For all those Del Potro haters

CaledonianCraig wrote:My general point being if you look back on their careers and slam wins they have each had to win seven matches to win a slam (walkovers aside) and invariably each will have had tougher draws than in other of their slams and some easier draws so it all levels out in the end and is best recognising one slam as being worth one slam.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not even going to try because such-like things are self-opinionated. I demonstrated that earlier when you said what you felt Djoko's slam wins were best in value but I counter-argued that and put forward other slams where he beat more seeds. Oh dear it is those variables again.

Red wrote:LS, my 'incorrect' thing is a joke I do with Julius- and I only do it on one forum (606v2). I think I first said it after Julius claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was a tennis player who swore on court- and I've used it a few times after that.

As for the other thing, I would not be annoyed if you had said that to me, rather than insulting me behind my back.

LuvSports! wrote:

Red wrote:LS, my 'incorrect' thing is a joke I do with Julius- and I only do it on one forum (606v2). I think I first said it after Julius claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was a tennis player who swore on court- and I've used it a few times after that.

As for the other thing, I would not be annoyed if you had said that to me, rather than insulting me behind my back.

ok well you have done both, glad we got that straightened out.

CaledonianCraig wrote:What is difficulty? Like I have said what you may see as difficult match for Rafa then other people whose favourite player can comfortably beat that player in their eyes won't see the draw as difficult. Can you not see that? Federer fans get sweaty palms at drawing Tsonga due to his decent slam record against Federer whereas they may not be as panic ridden about facing Murray. Flip the coin and Murray fans would be very confident of beating Tsonga and see that as a good draw but would worry about playing Fed.Draws themselves are variable as well and so difficulty of them are just as tough to agree on.

LuvSports! wrote:yes and at the time I thanked you. But what followed led me to do what I did (i.e the stuff i mentioned above).
Yet you did not apologise for your past misdemeanors.

LuvSports! wrote:
And same applies to you.

LuvSports! wrote:Well you did.

lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?

But that depends which stats you examine, what's wrong with the stats you don't use, and how those stats are computed in the first place. We all know stats don't tell the real story. I presume you mean slam count when you're referring to "stats".

CaledonianCraig wrote:But socal how do you determine what slams are more worthy ones? Each slam equals one win. If you mean by strength of competition then that is a grey area is it not - very grey. A Federer or Nadal fan may fear one opponent who oftens gives their player a tough match up whereas Murray or Djokovic may have less trouble against those opponents so their fans may see that as an easy way to win and vice versa.

Also if you feel Federer had it easier in the early 2000's then how would you feel if people started trying to devalue Djoko's slam wins now as Federer looks like has dropped a level so that dilutes things and Nadal is returning from injury. All in all in my opinion all things even out so is it really worth falling out over.

socal1976 wrote:Who exactly is a del po hater that you are directing this to? .

Red wrote:

lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?

I'm trying to argue that a player with better stats may not necessarily be a better player- although he could be.

lydian wrote:- Which slams are naturally harder than others and why?
- Why does Lendl's 8 slams on hard and clay only beat Agassi's 8 across all slam surfaces?
- Why does Lendl's 8 slams in 19 finals beat Agassi's much better ratio of 8 slams in 15 finals?

laverfan wrote:

Red wrote:

lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?

I'm trying to argue that a player with better stats may not necessarily be a better player- although he could be.

So Nadal with 92%+ on Clay is not as good as Federer at 77%+ on Clay. I knew someone would come up with a gem.

Red wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Red wrote:

lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?

I'm trying to argue that a player with better stats may not necessarily be a better player- although he could be.

So Nadal with 92%+ on Clay is not as good as Federer at 77%+ on Clay. I knew someone would come up with a gem.

I can't remember saying that

lydian wrote:Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?

sportslover wrote:Nice to see Delpo through to his second Masters final.

Could this be his first title here - sadly I can't see it unless Rafa has a problem, which so far there is no indication that he has.

As for Delpos ranking, on the strength of what he had accomplished here, and the way he is playing he is well worth a top five spot.

Red wrote:I can't come to a quick conclusion on this Lydian. I said Lendl, but in reality I would have to do a lot more research than what I did to satisfy a proper answer.

lydian wrote:

Red wrote:I can't come to a quick conclusion on this Lydian. I said Lendl, but in reality I would have to do a lot more research than what I did to satisfy a proper answer.

So you're answering without actually applying your theory.

lydian wrote:
Do you still think Lendl has the better record from the questions I just asked?

Red wrote:Don't make me laugh, Djokovic has had to beat players like Nadal and Federer in Grand Slams. Far tougher than what Federer had to go through to win slams, let's not deny the obvious.

As for the 'one slam in the record books is one slam' line, that's a load of meaningless hogwash. If all the players ranked in top 200 retire, then the current world number 205 could win the French Open. It will still count as one slam in the record books, but it would be hugely easier to win, would it not? The disparity between difficulty of slam wins exist all year round for the 4 slams, it's just difficult for everyone to agree exactly on what the disparity is.
Doesn't mean the disparity doesn't exist.

kingraf wrote:I think Murrays solo Slam effort last year was better than Johan Kriek's twin AO victories. Because he faced better opposition. So if one can definitively be proved harder than the other, then I think common sense dictates, that all Slams were not of equal difficulty. Some had seeded players pull out due to injuries, others had walkovers.

But it is impossible to definitively list the slams in terms of difficulty. It would be like listing the 10 fastest men in history without a stopwatch or them running together.

sirfredperry wrote:Just watched some excellent highlights of the del Potty-Nole semi. Terrific match and some tremendous play by both.
Couple of things. Del Potty may just be too exhausted to really do himself justice in today's final. Secondly, if he carries on playing like this then he's gonna start causing the big boys real probs.
Been waiting for performances like this from JMDP ever since he got back from his long lay off. If he cannot get into the top four then he at least ought to be just outside. Could be that with Fed possibly on the wane there's a top four place available in any case.

CaledonianCraig wrote:You are avoiding going into detail on point two. Perhaps because it is too difficult to come to a conclusion? What you my see as a difficult opponent for Nadal in one tournament, a Federer fan could just as easily feel it is an easy draw and vice versa. For example you may feel Rosol would be a tough draw if he gets him again at Wimbledon (due to past result) but Federer fans wouldn't have a problem with that draw. Conversely, Federer fans may feel a draw against Berdych is tough (owing to his decent record in slams against Fed) but Nadal fans wouldn't see it so tough. You see it is all too full of what ifs and maybes. Lets not forget the old excuse as well that players that you may feel were tough to beat were carrying injuries hence it all becomes less tricky or the surface may not have suited. Problems, problems, problems. As I said elsewhere just far too many inconclusive variables making the whole topic a tad pointless.

JuliusHMarx wrote:All of Borg's slams were between 1.3 and 2.7 times easier than all of Connors. Thus Connors was clearly a far superior player. I defy anyone to prove me wrong. Go on, I dare ya.

kingraf wrote:My LO teacher always did say any "greater difficulty" debate that doesnt have the name Michael Jordan is doomed to deadlock

Red wrote:I haven't researched it yet, so I don't know. Do you want me to start up a Lendl vs Agassi thread?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:I haven't researched it yet, so I don't know. Do you want me to start up a Lendl vs Agassi thread?

Please don't do that. The entire forum would implode into a black hole of pointlessness which would also suck into it any enjoyment any of us may remotely have left about tennis.

Red wrote:Sums up what I've been trying to say very well.

lydian wrote:
If we took your argument to its logical conclusion the ATP ranking lists themselves are obsolete because they don't assign points in more realistic terms for slams won at the time based on the difficulty, i.e. ranking, of opponents faced....

Red wrote:

lydian wrote:
If we took your argument to its logical conclusion the ATP ranking lists themselves are obsolete because they don't assign points in more realistic terms for slams won at the time based on the difficulty, i.e. ranking, of opponents faced....

No, I never said this. This hasn't got to do with anything at all.
I was saying some slams will be harder/ easier to win than others as you don't face the same opponents each time. I'm not saying we should alter the ranking system.