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.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The concept of "better" is as clearly defined as the identity of a father?

In a world where we didn't know about DNA, it would be magic that verifies with certainty previously unanswerable questions. Perhaps such a thing exists for resolving these unanswerable tennis questions but we don't know about it yet. I think the alternative opinion is more than ok for now. It's your call on how likely we are to discover the "DNA" for tennis that answers these questions or whether it even exists.

No, even before we knew about DNA, surely the father would be one of the two sexual partners ?

There are 2 things I'm trying to point out.

For the first one, see the first line of what you quoted, therein lies one flaw to your analogy...

The second one: You're trying to say that one of 2 players is definitely better regardless of whether or not we can ever know which one to any degree of certainty. There are real situations that don't obey that kind of logic so why should this, especially when the idea of "better" is not as clear cut as what you're trying to compare it to? The only thing that matches in your analogy is that there are 2 things in question.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:There are 2 things I'm trying to point out.

For the first one, see the first line of what you quoted, therein lies one flaw to your analogy...

The second one: You're trying to say that one of 2 players is definitely better regardless of whether or not we can ever know which one to any degree of certainty. There are real situations that don't obey that kind of logic so why should this, especially when the idea of "better" is not as clear cut as what you're trying to compare it to? The only thing that matches in your analogy is that there are 2 things in question.

I don't see your point here at all.
Out of two players I do believe one can be better, regardless of whether we prove he/she is so.

Likewise...

Can you even define better? That's one point.

The uncertainty in any possible observation/measurement can undermine the question itself to the point where it's meaningless- the second point. So bogbrush's comment that I quoted (where I started posting again) is a valid opinion to hold. That's pretty much all I've been trying to say with all these posts.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

Can you even define better? That's one point.

However you define it, people will have their own definitions, I definitely think most people agree with the concept one tennis player can be better than another one.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
The uncertainty in any possible observation/measurement can undermine the question itself to the point where it's meaningless- the second point.

Why ? In the example I gave earlier, there was no way of proving which of the two identical twins was the father.
It still could possibly be either one of them. Whether you think it's meaningless or not is totally irrelevant to whether it's possible, which is what I originally asked BB.

Frankly this extensive straw clutching from Bogbrush is slightly ridiculous.

Of course it is possible that one player is better than another player, just as it is possible competition at the top of the game is sometimes harder and sometimes easier over time.
It's an obvious fact, it's beyond belief how people can convince themselves differently.

It's all gotten messy tbh. Maybe time to call this one. Monte Carlos on next week anyway

temporary21 wrote:Monte Carlos on next week anyway

I'm not quite sure how that's relevant.

It Must Be Love wrote:

It is possible that one player is better than another player, just as it is possible competition at the top of the game is sometimes harder and sometimes easier.
It's an obvious fact, it's beyond belief how people can convince themselves differently.

That is all very well but there are so many variables that it is impossible to decide. Look at 2011 when Novak had his last real purple patch - now you would have said it was more competitive that year but look closer and things may make you decide otherwise even though you'd say Murray, Nadal and Federer were in better form. Novak beat Andy in the Australian Open Final that year in staight forward straight sets whereas this year in the final he was pushed a lot more by the same opponent so does this alone mean this year is more competitive than 2011?

You're analogy shows that it's possible to have a situation where there is an answer regardless of being able to prove it. It doesn't mean tennis is such a situation.

You haven't defined better though... If you wanted your analogy to actually apply in the way you intend it to then you'd have to at least define better as clearly as being someone's father otherwise all you've done is show that bogbrush's opinion is not definitely correct which we already knew.

You're saying "whether you think it's meaningless..." as if I'm giving my opinion and not stating an inescapable fact of certain other situations (not your father situation as you've pointed out numerous times now). I keep saying "other situations" as I really don't want to drag this into details of QM. With so much that is unverifiable, it is a valid enough opinion that the question of who is better in certain instances is meaningless. Obviously people give it meaning by having debates.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

It is possible that one player is better than another player, just as it is possible competition at the top of the game is sometimes harder and sometimes easier.
It's an obvious fact, it's beyond belief how people can convince themselves differently.

That is all very well but there are so many variables that it is impossible to decide. Look at 2011 when Novak had his last real purple patch - now you would have said it was more competitive that year but look closer and things may make you decide otherwise even though you'd say Murray, Nadal and Federer were in better form. Novak beat Andy in the Australian Open Final that year in staight forward straight sets whereas this year in the final he was pushed a lot more by the same opponent so does this alone mean this year is more competitive than 2011?

I never said it was easy to decide, anyway people are entitled to their own opinions on whether it has got weaker or not.

I personally think the competition for Djokovic is weaker now compared to 2011, although Djokovic himself is playing slightly worse than 2011. Federer and Nadal are playing worse than 2011 I feel, especially Federer in best of 5 when he's pushed physically (at this age he's less likely to be able to cope).
Murray for me is also playing slightly worse, but it's actually difficult to tell. Wimbledon will be big for him this year.
As for the younger guns, frankly I think they haven't really impressed me. I thought this year Nishikori would take off, but he hasn't. Raonic, Dimitrov haven't moved on much either, Del Potro is still out from injury problems.
This clay season may tell us a lot. It is Nishi's best surface I believe, so maybe he can step it up ?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:You're analogy shows that it's possible to have a situation where there is an answer regardless of being able to prove it. It doesn't mean tennis is such a situation.

But tennis is in that situation. People are better than each other. I'm almost certain I'm better than my younger sister. I can say with even more certainty that Nadal is definitely a better player than me. Just because it gets close (i.e. Nadal and Djokovic are a lot closer than me vs my sister) doesn't mean that one player can't be better.

You haven't defined better though...

Well in tennis there are many different categories: mental strength, forehand, backhand, movement etc. The better player would be the one overall better in all those categories.

With so much that is unverifiable, it is a valid enough opinion that the question of who is better in certain instances is meaningless.

It's irrelevant to the debate on whether it's possible or not.

But if you recognise that Djokovic isn't in the form of 2011 (rightly or wrongly) then the fact that the others are off-form negates the argument then as his level being lower means although the rest are at a perceived lower level it is a sort of status quo with 2011 - just a different level/standard of play.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But if you recognise that Djokovic isn't in the form of 2011 (rightly or wrongly) then the fact that the others are off-form negates the argument then as his level being lower means although the rest are at a perceived lower level it is a sort of status quo with 2011 - just a different level/standard of play.

That's what I'm saying, the overall level is lower than 2011 (Djokovic included).

It Must Be Love wrote:Frankly this extensive straw clutching from Bogbrush is slightly ridiculous.

Of course it is possible that one player is better than another player, just as it is possible competition at the top of the game is sometimes harder and sometimes easier over time.
It's an obvious fact, it's beyond belief how people can convince themselves differently.

I don't think anyone's clutching at anything nor have they convinced themselves of anything extreme like you're suggesting. You're trying to oversimplify things or make them black and white for want of a better phrase. Yes it's easy to get most people to agree that the number 1 player is better than the number 500 player. There's not too much uncertainty there (well that too depends on how much you want to use your imagination). There is a lot, lot more uncertainty involved in comparing players of a similar standing, to the point where it's not the same as comparing 2 far apart players anymore. You're trying to paint it out like acknowledging this uncertainty is the same as saying you can't compare any 2 players.

temporary21 wrote:It's all gotten messy tbh. Maybe time to call this one.  Monte Carlos on next week anyway

I'm quite excited to see how the clay season plays out this year. Are all the big guns rolling into MC to play?

break_in_the_fifth wrote: There is a lot, lot more uncertainty involved in comparing players of a similar standing, to the point where it's not the same as comparing 2 far apart players anymore. You're trying to paint it out like acknowledging this uncertainty is the same as saying you can't compare any 2 players.

I agree with you on that, there is more uncertainty.
What makes no sense to me is that the idea this uncertainty, then leads to the conclusion that me saying 'it is possible Player A is better' is wrong.
Whether two players are very close, let's say they're both on a arbitrary scale of 100 between 85 and 86, one player will either be better, or worse, or equal. I don't see any other possibility.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:But if you recognise that Djokovic isn't in the form of 2011 (rightly or wrongly) then the fact that the others are off-form negates the argument then as his level being lower means although the rest are at a perceived lower level it is a sort of status quo with 2011 - just a different level/standard of play.

That's what I'm saying, the overall level is lower than 2011 (Djokovic included).

But can that be proven in anyway though? I mean you could argue there is a stronger base of younger players breaking through than there was in 2011. You may find Novak's serve stats are better this year and other stats compared to 2011 so you see it is very difficult if not well nigh impossible to try to even begin to decide.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:But if you recognise that Djokovic isn't in the form of 2011 (rightly or wrongly) then the fact that the others are off-form negates the argument then as his level being lower means although the rest are at a perceived lower level it is a sort of status quo with 2011 - just a different level/standard of play.

That's what I'm saying, the overall level is lower than 2011 (Djokovic included).

But can that be proven in anyway though? I mean you could argue there is a stronger base of younger players breaking through than there was in 2011. You may find Novak's serve stats are better this year and other stats compared to 2011 so you see it is very difficult if not well nigh impossible to try to even begin to decide.

Well what do you think CC, do you think Djokovic is playing from what you've seen so far of him this year, or what you saw of him in 2011 ?

I've made my point: it's possible to believe that there is a definite answer to which player is better or who had tougher competition or you can believe that there is no answer and that question is meaningless without either party being crazy/unreasonable.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I've made my point: it's possible to believe that there is a definite answer to which player is better or who had tougher competition or you can believe that there is no answer and that question is meaningless without either party being crazy/unreasonable.

Well I agree with that, I just think it's ridiculous to think that there's no possibility that one of the players is better. I can understand if you say 'this one is too tight to call, I don't think it's worth me even trying to call it'- but that's different from saying 'there's no possibility at all one of them is ahead.'
The latter is what Bogbrush was basically saying, which I'm afraid had no logic.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:But if you recognise that Djokovic isn't in the form of 2011 (rightly or wrongly) then the fact that the others are off-form negates the argument then as his level being lower means although the rest are at a perceived lower level it is a sort of status quo with 2011 - just a different level/standard of play.

That's what I'm saying, the overall level is lower than 2011 (Djokovic included).

But can that be proven in anyway though? I mean you could argue there is a stronger base of younger players breaking through than there was in 2011. You may find Novak's serve stats are better this year and other stats compared to 2011 so you see it is very difficult if not well nigh impossible to try to even begin to decide.

Well what do you think CC, do you think Djokovic is playing from what you've seen so far of him this year, or what you saw of him in 2011 ?  

I am not even going to try as it is all relative. I can hardly remember what I was doinf four years ago so I'll be buggered if I can remember every nuance of Novak Djokovic's game in 2011 and compare it in every nuance to his game in 2015. I mean a fair way would be to look at stats and see what his serving stats were, his returning stats etc and compare them to now but again that would surely be fruitless as you need to take into account if Murray etc was serving and returning better then or now. You see there are just a million invariables - too many to reach a conclusion for me.

IMBL, you are not even a fan of Djoko, so all this talk is not true from you about Djoko

IMBL, I think you were a bit aggressive on this one "cop out...cheap shot...smug..lack of logic...wacky...illogical...indefensible".

As to moving any GOAT debates to the sticky, the problem with that is that you cannot move the whole forum to the sticky.

Henman Bill wrote:IMBL, I think you were a bit aggressive on this one "cop out...cheap shot...smug..lack of logic...wacky...illogical...indefensible".

That was related to specific arguments people were making, not aimed at anyone.

Henman Bill wrote:
As to moving any GOAT debates to the sticky, the problem with that is that you cannot move the whole forum to the sticky.

Pretty sure this wasn't a GOAT debate ?

Edit: Bogbrush 1-0 IMBL
Will clarify more in due course

Dont like it dont read it gents, lets be adult about this

temporary21 wrote:Dont like it dont read it gents, lets be adult about this

After reading that little exchange, I suddenly have a large amount of sympathy for you, LF and JHM.

Silver wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Dont like it dont read it gents, lets be adult about this

After reading that little exchange, I suddenly have a large amount of sympathy for you, LF and JHM.

I just realised I was sounding like Piers Morgan on twitter with my 'you're*' corrections.
Not exactly my idol...

It Must Be Love wrote:Relax, SB I was just being light hearted there.

I saw something Bogbrush said which I disagreed with, so I pointed out what I disagreed with, and now we're having a debate.
No reason for me to start looking for logic fora.

I don't think it is so much about relaxing but rather about wondering what it is you are after.  This is much the same debate that you have been having here for years.  It is one that - at least the way you navigate it - is quite nerdy and really not about tennis very much.  Also, even in the best case scenario you can only reach a conclusion that pretty much everyone agrees with anyway.

So back to my original question:

Why?

(if it is a secret, do not tell me, but I am genuinely curious).

temporary21 wrote:Ok to try and focus the debate a bit because this is getting a bit esoteric.

I think it is too late to focus. I think at this point we may as well go with the flow...

It Must Be Love wrote:A woman finds out that she is pregnant. Her only two sexual partners in the last year have been two people named Mark and Dan. She knows the father is either Mark or Dan, but she can't figure out which one. She doesn't at this point have access to the DNA test results.
So, for the statement: The father is Mark rather than Dan, is it:

a) Possible
b) Impossible

This question leads me to thoughts that worried me ever since I started following tennis:  "what does it really mean for something to be possible"?

Your example is very nice in this regard.  Let's say that in reality Dan is the father.  Then it is clearly impossible for Mark to also be the father.  Yet the woman does not know it, so from her perspective it would appear that it is possible for Mark to be the father.

This suggests some ambiguity in our language.  We often talk about things being "possible" when in reality we mean that they "appear possible relative to a certain information set".

For example, in your example it is quite natural for us to say that it is "possible that either guy could be the father" - so much so that you think that a) is "obviously" the correct answer.

The information set with respect to which we refer to something as "possible" is often inferred rather than specified.  Is it possible that Andy won 2015 AO?  Our answer would tend to be "no" rather than "it depends on the amount of information you are given".

While most people would tend to go with your answer, the answer is not as obvious as it appears to you, and ultimately depends on the interpretation of your question.

I think it is fairly clear that Fed's mix of results is more balanced than Rafa's but I am not sure why some of Rafa's fans are so concerned about it.

Suppose Rafa wins three more RGs and gets to 17 slams.  He will then have 12 RGs and 5 others.  Clearly very imbalanced.  But so what?  It will still be 17 slams.  Who is to say that 17 slams spread more evenly are better than winning 12RGs and 5 others?  Sure, there will be people who find an even spread more appealing, but there will also be those who find an astounding record at RG to be the more appealing one.

Why worry so much about the even spread?

Henman Bill wrote:IMBL, I think you were a bit aggressive on this one "cop out...cheap shot...smug..lack of logic...wacky...illogical...indefensible".

+1

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:A woman finds out that she is pregnant. Her only two sexual partners in the last year have been two people named Mark and Dan. She knows the father is either Mark or Dan, but she can't figure out which one. She doesn't at this point have access to the DNA test results.
So, for the statement: The father is Mark rather than Dan, is it:

a) Possible
b) Impossible

This question leads me to thoughts that worried me ever since I started following tennis:  "what does it really mean for something to be possible"?

Your example is very nice in this regard.  Let's say that in reality Dan is the father.  Then it is clearly impossible for Mark to also be the father.  Yet the woman does not know it, so from her perspective it would appear that it is possible for Mark to be the father.

This suggests some ambiguity in our language.  We often talk about things being "possible" when in reality we mean that they "appear possible relative to a certain information set".

For example, in your example it is quite natural for us to say that it is "possible that either guy could be the father" - so much so that you think that a) is "obviously" the correct answer.

The information set with respect to which we refer to something as "possible" is often inferred rather than specified.  Is it possible that Andy won 2015 AO?  Our answer would tend to be "no" rather than "it depends on the amount of information you are given".

While most people would tend to go with your answer, the answer is not as obvious as it appears to you, and ultimately depends on the interpretation of your question.

Regarding your earlier post SB, I sent you a PM

I understand the point you're making, perhaps I can clarify further:
I should have said is it possible that either of them are the father.

I suppose that could mean in terms of the relation it has to the competition in terms of quality- I could have asked 'is it possible that either time period is stronger'.
This way even if you interpret 'possible' in the way you did (which as you guessed was not how I was using the term), then there's no issue.

I do not care much for this whole argument - see my above "go with the flow" line - so I was commenting on something rather arbitrarily selected.

summerblues wrote:I think it is fairly clear that Fed's mix of results is more balanced than Rafa's but I am not sure why some of Rafa's fans are so concerned about it.

Suppose Rafa wins three more RGs and gets to 17 slams.  He will then have 12 RGs and 5 others.  Clearly very imbalanced.  But so what?  It will still be 17 slams.  Who is to say that 17 slams spread more evenly are better than winning 12RGs and 5 others?  Sure, there will be people who find an even spread more appealing, but there will also be those who find an astounding record at RG to be the more appealing one.

Why worry so much about the even spread?

I suppose you could argue it from both sides.

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

I kind of disagree on two points:

First, it is not clear to me that standard deviation would make Rafa's numbers look more spread if there were two clay slams.

Second, even aside from that, it is not clear to me either that using 2hc slams is a "flaw".  Tennis is what tennis is - there are two HC slams because tennis effectively values HC prowess more than success on other surfaces.  So, in effect, having HC as an outlier in one's stats is less of an outlier than having clay as an outlier in the stats.  Taking stats across all slams picks that up.  If instead of measuring across slams you would measure across surfaces, you would obfuscate that.

Going a little off-topic but closer to the original intention of this thread:

I think a sport can be in a good (or bad) state with or without one player dominating.  As a number of posters said before, I think it depends on a number of things.  Some of them more substantive - how good and how entertaining is the tennis being played at the top.  Also, for better of for worse, it will also depend on less substantive things - how can people relate to the players at the top, how charismatic do they find them, or even what country the players are from?

I think Nole - if he were to become a truly dominant player over the next year or two - has a few things against him in this regard.

First, he has been around for a while.  It is not that easy to sell someone who has been around for 10 years as the next exciting thing.

Second, his game is a touch metronomic, which does not appeal to people all that much.  Federer has his casual brilliance and Rafa has his fight-till-the-bitter-end image, both of which are probably more exciting.

Third, Nole is from Serbia.  I do not think this would be fatal if he had other sellable attributes but it sure does not help.

But in general, I do not think a dominant player needs to hurt sport.  Just look at what Tiger has done for golf - at least in terms of popularity.

I think Novak needs Fedal around for him to stay popular. I mean without Fedal, there'll be no competition for him and things will turn boring. Fedal are well loved for most and Novak having competitive, even classic matches with them would make many recognize his brilliance.

Fed vs Novak on fast HCs and on grass and Rafa vs Novak on clay can produce some sparks, and may be better matches than Fedal matches now, though Fedal matches still have the buzz around them whether they're Classic or non classic, something non Fedal matches still miss.

Unless Delpo and Murray step up to challenge Novak when Fedal retire, I do feel things will become boring when Fedal are gone. Or, we have new stars in the horizon who are charismatic and brilliant enough to generate interest and hope.

" . Tennis is what tennis is - there are two HC slams
because tennis effectively values HC prowess more than success on other
surfaces."

Is thus true though? Thought the lopsided HC spread was as a result of it being cheaper to build temporarily/maintain?

summerblues wrote:I think Nole - if he were to become a truly dominant player over the next year or two - has a few things against him in this regard.

First, he has been around for a while.  It is not that easy to sell someone who has been around for 10 years as the next exciting thing.

I agree.

I don't see him having a huge surge in popularity.

I do think though, that should he have a multi-slam year this year and end his career in the 10+ slam category, he will earn himself some proper respect.

Your point about style has some merit but it depends on the flow of the matches. If he's winning at a canter, it will look boring. If however, he gets into a few barnburners and hauls himself across the winning line, his style won't matter.

And to give him credit, I can't think of a player who has generated more great matches in recent years. Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, Del Potro... Novak has a style that seems to allow all these players to play their best against him!

The Serbia point I'm not so sure about. I don't sense it's an issue in the UK but I guess it could be in other parts of the world.

I'm sure Jahu is quite happy to tell you why it's a problem!

No no, it's weekend, I'm not in a mood for geography

I like the fact he is from Serbia because I like the fact that tennis has spread from once a sport for France/UK/US/Australia to become a sport played through (and represnted by top players from) all of Europe (including Eastern Europe) and all of the Americas (including Latin America).

Even better if the top 20 one day started featuring more players from Africa, the Middle East, and Asian countries like India, China and Indonesia. Tennis is arguably still a game played primarily in Europe/Americas/Australia rather than the wholw world.

On the spread of slams, I think once you have 1 of each slam, that is the main thing. 2 of every slam or 3 of every slam would be really awesome but as long as you have 1 of each then I don't see the spread as being that critical.

For Nadal vs Federer, Nadal's is weighted more heavily to a single event, but on the other hand he has 2 on every surface. Depends how you look at it. Really don't think the argument cuts more one way or the other, at the end of the day total slams is going to count most.

HB, yes good to see Eastern Block on Tennis, used to be only heavy sports for them like boxing, weight lifting, gymnastics etc.

Though WTA has ben overrun by Eastern players, apart from that Dinosaur Serena, I would love and I'm missing some Western girls on top of WTA, i.e Usa, Uk, Germany, France etc.

IMBL you are doing a wonderful job of providing evidence and logic to BB, who doesn't want to be convinced. I agree with you fully that of course there are ups and down. The consensus is that you must have other great players and rivalries to elevate both the level of the game and the excitement in it. The idea that simply because there are 4 slams that there are no fluctuations in the level at the top of the tour I think is completely not germane to the discussion at hand. I am Novak fan and this year he really hasn't played that great, he has dropped sets to players that frankly if he was playing well couldn't get a game off of him. Yet he is has won the last 5 slams and Masters. I think we have to see if Murray and Nadal regain their footing or we could very much have the dreaded W word resurface like the dark days of the early to mid 2000s.

If Nadal goes out to some random and Novak still fails to take RG it would be absolutely hilarious. New competition winning and Novak crying would be a joy to watch as a neutral.