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.

Look, all slams since 1987 have had 128 man draws...and most before that we're 128 from the early 70s. Some even had 256 draws if you care to check.

So recent times guys have had to win 7 matches to win a slam, and in recent years...past 20 years...all players have attended all slams. So why does beating 7 guys at AO mean less than beating 7 similarish guys at USO. Why does Federer having to beat Baghdatis who knocked out good players mean less than Djokovic beating Nadal in 2012 AO final? You're trying to repaint what has already happened to suit your own ends. In recent times the guy winning 7 rounds in a slam has deserved that slam and he gets another "1" added to his slam count total. Trying to detract from that is meaningless hogwash.

Not sure you read my post to carefully Lydian, let's repost it:

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.

I am not arguing that '1 slam win equals or doesn't equal one slam win according to the record books, of course in the record books they'll all be counted the same, That's stating the obvious.
What I am arguing, and have argued, is the simple fact is there will be disparity in difficulty from one slam to the next. If Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer all retire this month; David Ferrer may win the French Open. Now I wouldn't detract from his win, but what I would say is that it's a significantly easier title to win than it was in 2012.
I may be using extreme examples here, but I am honing in my main point: disparity in difficulty between slams almost certainly will occur. It's very unlikely not to, unless you face the same 7 players on the same form.
I do realise it's difficult to tell the difference sometimes.. and that is what tennis debate is all about... but just because we can't agree on the exact disparity doesn't suddenly mean it doesn't exist.
Playing inexperienced players in Grand Slam final in my eyes, is an easier job than facing a proven champion at that level, even if the finalist is in great form, as the proven champion will have the mentality in the big moments, the belief, and have the 'extra gear' to tap into when it counts.

Anyway that's all I'm saying on the matter, it's very clear that people simply ignore most of my post, and then come back with a rebuttal against an argument which I'm not even making, ie 'it counts as one slam in the record books' or 'they have to beat 7 players in a slam.'

I get your agrument Red, I do.
But it's a theoretical or even academic discussion Red. It's doesn't hold water pragmatically...a win is simply a win.
No-one is going to create some convoluted set of metrics that normalise the past 40 years of slam results. Things in reality are rarely equal but proving so and applying it is a different matter completely!

lydian wrote:I get your argument Red, I do.

Cheers. Unfortuntaly, you're only one of a few (I think?).

But it's a theoretical or even academic discussion Red.

Can't disagree with that.

Things in reality are rarely equal but proving so and applying it is a different matter completely!

Agree with that as well. However I don't think suddenly claiming they're all equal is correct either.

Strange how the more Red and socal put forward opinion masquerading as empirical evidence, the less convincing it sounds.

Not that it was ever convincing to start with.....

If that makes you laugh, maybe you don't have a good sense of humour?

lags72 wrote:Strange how the more Red and socal put forward opinion masquerading as empirical evidence

Oh dear Lags, that's just simply a lie, I didn't think you would do that.
My opinion is my opinion, simple as. Just because we all have different opinions on the disparity in difficulty in slam (which must exist unless you face the same 7 players on exactly the same form), doesn't mean the disparity doesn't exist. I recognise we can have our valid opinions on how slams compare to others.
And if it's anything that's unconvincing, it's quite frankly your ridiculous claim yesterday that Nadal had reached 'total maturity' on all surfaces when he was a teenager in 2005.

I really didn't want to get involved in another big up era debate, but after more careful consideration, I do feel red and socal might have some valid argument on their side. Now, if there is some truth in what they say, and personally I have no reasons to doubt it, can anybody with own mind let players retain all the "cheap" slams won in easy conditions as they were real and proper slams? Or perhaps action should be taken, and players should be strip out of the slams unfairly won so easily?? And who better than socal and red themseves to be in charge of the special ad hoc slams validation commitee! Just a suggestion, obviously

The ATP are already on to it JK, and the official website (most notably the "FedEx Reliability Zone" section) is being suitably modified even as I write.

Hi Jeremy, glad to have you back on v2
Glad you considered mine and Socal's point, (btw I am Amritia lol- this may change your mind ).

If by conditions you are talking about homogenisation, then I'll be the first to agree that it has made winning the FO-Wimby duo easier, as you do not have to adjust your play as much.

What??

In this case my vote goes to socal and hm murder to head the commitee.

Yes indeed JK, good that you considered points raised by Red and socal, and then promptly suggested that they be placed in charge of the "special ad hoc Slams validation committee" A perfect solution to the bewildering and highly complex My Slam is better than your Slam waffle....sorry...theory.

Mind you, worth perhaps refining your sarcasm technique JK. Might be just a little too subtle for some of us, if you get my drift......

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.

lags72 wrote:Yes indeed JK, good that you considered points raised by Red and socal, and then promptly suggested that they be placed in charge of the "special ad hoc Slams validation committee" A perfect solution to the bewildering and highly complex My Slam is better than your Slam waffle....sorry...theory.

Mind you, worth perhaps refining your sarcasm technique JK. Might be just a little too subtle for some of us, if you get my drift......

Right..... getting straight to the point: socal, red and hm to cut the "small balls" slam champions.

sfp - yep, let's hope he really can push on from this and have a strong season.

Personally I've never doubted his ability, and having been written off by many ahead of the Olympics we then saw what he could do even on grass in that epic semi.

I think we can safely say that he really really is 'back'. The question now is whether he can convert what have to date been somewhat isolated outstanding performances into a winning streak over seven Bo5 rounds, and revive memories of a magical two weeks in 2009.

That's more like it JK !!

lags72 wrote:A perfect solution to the bewildering and highly complex My Slam is better than your Slam waffle....sorry...theory.

Instead of continuously lying and misquoting me Lags, perhaps it would be better to read my posts so you don't find it so bewildering.
Let me make it really really simple:
-I'm not saying 1 slam doesn't equal 1 slam in the record books.
-I'm saying there is a disparity between the slams in terms of difficulty to win.
-The only way two slams are equal on the difficulty front, is if you beat exactly the same 7 players on exactly the same form. Very very unlikely.
-I think that having to beat proven slam champions in the latter stages of slams is the toughest task, as they have the mentality in the biggest situations, believe in themselves more as they have done it before, and have an extra gear to tap into when it counts.

Is it really that difficult or bewildering? Maybe Lags if you spent more time reading my posts rather than finding new and innovative ways to ignore my argument and misquote my position, you wouldn't find it so bewildering.

This doesn't mean that some slam wins don't count- as in that particular slam you can only beat who is in front of you. But it doesn't mean that one slam is always equal in difficulty to another.

Okay here is a poser for all you who think each slam has a different value. Which of Novak's slam wins hold the most value and which holds the least?

Red - please be assured that it's only by reading your posts carefully that I discover just how much I am at odds with your opinions.

I dont quite get why JMDP's exho win over Nadal is being used to show people he can beat Rafa. It was a exhibitions, means nothing to anyone except their accountants.

What should be used as a beacon is a fact that he is World #7, a slam winner, and the fact that he has just beaten world #3 and #1, back to back. If it was, say Anderson, I would understand using an exho to size his chances. But this is a Slam winner who has beaten Rafa before, no need to talk him up with talks of exho wins!!

With that in mind c'mon Rafa!! We Rafa fans have been waiting since 2009 for a hard court MS too.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Okay here is a poser for all you who think each slam has a different value. Which of Novak's slam wins hold the most value and which holds the least?

I don't know about 'value' I think giving slams different values are a bit weird.

In terms of difficulty I think maybe his AO2012/USO2011 was the harderst (had to face Fedal, Murraydal combo in the last 2 matches ). Probably his easier one was AO2008 where he faced a slightly under the weather Fed in the semi, and Tsonga in the final.

I think all Player A's slams were easier to win than Player B's slams. Since it is entirely subjective and the variables are too numerous to quantify, there is no method to prove or disprove this. Any attempt to do so is meaningless and futile.

Therefore there is no need to discuss it further, unless you take the whole thing far too seriously - either because you really really really like one player/his fans and/or really really really hate another player/his fans.
In which case I still don't want to discuss it further because life is too short for such silliness/obsessiveness.

Plus which it makes the forum look daft (having read the comments about the tennis forum on the GOAT thread, it's clear we're a bit of a laughing stock).

lags72 wrote:Red - please be assured that it's only by reading your posts carefully that I discover just how much I am at odds with your opinions.

What do you disagree with then?
At 1:37 I've given my reasoning in a bullet point list. Which one of them do you not agree with, and why?
Or are you going to reply with a sarcastic dig which cleverly avoids my argument.

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Okay here is a poser for all you who think each slam has a different value. Which of Novak's slam wins hold the most value and which holds the least?

I don't know about 'value' I think giving slams different values are a bit weird.

In terms of difficulty I think maybe his AO2012/USO2011 was the harderst (had to face Fedal, Murraydal combo in the last 2 matches ). Probably his easier one was AO2008 where he faced a slightly under the weather Fed in the semi, and Tsonga in the final.

Well first up the AO 2012 he only met three seeded players (the rest of his opponents were unseeded or wild cards) and US Open 2011 he beat the No.2 and 3 seeds but also had a qualifier and two unseeded players to play. It could easily be argued that AO 2011 and AO 2013 were tougher since he had to beat five seeded players to win. Now do you see how pointless this all becomes?

I'm not saying we're all going to agree?
We will all have our own opinions- but this doesn't mean a disparity doesn't exist.
Once again I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

Agreed CC, pointless and damaging to the forum imho.
I regret contributing - I had no idea it was going to spread from thread to thread in some obsessive cancerous way.

Julius- I think you may have to blame some of that on Spaghetti Hans.

The farce on the GOAT thread that is.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Agreed CC, pointless and damaging to the forum imho.
I regret contributing - I had no idea it was going to spread from thread to thread in some obsessive cancerous way.

Agreed and on that note I am going to retire from it gracefully.

Look Red, let's be frank here.... we all know you have a player-orientated agenda (in the same way that socal does, and the likes of Catalan Power and Uneducated Biased etc on the old 606). You're far from alone there, so not a problem in itself.

I don't wish to spend time analysing each of your bullet points (and will fully expect to hear you accusing me of ducking the argument) primarily because I have a fairly short attention span for all the era mythology which then seems to link - with customary predictability - to the some-Slams-are-harder-than- others waffle. Ultimately it just gets tiresome and frankly I lose interest. In fact I've surprised myself I've stuck with it today for so long ; but just occasionally it offers a bit of light relief and amusement.

I have no issue with you espousing your highly subjective opinions - even if they can get repetitive at times, and yes, even when I do find them bewildering. But please don't expect me to believe that they have some sort of proven merit in the wider world of the sport as a whole, that's all I would ask.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Agreed CC, pointless and damaging to the forum imho.
I regret contributing - I had no idea it was going to spread from thread to thread in some obsessive cancerous way.

The funny thing is Julius, you actually bring it up more often than everybody else.
I did not write a thread on this (ok I sent a PM to LK which I did not realise he would publish), but you probably bring it up as often as I do.

That's nonsense Red, I've never brought it up nor do I continue it over a period of days/week/months, not do I pursue it with the doggedness of a hound chasing a rabbit down a hole.
I may bring up as a joke sometimes, but I should stop doing that because then other people fail to see the joke and start taking seriously.

Red wrote:Julius- I think you may have to blame some of that on Spaghetti Hans.

Hans very rarely posted here and when he did it was obvious wummery which many people enjoyed for what it was.
That's not what I talking about.

Julius- if you looked at the GOAT threads you could see many people brought up competition at the time as a potential debating point- in-fact that exact topic filled many posts and there was an interesting discussion.
The only difference was, is that there wasn't an army of people repeating 'OMG you can't prove this, so therefore this whole debate is a total disgrace- we must all agree on something for it to be true etc.' which just stifles debate.

Yes, Red, I'm sure you are entirely blameless and it's all the fault of other posters.

Red wrote:

lags72 wrote:Red - please be assured that it's only by reading your posts carefully that I discover just how much I am at odds with your opinions.

What do you disagree with then?
At 1:37 I've given my reasoning in a bullet point list. Which one of them do you not agree with, and why?
Or are you going to reply with a sarcastic dig which cleverly avoids my argument.

pot calling the kettle black

lags72 wrote: In fact I've surprised myself I've stuck with it today for so long ;

No you haven't.
You've never addressed my points. You just made a few sarcastic digs, which cleverly totally avoided any sort of discussion.
These, to remind you, are my points. Perhaps you can address them for a change :

• I'm not saying 1 slam doesn't equal 1 slam in the record books.

• I'm saying there is a disparity between the slams in terms of difficulty to win.

• The only way two slams are equal on the difficulty front, is if you beat exactly the same 7 players on exactly the same form. Very very unlikely.

• I think that having to beat proven slam champions in the latter stages of slams is the toughest task, as they have the mentality in the biggest situations, believe in themselves more as they have done it before, and have an extra gear to tap into when it counts.

I know what will happen though, you will decline to answer, and a few days later come up with another sarcastic post which attacks, yet avoids, my argument. If you disagree with my, then say so, and explain. I've even used the bullet point function, especially for you.

LuvSports! wrote:

Red wrote:

lags72 wrote:Red - please be assured that it's only by reading your posts carefully that I discover just how much I am at odds with your opinions.

What do you disagree with then?
At 1:37 I've given my reasoning in a bullet point list. Which one of them do you not agree with, and why?
Or are you going to reply with a sarcastic dig which cleverly avoids my argument.

pot calling the kettle black

LS, put all the questions you have to me, in a bullet point list like I have. If then I don't answer, then you can call me a coward. (I say put it in bullet points so I don't miss it, there are quite a few posts on this forum, and I can't check all of them at once.) Or you could PM me them

Okay one last post on this to address your points.

Point one. Agreed.

Point two. Prove it. It can't be done as each fan of each player will argue the case for their player without putting any thought into it.

Point three. No it isn't. You most probably end up with a similar level of difficulty as in each opponent varies in ease/difficult so where Nadal may have a tougher quarter-final opponent in any slam then Federer may have had a tougher semi-opponent so it mre than likely levels it all up.

Point four. You do realise then that you are denigrating at least three of Nadal's slam wins beating Puerta (unseeded) Berdych and Soderling in finals? Besides it is not wholely true. I have seen Andy beat Rafa in slam semis but also seen him lose against Roddick at the same stage.

Thanks for replying directly CC

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Point one. Agreed.

Glad you agreed.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Point two. Prove it.

I'm saying that there will be a disparity in difficulty from one slam win to the next. This is correct, unless you happen to face the same 7 players in exactly the same from from one slam to the next. 0.1% chance max.

Point three. No it isn't. You most probably end up with a similar level of difficulty as in each opponent varies in ease/difficult so ... it more than likely levels it all up.

It is very unlikely to level up exactly for all players.

Point four. You do realise then that you are denigrating at least three of Nadal's slam wins beating Puerta (unseeded) Berdych and Soderling in finals?

I'm not denigrating, I'm just of the opinion that they are some of Nadal's easier opponents in Grand Slam finals.

Red wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:

Red wrote:

lags72 wrote:Red - please be assured that it's only by reading your posts carefully that I discover just how much I am at odds with your opinions.

What do you disagree with then?
At 1:37 I've given my reasoning in a bullet point list. Which one of them do you not agree with, and why?
Or are you going to reply with a sarcastic dig which cleverly avoids my argument.

pot calling the kettle black

LS, put all the questions you have to me, in a bullet point list like I have. If then I don't answer, then you can call me a coward. (I say put it in bullet points so I don't miss it, there are quite a few posts on this forum, and I can't check all of them at once.) Or you could PM me them

I don't have any questions for you and I have no desire to PM you especially as I wouldn't know what to put into the search engine . In the past you have not answered others questions which is why I think it is ironic that you are accusing others of doing so.
I don't call people cowards for trifle things such as these. I also admit to my mistakes/actions, something that you, with all your wisdom, have not mastered.

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.

LuvSports! wrote:
I don't have any questions for you

That's a shame- I like answering quetions

I wouldn't know what to put into the search engine .

Red.

In the past you have not answered others questions.

I must have missed them, apologies for that. I'm giving you a chance now though.

I also admit to my mistakes/actions, something that you, with all your wisdom, have not mastered.

LS, I think if there's anyone who is to apologise then it's got to be you- I still remember that incident. If I have problems with what someone is saying, I ask them about it directly, let's leave it at that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps because it is too difficult to come to a conclusion?

Fair enough- but to be fair to me CC I have emphasised that we aren't going to all agree on this- but it doesn't mean all slams are the same.

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps because it is too difficult to come to a conclusion?

Fair enough- but to be fair to me CC I have emphasised that we aren't going to all agree on this- but it doesn't mean all slams are the same.

And it doesn't mean they aren't as well. Besides it is what the tennis stats count that really matters and that is that one slam equals one slam. Nothing will change that.

Yes let us leave it at that, so you have the final word.
Are you blind, did you read to what i said about my actions and mistakes?
Have you ever done anything wrong? Get off your high horse and stop thinking you are the moral arbiter of society.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps because it is too difficult to come to a conclusion?

Fair enough- but to be fair to me CC I have emphasised that we aren't going to all agree on this- but it doesn't mean all slams are the same.

And it doesn't mean they aren't as well.

They only way they are equal in difficulty is if you have to face the exact same players on exactly the same form. How many times do you think this has happened CC?

LuvSports! wrote:
Are you blind, did you read to what i said about my actions and mistakes?

I think you did apologise to both me and HN for that. OK.
No, I'm not blind btw.

LuvSports! wrote:
Have you ever done anything wrong?

Yes, I have.
But when I disagree with someone I tell them, I don't insult them behind their back.

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps because it is too difficult to come to a conclusion?

Fair enough- but to be fair to me CC I have emphasised that we aren't going to all agree on this- but it doesn't mean all slams are the same.

And it doesn't mean they aren't as well.

They only way they are equal in difficulty is if you have to face the exact same players on exactly the same form. How many times do you think this has happened CC?

You are conveniently forgetting the invariables again and you are contradicting yourself. You say the measure of difficulty of a slam is beating top players in the final and in more than 25% of Nadal's slams he hasn't done that. Also you may see a Nadal V Murray semi is tougher than say a Federer V Tsonga semi but would you still say it definitely was if Murray was carrying an injury or on clay etc (more variables there you see). In any case how do you feel the difficulty should be rated? On toughness of draw? Can't be done really as opponents faced may under perform or be injutred or be on a surface that doesn't suit them so toughness of draw can be dispelled as a method. Toughness of opponent? Again not reliable as I mentioned above as Nadal fans may feel Rosol etc is a tough draw but fans of other players wouldn't. So how exactly are you rating the quality/score or rating of a slam win if it isn't one? 1.01, 1.1, 0.99 etc etc.

[/b] Incorrect [/b]

You have done that I saw it on other forums and yet you have not apologised.
You also haven't apologised for things you said to me.

Thankyou for giving me a temporary reprieve, I am not worthy.