Review of the Year; a Federer fans perspective

First topic message reminder :

So it's all done and what do I think about 2012? How do I mark it?

Well it has to get 9/10 against a "par" score of 5. I fancied he might recapture the #1, maybe, but I didn't dream he'd have it done by Wimbledon. My idea was that maybe by the US Open he could have got it back; instead he went into that tournament already assured of exiting it as the top player. To get past the 300 weeks mark was even better; there's a reason why cricketers raise their bats at the one extra run that clicks over another set of three figures, and it applies here too.

He also secured his 17th Slam, and 7th Wimbledon. There's no question that this was the one he'd have most wanted - it brought him level with Pete Sampras as the most successful Wimbledon champion ever. The manner of victory would be just as satisfying, taking out his two in-prime challengers in the semi and final. Wonderful stuff.

Anyway, how did the year pan out?

He started with a depressingly familiar loss to Nadal at the Australian. While not what he'd wanted, the AO is a far cry from the fast surface it was until 2007 and nobody was too shocked at that. At least no ranking points were lost.

The first sign of things to come came at Rotterdam where he was slipping to defeat against Davydenko until pulling out the first good turnaround of the season; something that became a feature of the year. In Dubai he got the better of Andy Murray in the final and then headed to Indian Wells to make a hat-trick of tournament wins. There we got a real look at his level when he defeated Nadal en route to the win. An early loss to Roddick in Miami (Andy thereby securing bragging rights as the winner of their final professional match!) wasn't so smart, and then he skipped Monte Carlo in favour of an abbreviated clay campaign. This was hugely successful as his superior adaptability allowed him to win on the slippy blue clay of Madrid, followed by semi appearances in Rome and Roland Garros.

Onto grass where he experienced his only defeat against a 30+ year old player in a zillion years, to Tommy Haas in Halle. The sound clay effort, combined with Djokovic losing three times to Nadal on clay in a big turnaround from their 2011 form meant that he could get the #1 position by winning Wimbledon, so long as Djokovic fell before the final. The draw made these two birds hittable by one stone, by putting them in the same half. The omens weren't good as Federer was striken with back problems in barely scraping past Benneteau from two sets down, then literally limped past Malisse in the next round. However he recovered with a beat-down on perrenial punching bag Youzhny before a semi-final appointment with Djokovic, who had looked dominant through the event until then. Their semi-final simmered for two sets but then Federer was able to sprint awat from 4-4 in the 3rd set. The final followed and the records were set to tumble.

The Olympics may, in retrospect, have been a bridge too far; certainly the Del Potro semi-final can't have helped, but Murray gave him a bit of a pasting in the final, and he pulled out of Toronto (which was more or less a walkover for Djokovic sans top 4 rivals) missing out on another chance to extend his lead at the top of the rankings.

Cincinnatti saw a return to resurgence and he set a remarkable new record; the first Masters Trophy won without dropping serve throughout the tournament (and not many break points either), including a bagel set over Djokovic in the final. In hindsight this was the last high point of the season as a disappointing US Open was ended in the quarters by Berdych, followed by poor showings in Shanghai and Basel. He pulled out of Paris to muster resources for a 7th year-end event but came up short by the narrowest of margins.

So he ends the year with not much left to go for in terms of records; an 8th Wimbledon is probably the only realistic mark left. He does end the year looking a bit knackered, but that's understandable after the big push for #1; 2013 should see a less extravagent schedule, including no Olympics to mess things up, and a few key events skipped.

2012 was a great year for the 31 year old, coming back after Djokovic's dominant 2011 to head the rankings for a while and get a share of the Slam pie plus three more masters events. It could have been even better, but not by much. I think 2013 could still be worth turning up for.

I sincerely hope not Oh brother Silver..

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy or even Hawkeye.

So then emancipator ..... seems like I was hoodwinked by break in the fifth when he claimed that Fed "lacks all court skills and attacking prowess" (yet somehow mysteriously won 17 Slams even with such a defective game)....??

You say he was being sarcastic, and if so I've been "had" by taking the assessment at face value. Must say I did find it more than a little strange

Lol BIT5

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why does anyone have to "buy who is the best/greatest" Its only the history books that will tell you that and even then the historians will bring it down to statistics. There is far too much biased opinion whilst they are still active players. As has been asked already are you making judgement on their achievements ( because that is still work in progress ) or their style of play ..the tennis purist will have a different opinion about Federer .. than he does of Nadal. Whilst Nadals game is by far the best to those who are not attracted by Federers style.
The arguments made for both sides each in their own way are valid. But who will emerge the best/or the greatest will be in the memories of those who watched their careers unfold. Who was the best the greatest, Laver ?? Connors ?? McEnroe ?? Borg? Sampras ? Those of us who watched them will still have our opinion no matter what the statistics say .

I agree about statistics. What I tried to do was introduce some which are fairly compelling.

Oh, and I think Craig, bantroban, Murdoch and socal may argue about the highlighted passage.

Amazingly enough BB has me sussed out!! But what exactly do you mean 'Haddie-nuff'? What is "the best"? If you mean Nadal in full flow is one of the most effective players ever, then I agree, but it's still way way behind Federer or McEnroe in terms of jaw dropping ability to play ever shot

I like Nadal, but if I could choose to watch him or Miloslav Mecir in his heyday it would be the mercurial Czech/Slovakian every time. Contrary to what people think, I like Murray because when he's at his best (i.e. not moping around for an hour) he also plays a lovely game that is full of variety - as we saw at The Olympics

I emphasise I like Nadal and like watching him play, but he's lower on my list

Hence, these discussions are objective - nobody is right or wrong. I had no time for Sampras's game but loved Agassi's. Each to their own

Banbro summed it up pretty much perfectly here, Nadal is a great player but certainly have a boring game and by achievements he is not at the top either but Nadal got his destiny at his own hands, he can come back and win 10 more slams and make himself as the GOAT.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Well that is I think what I am saying am I not ???? I agree with your comments as I said "its in the eye of the beholder" and your last sentence says it all for me.. I had no time for Pistol Pete either, that doesn´t mean to say I didn´t realise his ability or his achievements. What I actually said was "the best" will only be the player that each tennis enthusiast believes them to be... statistics wont mean a fig in the final analysis. When the final book is written it will have a bias depending on who writes it.

Good point again, so it boils down to majority of players and fans, and its well know that most players ,fans and media believe Roger is the GOAT.

lydian wrote:
If JHM hadnt stopped his Cryptic Thread...

BTW and back to OP, does anyone think after a great 2012 that Federer will reach a slam final again?

I very much believe Fed has more chance of winning a slam in 2012 than Djokovic, Thats the difference btw the Greatest and Djoko,he will be in a slide next year once Murray steps it up.

In 1979 Margaret Thatcher won the majority needed for a Conservative House of Parliament.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I very much believe Fed has more chance of winning a slam in 2012 than Djokovic, Thats the difference btw the Greatest and Djoko,he will be in a slide next year once Murray steps it up.

Not entirely sure I follow that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:...I think he'll struggle to get to the semis in most of them outside USO...

Interesting - I thought you were previously arguing that Fed was as good, if not better than ever (apologies if I got that wrong), yet you think that 1/4 finals are the realistic best he can expect these days in a GS.

That was puzzling me too. Unless there are half a dozen players better now than he was in 2005-7......

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I very much believe Fed has more chance of winning a slam in 2012 than Djokovic, Thats the difference btw the Greatest and Djoko,he will be in a slide next year once Murray steps it up.

Not entirely sure I follow that.

Not sure I do either IC.

A 31 year old in twilight of career has a better chance across four different Slams than World No.1 in his prime...?

Really?

I agree with Bogbrush here, if I understand his post correctly anyway.
Funnily enough both Tenez and Lydian argue that Federer has improved since that time...

But I simply don't see it. His forehand has not been as consistent, he makes more errors than before.

lags72 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I very much believe Fed has more chance of winning a slam in 2012 than Djokovic, Thats the difference btw the Greatest and Djoko,he will be in a slide next year once Murray steps it up.

Not entirely sure I follow that.

Not sure I do either IC.

A 31 year old in twilight of career has a better chance across four different Slams than World No.1 in his prime...?

Really?

Yes, also IC was also talking about a prediction for 2012, for which the tennis season is over.

It may be a typo for 2013 though, but that would be an assumption; assumptions lead to hypotheticals, and Julius doesn't like hypotheticals

And in 1983 she furthened her grip on the parliament, as Conservative seats increased from 339 to 397.

It Must Be Love wrote:And in 1983 she furthened her grip on the parliament, as Conservative seats increased from 339 to 397.

I think she also won the WTA most-improved player of the year award in '83

IMBL : I took it to be a straightforward typo, simply because in the very same line he refers to "next year"

lags72 wrote:IMBL : I took it to be a straightforward typo, simply because in the very same line he refers to "next year"

Yes, that's what I thought too.
But then it would still, however obvious it is, be an assumption, which could in turn lead to hypotheticals or statements which aren't stats.

And we know how Julius feels about that

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:And in 1983 she furthened her grip on the parliament, as Conservative seats increased from 339 to 397.

I think she also won the WTA most-improved player of the year award in '83

Yes, good knowledge*

*I hope you didn't just look that up on Wikipedia though

It Must Be Love wrote:

lags72 wrote:IMBL : I took it to be a straightforward typo, simply because in the very same line he refers to "next year"

Yes, that's what I thought too.
But then it would still, however obvious it is, be an assumption, which could in turn lead to hypotheticals or statements which aren't stats.

And we know how Julius feels about that

Apart from the fact that it shouldn't matter to anyone what I feel about it, yes, I do always think that facts, where available, lend more weight to an argument than guesswork. Go figure.

It Must Be Love wrote:

lags72 wrote:IMBL : I took it to be a straightforward typo, simply because in the very same line he refers to "next year"

Yes, that's what I thought too.
But then it would still, however obvious it is, be an assumption, which could in turn lead to hypotheticals or statements which aren't stats.

And we know how Julius feels about that

Ah but I have to say I'm very much in the Julius camp as far as that goes.

I've never been a fan of the could have/should have/might have school of theorising, hypotheticals, and general speculation

I didn't really believe my best mate when he told me that he could have beaten Borg IF he had got through Wimbledon qualis and IF he had then played better than him in the first round (even though it seemed a perfectly feasible outcome to him ..... )

Haddie-nuff wrote:Silver

Interesting last comment . I would like to ask you do you really believe that Rafa cannot win RG if he is not seeded in the top 4. ? I am curious as to your reasons for that

I think he might be trying to state Fed has more chance of reaching/winning the finals if Rafa don't make it that far, Rafa can win RG what ever the draw is if he is fully fit, but nobody knows what Rafa gonna turn up next year and if he is not at his best and forced to face say Murray in Quarters, Djoko in Semi's and Fed in finals, he may not find it easy like he did in his peak years.

It Must Be Love wrote:

lags72 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I very much believe Fed has more chance of winning a slam in 2012 than Djokovic, Thats the difference btw the Greatest and Djoko,he will be in a slide next year once Murray steps it up.

Not entirely sure I follow that.

Not sure I do either IC.

A 31 year old in twilight of career has a better chance across four different Slams than World No.1 in his prime...?

Really?

Yes, also IC was also talking about a prediction for 2012, for which the tennis season is over.

It may be a typo for 2013 though, but that would be an assumption; assumptions lead to hypotheticals, and Julius doesn't like hypotheticals

It was clearly a typo, tired after a long day of work and tried to squeeze in with some replies when I got a break.

@ Lags, well I see Murray as NO.1 sooner or later, people laughed at my thread [almost everybody] when I posted that after his Wimbledon loss, historically almost every prediction for this year happen to be right from Wimbledon for me [some looked like ridiculous before hand], I still back Murray as No.1 for 2013 even if nobody believe it.

IC - I don't disagree that Murray has the potential to become World No.1 at some point.

But I think that's an entirely separate matter from the relative prospects of Novak and Roger taking a Slam (or more...) next year ; for which the odds are surely much more in Novak's favour.

Julius, I think you may be missing my point here.
When I analyse the past, I look at both the statistics of the past, as well as the circumstances they took place in, to reach a judgement. This helps me form my conclusion.

Now this doesn't mean I blindly follow stats, or just disregard them. Nor does it mean I suddenly assume all hypotheticals to be true.

If Julius, you watch politics you will be familiar with the words of politicians.
They present facts, which even if factually correct, are potentially misleading. 'How so?' one may ask. This, I believe, can be put down to the fact that circumstances are always changing. If we blindly follow stats without examining the circumstances too you may find yourself regularly misled.

This doesn't just apply to politics, it can be applied to all walks of life. Economics is an example. Keynesians may argue that Roosevelts New Deal Stimulus helped America out of the recession, using stats showing a percentage increase in government spending directly linked to economic growth. They could argue that we should do the same now in the UK and USA, but if we analyse closely the circumstances may have changed; Roosevelts policies may have only worked as there wa a larger space capacity in the USA economy at that time.

Anyway my principle is that while looking at a stat I will always consider the circumstances rather than just blindly following them. Whether Mr. Cameron, Mr. Miliband, or Mr. Julius of v2 tells me differently I will follow this principle.

lags72 wrote:IC - I don't disagree that Murray has the potential to become World No.1 at some point.

But I think that's an entirely separate matter from the relative prospects of Novak and Roger taking a Slam (or more...) next year ; for which the odds are surely much more in Novak's favour.

Well thats what makes the tennis forum interesting people have different views and opinions, and we have to wait and watch to see whose observation goes right.

IMBL, by 'considering the circumstances', do you mean 'considering all the facts'?
Perhaps not, but if so, then you are still dealing with facts (and not just stats). Politicians are selective in their facts and rarely present them all.

However, that is a different matter than what if's, if only's etc - those are hypotheticals, and while they can be a bit of fun, and help to express opinions, the idea of 'What if peak Sampras had played peak Laver', or 'if only Agassi had been 2 inches taller', or 'if Connors had played the FO he'd have won a career slam' are, to me at least, of little interest, because they didn't happen and are unproveable and can be countered by a myriad other 'what if's', ad infinitum.
Also posters often, perhaps nearly always, use them to re-write history in favour of their own favourite player. Quelle surprise.

There's a world of difference between saying 'Murray should have been more aggressive on the second serve returns' and saying 'Murray would have won if he had been more aggressive on the second serve returns'.

Also posters often, perhaps nearly always, use them to re-write history in favour of their own favourite player. Quelle surprise.
----------------------------------
Well you see JM you are echoing exactly what I said in my post
ie

What I actually said was "the best" will only be the player that each tennis enthusiast believes them to be... statistics wont mean a fig in the final analysis. When the final book is written it will have a bias depending on who writes it.
------------------
The facts and statistics will tell you a different story I know but I believe Bjorn Borg and Agassi to be better than Sampras..."see what I mean Harry ???"

H-N, if you base that belief on what Agassi achieved compared to what Sampras achieved, then fair enough (e.g. the career slam), but if you base it on what Agassi would have achieved if...he had not gone AWOL, played Wimby earlier in his career etc, then I would take issue.

I was a big Agassi fan, loved it when he beat Sampras, but I can't objectively say he was a greater player.

invisiblecoolers wrote:I very much believe Fed has more chance of winning a slam in 2012 than Djokovic, Thats the difference btw the Greatest and Djoko,he will be in a slide next year once Murray steps it up.

4 slams and 6 finals in the last 2 years v 1 slam and 2 finals in the same period would suggest otherwise.

Also, I thought Murray 'stepped it up' last year and Novak still beat him more often than not?

Yes, I still believe Djokovic and Nadal are - when on form - simply better players than Murray, they have that special X Factor that elevates them into being able to win matches under the most extreme pressure.
In contrast, just during this autumn Murray lost 3 straight tournament matches when holding match points...I would never expect Fed/Nad/Djo to do that. Murray is a great great player...I just dont believe he's an all-time great and I still think his New York win was massively aided by the wind (vs Berdych, vs Djokovic).

"The Wind"

Yes it was only available for Andy and not his opponents lol

Love these forums and comments from the "keyboard experts"

lydian wrote:Yes, I still believe Djokovic and Nadal are - when on form - simply better players than Murray, they have that special X Factor that elevates them into being able to win matches under the most extreme pressure.
In contrast, just during this autumn Murray lost 3 straight tournament matches when holding match points...I would never expect Fed/Nad/Djo to do that. Murray is a great great player...I just dont believe he's an all-time great and I still think his New York win was massively aided by the wind (vs Berdych, vs Djokovic).

I agree with you Lydian in that Murray is a great player and he and his game has matured somewhat under the guidance of Lendl. However the one area where I think he cannot compete with the other three is the mental strength.. he tries when on court to display a more mature approach, but under duress the old Andy is clearly there for all to see. This is one aspect I really do not see Andy ever getting to grips with. Lendl has taught him to try not to display his emotions on court (and what a better teacher could he have) But Andy is Andy

lydian wrote:Yes, I still believe Djokovic and Nadal are - when on form - simply better players than Murray, they have that special X Factor that elevates them into being able to win matches under the most extreme pressure.
In contrast, just during this autumn Murray lost 3 straight tournament matches when holding match points...I would never expect Fed/Nad/Djo to do that. Murray is a great great player...I just dont believe he's an all-time great and I still think his New York win was massively aided by the wind (vs Berdych, vs Djokovic).

lydian - Whilst not disagreeing with the fundamental thrust of your argument here I do feel you are being harsh on Murray in your closing sentence.

I'm really not sure if many people would actually claim that - as of today - Murray is "an all-time-great" so in that sense I also think it's unfair to use that label only to then point out that it doesn't apply to him. As for the wind factor I'm a little surprised (based on all I see from you as a balanced poster) that you don't subscribe to the level playing field theory..... I'm pretty certain the wind would have been blowing on both sides of the court at any given time.

Nadal and Federer have been star performers virtually throughout their pro careers, and Djokovic of course has got a lot closer to them in the last two years. I don't think Andy can be compared to those three in terms of achievements to date.

Tennis is mainly an outdoor sport. Therefore one of the skills of the game is being able to master the differing conditions. For instance playing in the mid-day/early afternoon heat in places like NY as opposed to a night game under the floodlights. Playing at Wimbledon when the sun is moving over the grandstands and causing shadows across the court. We hear ad nauseum on this forum about the uniformity of slow courts and how this is spoiling the game because a lot of the players play the same way. Then all of a sudden when something means the players have to adapt to playing in different conditions someone is massively aided.

and by the way I would never claim that Murray is 'an all-time great' unless he were to suddenly start dominating mens tennis for 2 or 3 years. Which I don't think he will.

No Julius, once again you totally miss the point. I am not talking about how we can expand on hypotheticals at all.
My point is that when we look at certain statistics we have to look at the circumstances as well.
Being 'objective' does not entail just looking at stats and ignoring the circumstances, that's a laughable idea (will expand on this later). Being objective means you look at the stats, and the circumstances, and come to an objective conclusion based on that.
Of course this is practically impossible to acheive, as everyone has their own opinion and has grown up in a different environment.

This does not mean however that simply ignoring the circumstances and just following the stats makes you 'unbiased.' Let me show you an example, albeit a rather extreme one, to demonstrate my point:
-Between 2015-2025 Wimbledon is taken over by a nationalist and bans all non-British players from playing. In this period the British number 1 wins 9 Wimbledon titles. After this period the rule is lifted, and players from all around the world are eligible to play. Player A, from Brazil (or whatever) then wins 7 Wimbledon titles.
Despite statisticially the Brit with 9 Grand Slam Titles appearing more valuable, in reality I would say the 7 Wimbledons the guy from Brazil one is more impressive.
An objective study might show that this is the case, while ignoring the circumstances and just using the stats to 'up' the British player would probably be an act of a biased British fan.
I know this is an extreme point but I think it illustrates my point rather well, and I think this theory (that you should observe the circumstances as well as the stats) works in all walks of life.

Also you don't want to get hoodwinked by politicians, they may present factually correct stats, but still be misleading as the circumstances are changing.

lydian wrote:Yes, I still believe Djokovic and Nadal are - when on form - simply better players than Murray, they have that special X Factor that elevates them into being able to win matches under the most extreme pressure.
In contrast, just during this autumn Murray lost 3 straight tournament matches when holding match points...I would never expect Fed/Nad/Djo to do that. Murray is a great great player...I just dont believe he's an all-time great and I still think his New York win was massively aided by the wind (vs Berdych, vs Djokovic).

I agree with the first part of your point, that the top 3 are a level above Murray at this point in time, for sure they have acheived more.

As for the 'wind' comment, I'm not sure I fully agree, I think Murray would have won that championship even without the wind.
But let's say you're right... what does this show?
Perhaps it shows Murray is skillful, because he was able to adapt to conditions and play well even in tricky circumstances.
If you argue that this is to Murray's advantage, fair enough... but not everyone can play well in the wind.
Also you can look at it from another viewpoint, in many other big matches Murray has played the conditions have not been very windy... can one argue that Murray has been unlucky for that all this time.

lol lags, I'm usually pretty balanced - you should know me by now - but from time to time I'll slip off the fence and give more subjective opinion - which I know others will disagree with but hey we all interpret things differently. You make good points, as always, and whilst we agree in the main, I really do think Berdy and Djokovic were massively thrown off by the wind...and yes I know playing outdoors is about mastering conditions but you can never master 30-40mph winds. You're not, and can never be, trained to handle those conditios. If you've ever played in high winds you'll know it destroys the game, takes all precise skill away, just reduces it to a game of roulette...roulette involves some luck. That's just my take, I know others wont agree. Djokovic had been in great form at USO and I would have expected him to prevail. Likewise with Berdych who blew Federer away...but his high toss and 30-40mph winds are simply not compatible. Both he and Djokovic were massively unsettled by the serve being severely affected. Ok, Murray was to a lesser degree so well done but I dont judge it as a skill type thing that he was better able to cope.

The point about all-time greats is that Djokovic will likely become one, Nadal already is and Murray, IMO, wont. Its a counter to the Murray will "step it up" and win more...I just dont see it unless Nadal doesnt come back to usual form. If you've got Djokovic and Nadal around in good form, and light winds, I'd put my money on them winning most of the time. Plus Federer/Berdy/Tsonga, etc, can be Murray's undoing in quarters, semis, etc, as he loses to them more than the other top3 do.

To be honest IMBL, I think you're totally missing the point. The circumstances of an event are factual, not hypothetical. Introducing cirumstances that didn't exist (if only) is hypothetical. By addressing the actual circumstances, you are addressing the facts, and if you read my previous post, you will see that I don't have a problem with that.
At no point did I say circumstances should not be addressed.

Note, however, Rafa won all his FOs in the absence of Borg. That is a fact and those are the circumstances. Posters tend to use irrelevant circumstances, or place overdue importance on certain circumstances, to elevate the status of their own favourite player.
They then tend to create 'if only...' scenarios and present them as, if not certainties, then virtual certainties.
E.g If it hadn't been raining Rafa would have won the FO final in straight sets.
If they hadn't stopped for the rain, Djoko would have won the FO final in 5 sets.
In both cases, total speculation presented as fact. Nonsense - prove it.

What if the rain had been lighter? What if the rain had been heavier? What if the match had started earlier? What if the match had started later? How many hypothetical circumstances are we supposed to introduce before we decide that Murray actually beat Federer in the FO final, if only....

Thanks for the advice about politicians btw - up 'til now I've always believed everything they say. Thanks to you, I know now better.

ok lydian, with that expanded analysis I think I'm somewhat closer to your line of thought.

I do know as a golf fan that some players just happen to have the ability to cope much better than others in the wind even though they are not necessarily the best performers on the tour overall. The wind can indeed negate a lot of the fundamental skills of the sport and whilst I find myself saying on the one hand that any top player should find a way to handle it, and that it's part & parcel of the game, I have to concede that it can sometimes give an added advantage to the guy who - by all normal standards - is considered the less accomplished player.

edit : all that said, I'm always very concerned about any attempt to discredit a good win by a lower-ranked player on the grounds that the weather didn't suit the megastar, he looked tired, he never plays well in November etc etc etc

JHM : I recall spending a long time (and very possibly in vain, I don't know .... ) just last month trying to convince socal of the inherent flaw in the misguided what-if philosophy when he presented as fact his opinion (and of course it was nothing more than his personal opinion) that Federer would never have regained the Number One ranking this year if both Djokovic and Nadal had remained fully fit. I think at one point he even claimed that Federer wouldn't have had a snowballs chance. I won't use quotation marks, not sure if they were the exact words but certainly very close IIRC.

I sensed it was EXTREMELY hard work getting him to understand that speculation, prediction and opinion can all play a fun (and sometimes interesting) part in a balanced debate but that ultimately they are quite different from facts and actual happenings.

lags72 wrote:JHM : I recall spending a long time (and very possibly in vain, I don't know .... ) just last month trying to convince socal of the inherent flaw in the misguided what-if philosophy when he presented as fact his opinion (and of course it was nothing more than his personal opinion) that Federer would never have regained the Number One ranking this year if both Djokovic and Nadal had remained fully fit. I think at one point he even claimed that Federer wouldn't have had a snowballs chance. I won't use quotation marks, not sure if they were the exact words but certainly very close IIRC.

I sensed it was EXTREMELY hard work getting him to understand that speculation, prediction and opinion can all play a fun (and sometimes interesting) part in a balanced debate but that ultimately they are quite different from facts and actual happenings.

That's not what I'm arguing, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm trying to put forward.
Look at my post @1:20, I'm not talking about hypotheticals here.

JuliusHMarx wrote:What if the rain had been lighter? What if the rain had been heavier? What if the match had started earlier? What if the match had started later? How many hypothetical circumstances are we supposed to introduce before we decide that Murray actually beat Federer in the FO final, if only....

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to argue....
not.

Read my posts in future

OK Julius, let me use this example again:

-Between 2015-2025 Wimbledon is taken over by a nationalist and bans all non-British players from playing. In this period the British number 1 wins 9 Wimbledon titles. After this period the rule is lifted, and players from all around the world are eligible to play. Player A, from Brazil (or whatever) then wins 7 Wimbledon titles.

Which feat do you think is more impressive (in terms of Wimbledon titles won)?

Statistically 9>7.
For me, if I was looking at it objectively, (I don't support this British guy or the Brazilian guy), I would feel the Brazilian player who has won 7 Wimbledon titles has acheived a more impressive feat.
This is despite statistically 9 being bigger than 7.

What would you think in that situation Julius.
*Remember... before you start going on about hypotheticals again... I'm not implying that the Brazilian guy would have definitely won more if he was British and born 10 years before... we can't prove that for a fact. However I can still objectively reach the conclusion I did.

lags72 wrote:....that speculation, prediction and opinion can all play a fun (and sometimes interesting) part in a balanced debate but that ultimately they are quite different from facts and actual happenings.

Thanks lags, that is what I was trying to say. As IMBL might say "we (now) know how Julius feels about that". (Quite why he feels compelled to say it, I'm not sure.)

As a Henman fan I'm not one of those who says "He would have won Wimby if not for the rain delay in the Goran match" - because who knows if he would or not. And who cares - alas, it didn't happen.

There was an American college player I read about - wish I could remember his name - who was a contemporary of Sampras, Agassi etc and use to beat them all in the juniors without breaking sweat and was widely tipped to easily outshine any of them. But he had to give up tennis by the time he was 19-ish because of a chronic back problem. What if.....?

JuliusHMarx wrote:There was an American college player I read about - wish I could remember his name - who was a contemporary of Sampras, Agassi etc and use to beat them all in the juniors without breaking sweat and was widely tipped to easily outshine any of them. But he had to give up tennis by the time he was 19-ish because of a chronic back problem. What if.....?

Once again, that's not what I'm trying to argue.

It Must Be Love wrote:OK Julius, let me use this example again:

-Between 2015-2025 Wimbledon is taken over by a nationalist and bans all non-British players from playing. In this period the British number 1 wins 9 Wimbledon titles. After this period the rule is lifted, and players from all around the world are eligible to play. Player A, from Brazil (or whatever) then wins 7 Wimbledon titles.

Which feat do you think is more impressive (in terms of Wimbledon titles won)?

Statistically 9>7.
For me, if I was looking at it objectively, (I don't support this British guy or the Brazilian guy), I would feel the Brazilian player who has won 7 Wimbledon titles has acheived a more impressive feat.
This is despite statistically 9 being bigger than 7.

What would you think in that situation Julius.
*Remember... before you start going on about hypotheticals again... I'm not implying that the Brazilian guy would have definitely won more if he was British and born 10 years before... we can't prove that for a fact. However I can still objectively reach the conclusion I did.

When you 'feel' something, then it's not objective. Your conclusion, however impartially reached, would still be subjective, even if it's a general consensus. If it had been 'open' for those 9 years the Brit might still have won all 9, beating the Brazilan in 3 of them, thus denting his confidence to such an extent that the Brazilian never won it.
If.....if.....if......

IMBL : As regards your specific post at 1:20, yes that makes sense - in itself. But of course you've used an extreme (by your own admission) example and in all honesty I think it's at cross-purposes with the main discussion.

I'll leave JHM to speak for himself but the very basic point I was making is that there can never be any sense or logic in trying to claim that IF player X had not been carrying a niggling injury or IF it hadn't rained, or IF they hadn't closed the roof etc etc then he would have definitely have beaten player Y.

Nadal or Djokovic would of course be able to beat ME even if they had their legs strapped together, but of course that's fantasy world stuff. When they're playing against Murray, Fed (or indeed anyone good enough to get into a mainstream ATP event*), nobody can ever know what would have happened IF only this or IF only that. Ultimately it's all mere speculation, supposition and conjecture.

*Exhibit A : Lukas Rosol and (very very nearly) Alejandro Falla

JuliusHMarx wrote:
When you 'feel' something, then it's not objective. Your conclusion, however impartially reached, would still be subjective, even if it's a general consensus. If it had been 'open' for those 9 years the Brit might still have won all 9, beating the Brazilan in 3 of them, thus denting his confidence to such an extent that the Brazilian never won it.
If.....if.....if......

It's nothing to do with hypotheticals, I'm simply asking which acheivement you feel is more impressive.

And how do you think it would be possible to conduct a totally objective study of these stats? Would ignoring the circumstances and just saying due to the fact 9 is statisically bigger than 7 (hence the British player's achievements is greater) be objective then?

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
When you 'feel' something, then it's not objective. Your conclusion, however impartially reached, would still be subjective, even if it's a general consensus. If it had been 'open' for those 9 years the Brit might still have won all 9, beating the Brazilan in 3 of them, thus denting his confidence to such an extent that the Brazilian never won it.
If.....if.....if......

It's nothing to do with hypotheticals, I'm simply asking which acheivement you feel is more impressive.

And how do you think it would be possible to conduct a totally objective study of these stats? Would ignoring the circumstances and just saying due to the fact 9 is statisically bigger than 7 (hence the British player's achievements is greater) be objective then?

An objective study isn't possible. Which is better, an apple or an orange?
If I 'feel' one is better than the other, then a) it's subjective and b) I should have enough self-awareness to recognise that my 'feeling' may be incorrect.
As lags said - "Ultimately it's all mere speculation, supposition and conjecture". Let's not try to pretend that it isn't.

lydian wrote:lol lags, I'm usually pretty balanced - you should know me by now - but from time to time I'll slip off the fence and give more subjective opinion - which I know others will disagree with but hey we all interpret things differently. You make good points, as always, and whilst we agree in the main, I really do think Berdy and Djokovic were massively thrown off by the wind...and yes I know playing outdoors is about mastering conditions but you can never master 30-40mph winds. You're not, and can never be, trained to handle those conditios. If you've ever played in high winds you'll know it destroys the game, takes all precise skill away, just reduces it to a game of roulette...roulette involves some luck. That's just my take, I know others wont agree. Djokovic had been in great form at USO and I would have expected him to prevail. Likewise with Berdych who blew Federer away...but his high toss and 30-40mph winds are simply not compatible. Both he and Djokovic were massively unsettled by the serve being severely affected. Ok, Murray was to a lesser degree so well done but I dont judge it as a skill type thing that he was better able to cope.

The point about all-time greats is that Djokovic will likely become one, Nadal already is and Murray, IMO, wont. Its a counter to the Murray will "step it up" and win more...I just dont see it unless Nadal doesnt come back to usual form. If you've got Djokovic and Nadal around in good form, and light winds, I'd put my money on them winning most of the time. Plus Federer/Berdy/Tsonga, etc, can be Murray's undoing in quarters, semis, etc, as he loses to them more than the other top3 do.

In my view, Berdych's power game is far more suited for the windy conditions encountered than Murray's. That was shown in the first set of the semi-final when Berdych was able to use his normal game to bully Murray, whereas Murray couldn't get his game going at all. It was a phenomenal display in sets 2 and 3 from Murray to turn that match around. He was 21/6 winners to unforced errors in those two sets in 40mph winds. That was the performance of a champion. No way would Berdych have won that match in any conditions.

As for the final, sure Djokovic was bothered by the wind more than Murray. He doesn't have the feel and natural ability of Murray so is always going to struggle a bit more when the ball is moving around. However, to suggest that Djokovic would have won had it been calm seems to me to be pushing it somewhat. The last grand slam match they'd played went 5 hours (hardly a one-sided demolition) and Murray had crushed Djokovic in their previous encounter. Hardly seems to me like a recipe for saying Djokovic was a nailed on certainty to win in calm conditions. All their matches in the last year suggest two players who are very evenly matched.

lydian wrote:Yes, I still believe Djokovic and Nadal are - when on form - simply better players than Murray, they have that special X Factor that elevates them into being able to win matches under the most extreme pressure.
In contrast, just during this autumn Murray lost 3 straight tournament matches when holding match points...I would never expect Fed/Nad/Djo to do that. Murray is a great great player...I just dont believe he's an all-time great and I still think his New York win was massively aided by the wind (vs Berdych, vs Djokovic).

Sorry 2 say this Lyd but this is ridiculously biased posed once again.

Murray was in great form right from Wimbledon and only and Inspired Fed stopped him from winning the Wimbledon. In USO 2012 Murray exhibited his confidence in the 1st 2 sets and almost made a mockery of Djoko in it, Djoko came back in the match only coz of Murray's panic in the tail end of every set however he recovered to close them both, 3rd and 4th set Muzza was completely nervous and led an easy passage of recovery for Nole, but in 5th Murray decided to go for the break with a do or die battle and he outplayed Nole comprehensively.

Once USO was obtained Andy relaxed a bit and hence the losses in the tail-end of the season, yes Muzza is no all time great but will for sure have a better year than Djoko in 2013. I won't be surprised if Muzza lift the AO in 2013.Lendl will make sure Murray's confience is kept at the right track and if thats the case Muzza will achieve more than Nole in 2013.