View Single Post
Old 06-19-2013, 06:45 PM   #3069
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,071

Originally Posted by abmk View Post
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.
As you recall I've already covered Sampras. As for the other guys, Hewitt has admitted on record that he felt the pressure of having to win on his home turf, and before he began his 3-peat Down Under the USO was actually Djoko's more successful HC major. Kafelnikov did do significantly better at the AO, yes.

Even more tellingly, though, I've seen the officlal court speed readings in the '90s actually rate the AO faster than the USO, and IIRC the two had virtually identical %s of service games won as recently as last year. Neither supports the common perception that the USO clearly plays faster than the AO.

I think the real reason why the AO seems to retain this outlier status is its timing and unpredictable conditions. That is, since the event is held shortly after New Year's the top players don't have much time to get into a groove and impose their game right off the bat. Add in the blazing heat, which means fitness and stamina play a bigger role than at the USO. Also it used be be played on Rebound Ace, which reportedly could turn sticky under the sun and produce more uneven bounces (and presumably more upsets) than the current Plexicushion.

As for Djoko vs. Sampras, granted Pete never dominated an AO from start to end like Nole in '08 and '11, but in the two years he won he was zoned in from the SFs. I do think that Pete would be a very tough nut to crack even for peak Djoko. (Of course I'm assuming that there's hardly a big difference in court speed between the two HC majors.)

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.
It's not just the #s in the H2H, but the comprehensive way Pete dominated Agassi that clinches it for me. Also Dre for all his consistency never went on a tear in '99 like Pete did in the summer.

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 do think Agassi's FO title is a big plus over Pete that year. But Pete got his big win at the YEC too, against... of course... Agassi himself, in a thorough demolition to boot. In fact Dre in his book talks about how he felt he wasn't the best player in the world after yet another beatdown by his rival. (Of course he came back strong a couple months later at the AO, finally taking out Pete in perhaps his clutchest performance ever.)

If not for the YEC I'd easily name Agassi the sole No. 1 for 1999. But as things stand I think Pete edges it out by a hair, or at least shares the prize with Dre.

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 don't think tennis is just a collection of H2Hs myself, and I've commented before on how Fed should be considered the best HC player of 2009 over Murray because Andy failed to deliver when it counted.

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
Granted the context is different, but the main idea is the same: arguably the best player (Gonzales/Sampras) was barely active outside of a limited time period, but such was his dominance that he deserves consideration for the year-end No. 1 ranking. Again I perfectly understand why one would rank Agassi over Pete for '99, not unlike why Rosewall often gets the top billing over Gonzales for '60.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne View Post
NonP, Thanks for answering me. But why so unfriendly words? By the way, I'm not retiring...
My tone could've been more pleasant, but I was making a genuine suggestion. You shouldn't object so vehemently to every slight disagreement out there. Not everyone will agree with you all the time.

Do you have proof for the cello melody of opus 100 is not a Swedish folk song?
The proof is in the music. YouTube doesn't seem to have the folk song... but if you do listen you'll see that the main cello theme isn't part of the original. It's a splendid tune, even by Schubert's standards which is saying something.
NonP is offline   Reply With Quote