is seeded 1 or 2. If Nadal is seeded 1, he has a chance to play No.2 in finals and No.3 or 4 in semi finals. Unless you want to tell me then that in the quarter finals, he is scheduled to play No.5 seed as well. Being a 2nd seed, he will have a chance to play a No.1 in a final or a No.3 or 4 in the semi finals. Can't see whats hard to understand then then he can play 2 top 5 players per slam.

So tell us Bogbrush, where is the shocker here? Was Nadal supposed to ask the slam organisers to allow him to play all the top 5 in every slam?

Not a comeback, I was genuinely asking you what you meant.

Now you've explained yourself it's obvious you're wrong. In fact you've helpfully explained why you're wrong but then go on to repeat your error. This is impressive stuff; I've never seen a poster blow themselves out of the water and them ignore themselves.

As for "it's more like 2 and half depending on whether the player is seeded 1 or 2" I would ask what twisted version of English or logic you're employing there but I don't want to upset you again. Suffice to that as far as I can decipher it, it looks stupid.

EDIT: I highlighted your last sentence because, of course, it brings to mind the historic and unique feat of Roger Federer at the O2 last year where he did indeed become the first and only man to win an event by defeating every other member of the top 5! Salutations to you for reminding the board of that unique feat!!!! clap

by Tenez Wed 07 Sep 2011, 3:29 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote: Being Italian/French

Oh...merde! Are you sure?

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 3:40 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2. For all his 3 slams last year, Nadal played at least 1 top 5. Logic tells us this is not a disaster but logic is the strongest point of Federer fans is it? Haven't met one with it yet

What does that mean? "The chances of one top 5 player playing others in a top 5 for each slam is 2"? It's not English.

If you meant that the most one can play is 2 then you're wrong, because they can play 3 but I can't say for sure until you rephrase it.

The greatest comeback ; Write English.
Seems you understand what has been written that 1 top 5 player has 2 chances of playing other players in the top 5 especially for Nadal who is seeded either 1 or 2, you get that sherlock?

Infact, in detail, it's more like 2 and half depending on whether the player is seeded 1 or 2. If Nadal is seeded 1, he has a chance to play No.2 in finals and No.3 or 4 in semi finals. Unless you want to tell me then that in the quarter finals, he is scheduled to play No.5 seed as well. Being a 2nd seed, he will have a chance to play a No.1 in a final or a No.3 or 4 in the semi finals. Can't see whats hard to understand then then he can play 2 top 5 players per slam.

So tell us Bogbrush, where is the shocker here? Was Nadal supposed to ask the slam organisers to allow him to play all the top 5 in every slam?
Not a comeback, I was genuinely asking you what you meant.

Now you've explained yourself it's obvious you're wrong. In fact you've helpfully explained why you're wrong but then go on to repeat your error. This is impressive stuff; I've never seen a poster blow themselves out of the water and them ignore themselves.

As for "it's more like 2 and half depending on whether the player is seeded 1 or 2" I would ask what twisted version of English or logic you're employing there but I don't want to upset you again. Suffice to that as far as I can decipher it, it looks stupid.

EDIT: I highlighted your last sentence because, of course, it brings to mind the historic and unique feat of Roger Federer at the O2 last year where he did indeed become the first and only man to win an event by defeating every other member of the top 5! Salutations to you for reminding the board of that unique feat!!!!

So a No.1 seed can play 3 other players in the top 5 in a slam? Laugh

Lets leave your laughable attempt to ignore the fact that for 2 slams in 2009, Federer played 1 top 5 player, far worse than the supposed shocker of Nadal and concentrate on the seeds in slams. The chances of a No.1 seed playing a No.5 seed together with 2 players in the top 5 is none. So the chances of playing 3 in the top 3 depends on whether you are seeded 1 or not.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 3:47 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:So a No.1 seed can play 3 other players in the top 5 in a slam?

Lets leave your laughable attempt to ignore the fact that for 2 slams in 2009, Federer played 1 top 5 player, far worse than the supposed shocker of Nadal and concentrate on the seeds in slams. The chances of a No.1 seed playing a No.5 seed together with 2 players in the top 5 is none. So the chances of playing 3 in the top 3 depends on whether you are seeded 1 or not.

My uderstanding is that the No 1. seed can play any seed from 5 - 8 in the quarters.
Thus No 1 could play No 5, then No 4, then No 2.
Equally No 2 could play No 5, then No 4, then No 1.

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 3:52 pm

* Each of Nos. 1-5 may play 3 others from the top 5.

* No. 5 is always seeded to play 3 members of the top 4, namely in the QF, SF, and F.

* Each of Nos. 1-4 are always seeded to play 2 other members of the top 4 in the SF and F.

* Which of Nos. 1-4 is also seeded to play No. 5 in the QF depends upon No. 5's draw.

* If, and it's a biggish if I know, the seeds make their seeding the winner of 3 slams in a year would have to beat between 6 and 9 members of the top 5 - a probability of 6.75.

* On that basis it is pretty good going for Nadal as the winner of 3 slams in 2010 to have needed to beat only 2 other members of the top 5 - Djoko (3) in the USO F and Murray (4) at Wimbledon SF and to have avoided other members of the top 5 entirely at RG.

by Tenez Wed 07 Sep 2011, 3:55 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:My uderstanding is that the No 1. seed can play any seed from 5 - 8 in the quarters.
Thus No 1 could play No 5, then No 4, then No 2.
Equally No 2 could play No 5, then No 4, then No 1.

Yes and also replace your number 4 by numer 3 and that doubles the chances of a top 2 player playing 3 top 5 seeds. Number 2 could play number 5, then number 3 then number 1, same applies with Number 1.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 3:59 pm

So we're all agreed except S_A who seems to think the No. 1 seed can only ever play 2 of the top 5 i.e. never No. 5.
It will be interesting to see which thread he re-emerges on, because I doubt it will be this one.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:06 pm

Well i can only admit my inaccuracy having looked at it further. My understanding was the 1 and 2 randomly play 3 or 4 and 1 has to be scheduled to play 6 with 2 playing 5 as they are not random but however i hardly see a slam where the No.1 seed meets the No.5 seed. They might put it in as 5-8 so out of those 4 chances in the quarter finals, it's 1 in 4 for both the No.1 and 2 of meeting the No.5 seed. That's still a 2 and half chance for me.

However the point is Nadal won 3 slams last year beating members of the top 5 more so that Federer the year before i see no shock, If we are to dig into beating seeds at slams. Federer's path looks more laughable to be honest especially when you throw in Blake as No.4 seed and Ljubicic as No.3 seed in some of them.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:12 pm

S_A, I have more respect for you for having admitted your error. The draws (especially the actual process of the draw - half with computer, half with numbers drawn out of a hat) can be a bit of a task to get to grips with.

by Tenez Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:23 pm

barrystar wrote:
* On that basis it is pretty good going for Nadal as the winner of 3 slams in 2010 to have needed to beat only 2 other members of the top 5 - Djoko (3) in the USO F and Murray (4) at Wimbledon SF and to have avoided other members of the top 5 entirely at RG.

His luck did not stop there that year. he only played one top 5 in his 3 clay TMS of 2010.

As said many times, I don't believe in weak eras but certainly 2010 was very poor in terms of top players being on form.

by Tenez Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:26 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:S_A, I have more respect for you for having admitted your error.

Frankly it would have been difficult to deny that one. Laugh

But given the time and effort it took to prove him wrong on something as basic, imagine the nightmare if we wanted to convince him of more subtle tennis matter.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:27 pm

Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko. Laugh

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:33 pm

Tenez wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:S_A, I have more respect for you for having admitted your error.

Frankly it would have been difficult to deny that one.

But given the time and effort it took to prove him wrong on something as basic, imagine the nightmare if we wanted to convince him of more subtle tennis matter.

Like Nadal playing only 2 top 5's for 3 slams last year perhaps? Laugh

by Tenez Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:35 pm

.This post was made by Simple_Analyst who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

.This post was made by Simple_Analyst who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Cry

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:35 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko.

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

What utter tosh is this please?

Federer's 2009 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0

Nadal's 2010 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2010&m=s&e=0

I suggest that after your previous stupid error you start saying something which is (a) coherent and (b) accurate since what you have written is neither.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:46 pm

Tenez wrote:.This post was made by Simple_Analyst who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

.This post was made by Simple_Analyst who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

For the number of times i have exposed your ignorance on many subjects, the only advisable measure is to put me on an ignore list. Josiah apparantely has me on his as well lol.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:48 pm

I put everyone on my ignore list except myself. That way I agree with everything I read.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:50 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:I put everyone on my ignore list except myself. That way I agree with everything I read.

Except that, which is just nonsense.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:50 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I put everyone on my ignore list except myself. That way I agree with everything I read.

Except that, which is just nonsense.

No it isn't

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:51 pm

Whilst I'd accept that Nadal was more successful in 2010 than Federer was in 2009, I'd say that both 2009 and 2010 were odd years for members of the top 5 in their way. The trick for the great players is to get out there and beat whoever you face whenever you face them because in any career spanning 8-10 years at the top there are going to be ups and downs and unusual opportunities. That's why we'll need to stand back when Nadal's top flight career is over to make a proper comparison.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 07 Sep 2011, 4:55 pm

Josiah apparantely has me on his as well lol.

Probably because you have trouble accepting criticism towards your lover boy Nadull and can't pull yourself to give any credit for Shanky, therefore making any conversation with you mundane and childish. Moving on....

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm

barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko.

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

What utter tosh is this please?

Federer's 2009 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0

Nadal's 2010 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2010&m=s&e=0

I suggest that after your previous stupid error you start saying something which is (a) coherent and (b) accurate since what you have written is neither.

Before calling something stupid, i suggest you educate yourself regarding my facts before coming back to me. The only thing there is Soderling being at 7 but played as a top 5 seed sherlock. Oh wait i guess it's Monfils ranked 11th playing as top 10 seed then

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:03 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Josiah apparantely has me on his as well lol.
Probably because you have trouble accepting criticism towards your lover boy Nadull and can't pull yourself to give any credit for Shanky, therefore making any conversation with you mundane and childish. Moving on....

Lol, the ignore mode in full flow.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:07 pm

barrystar wrote:Whilst I'd accept that Nadal was more successful in 2010 than Federer was in 2009, I'd say that both 2009 and 2010 were odd years for members of the top 5 in their way. The trick for the great players is to get out there and beat whoever you face whenever you face them because in any career spanning 8-10 years at the top there are going to be ups and downs and unusual opportunities. That's why we'll need to stand back when Nadal's top flight career is over to make a proper comparison.

More comedy from our new Federer member barrystar. In 2009, i saw Federer crying at the start of the year and holding 2 slams at the end of it. Reason? Nadal struggling with injury throughout the year. Then he had to play the 19 year old is it?.. Del Potro as the only top 5 at the FO and then who else was it at Wimbledon? Roddick who was shown a a golden jacket after. I fail to see how he could have won all those if Nadal was present. We knew what happened at the USO.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:09 pm

Those links show the ranking, not the seeding. So Monfils would have been ranked 10.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:18 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Those links show the ranking, not the seeding. So Monfils would have been ranked 10.

Monfils only became the No.10 on the week starting 25th, a day after the FO started so i don't know how he got ranking of 10th next to his name.

by bogbrush Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:18 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:So a No.1 seed can play 3 other players in the top 5 in a slam?

Lets leave your laughable attempt to ignore the fact that for 2 slams in 2009, Federer played 1 top 5 player, far worse than the supposed shocker of Nadal and concentrate on the seeds in slams. The chances of a No.1 seed playing a No.5 seed together with 2 players in the top 5 is none. So the chances of playing 3 in the top 3 depends on whether you are seeded 1 or not.

Yes, that's correct. He can.

He plays the #5 in the quarter.

He plays the #3 or 4 in the semi.

And he plays the #2 in the final.

That's 3 I think. Can you check for me because you seem very confident of yourself in this area.

Yeah 3.

Is it time for a Yahoo

or a

or maybe a few Whistle

or perhaps just a good old Doh

Then again, you can never beat a

EDIT: Having read the thread back, I see other esteemed members explained the rules to S_A and he gracefully accepted.

I think this is what my youngest kid called getting "pwned".

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:32 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:
barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko.

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

What utter tosh is this please?

Federer's 2009 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0

Nadal's 2010 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2010&m=s&e=0

I suggest that after your previous stupid error you start saying something which is (a) coherent and (b) accurate since what you have written is neither.

Before calling something stupid, i suggest you educate yourself regarding my facts before coming back to me. The only thing there is Soderling being at 7 but played as a top 5 seed sherlock. Oh wait i guess it's Monfils ranked 11th playing as top 10 seed then

18.05.09 - 10 Davydenko 11 Monfils
25.05.09 - 10 Monfils 11 Davydenko

Their RG seedings reflected their pre-tournament rankings so Monfils was seeded 11 and ranked 10 when he played Federer. It was you who initiated the test as being one of "rankings" not me.

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:42 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:.. I fail to see how he could have won all those if Nadal was present. We knew what happened at the USO.

Yes, we do:

Del Potro won the 1st SF 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 vs. Nadal
Federer won the 2nd SF 7-6(3), 7-5, 7-5 vs. Djokovic

Del Potro won the F 6-3, 6-7(5), 6-4, 6-7(4), 2-6 vs. Federer

Nadal was absent from one Slam draw in 2009, Wimbledon.

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 5:51 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:
barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko.

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

What utter tosh is this please?

Federer's 2009 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0

Nadal's 2010 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2010&m=s&e=0

I suggest that after your previous stupid error you start saying something which is (a) coherent and (b) accurate since what you have written is neither.

Before calling something stupid, i suggest you educate yourself regarding my facts before coming back to me. The only thing there is Soderling being at 7 but played as a top 5 seed sherlock. Oh wait i guess it's Monfils ranked 11th playing as top 10 seed then

Whilst you are at it, please can you name the 4 top 5 players who Nadal played that you were referring to and identify the matches?

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 6:01 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:
barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko.

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

What utter tosh is this please?

Federer's 2009 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0

Nadal's 2010 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2010&m=s&e=0

I suggest that after your previous stupid error you start saying something which is (a) coherent and (b) accurate since what you have written is neither.

Before calling something stupid, i suggest you educate yourself regarding my facts before coming back to me. The only thing there is Soderling being at 7 but played as a top 5 seed sherlock. Oh wait i guess it's Monfils ranked 11th playing as top 10 seed then

What's the relevance of Soderling ranked at No. 7 but playing as 5th seed? During RG 2010 Davydenko and Del Potro were both ranked above Soderling but injured and absent from the draw, hence Soderling's elevated seeding.

by Tenez Wed 07 Sep 2011, 6:02 pm

SA is having a hard time.

Let's give him a break!

Hey SA...Shanky can't vollley! Leprechaun

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 6:18 pm

Actually coming back to Bogbrush's comic attempt to claim victory, my comment was actually proved right by the top 5-8 theory. Infact the chances of the top 1 and 2 playing a No.5 in every slam is 1 in 4 by the draw as . To see this further in basic terms for my friends the draw guarantees all the top 5 playing each other 2 times if they meet their seeding. It never guarantees them playing 3 times hence the half chance more like 1 in 4 chance Nadal should be playing 3 top 5s in a slam. Infact the 5th ranked player is a floater which could guarantee 1 member of the top 5 to be able to play 3 top 5 ranked players. I know math is not strong in British education but hardly hard to work out.

Barry, make up your mind and decise. The last time I checked Monfils was No.11 and seeded 10th. Pre the tournament, he wasn't ranked 10 th in the world either. See that for your self.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 6:41 pm

barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:
barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko.

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

What utter tosh is this please?

Federer's 2009 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0

Nadal's 2010 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2010&m=s&e=0

I suggest that after your previous stupid error you start saying something which is (a) coherent and (b) accurate since what you have written is neither.

Before calling something stupid, i suggest you educate yourself regarding my facts before coming back to me. The only thing there is Soderling being at 7 but played as a top 5 seed sherlock. Oh wait i guess it's Monfils ranked 11th playing as top 10 seed then

Whilst you are at it, please can you name the 4 top 5 players who Nadal played that you were referring to and identify the matches?

FO final- Soderling No.5
Wimbledon
Soderling No.5 quarter finals, Murray No.4 Semi finals
USO
Djokovic no.3 Finals

Do you need help counting? Laugh

As for 2009, good you point out Nadal was out for 1 draw and injured for the French Open unless you thought Fedex could actually beat him there lol.
If not for Del Potro at the USO, it would gone down as the luckiest year ever in a slams for him.

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 6:51 pm

Hi S_A:

You said this:

Simple_Analyst wrote: The chances of a No.1 seed playing a No.5 seed together with 2 players in the top 5 is none. So the chances of playing 3 in the top 3 depends on whether you are seeded 1 or not.

I think you admit that you were wrong - that being the case your point about probabilities is not to the point. In my earlier post I accepted that the chances of one of the top 4 seeds being drawn against the No. 5 seed in the QF is 1 in 4, and I don't think Bogbrush was saying otherwise.

I have made up my mind - Monfils was seeded 11 but as at 25.05.09 after the tournament had started he was ranked No. 10. The disparity would seem to be because his ranking improved by one from 11 to 10 after the seeds for the tournament were decided, namely between the ranking dates of 18.05.09 and 25.05.09. According to the ATP website and the RG draw you have it wrong - I suggest you check again.

by lydian Wed 07 Sep 2011, 6:52 pm

Tenez wrote:Typical of Lydian "subtle" slaying of Federer. The facts are actually showing the opposite. On the day he is still the best player out there. It's being able to deliver consistently and days in a row that is clearly his weakness now.

lol, "slaying"...yeah right, what's that got to do with it - I've praised him in a couple of recent posts. Try to remove your Federer-tinted glasses for a moment.

On his day yes Federer can beat anyone outright - anyone except Nadal and Djokovic. These 2 are no "Monaco's".

If Nadal or Nole play to 100% of their ability, and Federer does too, he will not beat them in my opinion. Sure it will be close, especially with Nole, but on balance he wont win. They dont give Federer the time or space to play his shots in the same way. I think Federer can push Nole the closest but against Nadal his game really doesnt fit well (and never really has - the H2H doesnt lie).

I agree he cant deliver consistently too, but against those 2 I dont think his best is good enough now - except for perhaps Federer vs Nole on clay. But hey, we'll see if they meet...

by barrystar Wed 07 Sep 2011, 7:01 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:
barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:
barrystar wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Considering Nadal was never going to have any problem with any one on clay last year, who was ever going to beat him? Let me guess, Davydenko.

You fail to see you gossipped about him playing 2 top 5's was wrong when it was actually 4 top 5's and you proceed further to add more. What do you make of Federer playing 1 top 5 for 2 slams and just 2 top 10's in total in 2009. We all know 2009 was a lucky period so not exactly arguing hard on this one. 2009 was a forgettable footnote in this Golden Era to be honest.

What utter tosh is this please?

Federer's 2009 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2009&m=s&e=0

Nadal's 2010 is here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2010&m=s&e=0

I suggest that after your previous stupid error you start saying something which is (a) coherent and (b) accurate since what you have written is neither.

Before calling something stupid, i suggest you educate yourself regarding my facts before coming back to me. The only thing there is Soderling being at 7 but played as a top 5 seed sherlock. Oh wait i guess it's Monfils ranked 11th playing as top 10 seed then

Whilst you are at it, please can you name the 4 top 5 players who Nadal played that you were referring to and identify the matches?

FO final- Soderling No.5
Wimbledon
Soderling No.5 quarter finals, Murray No.4 Semi finals
USO
Djokovic no.3 Finals

Do you need help counting?

As for 2009, good you point out Nadal was out for 1 draw and injured for the French Open unless you thought Fedex could actually beat him there lol.
If not for Del Potro at the USO, it would gone down as the luckiest year ever in a slams for him.

Sorry - you aren't being consistent (or right) about Soderling

At RG Soderling was ranked 7 and seeded 5 because of the absence of Del Potro and Davykenko through injury

At Wimbledon Soderling was ranked 6 and also seeded 6 because, although Davydenko was not there, Roddick was seeded higher than his ranking because he was the previous year's finalist.

by luciusmann Wed 07 Sep 2011, 7:43 pm

Actually SA, you're point about the British education system is a load of tosh (much like what you have to say about tennis). If you refer to primary or secondary education then yes, it isn't good enough but I doubt you went to high school or primary school here in the UK because frankly, even my 9 year old niece has better grammar than you. The university sector in the UK is second to none, there's more UK universities in the top 100 than any other nation (and that includes the US) and far more than the rest of any single European country. If you got bad grammar, blame yourself, not the education system here.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 8:05 pm

Oh Luciusmann teach me grammar.
If only you could write a sentence in any language other than English, I will be worried but seeing how singleminded you are, I need not worry Laugh

by Guest Wed 07 Sep 2011, 8:08 pm

Play nice guys, stop having a go at each other.

by luciusmann Wed 07 Sep 2011, 8:19 pm

If SA can refrain from insulting the the UK education system for his poor grammar, I might consider it! I wouldn't detract from the point, your weak grammar is your own fault, not the education system here. Can you clarify where you learnt your English, a primary or secondary school or a university? Doubt we'll get an answer.

But I can SA, I know Latin pretty well. I did it to a higher level than A Level too. I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

by Tenez Wed 07 Sep 2011, 8:23 pm

lydian wrote:
Tenez wrote:Typical of Lydian "subtle" slaying of Federer. The facts are actually showing the opposite. On the day he is still the best player out there. It's being able to deliver consistently and days in a row that is clearly his weakness now.

lol, "slaying"...yeah right, what's that got to do with it - I've praised him in a couple of recent posts. Try to remove your Federer-tinted glasses for a moment.
...

Who needs tinted glasses when gauging the greatest talent of tennis history, Lydian?

I know you praised him and I can only guess how much it must have pained you as you are desperately trying to appear as a "fair and serious" poster here. But you have too much history and some here know you well as you have constantly tried to diminish his record in the most serious manner at every single opportunity. You have come up with the weak era, slow 2001 grass, less skilled than Bjorkman, benefited from slow courts, fitter than Nadal, not as good as Pete etc...arguments on every single point that could alter his talent and increase whichever rival you could compare him with.

I liked Catalan Power cause though he disliked Federer he was frank about it and he knew his tennis.

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 8:55 pm

luciusmann wrote:If SA can refrain from insulting the the UK education system for his poor grammar, I might consider it! I wouldn't detract from the point, your weak grammar is your own fault, not the education system here. Can you clarify where you learnt your English, a primary or secondary school or a university? Doubt we'll get an answer.

But I can SA, I know Latin pretty well. I did it to a higher level than A Level too. I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

You learnt Latin? Who would have thought. With how single-minded you are, I doubt you could pronounce a word in Latin yet alone write a sentence Laugh

And who cares which level I learnt English? I did not come here for an English test in grammar and be doing edits for my post. And why can't I blame the english system? Touchy?

by Guest Wed 07 Sep 2011, 8:57 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:
luciusmann wrote:If SA can refrain from insulting the the UK education system for his poor grammar, I might consider it! I wouldn't detract from the point, your weak grammar is your own fault, not the education system here. Can you clarify where you learnt your English, a primary or secondary school or a university? Doubt we'll get an answer.

But I can SA, I know Latin pretty well. I did it to a higher level than A Level too. I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

You learnt Latin? Who would have thought. With how single-minded you are, I doubt you could pronounce a word in Latin yet alone write a sentence

And who cares which level I learnt English? I did not come here for an English test in grammar and be doing edits for my post. And why can't I blame the english system? Touchy?

No ifs, no buts, stop the insults or temporary bans will be dished out.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 9:04 pm

No-one speaks Latin anymore - ergo it is a dead language.

by luciusmann Wed 07 Sep 2011, 9:05 pm

As Latin is a dead language, I don't think you're pronunciation is any better than mine, so not only are your insults foolish but also ignorant.

Your grammar does matter if we can't understand what you're saying, which is often enough actually.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 07 Sep 2011, 9:14 pm

It was a joke! 'ergo' being a Latin word and all that. A humorous oxymoron perhaps, more than a joke, but then I am a bit of an oxy-moron myself!
Just trying to lighten the mood.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 07 Sep 2011, 9:17 pm

luciusmann wrote:As Latin is a dead language, I don't think you're pronunciation is any better than mine, so not only are your insults foolish but also ignorant.

your

sorry, one of my pet hates...

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 9:18 pm

luciusmann wrote:As Latin is a dead language, I don't think you're pronunciation is any better than mine, so not only are your insults foolish but also ignorant.

Your grammar does matter if we can't understand what you're saying, which is often enough actually.

Where did I say I know Latin? I do guarantee however you don't know it either. Don't go and say you know Latin anywhere in public, you'll be laughed at. Actually I should laugh at you Laugh

You actually more clever than I thougth. To not understand my english and grammar yet was able to respond to me and tell me you don't understand, what a genius! .

by Simple_Analyst Wed 07 Sep 2011, 9:21 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
luciusmann wrote:As Latin is a dead language, I don't think you're pronunciation is any better than mine, so not only are your insults foolish but also ignorant.

your

sorry, one of my pet hates...

Who would have thought, Luciusmann is grammar perfect. My sides Laugh

by Sponsored content