View Single Post
Old 06-19-2013, 05:25 AM   #3059
abmk's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S
Posts: 15,583

Originally Posted by NonP View Post
I'll have to revisit the match sometime, but that wasn't exactly my impression. Also I think Fed tanked the 4th set to gear himself up for the 5th. It almost turned out to be the right decision... until he rolled in an overly safe 1st serve out wide on his 1st MP and Djoko made him pay with that big return seen around the world.
yeah, federer didn't try that much in the 4th set after he got broken until the 2nd last game where he tried his best to hold so that he could serve first in the 5th . But that was the only 'bad' set from either player in the match

Originally Posted by NonP View Post
I definitely think Murray would've done better (all other things being equal, of course). I've said this before but Murray is the best returner of this era, above Djoko. To me this becomes clearer when I see them play each other.

A fun factoid: in all of Fed's Wimby finals Murray is the only opponent who won more than half of Fed's 2nd-serve points. In Pete's Agassi was the one. Each I'd say is the best returner of his generation.
on a scale of increasing surface speed/quality of serve, murray's return slowly overtakes djoker for me.

Originally Posted by NonP View Post
As you may recall I don't think the stats support the common (mis)conception that there's this big difference between "fast" and "slow" HCs. But if we're talking about the AO in particular I can see Djoko giving Pete all he could handle, though I'd still favor Pistol in the finals.
we'd have to disagree on this : examples of hewitt, kafelnikov, sampras, djoko etc show quite a bit of contrast. I'd definitely put djoker's peak at the AO above that of sampras and of course vice versa at the USO.

I'd agree though that the gap b/w sampras/agassi at the AO/USO is a bit mis-represented by their h2hs there.

Originally Posted by NonP View Post
Let's say the player who won all his matches at the YEC was to receive some bonus points, enough to push Fed over Roddick. This would be a pretty "objective" system, don't you think? And that's just one among many possibilities.

To be clear I don't mean to discount the official ATP rankings completely. I remember Fed admitting that nerves got to him in his loss to Roddick at the Canada MS, as he was just about to become the official No. 1 for the 1st time in his career. Obviously there's no telling that Fed would've swept the YEC that same year had he been under the same pressure. Still that's not enough to make me treat the official rankings as some kind of a canon, because the ATP ranking system has seen and will likely see numerous changes over the organization's history--unlike, say, the prestige of the majors which has remained more or less the same since their inception (except for the AO) or, even better, that of the CYGS or the year-end No. 1 ranking (official or not) which, of course, carries a certain sociological weight limited not only to tennis.

Again let's say you give bonus points for beating the world's No. 1, even more for repeating the same over and over. You can say this is too subjective, but if you think about it we do this all the time when trying to judge the level of competition, the most impressive victories, etc.

Another thing to keep in mind is that rankings aren't there solely to assess the achievements of each and every player, but also to organize the tour and keep the tournament directors happy. That's why I disagree with the understandable but misguided view that the majors should carry more ranking points than under the current system, because such a heavy emphasis on the Slams would make players slack off even more at the smaller events than they do now. At the same time becoming a Slam champion is simply a huge milestone: though she/he was officially No. 1 many fans rightly didn't consider Wozniacki superior to Serena or Clijsters, or Rios to Sampras or Rafter. One can accept the current rankings for organizational purposes but devise their own for the "real" placements of the players.

Also, there's no rule set in stone that says there must be a single No. 1 for the year. I'm perfectly fine with Agassi sharing the prize with Pete in '95 & '99 (though, again, I do think Pistol was better), Vilas and/or Connors with Borg in '77, etc. In fact this is exactly what happens in a fair number of rankings for the previous years, and some of us "historians" err in applying this compromise to the old-timers but not to the more recent candidates.

yeah, agree, the ATP system is just one way of looking at things. You could look at a lot of other things as well . I do think the points given to majors right now are fine as they are.

fed/roddick/ferrero in 2003 weren't that far off from each other. I see your point for that year - that it was close and maybe things would be different under a different system.

But in case of sampras/agassi in 1999, I don't really see the closeness at all unless you give a lot of emphasis on the h2h.

the ATP rankings are of course not some sort of gospel. But they do indicate many things correctly a lot of times. agassi ended 99 with 5048 points at #1 and sampras ended 99 with 3024 points at #3. that's a vast difference . I don't think with any sort of objective system, you'd get them close based on performance alone.

Originally Posted by NonP View Post
But is the '60 championship all that different from, say, the YEC, where the top four players with the best H2Hs advance to the SFs? And was Pete not the best player until he himself became inactive... and also after he came back when he thrashed Agassi in the '99 YEC final? And what is tennis if not a collection of H2Hs? After all it's an individual game with only two opponents.

Again there are many ways to look at this. The ATP ranking system is just one of them.
I think that's doing disservice to agassi's RG win where he beat defending champ moya , medvedev whereas sampras went down to medvdev

I'd disagree about tennis being a collection of h2hs per se. murray's W/L record in 2009 for example was superior to federer's, but federer was far an away the better player because of the vast chasm in the performance at majors.

I think the importance of championships in 60 relative to the pro majors was more than that of the YEC to the majors in 99. that's the major difference

Originally Posted by NonP View Post
Always a good approach... as long as you restrain restraining yourself at times.
heh !
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote