For all those Del Potro haters

For all those Del Potro haters, take this , bwahahaha my hero is back and back with a bang, 3 great wins so far in a month

1st exhibition win over Rafa
and now back to back win over Murray and Djoko, both come back win from a set down win.

Good to have you back IC

What a great performance from Del P, this is as good as late 2009. He's marginal favourite for me tomorrow in the final, he's already beaten Nadal in New York as you said a few weeks ago, and I see no reason why he won't repeat that tomorrow.

Red wrote:Good to have you back IC

What a great performance from Del P, this is as good as late 2009. He's marginal favourite for me tomorrow in the final, he's already beaten Nadal in New York as you said a few weeks ago, and I see no reason why he won't repeat that tomorrow.

yes Amrit, so happy today, forst he won me $800 dollars of bet as I bet $70 on him to win when he was 3-0 down in the 3rd, then its a double delight to see him win such matches consecutively. There are people kept on pouring their hatred on the gentle giant just coz he beat their hero at his prime

Would be a great match tomorrow, this would be better than Nole-Rafa . , sorry Nole fans, next time

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Red wrote:Good to have you back IC

What a great performance from Del P, this is as good as late 2009. He's marginal favourite for me tomorrow in the final, he's already beaten Nadal in New York as you said a few weeks ago, and I see no reason why he won't repeat that tomorrow.

yes Amrit, so happy today, forst he won me $800 dollars of bet as I bet $70 on him to win when he was 3-0 down in the 3rd, then its a double delight to see him win such matches consecutively. There are people kept on pouring their hatred on the gentle giant just coz he beat their hero at his prime

Great win, glad you won so much!

The Djokovic fans on this forum are very gracious normally when Djokovic loses, so I don't see that as a problem.

iC Wonderful faith in your boy. The gravy train is coming to you. Hope you can win some moolah tomorrow.

Commiserations to SoCal.

There are Delpo haters too? Why? He hasn't caused much damage since 2009 to big guys. Next I know, Fish has haters too.

Well anyway Delpo is the man, especially when beating top guys, go Boy go.

I can only conclude that Delpo having "haters" is indicative of his elevation (or perhaps imminent elevation...?) to the top tier ! It seemingly goes with the territory.

The big guys (Fed, Rafa, and more recently Djoko and Murray) all have their "haters" as a badge of honour.

Lower down the ranks you're either not worth hating or - worse still - downright boring (step forward Granollers et al...)

Well done on your $800 win IC - that was brave of you at 0-3 down. But fortune favours the brave

laverfan wrote:iC Wonderful faith in your boy. The gravy train is coming to you. Hope you can win some moolah tomorrow.

Thx LF , i like DP more coz of the person he is, win or loss he takes both of them the same way and do have great respect for the opponents.

lags72 wrote:

Well done on your $800 win IC - that was brave of you at 0-3 down. But fortune favours the brave

Actually 14-15 times odds on DP was too high considering it was just 1 break down and he was playing well, so my heart said go with it and hence i did it.

Well just one break down maybe BUT against the World Number One enjoying a long unbeaten streak. Impressive stuff from Delpo ......

invisiblecoolers wrote:

laverfan wrote:iC Wonderful faith in your boy. The gravy train is coming to you. Hope you can win some moolah tomorrow.

Thx LF , i like DP more coz of the person he is, win or loss he takes both of them the same way and do have great respect for the opponents.

Me too, for that same reason...such a class act. Pleased for you today ic! Commiserations to socal and HM though, I'm sure Novak will return in good form at Miami after a bit of an odd tournament for him here. If you can cruise to the SF whilst being patchy on form, you're doing something right

lags72 wrote:Well just one break down maybe BUT against the World Number One enjoying a long unbeaten streak. Impressive stuff from Delpo ......

Yup, n remember I predicted Djoko to lose in this tournament as his doom factor Mr. No Show Fognini was in his draw, he certainly brings some losing spell to Djoko.

I didn't see the 1st set, from the mid of the 2nd set I saw Del Po playing way better than Djoko and hence the odds was an heavenly gift.

@ Silver

Who exactly is a del po hater that you are directing this to? I am happy for del po and often say nice things about him. I don't see the need for your hostility frankly which djoko fans have unfairly criticized or deemed del po. A rather silly title and post by the op but i can't say I am surprised typical of ur silly attempts at winding people up. Congrats to del po I hope his fans enjoy this very rare victory over the world number one.

I do hope though that del po gets in the mix at the very top and wins another slam he is a good player and a good guy

won a tasty bet on Del Po ti win n 3, been waiting for this for 2 years. The wins against Fed at 09 Us Open and against Nadal at Miami 09 and even the loss to Federer at the 09 French showed me something, he has bottle. Something you can't teach, he's the real deal. He's never won a Masters people say to me, well if he wins this one by beating Murray, Djokovic and Nadal show me a more impressive Masters victory!

Not according to fed fans a masters is as a masters a slam is a slam and competition level is irrelevant. According to them del pos masters if he does win will be no more impressive than robredo's hamburg masters title in 2005 where nadal and fed withdrew before said tournament

I'm a Federer fan, and I don't think that. Should JMDP win then although it's 'only' one MS title and will be quantified as such in the record books, it's far more impressive in my mind than many others. Don't worry socal, I know you're not attacking me personally but there are a few rational Fed fans around

Saying that, was that Robredo win really 8 years ago? I remember it well, he beat Stepanek in three sets - best of five back then, of course. Maybe 6-3, 6-3, 6-2 or something. I was happy because I quite liked Robredo at the time, shame injuries blighted him significantly. Not a great player, but a solid one on his day and that was undoubtedly the high point of his career.

But enough of that, I'm looking forward to seeing how Del Potro does tomorrow and for the rest of the year. Hopefully he can kick on and shake things up at the top!

Yes Silver you are always very fair and my mistake for over generalizing, but I was using this example of Del Po's masters victories and hypothetical victory over Nadal to show how silly the idea that every slam or masters title or whatever is the same because regardless of competition level. Sure in the record books it all counts the same but discerning and knowledgeable people know that the competition level can and does make victories more or less impressive. For example Djoko beating Nadal, ROddick and Fed the then 1,2, and 3 players in a row at age 19 in the Canada masters of 2007, I still remember that day and after 6 slams I still feel that it is one of Djoko's most impressive victories. That is like saying Ali beating Jerry Quarry in a title fight is the same thing as beating Joe Frazier or George Foreman, I mean a heavyweight championship fight is a heavyweight championship fight, a slam is a slam, a masters is a masters and a win is a win. Technically speaking that is true but people do value some wins more than others because of the competition and the context.

No worries socal. That is very true, and interestingly I think that using the boxing example is a refreshing idea, there are many parallels. Even on this site, if you have a look at the boxing board a large portion of the debate is about P4P rankings, and particularly who has a more impressive record, the biggest names on their hit-list. Almost their version of our era discussions, I'd wager. And it's especially true of fighters who were around at the same time but never fought, Pac-Mayweather being a good example; the only way to compare is via their strength of opposition and how concrete the list is.

In principle I do agree with you, and that Montreal win was an excellent achievement. The only trouble is retaining subjectivity whilst assessing the strength of competition. We all know that Novak's Montreal win is more impressive than Robredo's at Hamburg, but what about the closer ones? Unfortunately, like in boxing, it's a debate that will rumble on because there's no way of measuring anything in a concrete manner. Federer's Wimbledon win in 2003 was far less tricky than Novak's USO'11 victory - few would deny it - but how far should Federer be penalised in the GOAT discussion as a result? I think that's the underlying problem, we can't assign a definitive value when upgrading or diminishing achievement - we can only say that something's better or worse, not by how much.

So I do share your opinion that some tournament wins are more equal than others, but I'm just not sure what a definite alternative is. I guess that's why we discuss it, to try and figure it out What do you reckon? It really is difficult because everyone, no matter how unbiased or objective they feel they are, views tennis through a prism informed by their favourite players, and their opinions on them. And that's not our fault, it's just...part of being human, I guess. Without meaning to sound trite

Sorry for the thread derail, ic! How do you think JMDP will do in Miami and beyond? Is he ready for an assault at Roland Garros?

I'm not sure I've ever encountered a Del Potro hater. Is there such a thing?

Seems like one of the nicest guys on the tour.

Silver you bring up salient points, there is no definitive answer and nor should there be. People always want resolution, but in certain areas there is no resolution to 100 percent certainty. Most discussions in life are subjective but even in an subjective discussion objective facts matter and can define and narrow the scope of argument. For example if you look at the objective results of players in the time period that I deemed to be weak and compare the results of those players and their trophy case to past greats you find that Roger's contemporaries in that period are no way of the same level of greats that came before. Now, some would say because Roger was so impressive that he prevented their success. A good argument if only Roger was beating those players regularly and others were not. But when you see Roddick supplanted in the rankings by Nadal, then supplanted by Djoko. Or when you see a hewitt struggle to stay in the top 10 or you see Nalbandian or safin struggle to remain in the top ten then said argument does not hold water. The point is that objective facts lay the framework for your conclusions. The analysis of objective facts by the very nature of anlaysis on any subject involves biases and subjective differences. At the end of the day most things in life involve a balancing test, weighing different factors, taking objective facts and analyzing them. Analysis by its very nature is subjective, but if grounded in objective facts then you have a higher probability of coming up on a correct answer. People want a clean line between objective and subjective and it just doesn't exist in the real world. For example, raw data without analysis has no meaning. But analysis by its very nature is open to subjectivity. So the best one can do in the real world is to give an answer that is most likely correct, 100 percent doesn't exist in most situations. One can say that with a high probablity X is true, and this decision comes from analyzing the objective facts. I hate to be so general and philosophical about the discussion at hand but that is all we can do in most situations.

HM Murdoch wrote:I'm not sure I've ever encountered a Del Potro hater. Is there such a thing?

Seems like one of the nicest guys on the tour.

Yes that is what is bizarre about this thread, who would be classified as a Del Po hater on this site? And why reference "beating their hero"? I am a Djoko fan but he isn't my hero, if I had a hero it would be my father and for good reason that I won't discuss on this site. But it leads one to believe that somehow Djoko fans, basically you, me, and slasher have been rampantly disrespecting and knocking Del Po and now we need our come uppance. Can some one tell me when that has happened? Is saying someone doesn't hit the backhand up the line hating? In fact both of us have said nice things about Del Po and we are the majority of Djoko fans on this site. Just a weird, hostile, and non-factual opening post. I actually predicted as you did that Novak would not win this tournament. It just strikes me as a poster who is desperate to stick it to posters or fans of a player he doesn't like so he builds a straw man and burns it in effigy. Very sad actually.

Socal, yes, it was a strange angle on the OP. Perhaps IC will explain will he's back on.

Del Potro is, in fact, probably my second favourite player! No hating from me.

What did you make of Novak this tournament? Looks a bit jaded to me. I think after Dubai he jetted straight off to play an exhibition and has spent a lot of time out and about. In hindsight that looks like a mistake.

I don't feel too confident about Miami but I expect he'll be fit and focused for the clay swing.

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

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

HM Murdoch wrote:Socal, yes, it was a strange angle on the OP. Perhaps IC will explain will he's back on.

Del Potro is, in fact, probably my second favourite player! No hating from me.

What did you make of Novak this tournament? Looks a bit jaded to me. I think after Dubai he jetted straight off to play an exhibition and has spent a lot of time out and about. In hindsight that looks like a mistake.

I don't feel too confident about Miami but I expect he'll be fit and focused for the clay swing.

Novak kept trying to lose this whole tournament, Tsonga tanked, foggy was just too eratic, he kept dropping sets and his serve. The worst thing that could have happened for Novak's RG chances was that he wins these two masters and goes into the clay court season with another 30 win streak and the pressure to kill himself for every match with additional media hype. Don't get me wrong did he want to win, yes he did, but psychologically I doubt we will see a completely committed Djoko till we get close to RG. I said this by the way before he lost Del Po, days before, so no accusations of hindsight. My personal opinion he isn't going to sell out completely till RG is in the mix. We saw how right after the AO it was all he could think about. In 2011 he fought like an animal in every single match till he could fight no more, this year I think he is leaving a bit of juice in the tank. People can say I am spinning a loss or whatever, but that is what I think and I rely on my own my knowledge of the player and the game to take this controversial opinion. This match was big for Del Po, it simply wasn't for Djoko. Sometimes in sports it isn't about ability or talent but who wants it more, frankly I don't think he wanted as much as Juan and in the third set it showed. Again I am hesitant to say these things because people will say this is excuse making and taking away from JUan that isn't my intention and Juan deserves the glory of his victory.

Socal - I feel similar. I don't think he had the energy/desire to get into a big fight this tournament. I thought that the first opponent to put up a consistently good performance against him would probably beat him and so it turned out.

Truth be told, I'm actually a little relieved! I think Rafa would have beaten him in the final, so I'm glad that's baggage that Novak won't have to carry into the clay swing.

Great for JMDP though. I want him believing he can beat the big guys because, when he does, he's brilliant.

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

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

What slams are worthy? Well they all are Craig, it is a debate about which get the extra cherry on top. I know for my money if Nadal gets to lets say 15 slams and Roger stays at 17 based on the h2h and the level of competition I would supplant Roger on my own personal goat list with Nadal. I mean do you think Roy Emerson is a better player than Borg or Laver, I know I don't, I don't judge just on raw slam count. Now here is the caveat you can't elevate a player on these intangible factors without the objective accomplishments being somewhat close. Everyone is free to make their own decision and conclusions but as I stated above those arguments backed up by strong logic and objective facts are going to be more likely correct.

Do you believe Murray beating Novak Djokovic in the USO final in five brutal sets is on par with Thomas Johansson winning a slam playing no top ten players? Do you think Ali beating Quarry in a title fight is the same as beating Frazier? Think of it as sleeping with a beautiful woman you care about and just sleeping with a woman, both are great, both are sex, but are they equal I mean the end result is the same.

You are Scotsmen do you really have that much problem with the world being varying shades of grey?

All slam wins equate to one slam win. If people want to go down the road of giving some slam wins extra value then what is the basis for that? Quality of opponents beaten to win the slam? Too many variables. What may appear as higher quality opponent to one person does not apply to another poster. Even then if you did get agreement then there are inponderables ie was the opponent very high quality but carrying an injury/past his best/not on his favourite surface etc etc etc. Far too problematic to even consider or get agreement on as each poster will always have a bias to their own player's slam wins.

It isn't about your opinion being divorced from the objective facts Craig. But again you can make your own judgement. But the idea that it is too problematic an issue to open up I think is just wrong. There is nothing too problematic to discuss and analyze and to come to a conclusion. No there are no 100 percent answers, and that is just the way life is.

That is not saying I don't disagree in varying strengths of eras but that doesn't alter slam win value for me. As for the point about Johansson was it his fault that the draw panned out that way? No. Was it Djoko's fault that Nadal was injured and missed the Aussie Open and his projected draw didn't turn out as tough as it could have been? Of course not. Players can only beat the seven players in front of them and each results in one slam win. As for judging GOAT's people will always have their own opinion on how that should be judged and will always be the case.

Weird analogy there socal, and what with saying the women's game is more top heavy than the men's game elsewhere on 606V2 (had to laugh at the literal nature of that) I think you must be in late night Californian fruity mood

I also think Djokovic dodged a bullet in the final, not that he'd lose or win but he looks like he's on the verge of injuring himself again with that arm taping around his elbow. He was also shuffling more uncomfortably on his feet too towards the end yesterday. These long winning runs aren't good in the end...in 2011 he had that great run but it cost him dear later in the year. Early exits are good sometimes. That said, he's pretty much straight over to Miami...

When we talk about Roger, we say 17 slams. We don't say 18.9 or 15.3 depending on slam win being worth more or less than others. History counts them up all the same.

I didn't say it was Johansson's fault, but if he had to do what Del Po did and beat and beat Fed and Nadal in back to back matches I doubt he would have done it. Johann Kriek won two AO titles when hardly any big players attended the AO, is his win equal? No and it isn't equal, why isn't it equal because all the best players didn't attend, Johansson at the least can say that AO had a full field. Again we are talking about marginal and sleight differences all these accomplishments have value but some are more equal than others so to speak. Novak has won a lot of masters titles, as a fan the one I value the most is the one the canada final of 07 that I discussed above and the reason is the competition level.

socal1976 wrote:It isn't about your opinion being divorced from the objective facts Craig. But again you can make your own judgement. But the idea that it is too problematic an issue to open up I think is just wrong. There is nothing too problematic to discuss and analyze and to come to a conclusion. No there are no 100 percent answers, and that is just the way life is.

Of course some things are too problematic and agreement will never be reached. How many stars in our galaxy? Is their life out there? How many grains of sand on each beach across the globe etc etc? A definitive answer cannot be reached on those and people have been debating those for hundred of years. In short the same could be said of this topic and so is it really worth getting into heated debates about it? Certainly not.

lydian wrote:Weird analogy there socal, and what with saying the women's game is more top heavy than the men's game elsewhere on 606V2 (had to laugh at the literal nature of that) I think you must be in late night Californian fruity mood

I also think Djokovic dodged a bullet in the final, not that he'd lose or win but he looks like he's on the verge of injuring himself again with that arm taping around his elbow. He was also shuffling more uncomfortably on his feet too towards the end yesterday. These long winning runs aren't good in the end...in 2011 he had that great run but it cost him dear later in the year. Early exits are good sometimes. That said, he's pretty much straight over to Miami...

Its sunday 2 am so you know my mental condition, but I wouldn't say I am in a fruity mood, there is a different connotation to that word here, but yes I have partaken of Bacchus' nectar a wee bit. I agree with your post though, sometimes in sports it comes down to who wants it more not ability or talent level, but who is willing to fight just that tad bit more. And frankly this match was much bigger to Juan than it was to Novak.

socal1976 wrote:I didn't say it was Johansson's fault, but if he had to do what Del Po did and beat and beat Fed and Nadal in back to back matches I doubt he would have done it. Johann Kriek won two AO titles when hardly any big players attended the AO, is his win equal? No and it isn't equal, why isn't it equal because all the best players didn't attend, Johansson at the least can say that AO had a full field. Again we are talking about marginal and sleight differences all these accomplishments have value but some are more equal than others so to speak. Novak has won a lot of masters titles, as a fan the one I value the most is the one the canada final of 07 that I discussed above and the reason is the competition level.

Players that won the Aussie Open when it wasn't competed for by the top players still merit the win. The likes of Borg didn't deserve it if they weren't willing to make the effort to attend. Those pkayers that won beat who was put in front of them and is all you can do. Or else do you want to go down hawkeye's asterisked route? As in asterisk Novak's Aussie Open and Andy's USOpen because Rafa wasn't there or asterisk all others when all top players have not taken part?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:It isn't about your opinion being divorced from the objective facts Craig. But again you can make your own judgement. But the idea that it is too problematic an issue to open up I think is just wrong. There is nothing too problematic to discuss and analyze and to come to a conclusion. No there are no 100 percent answers, and that is just the way life is.

Of course some things are too problematic and agreement will never be reached. How many stars in our galaxy? Is their life out there? How many grains of sand on each beach across the globe etc etc? A definitive answer cannot be reached on those and people have been debating those for hundred of years. In short the same could be said of this topic and so is it really worth getting into heated debates about it? Certainly not.

All those questions you seem to think are unanswerable very smart people have dedicated thir lives to answering. Other than sand on the beach I don't think anyone gives a flying F about that. There are multiple very interesting and mathematically supported theories that attempt to explain the founding of the universe, what came before, if there ever was a before and what happens at the end. If people didn't care or try to figure out those answers you claim are unanswerable then we wouldn't be people. There is nothing that complex about tennis that makes these questions unanswerable. I would posit that we have answered much more complex than weak era theory as it applies to the tennis world.

It isn't about placing an asterik's on anything yes the players that showed up deserved the win, but all raw data involves analysis, and analysis is inherently subjective. I personally value some wins more than other wins, raw numbers without context and analysis don't mean much that is how the real world works craig in my opinion.

lydian wrote:When we talk about Roger, we say 17 slams. We don't say 18.9 or 15.3 depending on slam win being worth more or less than others. History counts them up all the same.

My exact estimate is that Fed's slams are worth 14.99 of a tough era slam champions, and I think that is being generous to fed. My own opinion you can make your own conclusions.

This is not about weak era theory but about one slam win being worth one slam win. And yes such topics have been debated ie life elsewhere in the galaxy/stars in the galaxy but there is no definitive answer. Now on these forums there are enough sensible and balanced and well-educated posters around who have been watching tennis for decades. They have discussed these topics ad nauseum for as long as there has been tennis forums and guess what? Yes you have guessed it - no definitive conckusion can be reached and don't think ever will so it all comes across as being pretty pointless even bothering about trying.

Is it pointless craig or does it flush out arguments and provide entertainment and a basis to exchange ideas? I don't think that is pointless.

LK did a thread on era and it got 400 posts, I do thread talking about technique or whatever and nobody cares. If you think about all the BS we spout on here is pointless and subjective but we enjoy it and some people are convinced by the logic and facts you provide and some people never will be. Do you think I talk about weak era because I think I can convince BB an win him over, if i did then I would be an idiot because he won't be convinced of my position and vice versa.

I do see it as pointless when it degenerates quite often heated exchanges etc and hearing the same points being put across time and again even though those points (on both sides of the argument) are deemed not valid. It just means we all end up going around in circles.

Well Craig I don't think it is pointless, I think it is fun. Some people like to bird watch, I think it is pointless. I like to talk about how Roger padded his stats on fat players, those who had one shot and nothing else, a dodgy hip, and or a permanent hangover.

Yes and all that will ever be seen as is opinion - not any tangible proof or fact. Just as detractors of Novak could counter-argue and look to devalue Novak's slam wins. All rather petty and does nothing apart from make those people look like they have a personal agenda.

Nice to see Delpo through to his second Masters final.

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

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

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and all that will ever be seen as is opinion - not any tangible proof or fact. Just as detractors of Novak could counter-argue and look to devalue Novak's slam wins. All rather petty and does nothing apart from make those people look like they have a personal agenda.

You've summed it up beautifully CC. One of the simplest yet most effective debunking of all the waffle that gets thrown around - waffle masquerading as evidence that somehow one Slam is worth more /less than another Slam.

Exactly. We talk about Mac on 7 slams, Lendl on 8, Borg 11, Agassi 8...etc...we don't qualify that some wins were easier than others. History smooths these things out...whether Federer beat Phillopousis or Nadal to win Wimbledon doesn't count a jot...they can only beat who's put in front of them. We already have too much homogeniety of surface, lets not seek to homogenise/normalise all results retrospectively as well!

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

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