Search results

  1. A

    What is a weak era?

    They are - however spending time on semantic arguments like "weak era is where one where quality of play is low" vs "weak era is one where players are weak which leads to lower quality of play" is a waste of time. No its not. Players A and B display a higher quality of play than C and D if...
  2. A

    What is a weak era?

    That's a semantic argument.. Right.. because everyone knows multi-dimensional players are necessarily better than one dimensional ones. Nonsense. How often the top player dominates the field is INDEPENDENT of the overall quality of the field. See hypothetical situations below - Situation...
  3. A

    What is a weak era?

    No I'm saying it was most likely beyond Sampras' ability. It's because of Sampras' inability to dominate everyone that Agassi, Courier, Brugera made their names. (ignore the period where their careers didn't coincide here obviously). If Sampras was more dominant, Agassi, Courier, Brugera would...
  4. A

    What is a weak era?

    A weak era is one where quality of play is weak. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the quality of players today is better than it has ever been in history. Of course, the idiots on this forum mistake a 'weak era' for one where the top ranked player(s) consistently beat lower ranked...
  5. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    Are you capable of reading English? Read the statement again "The mere presence of baseliners at the top of the sport does not refute anything I've argued". Are you capable of comprehending that statement? I've never argued "big servers dominated the sport". I've said big servers were at...
  6. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    Yeah and these "people paid to Hype tennis up" magically appeared in the 2000's and started a world wide conspiracy to falsify tennis television ratings and participation rates. Give me a freaking break - provide evidence of this worldwide conspiracy to inflate tennis popularity - or kindly...
  7. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    Just about every single one of these (aside from the mining boom that I'll take your word for) applies to the 90's in comparison to the 80s. Human development standards have been consistently increasing throughout history.. (go look at the HDI ratings across the world). They increased in the...
  8. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    This is called a strawman argument. The mere presence of baseliners in the top players of the era is not relevant. Its the presence of the big server's thats in question. No.. more like Sampras, Rusedski, Phillippoussis, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, etc ......the big servers of this...
  9. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    Don't put words in my mouth. We are still nowhere near the golden age of the 70s and early 80's. This is no golden age - nor did I ever claim tennis was "saved". However, the fact that the the slowing of the surfaces has coincided with the increased popularity is plain for everyone to see (as...
  10. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    I certainly cannot speak for your specific anecdotal sample - but have you looked at nationwide trends here? In 2008, tennis apparently became the most popular sport in Australia. (The point isn't that its number 1 - the point is that its GROWN)...
  11. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    Obviously not - They certainly turned away from "crap product" that was presented to them in the 90's. They didn't sit there watching boring Sampras/Rusedski/Phillippoussis - they spent their time watching non-tennis sports. They may not realize that the court speeds are slowed down - its...
  12. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    And I'm making the point that the difficult economic times faced by several countries is completely irrelevant. The economic problems mainly arose after the crisis of 2008. Tennis has been gaining in popularity since the early 2000's - since the surfaces started being slowed.
  13. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    Are you an idiot? Mcdonalds popularity stems from it being cheaper than the competition. Tennis grabbing a larger share of people's time has nothing to do with people being cheap. It simply speaks to the type of tennis they enjoy seeing. And if you're one of these morons that thinks...
  14. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    This has NOTHING to do with Australia. Tennis is more popular post early 2000s than it was in the 90's period on a global scale. The message is clear.. slower surfaces are better for the sport in terms of popularity. People don't want to see Sampras/Ivanisevic/Rusedski serve and volley...
  15. A

    Save tennis now or lose it forever.

    Do you people NOT pay attention? They just said they obliterated the previous attendance records set by the tournament. Tennis popularity is higher now then it was in the 90s. Why the hell would they go back to fast courts - so that people can complain about Sampras like players boring them...
  16. A

    Would Federer have won today?

    I disagree that its just about foot speed - from what I saw Djokovic's shots were far more penetrating and harder than Federer's even when Federer had plenty of time to line up his shots. Sure footspeed loss is certainly there. 2004-7 might be a different story of course - I just meant to say...
  17. A

    Head-to-head is a worthless statistic in Tennis

    What? Chime in with respect to what?
  18. A

    Would Federer have won today?

    I don't know what match you people were watching - but it was clear to me that in the Federer Djokovic match that Djokovic was head and shoulders above Federer in the ground rallies (yes there were minor lapses from Djokovic here and there - but it was perfectly clear that Djokovic's "normal"...
  19. A

    Head-to-head is a worthless statistic in Tennis

    Head to head is a worthwhile statistic if we have round robin tournaments - where each player is equally likely to face another. So, it is certainly useful for measuring performance at round robin events like Masters Cup. Most tournaments have draws where, for example semifinal loser of top...
  20. A

    How should the players protest agaisnt the worst grand slam in the world

    Why should Wimbledon care about 150 game fifth sets? Its the player's decision to keep going or retire at any point in time. It is not the responsibility of the tournament to act like a nanny and tell players how far to push their own bodies. We watch tennis BECAUSE it isn't like other sports...
  21. A

    Equal pay Equal Work

    Bear in mind that there have been several times in the past when Women's matches in a tournament were more popular than the men's. So, the proposed "separation" solution does NOT necessarily mean death for the women's tour. It all depends on their ability to fuel the entertainment business -...
  22. A

    Equal pay Equal Work

    Just make 8 separate slam tournaments instead of the current four - and then pay each one according to ticket sales and revenue. Either that or take the other exceedingly simple solution - dismantle the Women's tour and allow women on the ATP.
  23. A

    They've destroyed the US Open

    Yes they do - those ooh's and aah's you here on long rallies where players are running from side to side is precisely what the fans in general want more of. Look at the points that draw the maximum number of cheers or standing ovations - which points are those? They are almost always long 20...
  24. A

    They've destroyed the US Open

    They are changing probably because that's what is giving them higher ratings? Nobody wanted to see Sampras/Ivanisevic/Krajicek/Karlovic/Isner serve aces all day - aside from a vocal minority who didn't matter. They can't go back to wooden rackets - so they do the only thing they can - slow...
  25. A

    Nadal's accomplishments more complete than Sampras'?

    Except we aren't talking about accomplishing 'more' - we are talking about completeness of accomplishments and an ability to design your game to do well on your worst surface. Style of play is a huge red irrelevancy you've dragged into this conversation to obfuscate it. Nadal does not need...
  26. A

    Nadal's accomplishments more complete than Sampras'?

    If it doesn't result in greater accomplishments, there is no point. And I don't think either player moonballs. I'm perfectly on topic - your requirement for Nadal was an ability to serve and volley his way to a slam win. I was simply pointing out that serve and volleying is no requirement to...
  27. A

    They are called Majors, not "slams"!!!

    Using "aint" isn't acceptable? It is, and has been used in conversations all over the US without anyone raising eyebrows. Anyway, language in spoken and written forms keeps changing constantly. Look at some of the medieval English literature and the words used there - I bet those will be...
  28. A

    Nadal's accomplishments more complete than Sampras'?

    Why would he need 14 slams or serve and volley? Do you deny that Agassi's accomplishments were more well rounded or complete then Sampras?
  29. A

    Nadal's accomplishments more complete than Sampras'?

    Nadal has already made one more semi-final on his worst surface than Sampras - and is a far greater threat on fast hard courts then Sampras was on clay. That certainly makes his accomplishment more complete or well rounded (whatever semantics you want to use). There is credit to be given for...
  30. A

    Nadal's accomplishments more complete than Sampras'?

    Are you dense? The thread is about completeness in terms of performance at your worst surface. What difference does it make that Sampras has more Australian Opens and more Wimbledon's? The extent of domination at these slams is irrelevant - what is being addressed is how well the players can...
Top