For all those Del Potro haters

First topic message reminder :

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.

You're not explicitly saying it but bigger picture implications say it.
The problem is you haven't fully thought through the basis of your own theory and where it leads.

lydian wrote:You're not explicitly saying it but bigger picture implications say it.
The problem is you haven't fully thought through the basis of your own theory and where it leads.

What theory are you talking about?

What I'm saying is not even a 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.

laverfan wrote:

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.

Exactly LF...draw seedings and rankings are inextricably linked. The theory has to be based on rankings but at the same time undermines them.

Red, you don't get it do you. You're comparing results of slams and saying they're not equal because of different players faced. What do you mean by different players if not different rankings? Different haircuts?

Also using Red's theory then if Nadal won a slam beating the exact same opponents as Federer it would be worth exactly the same? Wrong. Purely because each individual one of the seven players would pose a different level of difficulty to beat as some players match up worse to Nadal than Fed in those seven and vice versa.

lydian wrote:
Red, you don't get it do you. You're comparing results of slams and saying they're not equal because of different players faced. What do you mean by different players if not different rankings? Different haircuts?

Neither.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also using Red's theory then if Nadal won a slam beating the exact same opponents as Federer it would be worth exactly the same?

If the players were on exactly the same form, then yes. But even this is unlikely.
*In terms of difficulty.

I cant believe you are really suggesting that all slams are exactly equal. If you watch football, would you rate a victory over Stoke equal with a win over Real Madrid? Of course you do, dont you?

kingraf wrote:I cant believe you are really suggesting that all slams are exactly equal. If you watch football, would you rate a victory over Stoke equal with a win over Real Madrid? Of course you do, dont you?

That's what I'm wondering. The only way two slams can have equal difficulty to win is if you have to face exactly the same 7 players on exactly the same form.
Practically impossible.

No I am afraid not. Unless you are saying Federer has just as much difficulty in beating Lukas Rosol and that Nadal has just as much trouble beating Tsonga as Federer does regardless of form they are in although of course that is another variable I reckon.

If your club beat Stoke in a League match and then Real Madrid in a league match both would earn you three points.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If your club beat Stoke in a League match and then Real Madrid in a league match both would earn you three points.

Yes. I absolutely love this idea.
They would both get you 3 points, in the record books it would count as a win.
But...

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If your club beat Stoke in a League match and then Real Madrid in a league match both would earn you three points.

Yes. I absolutely love this idea.
They would both get you 3 points, in the record books it would count as a win.
But...

But...you could always get into a completely unproveable and pointless argument which serves no purpose.

But nothing. That is how it would be recorded. It may mean more to supporters but still only counts as three points. But back to the case in hand in that even if Federer and Nadal had exactly the same draws to win a slam the difficulty would still be different. Federer may struggle against players Nadal easily beats and vice versa - it is called match ups and they vary in their own unique difficulty from player to player.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But nothing. That is how it would be recorded.

Yes I know...
but beating Real Madrid is harder than beating Stoke.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If your club beat Stoke in a League match and then Real Madrid in a league match both would earn you three points.

In a slam, you might face Stoke in R2 and Madrid in the final...the 3 points is the slam win.
In another slam, you might face Wigan in R2 and Barcelona in the final...another 3 pts/slam win.

This is a pointless argument with more holes than Swiss cheese. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

of course they are both three points, but which one do you think, say Aston Villa fans would remember longer? Which one do you think had more difficulty? Stopping Crouch or Ronaldo? Taking.your theory to the logical end game. Every player in history had the exact same chance of winning a slam, and every player in history has played the first round at exactly the same level.

In essence, if every win counts the same, then every first round victory is equal. Thus Gianni Minna playing Nadal in the First Round of Roland Garros is an equally as hard as playing, Albert Montanaes in the USO

Interestingly, enough I noted the pointlessness (?) of this thread a page ago.

lydian wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If your club beat Stoke in a League match and then Real Madrid in a league match both would earn you three points.

In a slam, you might face Stoke in R2 and Madrid in the final...the 3 points is the slam win.
In another slam, you might face Wigan in R2 and Barcelona in the final...another 3 pts/slam win.

This is a pointless argument with more holes than Swiss cheese. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

LOL Lydian. You never addressed my point, randomly started talking about some ranking system, and now you're claiming 'you're done'.

This was my main point, which you totally avoided:

What I'm saying is not even a 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.

kingraf wrote:Interestingly, enough I noted the pointlessness (?) of this thread a page ago.

It's a pity some can't just accept the obvious- no two slams can be exactly the same as each other in difficulty (unless same opponents on same form)
God knows why people are talking about match-ups, rankings etc. they're complicating a relatively simple point.

Well actually it depends in what context you are talking here. One off friendly akin to an exhibition match in tennis. Anyhow have even proved that you are incorrect in that identical slam draws for say Federer and Nadal would be equal in difficulty for each to win - it wouldn't. Players match up differently to each different player.

CC, I'm not talking about match-ups here; you're avoiding my argument.

Red I don't why you can't accept the obvious - everyones knows no two slams can be exactly the same difficulty, but no-one cares because it's of no importance to anyone but yourself.
The reasons for this have been clearly explained by several posters, and everyone understands it apart from you.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Players match up differently to each different player.

Sure they do
I'm not saying differently.

Julius- no one gives you the right to decide what is important. I am stating a statement- if you agree with me, good for you.

No I am proving you wrong. You reckon that the only way slam wins share an equal value in your opinion is if each slam draw was identical but that is wrong. Nadal may draw Rosol in Round One and going by last year he would struggle to come through whereas Federer wouldn't. Tsonga in quarters would really test Fed but not Nadal so you see the identical draw would still vary in difficulty from player to player.

You first need to work out a formula on why you think Lendl is better than Agassi and post it here and I guarantee various posters would pick holes in it just like they could if I posted in favour of Agassi. Opinions are opinions and merely that - not facts.

Interesting this.
One minute:

everyones knows no two slams can be exactly the same difficulty

and another minute my claim (that this is the case) has:

more holes than Swiss cheese

Exactly JHM. Shock, horror we're being told players face from one slaw draw to the next either different players or the same players but in different form. No sh1t Sherlock? This is why the discussion is pointless...on the one hand you're stating the obvious and on the other have no practical or useful application beyond the obvious observation. That's why I'm done.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I am proving you wrong.

Really?
So you've proved that slams do have have equal difficulty?
Match-ups is just another variables that comes into it... I don't see how it means all slams are equal difficulty.

Red - I'm not trying to decide what's important, so stop being so sanctimonious. It's needless and unbecoming.

I'm trying to explain why lydian, lags, CC, myself, LF etc all think it's a completely pointless and unimportant argument. I'm not speaking on their behalf - they've all said that! But you don't seem to have understood, so I'm reiterating the point.

lydian wrote:Exactly JHM. Shock, horror we're being told players face from one slaw draw to the next either different players or the same players but in different form. No sh1t Sherlock? This is why the discussion is pointless...on the one hand you're stating the obvious and on the other have no practical or useful application beyond the obvious observation. That's why I'm done.

But Caledonian Craig just said he 'proved me wrong' and you said my argument had 'more holes than Swiss cheese.'... and all of a sudden I'm stating the 'obvious'? lol even osbourne would be proud of that U-turn.

The practical application is that, we can't just look at slam wins to 'prove' who is a better player- although a player may have less slams- he may have faced tougher competition in his time. You made the exact point yourself a weeks days ago:

Take this example: We have Player A, whose prime lasts 5 years. He is a great player- let's give him an arbitrary rating of 9.8 There are no great players 3 years either side of him- and he accumulates 19 slams in this 5 year period largely unchallenged.
But let's visit the same hypothetical scenario, and the same 5 years (so we can't comparing different time periods as such). His arbitrary rating is also 9.8, but this time there are three other great players who are all of a similar age to him. The slams are shared between these four great players, and Player A manages to win 6 slams.

I remember you made this precise point a few weeks ago, and I'm following up on that.

Well Red I will wait to read your detailed theorem on why Lendl is better than Agassi and with your formula as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Have fun and mind the variables. Heck with all them variables the theorem may be up for reading by the WTF.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Red I will wait to read your detailed theorem on why Lendl is better than Agassi and with your formula as to how you arrived at that conclusion. Have fun and mind the variables. Heck with all them variables the theorem may be up for reading by the WTF.

There are no theorems.
What I'm saying is, as Julius and Lydian have just nicely put it, 'the obvious.'

And that was an era talk and in no way stated one slam was worth any more or less than one as I recall. If you want you should just say what is really what you think - Nadal is better than Federer. That is the bottom line to this all isnt it?

Well Red you need a theorem or a formula. Heck how do you think Isaac Newton and Albert Newton put tgeir theories across ie E=Mc2.

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.

That is exactly right Red, in fact throughout the history of the tour slam count as a measure of greatness only really became prevalent with Sampras and when the AO became an on par slam with the other 4. Just because we can not agree what the level of disparity is or isn't does not mean that no difference exists whatsoever. It isn't black and white, but there are objective facts and measures that can guide us in our analysis.

Nope.
If they both retire now, I would consider Federer to be a greater player than Nadal.
Both players are not finished yet though.

Red - using your observation just how would you compare 11 Federer slams to 11 Nadal slams?
What is the objective common ground you'd use?
Please don't say ranking/seeding of players faced...

lydian wrote:Red - using your observation just how would you compare 11 Federer slams to 11 Nadal slams?
What is the objective common ground you'd use?
Please don't say ranking/seeding of players faced...

Federer has won 17 slams. Which of 17 slams are you talking about?

Socal what slam win of Novak's is worth more than one slam win and which is worth least?

Take team sports for example I am a laker fan and our hated rivals are the Celtics, the Lakers for the early history of the NBA where always second fiddle to the Celtics, always. Then in 80s we passed up those beaneaters from Boston and for the first time after losing 8 or 9 finals to the great celtics many of them going the distance and settled in the final seconds of the 7th game, the lakers finally beat the Celtics in 1985 in the finals. Ask 100 laker fans and 80 of them will tell you of the lakers 16 championships 1985 was the championship. (since then we beat them 2 more times). Why because of the history and quality of the opponent.

Lets say this year federer beats Djoko at RG and then kicks Nadal's tail in at the FO and at age 32 beats his nemesis on his nemesis' home court. Do you not think fed fans would value and discuss that title more than federer's wins at his heyday. Why is that? because subjective factors and historical context surrounding that slam would make it more special, more equal than the other ones. If that was to happen you know they would be crowing about it till the cows come home and rightfully so.

CC, to me his first slam, his second slam and the first time he beat Nadal in a final at wimby I value a tad more than the other ones. The first because it is your first. The second one because he went through 3 years of bs smears about one slam wonder and only winnng because Roger had mono. The first time he beat Nadal in a final at wimby because it is wimby and it was nadal.

Of course fans will have particular favourite slam wins for varying reasons with some having more sentimental value and others giving more satisfaction but it still rates as one slam win. Personally, to each individual fan it may have differing meaning but in years to come will still count as one slam win.

They don't count the same for me and other commentators will look at the objective factors like the competition faced and come to similar conclusions. It isn't just sentimentality it is again grounded in objective differences. Take my Laker v. Celtic analogy. Do you think Real Madrid beating Barca in a spanish cup final is the same as beating Deportivo or Espanol in a cup final? Sure a win is a win, some wins are more than just the trophy and it often involves who you beat to win that trophy. If that wasn't the case then why do you football fans get your panties in a twirl over Tottenham v. Arsenal, or Rangers v. Celtic; isn't it just 3 points?

socal1976 wrote:CC, to me his first slam, his second slam and the first time he beat Nadal in a final at wimby I value a tad more than the other ones. The first because it is your first. The second one because he went through 3 years of bs smears about one slam wonder and only winnng because Roger had mono. The first time he beat Nadal in a final at wimby because it is wimby and it was nadal.

CHeers for the answer socal. Your answer though is more based on sentiment I take it and nothing to do with the difficulty of winning it. As in his first slam he he beat an unseeded player in the final and only beat two other seeded players in his run to glory. Interestingly, his Wimbledon win also saw him win beating four seeded players. Going purely on quality of players seedings wise then his Australian Open 2011 comes out tops. Also Red gave a different answer to the same question which just demonstrates what a total lottery such a task is of trying to give extra/less value to slam wins.

Yes I know he has 17 slams, lets say he had 11 - how would you compare the 1st 11 to Nadal's 11? What is the basis of comparison?

Exactly CC...socal, you said "I value more". Fine, that's your proviso.
But how can slam wins be objectively measured to be of "more value" than others?

Red is spot on CC, just because differences are difficult to calibrate or hard to gain consensus on doesn't mean they aren't important or everything is just the same. It is a matter of discussion but the discussion and the conclusions are not immaterial. You think if Roger beats Novak and Nadal and wins at RG at this age that the factors surrounding this slam wouldn't have the fed fans using it as THE TALKING POINT to prove his superiority once and for all?

Socal

lydian wrote:Exactly CC...socal, you said "I value more". Fine, that's your proviso.
But how can slam wins be objectively measured to be of "more value" than others?

I don't know why does the media and the football world view a win over Manchester united as a bigger win than a win over stoke? Because of the competition level and because of rivalry. Do you think Mac's win at wimby over Borg is more significant or his win over Chris Lewis? If you asked 100 tennis commentators I am sure you could find some moron who disagrees but the weight of consensus would be on the borg victory. I really don't see what it is that you guys have been argueing with Red about while I have been sleeping off my St patty's day drinking binge.

lydian wrote:Yes I know he has 17 slams, lets say he had 11 - how would you compare the 1st 11 to Nadal's 11? What is the basis of comparison?

Nadal's first 11 are clearly superior because he didn't run over a bunch of players that for either injury issues, inferior talent, or lack of application failed to launch. He beat Federer and Djoko in those slams and albeit a couple of other weak sisters on clay. And on the strength of the H2H dominance 90 percent of commentators would say Nadal is the goat and I would agree.

Of course socal you would get posters making a thing of that but what does that mean? Nothing. No matter how the fans conceive it it will always be rated as one slam win in the here and now or until hell freezes over. Just as if Andy were to win Wimbledon it would mean, personally more to me than the US Open even if he never beat a single seeded player on his way to victory.