For all those Del Potro haters

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:22 am

First topic message reminder :

For all those Del Potro haters, take this boxing

, 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.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:15 pm

CC, I think it is very difficult to measure and compare them- but this does not mean they all have the same difficulty.
As I said: They only way they are equal in difficulty is if you have to face the exact same players on exactly the same form.

I do recognise that there are many variables, and I recognise it's not something we're all going to agree on (which ones are more difficult).

by CaledonianCraig Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:24 pm

That is why it isn't even worth trying. What Nadal fans may see as a tough draw to win a slam may very well be in their eyes for their player but Federer fans may see it as easier as their player has had less problems beating those same players in the past and the same works in reverse. My general point being if you look back on their careers and slam wins they have each had to win seven matches to win a slam (walkovers aside) and invariably each will have had tougher draws than in other of their slams and some easier draws so it all levels out in the end and is best recognising one slam as being worth one slam.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:24 pm

LS, my 'incorrect' thing is a joke I do with Julius- and I only do it on one forum (606v2). I think I first said it after Julius claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was a tennis player who swore on court- and I've used it a few times after that.

As for the other thing, I would not be annoyed if you had said that to me, rather than insulting me behind my back.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:26 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:My general point being if you look back on their careers and slam wins they have each had to win seven matches to win a slam (walkovers aside) and invariably each will have had tougher draws than in other of their slams and some easier draws so it all levels out in the end and is best recognising one slam as being worth one slam.

It is not necessary that it levels out.
It is practically impossible for two slams that are equal in difficulty to win- I challenge you to find a pair of slams that you think are.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:29 pm

I am not even going to try because such-like things are self-opinionated. I demonstrated that earlier when you said what you felt Djoko's slam wins were best in value but I counter-argued that and put forward other slams where he beat more seeds. Oh dear it is those variables again. Rolling Eyes

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:31 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not even going to try because such-like things are self-opinionated. I demonstrated that earlier when you said what you felt Djoko's slam wins were best in value but I counter-argued that and put forward other slams where he beat more seeds. Oh dear it is those variables again.

Wait, so you can't find any two slams at all that are equal in difficulty?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:33 pm

All of Borg's slams were between 1.3 and 2.7 times easier than all of Connors. Thus Connors was clearly a far superior player. I defy anyone to prove me wrong. Go on, I dare ya.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:35 pm

What is difficulty? Like I have said what you may see as difficult match for Rafa then other people whose favourite player can comfortably beat that player in their eyes won't see the draw as difficult. Can you not see that? Federer fans get sweaty palms at drawing Tsonga due to his decent slam record against Federer whereas they may not be as panic ridden about facing Murray. Flip the coin and Murray fans would be very confident of beating Tsonga and see that as a good draw but would worry about playing Fed.Draws themselves are variable as well and so difficulty of them are just as tough to agree on.

by LuvSports! Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:37 pm

Red wrote:LS, my 'incorrect' thing is a joke I do with Julius- and I only do it on one forum (606v2). I think I first said it after Julius claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was a tennis player who swore on court- and I've used it a few times after that.

As for the other thing, I would not be annoyed if you had said that to me, rather than insulting me behind my back.

ok well you have done both, glad we got that straightened out. Smile

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:42 pm

LuvSports! wrote:
Red wrote:LS, my 'incorrect' thing is a joke I do with Julius- and I only do it on one forum (606v2). I think I first said it after Julius claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was a tennis player who swore on court- and I've used it a few times after that.

As for the other thing, I would not be annoyed if you had said that to me, rather than insulting me behind my back.

ok well you have done both, glad we got that straightened out.

kl kl
btw do remember, I actually went out of the way to defend you on MTL. So that may explain my (slightly over the top?) annoyance to seeing you insult me behind my back.

by LuvSports! Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:45 pm

yes and at the time I thanked you. But what followed led me to do what I did (i.e the stuff i mentioned above).
Yet you did not apologise for your past misdemeanors.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:47 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:What is difficulty? Like I have said what you may see as difficult match for Rafa then other people whose favourite player can comfortably beat that player in their eyes won't see the draw as difficult. Can you not see that? Federer fans get sweaty palms at drawing Tsonga due to his decent slam record against Federer whereas they may not be as panic ridden about facing Murray. Flip the coin and Murray fans would be very confident of beating Tsonga and see that as a good draw but would worry about playing Fed.Draws themselves are variable as well and so difficulty of them are just as tough to agree on.

CC, I think we both actually agree on many things here. The only thing that differs is our approach to it.

-We both agree that considering all the variables it is very unlikely for all slams to be of equal difficulty.
-We both agree that proving that one slam is harder than another is a subjective task, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.
-We both agree there are many variables in there, which makes everything very complex.

However we disagree on our approach:
-You say 'it's so complicated that we can just simply ignore the variables and take it as the record books say'
-I say we have to recognise it's complicated, and it's nearly impossible to prove that one slam is: easier/ as hard/ harder than another. Just because a player has better stats does not necessarily mean he is the better player, or he is the worse player. Even saying the phrase 'Player A is better as he has better stats' is subjective.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:51 pm

LuvSports! wrote:yes and at the time I thanked you. But what followed led me to do what I did (i.e the stuff i mentioned above).
Yet you did not apologise for your past misdemeanors.

When I am talking about tennis, and Nadal is particular, I may debate vigorously; but this is more for the love of a sport and liking of a player than anything personally against the person I'm debating with.
I do hope that is clear, and I unreservedly apologise if I haven't made it clear uptil now. However in future if you do have complaints about me- I would prefer it if you complained directly to me, rather than go behind my back.

by LuvSports! Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:55 pm

good thankyou.
And same applies to you.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:59 pm

LuvSports! wrote:
And same applies to you.

Yes. I don't do that sort of stuff anyway, I would tell you directly if I thought something.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:02 pm

So you agree it is all so very complex yet not too complex to prove. Well please do go ahead and prove it - if you can.

by LuvSports! Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:03 pm

Well you did. Ergo we both should refrain from it again.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:04 pm

LuvSports! wrote:Well you did.

When?
I don't think I ever did I'm afraid.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:10 pm

This guy believes in himself:
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/tennis/8572273/del-potro-dispatches-djokovic

by lydian Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:19 pm

CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion? If you can show us a practical application of your argument you might carry more people along...

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:21 pm

lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?

I'm trying to argue that a player with better stats may not necessarily be a better player- although he could be.

by lydian Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:25 pm

But that depends which stats you examine, what's wrong with the stats you don't use, and how those stats are computed in the first place. We all know stats don't tell the real story. I presume you mean slam count when you're referring to "stats".

Therefore, using your approach please tell us what the difference between Agassi's and Lendl's 8 slams...because I assume you would say they're not equal given who they had to beat to get them. It's just all a bit too nebulous for me otherwise.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:29 pm

I'd rate Lendl as a better player.

But that depends which stats you examine, what's wrong with the stats you don't use, and how those stats are computed in the first place. We all know stats don't tell the real story. I presume you mean slam count when you're referring to "stats".

I think we agree on more areas than you think.

by lydian Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:31 pm

Why Lendl...please show us how you get there via practical demonstration of your theory.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:33 pm

My theory is that some slams will be harder than others naturally- and it's very difficult for us to all agree on identifying which ones they are. If you want me to do a full study and research into Lendl vs Agassi it would take a lot of time, and a lot of research. It's more than just stats, you have to see who he beat, and in the fashion he did so etc.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:34 pm

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.

Well said CC, can't be put forward better thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:36 pm

socal1976 wrote:Who exactly is a del po hater that you are directing this to? .

Wel there are many guys in this forum criticized Del Po including you unfairly, and to add further I never mentioned anybodies name, I directed the post for those guilty conscious to Tinkywinky, if it didn't Tinkywinky yours then you assure yourself I didn't mean you, but I am sticking to my thread title

by kingraf Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:37 pm

My LO teacher always did say any "greater difficulty" debate that doesnt have the name Michael Jordan is doomed to deadlock

by **laverfan** Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:37 pm

Red wrote:
lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?
I'm trying to argue that a player with better stats may not necessarily be a better player- although he could be.

So Nadal with 92%+ on Clay is not as good as Federer at 77%+ on Clay. Cool

I knew someone would come up with a gem. Laugh

although he could be... == Waffling. Run

by lydian Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:37 pm

So, Red...

- Which slams are naturally harder than others and why?
- Why does Lendl's 8 slams on hard and clay only beat Agassi's 8 across all slam surfaces?
- Why does Lendl's 8 slams in 19 finals beat Agassi's much better ratio of 8 slams in 15 finals?

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:39 pm

lydian wrote:- Which slams are naturally harder than others and why?
- Why does Lendl's 8 slams on hard and clay only beat Agassi's 8 across all slam surfaces?
- Why does Lendl's 8 slams in 19 finals beat Agassi's much better ratio of 8 slams in 15 finals?

As I explained Lydian, I can't come to a quick conclusion on this Lydian. I said Lendl, but in reality I would have to do a lot more research than what I did to satisfy a proper answer.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:40 pm

laverfan wrote:
Red wrote:
lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?
I'm trying to argue that a player with better stats may not necessarily be a better player- although he could be.

So Nadal with 92%+ on Clay is not as good as Federer at 77%+ on Clay. I knew someone would come up with a gem.

I can't remember saying that chin

by **laverfan** Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:41 pm

Red wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Red wrote:
lydian wrote:CC @ 16:02 ... my point entirely from earlier - just where is the pragmatism in all this?

Red, lets say for arguments sake we all agree disparities can theoretically exist between slam wins - now please give us the outcome / output of this. What's your actual answer, i.e. point, to the discussion in real world terms? How does it change what's been already won and achieved? If you can't turn it into something practical in terms of an output it's nothing more than intellectual ****ing. Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?
I'm trying to argue that a player with better stats may not necessarily be a better player- although he could be.

So Nadal with 92%+ on Clay is not as good as Federer at 77%+ on Clay. I knew someone would come up with a gem.
I can't remember saying that

To quote...

lydian wrote:Sorry to be coarse but we might as well get down to brass tack - just what is the actual point of this academic, propeller-head discussion?

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:42 pm

sportslover wrote: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.

SL, Rafa is back to full fitness and if Del Po beats him today he deserves the win, I surely won't entertain Rafa unfit and back from lengthy break etc,., Rafa already played 15 matches this year before this encounter so he should be match fit by now [this includes victory over world no.2].

Del Po will win the match even if he lose the first set, he will not go down tomorrow tamely even if he is tired, and if he loses all credit to Rafa for beating the inform man. thumbsup

My likely score will be 7-5 for Rafa in the first set and 6-3 for Del Po in the 2nd set and 6-4 for Del Po in the 3rd set

5-7,6-3,6-4 is the likely result, I have gone for the bet Rafa winning the 1st set and losing the match, which BET365 is giving 8 odds. thumbsup

by lydian Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:43 pm

Red wrote:I can't come to a quick conclusion on this Lydian. I said Lendl, but in reality I would have to do a lot more research than what I did to satisfy a proper answer.

So you're answering without actually applying your theory. Your theory in practice might say Agassi.
Do you still think Lendl has the better record from the questions I just asked?

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:45 pm

lydian wrote:
Red wrote:I can't come to a quick conclusion on this Lydian. I said Lendl, but in reality I would have to do a lot more research than what I did to satisfy a proper answer.

So you're answering without actually applying your theory.

Clearly, I needed more time to do that.

lydian wrote:
Do you still think Lendl has the better record from the questions I just asked?

I haven't researched it yet, so I don't know. Do you want me to start up a Lendl vs Agassi thread?

by kingraf Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:46 pm

I think Murrays solo Slam effort last year was better than Johan Kriek's twin AO victories. Because he faced better opposition. So if one can definitively be proved harder than the other, then I think common sense dictates, that all Slams were not of equal difficulty. Some had seeded players pull out due to injuries, others had walkovers.

But it is impossible to definitively list the slams in terms of difficulty. It would be like listing the 10 fastest men in history without a stopwatch or them running together.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:46 pm

Red wrote: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.

We don't but you certainly do here Mr.Red, Djokovic could do nothing special till Fed hit his 30's and Rafa hit his injury path and Murray yet to discover some momentum. When Murray discovered his momentum even he beat Djoko in the slams, so far Murray has played 2 players in the slam finals in 6 times and won against 1 player who is playing in his prime. thumbsup

Fed slam wins where more tougher than Djoko's win, anyways lets keep that on another thread, this is not a weak era thread. thumbsup

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:46 pm

kingraf wrote:I think Murrays solo Slam effort last year was better than Johan Kriek's twin AO victories. Because he faced better opposition. So if one can definitively be proved harder than the other, then I think common sense dictates, that all Slams were not of equal difficulty. Some had seeded players pull out due to injuries, others had walkovers.

But it is impossible to definitively list the slams in terms of difficulty. It would be like listing the 10 fastest men in history without a stopwatch or them running together.

Sums up what I've been trying to say very well.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:50 pm

sirfredperry wrote:Just watched some excellent highlights of the del Potty-Nole semi. Terrific match and some tremendous play by both.
Couple of things. Del Potty may just be too exhausted to really do himself justice in today's final. Secondly, if he carries on playing like this then he's gonna start causing the big boys real probs.
Been waiting for performances like this from JMDP ever since he got back from his long lay off. If he cannot get into the top four then he at least ought to be just outside. Could be that with Fed possibly on the wane there's a top four place available in any case.

Exactly lets hope he makes it count and make his presence felt at the top. thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:53 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:You are avoiding going into detail on point two. Perhaps because it is too difficult to come to a conclusion? What you my see as a difficult opponent for Nadal in one tournament, a Federer fan could just as easily feel it is an easy draw and vice versa. For example you may feel Rosol would be a tough draw if he gets him again at Wimbledon (due to past result) but Federer fans wouldn't have a problem with that draw. Conversely, Federer fans may feel a draw against Berdych is tough (owing to his decent record in slams against Fed) but Nadal fans wouldn't see it so tough. You see it is all too full of what ifs and maybes. Lets not forget the old excuse as well that players that you may feel were tough to beat were carrying injuries hence it all becomes less tricky or the surface may not have suited. Problems, problems, problems. As I said elsewhere just far too many inconclusive variables making the whole topic a tad pointless.

Again Excellent points thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:54 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:All of Borg's slams were between 1.3 and 2.7 times easier than all of Connors. Thus Connors was clearly a far superior player. I defy anyone to prove me wrong. Go on, I dare ya.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:55 pm

kingraf wrote:My LO teacher always did say any "greater difficulty" debate that doesnt have the name Michael Jordan is doomed to deadlock

Nailed

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:59 pm

Red wrote:I haven't researched it yet, so I don't know. Do you want me to start up a Lendl vs Agassi thread?

Please don't do that. The entire forum would implode into a black hole of pointlessness which would also suck into it any enjoyment any of us may remotely have left about tennis.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:09 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:I haven't researched it yet, so I don't know. Do you want me to start up a Lendl vs Agassi thread?

Please don't do that. The entire forum would implode into a black hole of pointlessness which would also suck into it any enjoyment any of us may remotely have left about tennis.

Too late.
In-fact, just for fun, I'm going to do a Connors vs Borg one as well.

by bogbrush Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:09 pm

It's threads like this that make me think again about the wisdom of using some of my limited time on Earth on the forum.

by lydian Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:12 pm

Red wrote:Sums up what I've been trying to say very well.

So is Kriek to be penalised in having his wins degraded for winning 7 matches and winning a slam more than Murray who won 7 matches - both had draws they had no control over.

Where does this approach stop? Why just look at slams, what about Masters series wins, 500 wins, 250 wins?

Infact if we took your argument to its logical conclusion the ATP ranking lists themselves are obsolete because they don't assign points in more realistic terms for slams won at the time based on the difficulty, i.e. ranking, of opponents faced...but hang on, we have an oxymoron then...your theory relies on the relativity of player rankings faced in slams but the theory invalidates rankings. Oh the irony... Wink

The argument is a complete and utter waste of time.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:15 pm

lydian wrote:
If we took your argument to its logical conclusion the ATP ranking lists themselves are obsolete because they don't assign points in more realistic terms for slams won at the time based on the difficulty, i.e. ranking, of opponents faced....

No, I never said this. This hasn't got to do with anything at all.
I was saying some slams will be harder/ easier to win than others as you don't face the same opponents each time. I'm not saying we should alter the ranking system.

by User 774433 Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:19 pm

I just don't understand where people get this stuff from. At no point did I mention the ranking system.
What I'm saying is not even a bloody theory- it's common sense. As you don't face the same opponents on the same form from one slam to another- they can't be exactly the same difficulty to win. Nothing about altering the ranking system.

by **laverfan** Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:19 pm

Red wrote:
lydian wrote:
If we took your argument to its logical conclusion the ATP ranking lists themselves are obsolete because they don't assign points in more realistic terms for slams won at the time based on the difficulty, i.e. ranking, of opponents faced....
No, I never said this. This hasn't got to do with anything at all.
I was saying some slams will be harder/ easier to win than others as you don't face the same opponents each time. I'm not saying we should alter the ranking system.

Wimbledon does modify the seedings to Grass, but they are close to ATP rankings. Wink

by Sponsored content