You mean when people say that 2000-2006 players were playing better than Djokovic and his opponents or when they say mid 2000s Federer would dominate a peak Djokovic?I've been here for about a year. IMO there's a clear trend of resorting to the eye test instead of objective criteria.
I used the search function, and I was under the impression that there was a scarce mention of "the eye test" before 2014/2015.
Discuss.
I've been here for about a year. IMO there's a clear trend of resorting to the eye test instead of objective criteria.
I used the search function, and I was under the impression that there was a scarce mention of "the eye test" before 2014/2015.
Discuss.
You mean when people say that 2000-2006 players were playing better than Djokovic and his opponents or when they say mid 2000s Federer would dominate a peak Djokovic?
No. I meant why no one used the eye test before 2015 much?
Not always.'Eye tests' will obviously be biased towards your fave player. Stats >>>>>> personal bias
Why do you think? You tell us since you made the claim.No. I meant why no one used the eye test before 2015 much?
Why do you think? You tell us since you made the claim.
No. I meant why no one used the eye test before 2015 much?
Can it be that you have never read/heard of ‘Roger Federer as Religious Experience’? A piece of writing penned at a time when it did not exist in isolation, and people genuinely mused on whether a man with single digit slams was the best ever? The eye test is not a retroactive, defensive invention of this forum, believe it or not.
It sounded more like a dig but okayI don't know. I wasn't here before 2020. That is why I'm asking.
Hell you even have McEnroe talking making comments about it during the USO 2004 QF with Agassi. Embarassing fail of an OP tbh. I'm sure certain Djokovic fans would love it if the "eye test" was a forum invention but people have been using their eyes longer than they've been using stats that's for sure. To go for an even older example you need only look at the Old Big 4 of Laver, Pancho, Rosewall and Hoad - the first three pretty much sweared up and down that Hoad was the greatest of all time and the best player they ever played, despite all being much more accomplished than him by nearly any metric. Hell you look at the rankings the old timers give their peers and they're heavily slanted towards how they evaluate players games rather than the traditional bean counting that's common now. This pseudo-intellectual movement towards trying to use stats like "How many slam matches were won across the entire year by top 10 players" to evaluate how someone actually played on the day needs to die, hell these guys don't even pay attention to the actual scoreline when trying to determine how tough an opponent was but apparently we're the biased ones...
Someone could hit 27 consecutive double faults, but if they hadn't dropped a set on the way to the final certain posters would still argue they were a tough opponent and it was simply the Djokovic intimidation factor at work and they'd beat basically anyone else.
Where exactly is the fail in the OP?
I clarified in the OP that I was asking about this forum only. Is there a flood of eye test is king threads/posts in recent times compared to 10 or 15 years back (if the search function works correctly)? And if so, why?
I don't mind if McEnroe uses it all the time. He has more tennis knowledge than all users here put together, so it's ok. Sometimes it doesn't mean much - Wilander said that 2015 QF Djokovic was the highest claycourt tennis level ever, so there's that.
The fail was you using the phrase, "objective criteria" as if actually watching matches is to be shunned in light of pseudo relevant bean counting, likewise your OP seemed to posit that people actually evaluating matches with their eyes was scarce before 2015.
The eye test is old as time, every post where some comments on how well someone played is the eye test. Go back to any random match thread from 2007 and I'm sure you'll see tons of eye test, calling visual analysis of matches the eye test is a recent invention to demean it's value so whether or not you've found specific mention of it in your searches is irrelevant. The forum has certainly gotten worse in terms of the dick measuring in recent years but your fanbase is a culpable as any other...
Your agenda is so obvious."The eye test" is a subjective criterion, no matter what. It can be correct or not, it is always subjective. I mentioned Wilander's case. It is extreme, but McEnroe didn't agree with him, and we had two very different views both based on eye test.
Obviously, stats, when put into context (clay, grass, fast, slow, high bounce, low bounce, etc) are more objective.
I'm not interested in arguing the importance of the eye test here. People obviously evaluated matches with their own eyes well before 2015, but for some reason, looks like hardly anyone used "the eye test" card to prove something on this forum. Did it start in 2014-2015? Why?
"The eye test" is a subjective criterion, no matter what. It can be correct or not, it is always subjective. I mentioned Wilander's case. It is extreme, but McEnroe didn't agree with him, and we had two very different views both based on eye test.
Obviously, stats, when put into context (clay, grass, fast, slow, high bounce, low bounce, etc) are more objective.
I'm not interested in arguing the importance of the eye test here. People obviously evaluated matches with their own eyes well before 2015, but for some reason, looks like hardly anyone used "the eye test" card to prove something on this forum. Did it start in 2014-2015? Why?
Here is an observation. The objective criteria changes based on playing conditions like surface, match-up in general, the specific manner a player chooses to play on that day and other factors like tiredness, general tendancy to play better/worse in tight situations.IMO there's a clear trend of resorting to the eye test instead of objective criteria.
Up until about 15 years ago, you didn't need to. The tour was balanced and results reflected who was the best overall tennis player, not just the best defensive pusher.
Here is an observation. The objective criteria changes based on playing conditions like surface, match-up in general, the specific manner a player chooses to play on that day and other factors like tiredness, general tendancy to play better/worse in tight situations.
Tennis ain't exact science that can be quantified with numbers alone.
You cannot get the full scope of things without seeing what determined the match stats to be what they are and you need to fall on the match stats after watching in order to analyse what you may have overlooked while watching the actual play.
Another thing is to understand the match dynamic. Why something happened the way it did?
If for instance someone gets an early lead, but the other player turns the match around, did it happen because of relaxed play, off a choke, off the other player just raising his game a lot, which one ot which combination of these factors?
There are so many nuances that can only be understood after watching a match.
In the end, a healthy dose of both is required.
Is the eye test biased for some? Yes.
But if you understood the nuances of a match correctly after watching, then the match stats are gonna reflect that too.
If someone supports a view that the combination of eye test and stats doesn't reflect, you can easily dismiss or refute it.
This would be true if fans did not consciously or unconsciously cherry pick stats to support their personal biases.'Eye tests' will obviously be biased towards your fave player. Stats >>>>>> personal bias
Hard to evaluate at the whole forum level. There are people who are stat junkies, people who watch the matches but are to bored to dip into stats and a mix-up.Fully agree. But it doesn't explain the trend of using it as a trump card on this forum, which seems to be recent.
Is observation correct? Does such trend exist or not?
Hell you even have McEnroe talking making comments about it during the USO 2004 QF with Agassi. Embarassing fail of an OP tbh.
The obsession with numbers and statistics is a far more recent phenomena.
Some use it honestly.
Others demonstrate almost insufferable stupidity.
Many substitute what the senses are taking in almost solely for dry, hollow numbers which are only interpretative abstractions of the real thing, and never the full picture.
An honest use of stats and interpretation combined with actually observing play might lead some to higher enlightenment. But don't assume that the existing metrics are flawless measures, much like one can't trust their memory nor rely solely on what ostensibly is the case through their senses in order to come to some well-balanced conclusion for the order of things.
The question is utterly ridiculous. I could only reply after settling down from a genuinely lengthy chuckle.
Yeh I'm shaming the OP. It's an atrocious thread.
I'm a bully.
The question is utterly ridiculous. I could only reply after settling down from a genuinely lengthy chuckle.
Yeh I'm shaming the OP. It's an atrocious thread.
I'm a bully.
The OP clearly asks about this forum only. Not McEnroe or someone else. Your inability to comprehend the question does not give you the right to shame anyone.
The OP clearly asks about this forum only. Not McEnroe or someone else. Your inability to comprehend the question does not give you the right to shame anyone.
Fully agree. But it doesn't explain the trend of using it as a trump card on this forum, which seems to be recent.
Is observation correct? Does such trend exist or not?
Well at least you're not trying to subtly (or not so subtly) shame people for watching matches and having an educated opinion on them. The actual progression of a match is in fact more important than what they had for breakfast *shock* *horror*
Also I remember years ago when we spoke about setting up a dedicated stats-subforum. Loo was probably still in nappies.
So what you're saying is posters on this forum didn't start commenting on actual match play until 2015? Were all those match threads just for reciting the scores?
I've been here for about a year. IMO there's a clear trend of resorting to the eye test instead of objective criteria.
I used the search function, and I was under the impression that there was a scarce mention of "the eye test" before 2014/2015.
Discuss.
It's an obvious response to the emergence of CIE* and dedicated fans' acceptance of CIE achievements at face value as it suits them under the guise of objectivity.
*CIE = Career Inflation Era
Still think it's a shame that never happened. Instead, dedicated stats talk has to sort of float around in a far more general forum and as such some insights get lost. I think a higher quality of analysis would be seen if there was a designated home for that analysis. I'd certainly have contributed substantially more.
So, PETE = GOAT?
Your threads have the most eye test useWell, the eye test did always exist. Not just in tennis. The name eye test is probably new.
PETE is just a watered down version of the true GOAT that is PANCHO.
Well at least you're not trying to subtly (or not so subtly) shame people for watching matches and having an educated opinion on them. The actual progression of a match is in fact more important than what they had for breakfast *shock* *horror*
Also I remember years ago when we spoke about setting up a dedicated stats-subforum. Loo was probably still in nappies.