Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Golden Retriever, Nov 22, 2004.
steamrolled LH twice. It just doesn't add up. Help me with the math pls.
Sorry, but I don't think there is a Communicative Property of Tennis.
huh? i don't understand this strange new tongue, kimosabe.
Each player has difficulty with different styles... Roddick has difficulty with attackers such as Henman, and Gonzolas.. Hewitt can pretty much beat almost with consistence, except federer..
Federer will lose a set to a solid power game such as Roddick/AA/MS... But will never lose to Hewitt because Hewitt doesn't have the power game.. he has the percentage/consistent game which doesn't threaten RF. Basically, Roger doesn't lose to himself.
Get it?.. its all about different play styles!
Good point. The only way to beat Federer is blow him off the court. Hewitt can't do that on his best days. As far as beating Roger when he is playing well, Safin and Roddick seem to be the only ones with any chance.
Different strategic matchups. If Federer was an animal and had to eat one top ten player to survive, he'd eat Hewitt because he matches up so well to him. That doesn't mean that Federer would try to eat Agassi though. Agassi doesn't matchup well against Federer...
Fake Edit: You know what, I'm not making much sense at all. Ignore this post.
perfmode: Excellent analogies, dude! But, if Roger Federer were a maneater and had to eat one top ten player to survive, why would he want to eat some scrawny "Swanson Frozen Dinner" sized portion in Leyton Hewitt? I mean, he'd gobble up that lil' kangaroo (pouch and all) like there was no tomorrow, and speaking of "tomorrow" there probably wouldn't be any leftovers as well (by "leftovers" I don't mean Kim Clisters).
"not making much sense......Ignore this post" ...... ah, we're back to that "Ignore" thread again? :wink:
I probably would eat Andy Roddick since he is probably the slowest in the top ten.
"huh? i don't understand this strange new tongue, kimosabe."
Then you didn't make it past 7th grade math! if that was directed at Rabbit
Another thing to add is that.. I played in a 5 game one set round robin match against two players.. PlayerA and PlayerB.
I lost to PlayerA 5-0 but won PlayerB 4-1. PlayerB beat PlayA 4-1.
hehe sounds like the math doesn't add up too huh.. PlayerA was a S&Ver, playerB is a baseliner.
I'm a baseliner.
From one math nerd to another, would that not be the Transitive Property of Tennis rather than Communicative?
Ding ding ding ding......I was wondering who'd catch that. Congrats, Daniel, you've won the gold star for the day!!!!!
Now, class for your bonus question. If Moses had two of every kind of animal on the ark, how many total were on board?
Depends on how many animals were on the ark in the first place.
From one math nerd to another, would that not be the Transitive Property of Tennis rather than Communicative?"
As long as we're on this . . . isn't it called the commutative property (rather than communicative?) It means you can change positions while preserving the property you're describing. So, addition is commutative (A+B=B+A) while subtraction is not (A-B not equal to B-A, unless A = B).
Dear god, I've just nerdified this board even more. I didn't think it was possible!
Well, I agree that commutative is a more descriptive term, but communicative is frequently used and generally accepted to mean the same thing.
Noah had the Ark, not Moses. Heehee, Pound Cat fell for it! Now, who is buried in Grant's Tomb?
@wright, actually that was directed at the title of this thread, which kinda left the last rf all by himself, and also ar won ms?marat safin i guess, but it would be: af BEAT ms. and i still am not sure of the point. jeez @wright, all over me dog!! can't slip up around these parts!!
You are right there, Brett. Andy definitely didn't win MS, last I checked, you can't own another human. I didn't mean to jump on ya, actually after I posted it I decided you probably directed that at the original post, but I was too lazy to delete my whole post.
Separate names with a comma.