Tennis as it is and how it isn't !

Tennis is a gladatorial game between 1 to 4 people.
The whole idea being to win 3 out of 5 or 2 out of 3 sets .
Simples.

Or so you would think!

But with the right statistics and B-----it ANYONE (apart from me) can prove black is
white and white is black.

We purport to be tennis fans on this site, but the old *My Dad is bigger than Your Dad*
prevails. For Heavens sake - Are we knowledgable tennis fans or Kids fighting in the
back yard ?

EVERY Tennis Player deserves kudos - if only for the fact that that they are 200% gitter
than any one of us will ever be.

yummymummy wrote:Are we knowledgable tennis fans or Kids fighting in the
back yard ?

I like to think I'm a bit of both with a dash of bitter lemon thrown in.
What's 'gitter'?

oh dear !

I meant FITTER

Yummymummy

If this was 606 I would give you five stars immediately! As it is I will settle for

TA !!!!!!!!!!!!

I never saw myself as a git, but if you say "they are gitter" than Noleisthegittest

To git or not to git
That is the question.
Should I git or should I fit?

gottle o' geer, gottle o' geer

Anyway I agree with yummy. This agenda that some people come on here to prove that certain player is greater than anyone and everything can get annoying. All the great players of the game deserve a certain amount of respect for what they have accomplished and the joy that they provide.

socal1976 wrote: All the great players of the game deserve a certain amount of respect for what they have accomplished and the joy that they provide.

Even "no-shot Hewitt"?

You are being very craft there julius. I said one-shot hewitt in context of how he is a relatively weak world #1, i think he is a great player. Without question, but in terms of a #1 player I would say he is in the bottom tier, no shame in that.

Don't knock Lleyton. He's basically the 2001 version of Djokovic.

socal1976 wrote:You are being very craft there julius. I said one-shot hewitt in context of how he is a relatively weak world #1, i think he is a great player. Without question, but in terms of a #1 player I would say he is in the bottom tier, no shame in that.

plus!!! he won Davis cup....TWICE !

Bogbrush, Mr. "Can I bring the rain for your sunshine", I think it is obvious that Djokovic is a far superior athlete and player when compared with hewitt. Lleyton did have some injuries to be fair that did curtail some of his success. But mostly what happened is that newer and bigger hitting generation came on the scene and overpowered a once dominant player.

Novak is so much better than Hewitt right now it isn't even funny. Who has a better forehand and backhand, both areas go to Djokovic hands down. Not to mention Novak is equally fast and has about 4 inches in height on hewitt.

They are basically the same player; great returns, chase everything down and use double-handed backhands to make strong shots from unpromising positions.

One benefits from modern technology and conditioning but other than that frankly if you've seen one you've seen them all.

Hewitt was brilliant when at his physical peak and was clearly the best player on the tour for some time, something Djokovic has yet to achieve.

Disagree, Novak's innate skill level is far higher than Lleytons. Their shot production is completely different also from a technical perspective. Hewitt performed well in the twilight years between Sampras and Federer, Novak is making his own statement in a far stronger era.

We might as well label all players like another, whats the obsession with pigeon-holing players as somebody else before them. Why not call Hewitt the new Chang, and on ad infinitum. Hewitt won 29 titles in all and 2 slams.
Djokovic has already won 26 titles and 3 slams....and counting!

So all players are as good as each other just like some trendy school sports day?

Statistics are just a way of tricking people who don't like numbers?

We should all love everyone equally because they deserve it?

Where's the fun in that?

lol...not just trendy, schools up and down the land, thanks to the last government, cant now run competitive tournaments for individual sports for fear of offending those who arent very good. So now its all about team sports and prizes for all....and we wonder why we're not producing world beating tennis players. Not when the guy who loses 6-0 6-0 gets a trophy, a certificate and a cuddle.

lydian wrote:Not when the guy who loses 6-0 6-0 gets a trophy, a certificate and a cuddle.

That's Jana Novotna you're thinking of.

What guy ?

WHAT GUY ?????????????????

AND whilst we're at it

One (just ONE) typo and you all got it in for me

Which brings me to that classic line from Carry of Caesar
*Infamy Infamy - they've all got it in for me *

yummymummy wrote:One (just ONE) typo ...Carry of Caesar

Carry of Caesar? Carry off Caesar? Carrie Anne Caesar?

We managed to get a 'my-dad-is-...' even in this thread!

Behave the pair of you !

On ON !! Julius

See - you're doing it again (and so is I )

socal1976 wrote: Anyway I agree with yummy. This agenda that some people come on here to prove that certain player is greater than anyone and everything can get annoying. All the great players of the game deserve a certain amount of respect for what they have accomplished and the joy that they provide.

Socal - do you actually listen to yourself - yummy's post was directed at you just as much (if not more atm!) than the next poster. This is the strongest era, and novak is the strongest within it blah, blah, blah - - I suppose you think the post was intended for Federer and Nadal fans exclusively?

Again time please find where it is that i said this era is the strongest, i said it is stronger than it has been in the last 5 or 10 years. What exactly is so controversial about that comment. Basically, i think her post is directed more at the extremist fed camp frankly. They are the only ones I see in here who routinely try to dismiss and take credit away from other champions. If anything I pretty much say nice things about all the top players. But a certain variety of fed fan, not all of them spend every minute on this website advancing an agenda to bring their favorite player up by tearing away at his contemporaries and even his predecessors. I don't know i don't see too many Nadal fans knocking Djokovic or too many Djokovic fans knocking Nadal. What I do see are a lot of Fed fans who are out to dismiss and diminish the accomplishments of Federer's successors and contemporaries.

socal1976 wrote:i don't see too many Nadal fans knocking Djokovic.

Unsurprising, given his apalling record in the last 18 months.

socal1976 wrote:or too many Djokovic fans knocking Nadal.

Unsurprising, since praising Nadal enhances Djokovics reputation.

"I don't know i don't see too many Nadal fans knocking Djokovic"

Not surprising socal because most of them have left , as have the Murray ones, had they still been here they probably wouldn't have anyway!

So it now looks like a site contributed mainly by Federer or Djokovic fans such as yourself.

socal1976 wrote:They are the only ones I see in here who routinely try to dismiss and take credit away from other champions. If anything I pretty much say nice things about all the top players

Unless they're called Hewitt, Roddick or Safin.

Julius, that isn't fair in a comparison between today's stars and stars of the past obviously my argument is that the game has gotten better the last 5 or 10 years so we have to make a comparison between players. And I prefaced my post by saying they were all great players to an extent just when you look at them in context of the #1 ranking they are weak number ones.

Sportslover it is a shame that the Nadal fans left maybe it is a result of a certain group of Fed extremists (not all his fans many of them are quite nice) who must cram down an agenda of diminishing Nadal in every post. Like I said even when we had more Nadal fans very few them one try to diminish novak and vice versa Novak fans v. Nadal. It only seems that the extreme Fed fan is the one that continually has to rain on the parade and diminish or dismiss the accomplishments of others.

Comparisons, yes, but following up comments like "one-shot Hewitt" or "no-shot Roddick" or "partying til 7am" Safin etc with "I say nice things about them" is a bit contradictory. That's just my observation.

You are entitled to your opinion. Never been a big fan of tennis of that period kind of like the cars Detroit manufactured in the late 70s and 80s (or even today really) not my cup of tea. And for the record I accept that maybe I was harsh with Roddick and hewitt with those comments. As for Marat i feel my commentary was more a compliment than anything.

Julius it is objective and verifiable what I am talking about look at the #1s from 1996-2003 and then compare them to all the other #1s. Rios, Muster, Kafelnikov, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Moya, Ferrero, Kuerten v. the other #1s. I mean there really isn't much of an argument.

Muster - a monster
Kafelnokov - excellent player
Safin - massive talent, giant power, the sort of guy who would overwhelm your favourite.
Kuerten - clay genius

You seem to get your ratings from the perspective of 2011. I can't imagine why.

No, bogbrush as usual you miss the jist of what I am saying. Lets break number #1s into three categories. Pre-1996, 1996-2003, and post 03. It is crystal clear the difference between the three lists and the level of player that attained the #1 ranking in that period:

1. Pre-96: Nastase, Newcombe, Borg, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Wilander, Courier, Agassi

2. 96-03: Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Rios, Kafelnikov, muster, moya, kuerten, safin, ferrero (Andre pete both lists),


3. Post 03: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

One of these groupings is clearly weaker when you look at the average strength of all the number #1 players. It isn't a coincidence that virtually every weaker #1 player we had played in that era.

bogbrush wrote:Muster - a monster
Kafelnokov - excellent player
Safin - massive talent, giant power, the sort of guy who would overwhelm your favourite.
Kuerten - clay genius

You seem to get your ratings from the perspective of 2011. I can't imagine why.

Muster - a one surface player who only *excelled* on clay.
Kavelnikov - Have you SEEN HIM recently ? took to gambling and put on
AT LEAST 5 stone
Safin - Loved wine women and song more than tennis and Never fulfilled
his potential!
GooGa - Lovely man but a bit of a beach bum and his hip problems put and
early end to his career .

Thus are the Mighty fallen

Right yummy, soooooo we're assessing them on their performance NOW??

Socal, where does Chang fit in?

Talk about selectivity!!! Oh, and for post 03 only two of those #1s are going to get a mention in any serious greats discussion.

Chang was the *cramp* King ! BB

Oh - there was me thinking he'd been airbrushed from the pre-96 list.

And Ferrerro gets two mentions.

In any case, the dates are laughably arbitary.

I NEVER mentioned Ferrerro BB

But you have to admit that this last decade has been a damn
site more interesting than the last!

yummymummy wrote:I NEVER mentioned Ferrerro BB

But you have to admit that this last decade has been a damn
site more interesting than the last!

No, I know. That was Socal.

I wasn't a fan of 90's Wimbledon but I was happy with the game elsewhere.

bogbrush wrote:

yummymummy wrote:I NEVER mentioned Ferrerro BB

But you have to admit that this last decade has been a damn
site more interesting than the last!

No, I know. That was Socal.

I wasn't a fan of 90's Wimbledon but I was happy with the game elsewhere.

Mea Culpa BB


The ONLY thing that really GOT to me was the rain delay at Wimby when Tim and Goran wereoff the court JUST when Henman held the upper hand !

yummymummy wrote:

Muster - a one surface player who only *excelled* on clay.
Kavelnikov - Have you SEEN HIM recently ? took to gambling and put on
AT LEAST 5 stone
Safin - Loved wine women and song more than tennis and Never fulfilled
his potential!
GooGa - Lovely man but a bit of a beach bum and his hip problems put and
early end to his career .

You want to play hard ball with me Yummy?? If so take that!!

Muster: a spirited warrior who scared the hell out if his opponent rotating a truncheon in the air
Kaleshnikov: didn't even know if this was a player or a shotgun
Safin: a Russian oligarch who got lost into centre court after an hangover
Googal: a hippie who smoked drunk and played guitar during the changing ends

Now you tell me what was this wicked era all about

bogbrush wrote:Right yummy, soooooo we're assessing them on their performance NOW??

Socal, where does Chang fit in?

Talk about selectivity!!! Oh, and for post 03 only two of those #1s are going to get a mention in any serious greats discussion.

Selectivity, the reason Chang wasn't selected was for the simple reason that he never became number one. Although if he came up 5 to 7 years later some of his best years might have gotten him a couple of weeks at number in the weak number one era. So the reason Chang isn't mentioned is because he never attained the number #1 ranking.

Oh and I made a typo and mentioned Ferrero twice, so just ignore it, now that your tennis arguments are lacking any facts and are replete with inadequate logic you are resorting to being the typo police?

Tennis is a gladatorial game between 1 to 4 people.

----------

Surely it's between 2 or 4 people. Tennis with one person would be quite dire to watch. The serve would simply never be returned.........

Super D Boon wrote:Tennis with one person would be quite dire to watch. The serve would simply never be returned.........

Or worse, it could just be one guy standing there waiting to receive!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Tennis with one person would be quite dire to watch. The serve would simply never be returned.........

Or worse, it could just be one guy standing there waiting to receive!

I disagree, theoretically there's always a chance that you lose by committing a massive number of double faults

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Tennis with one person would be quite dire to watch. The serve would simply never be returned.........

Or worse, it could just be one guy standing there waiting to receive!

And these days there'd be no time delay called.

Of course there could be three players. One playing into the doubles, the other two back into the singles.

What incredible practise for a top player that would be!

yummymummy wrote:But with the right statistics and B-----it ANYONE (apart from me) can prove black is
white and white is black.

If you stare at a black object (30 seconds) and look away you will see its white afterimage and vice versa. So the afterimage of a negative is a positive.

You can use the following as an example - the negative image of Che Guevara. Stare at it for 30 seconds then move your view to the blank white section on the right of the screen, you will see the positive image; that is black is white and white is black.

ps if you focus on the black spot of the eye that will help. The afterimage doesn't last long but should be very clear.