Do things necessarily need to be competitive at the top?

First topic message reminder :

Djokovic is number 1 in the world right now and by some distance. From reading posts this year so far I get the feeling that people here aren't satisfied with this state of affairs or that it's somehow worse now than it has been before. I'm not saying this is shaping up to be the most exciting year in tennis ever but is it really so bad, relative to the last 5 years, that the others need to step their game up to save us from some kind of viewing catastrophe? Yes they need to step their game up if they want to beat him and I'm sure they are doing all they can but the feeling I'm getting from here is that it is all too imperative that they succeed in order to avert a crisis.

I'll admit that I didn't watch much of Miami apart from highlights but across these last two tournaments he's been challenged a few times but in the end proved too good. The game moves on every year and if he's done the best with keeping up with that and improving then more credit to him. He's not my favourite player but if he should win the majority of everything significant this year then so be it. It seems that on here there is a strong desire not to have a single player dominate and that if that is the case then competition is weak; maybe no one wants to see domination of a "weak era" like 2004-2007 again and anything resembling that can't be good for the game. I, on the other hand, believe it's possible to just gave a player who is much better than everyone else at a given time. The competition is ok this year and we're not at a point where the matches are foregone conclusions , at least no more or less significantly so than previous years.

Indeed, thats why I referenced his hardcourt numbers at his peak. Nadal was certainly closer to him on grass from 06-08 than anybody was to him on hard court

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:9>7 (Federer's numbers).

Which shows Rafa on his best surface is better than Federer on his best surface.

Nothing to do with diversity and balance.

is it harder to win on grass as the courts are faster so you are in constant danger of being blown off court? On a slow court in my opinion the better player will more than likely win, it's why I find Petes 7 at Wimbledon so impressive, he had to deal with guys who can blow him off court without him touching the ball.

It is why there has been dominance since the courts have slowed down. I think Federer alluded to this himself. It protects the better players, it's why even players like Ferrer and Berdych win so many matches, it's not just the big 4 that are protected somewhat, it's the surface that aids that.

Of course with clay its slightly different as its not just the speed, its how you slide and move on it which is what makes Rafa the chosen one.

It's impossible to compare it and we will always go in circles, if Federer was part of the Agassi/Sampras era he probably would have one 5-7 French Opens! However maybe only won 1 or 2 Wimbledon's. His slam balance could have looked more like Rafas. A player can only do what he's presented with.

CAS, those sensible opinions based on tennis and reality, really have no place in this thread.

Returning to the topic's original question and my answer would be no.

Why?

Well the 'competitive at the top' is a grey area as that doesn't mean tennis won't be any less competitive than when no particular player was dominating. Djokovic fans may say he was at his most competitive and consistent in 2011 and even though he may scoop an equal amount of slams this year he may end up finding the feat of winning slams easier in 2011 than this year when (in 2011) he had Nadal and Murray arguably in better shape than now and same goes for Federer.

Blue Moon wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Blue Moon wrote: "Strength of competition"?

The rule does not say a thing about the nature of competition a player must beat in order to win an ATP tournament. If Djoko continues to be the last man standing in the next slam(s), he is still king, regardless. So who he beat doesn't matter in the big picture. His victory will be recorded as fact and the trophy awarded will still be the same. Weak-strong competition ain't going to change history made, will it?

When have I said otherwise ?
Think about this intelligently, saying Djokovic is going to have easier competition now then he has so far in his career is not equivalent to saying the trophy won't be awarded, or his victory won't be recorded as a fact.
However when doing further analysis, i.e. seeing the level Djokovic had to play to win Slams across his career, or comparing Djokovic to another player and seeing how hard it was to win a slam on average, it's right to consider competition as one of the factors.

No need to attack my intelligence just because I don't support your view. Why so defensive? You know that this weak/strong competition idea is a non-issue as far as the ATP is concerned. You're just jealous now because Djokovich is looking so good compared to "another player" you mention above. But that's no reason to be rude in your mission to force a non-issue that others like me don't share.

I didn't attack your intelligence, I just told you to think about the issue intelligently.
Competition is a non-issue as far as the ATP is concerned ? What exactly does that mean ? By ATP are you talking about the organisation itself ? When have I mentioned the ATP organisation here ?
Also it's spelt 'Djokovic' not 'Djokovich'.

The standard deviation point has a flaw because there are 2 hc slams. If we had 2 clay slams Nadal would have more, AND it would look more spread between them, an advantage he doesn't have.   With both at 14 they're relatively comparable both had only one at their weakest and a lot on their dominant one

But yeah back to topic. There needs to be competitive matches at the top but. That doesn't mean you can't have a dominant player or players. People  didn't mind the domination of fed and Nadal because the matches were still so competitive and matches against the others were still good.  I would say you do need at least 2 great ayers vying for most of the slams

Quite strange, CAS this isn't a tennis thread. It hasn't been one for two pages

temporary21 wrote:Bobbrush is referring to the Central limit theorem  which says things tend to a normal limiting distribution. That is to say even out. Over a long period.  He makes two critical errors though. You can't  apply this to something you can't  consistently measure. More importantly how big is big? I don't think the space of a year is a guarantee of long enough to even out . Maybe 5- 10 years

I am well aware of CLT, but there is no way it is applicable to what I'm saying here.
Again I feel like I'm repeating myself, but Djokovic-Nadal-Murray were all born within 1 year of each other. In the next 5 years, I see no players who are as good as those three. That is why, if Djokovic can keep up his current level, he may have easier competition in the next few years. (Of course I may be proved wrong by a young player, but atm I think it's unlikely).
I'm well versed in the technicalities of CLT, and it simply does not negate what I'm saying here. It's very possible over a period of any 10 years, you get some periods of higher competition with many ATGs playing at a world class level and close to prime, and some periods where that isn't the case. If Djokovic got injured now, it would be significantly easier to win a Slam than say 2011.

I personally like dominance in tennis, I like feeling like I'm witnessing something special. Also, when the dominance is going on I wouldn't say it's been predictable, they haven't strolled to it, you've seen them battle through adversity of an inspired opponent, you've seen an element of luck where the stars aligned. All these things make it interesting for me.

It's not like watching Celtic in the SPL

CAS wrote:I personally like dominance in tennis, I like feeling like I'm witnessing something special. Also, when the dominance is going on I wouldn't say it's been predictable, they haven't strolled to it, you've seen them battle through adversity of an inspired opponent, you've seen an element of luck where the stars aligned. All these things make it interesting for me.

True but the story of a king must have its pretender, like batman has the joker. That's what gives you special matches

The clt wouldn't appky over a year because the form if good players doesn't even out over a year. It can take years for s bad run of injury or form to come back

IMBL, you don't tell people how to think. It's condescending and rude.

I mentioned the ATP in my earlier post, not you, but you seem to agree with my comment based on your reply to it. 

I mean the nature of competition is never mentioned in the ATP when they record a tournament win by so-and-so player. People will only remember the winner. Whether he beat a strong or weak opponent is a non-issue AFTER THE FACT. But of course, fans on forums are free to moan/argue/consider it.
Thanks for the spelling correction.

Nah, I doubt Fed would win 5-7 FOs, there're Muster, Burgera and Kuerten. They won't be easy opponents, I think Fed may win 2 or 3. And I think if not for the slowed down grass, Fed may not win 7 Wimbledon.

Of course we can also argue that Rafa may not win that many FOs and may not even win one Wimbledon during the 1990s, and of course that's assuming Rafa would play the same way that he's playing now, which I doubt.

Blue Moon wrote:IMBL, you don't tell people how to think. It's condescending and rude.

I mentioned the ATP in my earlier post, not you, but you seem to agree with my comment based on your reply to it. 

I mean the nature of competition is never mentioned in the ATP when they record a tournament win by so-and-so player. People will only remember the winner. Whether he beat a strong or weak opponent is a non-issue AFTER THE FACT. But of course, fans on forums are free to moan/argue/consider it.
Thanks for the spelling correction.

You're both being rude to each other to be frank. Might be better for you both to walk away from this one

Blue Moon wrote:
I mean the nature of competition is never mentioned in the ATP when they record a tournament win by so-and-so player.

This is the third post in a row from you when you've made exactly the same point, and for the third time I agree with you. I don't doubt the ATP record players winning accurately.
However my point is when doing further analysis, it is important to have a look at other factors, and competition is one of them.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Nah, I doubt Fed would win 5-7 FOs, there're Muster, Burgera and Kuerten.  They won't be easy opponents, I think Fed may win 2 or 3.  And I think if not for the slowed down grass, Fed may not win 7 Wimbledon.

Of course we can also argue that Rafa may not win that many FOs and may not even win one Wimbledon during the 1990s, and of course that's assuming Rafa would play the same way that he's playing now, which I doubt.

That's my point though, you could argue it.

That's a side point I aways find interesting too, Nadal fans saying Federer had it easy during his dominance. It isn't like Rafa has had an abundance of clay court specialists to compete with has he? Ferrer? Monaco? Federer and Djokovic who prefer hard and grass? Could say Rafa had it easy on clay! Its not like he had Lendl, Borg and Wilander levels around. That being said, it's sometimes what you see with your naked eye. I can see what Rafa can do which makes him the best, same with Federer during 03-07, whether people think he has poor competition or not its what you saw with your eyes. The stuff both did and still do with the ball, it doesn't matter who is on the other side, they can both make the ball talk.

When I watch Klitschko fight and dominate, what I see with my eyes tells me he is not as good as past greats.

temporary21 wrote:Bobbrush is referring to the Central limit theorem  which says things tend to a normal limiting distribution. That is to say even out. Over a long period.  He makes two critical errors though. You can't  apply this to something you can't  consistently measure. More importantly how big is big? I don't think the space of a year is a guarantee of long enough to even out . Maybe 5- 10 years

We can measure tennis achievement levels since the currency is titles.

I think a year is on the cusp of bigness. My opinion is validated by the number of titles won in that period, and surface distribution, having emulated the very long term.

HM Murdoch wrote:CAS, those sensible opinions based on tennis and reality, really have no place in this thread.

Indeed. Borderline banning material really.

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Bobbrush is referring to the Central limit theorem  which says things tend to a normal limiting distribution. That is to say even out. Over a long period.  He makes two critical errors though. You can't  apply this to something you can't  consistently measure. More importantly how big is big? I don't think the space of a year is a guarantee of long enough to even out . Maybe 5- 10 years

We can measure tennis achievement levels since the currency is titles.

I think a year is on the cusp of bigness. My opinion is validated by the number of titles won in that period, and surface distribution, having emulated the very long term.

Bogbrush, Im sorry, this is some of the weakest reasoning I've ever heard.

If you take an exceptionally long time period, then yes you'll get some periods of weakness, some periods of strength, and I suppose if you clump the respective parts together you could get a normal distribution curve.
The idea that this time period is one year, and that there can't be fluctuations when taking a time period greater than 12 months, is absolutely ridiculous.

Anyway, instead of continuing to cop-out answering any of my questions on what the manifestation of your theory, why don't you just answer this:

Statement: Djokovic's competition in 2011-2012 may be harder on average than his competition between 2014-2015 (thus taking a time period of greater than one year).
Is this:
a) Possible
b) Not possible

So this thread has become: my daddy is stronger than your daddy?

or c) impossible to discern.


I vote c

Jahu wrote:So this thread has become: my daddy is stronger than your daddy?

Well he is.

Anyway, why are you picking on this thread? I thought that was the whole purpose of the forum. Have I missed something?

bogbrush wrote:or c) impossible to discern.


I vote c

But that isn't an option is it.
I have argued before that it's impossible to prove your case, and that you have to come to a subjective judgement. That involves both GOAT debates and the debates on competition.

You've avoided answering the question, whether it is possible for us to discern or not, is the answer a) or b) ??

temporary21 wrote:The standard deviation point has a flaw because there are 2 hc slams. If we had 2 clay slams Nadal would have more, AND it would look more spread between them, an advantage he doesn't have.   With both at 14 they're relatively comparable both had only one at their weakest and a lot on their dominant one

If we had 2 clay slams players would train more for clay from an early age. Everything would change, the whole dynamic of the tour, including most likely, the clay slam winners. Think about it intelligently temp

JuliusHMarx wrote:

temporary21 wrote:The standard deviation point has a flaw because there are 2 hc slams. If we had 2 clay slams Nadal would have more, AND it would look more spread between them, an advantage he doesn't have.   With both at 14 they're relatively comparable both had only one at their weakest and a lot on their dominant one

If we had 2 clay slams players would train more for clay from an early age. Everything would change, the whole dynamic of the tour, including most likely, the clay slam winners. Think about it intelligently temp

I'm not sure if you're also subtly referring to my table, but if you are, that is a fair point.

bogbrush wrote:

Jahu wrote:So this thread has become: my daddy is stronger than your daddy?

Well he is.

Anyway, why are you picking on this thread? I thought that was the whole purpose of the forum. Have I missed something?

bb, thanks for supporting my vision that one of the Forum's purposes is for picking threads and not just serious stuff.

I mean look at CC and Andy's wedding, he lost the plot and started accusing me as a wedding crasher.

Of course, I am not devaluing your input on this thread.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:or c) impossible to discern.


I vote c

But that isn't an option is it.
I have argued before that it's impossible to prove your case, and that you have to come to a subjective judgement. That involves both GOAT debates and the debates on competition.

You've avoided answering the question, whether it is possible for us to discern or not, is the answer a) or b) ??

I both completed and answered your question. I mean, how much help can a guy be??

Bogbrush, before you actually answer my question (which I'm sure you will do), let me show you an analogy:
Jahu, hopefully you like this analogy too-

Suppose you are standing outside a barn, and there is a farm animal inside the barn. You are not allowed to look inside the barn, so you can't prove for sure exactly which farm animal is in the barn.
However you can listen to try and hear for noises, and then by hearing the noises you can relate it to an animal (cluck, moo, neigh etc.)- basically come to a subjective judgement as to which animal you feel is more likely.
The fact that you can't prove for sure which animal is inside, and are relying on a subjective judgement based on the sounds, doesn't mean that no animal at all is inside. Such an argument would be ridiculous.

So with that in mind, and however you'd like to apply your 1-year equal year theory, answer my question: a) or b) ?

bogbrush wrote:
I both completed and answered your question. I mean, how much help can a guy be??

No you categorically have not. The fact no one can prove their case and make subjective judgements is something I have argued. That's not even in the question.
The matter in hand is your theory that every year, the fluctuations in competition always balance out.

So with that in mind, once again:

Statement: Djokovic's competition in 2011-2012 may be harder on average than his competition between 2014-2015 (thus taking a time period of greater than one year).
Is this?:
a) Possible
b) Not possible

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, before you actually answer my question (which I'm sure you will do), let me show you an analogy:
Jahu, hopefully you like this analogy too-

Suppose you are standing outside a barn, and there is a farm animal inside the barn. You are not allowed to look inside the barn, so you can't prove for sure exactly which farm animal is in the barn.
However you can listen to try and hear for noises, and then by hearing the noises you can relate it to an animal (cluck, moo, neigh etc.)- basically come to a subjective judgement as to which animal you feel is more likely.
The fact that you can't prove for sure which animal is inside, and are relying on a subjective judgement based on the sounds, doesn't mean that no animal at all is inside. Such an argument would be ridiculous.

So with that in mind, and however you'd like to apply your 1-year equal year theory, answer my question: a) or b) ?

if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

This debate seems to have become a bit more in depth for a sport that is pushing a ball over a net into a big box!

CAS wrote:[

if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

This debate seems to have become a bit more in depth for a sport that is pushing a ball over a net into a big box!

This debate is not complicated at all, it's obvious, whether humans are there to hear it make no difference to whether the tree will make a sound. I don't see how it's even in question.

IMBL, I like animals and barns, nice analogy, nice of you to give a simple explanation to the thread here, as most of us are a little lost what's going on here

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, before you actually answer my question (which I'm sure you will do), let me show you an analogy:
Jahu, hopefully you like this analogy too-

Suppose you are standing outside a barn, and there is a farm animal inside the barn. You are not allowed to look inside the barn, so you can't prove for sure exactly which farm animal is in the barn.
However you can listen to try and hear for noises, and then by hearing the noises you can relate it to an animal (cluck, moo, neigh etc.)- basically come to a subjective judgement as to which animal you feel is more likely.
The fact that you can't prove for sure which animal is inside, and are relying on a subjective judgement based on the sounds, doesn't mean that no animal at all is inside. Such an argument would be ridiculous.

So with that in mind, and however you'd like to apply your 1-year equal year theory, answer my question: a) or b) ?

You're referring to Shrodingers farmyard?

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I both completed and answered your question. I mean, how much help can a guy be??

No you categorically have not. The fact no one can prove their case and make subjective judgements is something I have argued. That's not even in the question.
The matter in hand is your theory that every year, the fluctuations in competition always balance out.

So with that in mind, once again:

Statement: Djokovic's competition in 2011-2012 may be harder on average than his competition between 2014-2015 (thus taking a time period of greater than one year).
Is this?:
a) Possible
b) Not possible

c) not possible to measure.

C

Jahu wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Jahu wrote:So this thread has become: my daddy is stronger than your daddy?

Well he is.

Anyway, why are you picking on this thread? I thought that was the whole purpose of the forum. Have I missed something?

he lost the plot and started accusing me as a wedding crasher.

Eh quit the inventions please? And did you know Roger had a quiet wedding with no tennis players there? Did you know that for Novak's wedding that Rafa and Roger weren't there? And with Murray's wedding it is exactly the same as Federer's - no current tennis players there. But you carry on (as no doubt you will) trying to make something out of nothing.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:[

if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

This debate seems to have become a bit more in depth for a sport that is pushing a ball over a net into a big box!

This debate is not complicated at all, it's obvious, whether humans are there to hear it make no difference to whether the tree will make a sound. I don't see how it's even in question.

Our brains register waves and vibrations traveling through the air. So if a tree falls, vibrations are caused, but if there's nothing to hear them there is no actual SOUND.

Damn it now I'm in on this!

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, before you actually answer my question (which I'm sure you will do), let me show you an analogy:
Jahu, hopefully you like this analogy too-

Suppose you are standing outside a barn, and there is a farm animal inside the barn. You are not allowed to look inside the barn, so you can't prove for sure exactly which farm animal is in the barn.
However you can listen to try and hear for noises, and then by hearing the noises you can relate it to an animal (cluck, moo, neigh etc.)- basically come to a subjective judgement as to which animal you feel is more likely.
The fact that you can't prove for sure which animal is inside, and are relying on a subjective judgement based on the sounds, doesn't mean that no animal at all is inside. Such an argument would be ridiculous.

So with that in mind, and however you'd like to apply your 1-year equal year theory, answer my question: a) or b) ?

You're referring to Shrodingers farmyard?

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I both completed and answered your question. I mean, how much help can a guy be??

No you categorically have not. The fact no one can prove their case and make subjective judgements is something I have argued. That's not even in the question.
The matter in hand is your theory that every year, the fluctuations in competition always balance out.

So with that in mind, once again:

Statement: Djokovic's competition in 2011-2012 may be harder on average than his competition between 2014-2015 (thus taking a time period of greater than one year).
Is this?:
a) Possible
b) Not possible

c) not possible to measure.

C

Nope, this answer is another cop-out. The same thing can be applied to the argument as to whether Federer is really better than Sampras. Federer has better stats than Sampras, just like Sampras's competition on aggregate in slams he won had better stats than Federer's competition. As I said, unless you make a subjective judgement, its a zero sum game. Applies to Federer being better than Sampras, any GOAT debate, and this debate.

But it's not a answer to my question. You're bringing in another issue.
It's either possible or not possible. Whether it's possible to measure is absolutely irrelevant to this specific question.
Surely according to your theory, which shows everything balances itself out in a period greater than a year, the answer is b) ??

bogbrush wrote:
You're referring to Shrodingers farmyard?

No ? That's a paradox.
My analogy was neither a paradox or even complex, it's obvious that just because you can't see a farm animal in a bran, but you know one is inside and are trying to work out which one exactly, there is still actually one in the barn.

No, not possible to measure precludes the answer being a or b. Think about it, how on Earth can you answer when the answer itself is unknowable?

To provide an answer is akin to religious belief; faith in something that cannot be proven. As I am probably the Worlds most atheist atheist - a position I arrived at having decided that that every reason for religious belief is a symptom of psychological disorder - I'm not likely to plumb for those.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
You're referring to Shrodingers farmyard?

No ? That's a paradox.
My analogy was neither a paradox or even complex, it's obvious that just because you can't see a farm animal in a bran, but you know one is inside and are trying to work out which one exactly, there is still actually one in the barn.

No, Shrodingers farmyard cat (I've adapted it) isn't a paradox (which is two opposing, mutually exclusive events co-existing) it is something existing in an unresolved, probabilistic state because it hasn't been observed.

bogbrush wrote:No, not possible to measure precludes the answer being a or b. Think about it, how on Earth can you answer when the answer itself is unknowable?

You're still confused Bogbrush.

I'm not asking you to answer whether you think 2014-2015 is harder competition than 2011-2012. In that case you could answer that the answer is unknowable.
I'm asking you to consider whether it is possible that 2014-2015 is harder competition for Djokovic than 2011-2012. That is different.

[quote="It Must Be Love"]

bogbrush wrote:


Statement: Djokovic's competition in 2011-2012 may be harder on average than his competition between 2014-2015 (thus taking a time period of greater than one year).
Is this?:
a) Possible
b) Not possible

If I can wade in here though and answer and say A.

However, that is not saying then was more competitive than now. In 2011/2012 the challenge from those at the top was probably stronger than now but that does not tell the whole story. Dig deeper and you may be surprised to find he has had more scares this year in the slams than he did in 2011. Just off the top of my head Murray pushed Djokovic harder in the Australian Open this year than he did in 2011 so does that make this year more competitive?

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:No, not possible to measure precludes the answer being a or b. Think about it, how on Earth can you answer when the answer itself is unknowable?

You're still confused Bogbrush.

I'm not asking you to answer whether you think 2014-2015 is harder competition than 2011-2012. In that case you could answer that the answer is unknowable.
I'm asking you to consider whether it is possible that 2014-2015 is harder competition for Djokovic than 2011-2012. That is different.

And equally unknowable. Therefore since it will never be possible to know whether it was or wasn't, even after the event, it is therefore impossible even to speculate whether it is possible and therefore impossible to answer your question.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:No, not possible to measure precludes the answer being a or b. Think about it, how on Earth can you answer when the answer itself is unknowable?

You're still confused Bogbrush.

I'm not asking you to answer whether you think 2014-2015 is harder competition than 2011-2012. In that case you could answer that the answer is unknowable.
I'm asking you to consider whether it is possible that 2014-2015 is harder competition for Djokovic than 2011-2012. That is different.

And equally unknowable. Therefore since it will never be possible to know whether it was or wasn't, even after the event, it is therefore impossible even to speculate whether it is possible and therefore impossible to answer your question.

This is where you're totally wrong.
Of course it is possible that the competition Djokovic faces from 2014-2015 is easier than the one he faced from 2011-2012.
What is unknowable is whether it actually was or not. But whether it's possible is not in the question.
This isn't even a complex debate, you're just exceptionally confused. Things are either possible or not possible. The fact we don't know exactly whether the competition is easier/harder/ stays the same doesn't mean it's not possible.

So let me ask you the question Bogbrush:
Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It is impossible to prove objectively, as if Federer was better because of better stats, then Federer's competition was also worse because they had worse stats than Sampras's opposition, in which case we have a zero sum game. So we have to make a subjective judgement.
What is unknowable for sure (in terms of proof) is whether Federer is really better than Sampras or not (we have to make a subjective judgement in the absence of proof).
However that is NOT the same as it being unknowable whether it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. The possibility is absolutely present. Understand ?

CC, kiss papi, relax.

It Must Be Love wrote:Suppose you are standing outside a barn, and there is a farm animal inside the barn. You are not allowed to look inside the barn, so you can't prove for sure exactly which farm animal is in the barn.
However you can listen to try and hear for noises, and then by hearing the noises you can relate it to an animal (cluck, moo, neigh etc.)- basically come to a subjective judgement as to which animal you feel is more likely.

If I hear the animal in the barn "moo", and I therefore conclude there is a cow in it, why is it only a subjective opinion?

What are the circumstances in which my conclusion is wrong?

I'll go and take the kids to the pool and think about this thread some more