Average winning percentage across surfaces

ABCD said:
If it is factually correct, there is no bad statistics. Each finding will tell you a story. What is important, it is to apply same criteria for all. As an example, if you would like to assess/compare careers in its entirety, you will start from the first official ATP match and end with the last ATP match (first ATP is 1998 for Federer; 2003 for Djkokovic etc.) . If you select a particular period, you need to justify why this period is selected. Lew II does excellent job. What he offers tell many great stories.
Click to expand...
This is correct. You have to start out with something that is neutral, and stick to it.

I'm not a fan of Lew's stats because I believe he starts out with assumptions and then tries to prove them right.

There are too many variables to be completely objective about assessing careers. First, there is the question of eras, and how things have changed. Comparing Laver against any of the Big Three seems impossible to me because of changes in tech, training, medicine and so on. So I don't even go there. The only thing I look at is how much things have changed so far as winning is concerned. From my own investigations it seems that the way the very top players win games has stayed pretty steady throughout the open era, so you have guys like Borg and Nadal with very similar stats on clay, and guys like Borg, Sampras and Fed very similar on grass. Does that prove anything?

Probably not. It certainly does not mean they play the same way or look the same in videos. How much of that is due to the rackets/strings themselves I don't know.

For this modern era I honestly do not try to prove that any of the Big Three are better overall. That's for history to judge, and it's pointless before they have all ended their careers. But my own stats suggest that Djokovic is the strongest on HCs, career, and that has made Fed fans attack me, thinking that this is the way I want it to be. In my own stats Fed comes out on top on grass, roughly tied with Sampras. Nadal is so superior to everyone on clay, you have to go back to Borg to find a guy who was in his day the same kind of monster on the red stuff.

As for eras, including weak and strong eras, I see no way to prove that the overall talent in any year is stronger or weaker based on the records of the top players that year. It's not like swimming or track, where you can look at the number of people breaking records for speed. I see no way to do anything other than rate the best against the field each year, and let the results speak for themselves.

As for careers, I think it is cherry-picking to pick windows of time. We know Novak is going to look great from 2011 forward, Fed from late 2003-2007, and Nadal is going to be more complicated because of so many years with injuries and his clay dominance. I would personally exclude earlier challenger events, which the ATP does not count, but so far I include everything else, including DC and Olympics. Reason? Probably because it is easier, but it does not change much.

I can tell you that by averaging careers from the very first ATP match things continue to go up for a long time even when players are not quite at their peak level, because any year they are about their career average that career average will go up. In Fed's case that would go up a long time because of weak years on the ATP tour in the beginning, and I'm pretty sure that same thing is true now for Novak. His career average has to balance against his much weaker record through 2010, which is why more than anyone else I see him as having two careers, before and after the gluten solution. There were certainly signs that he could be an amazing player before 2011, and judging only by 2010 is not fair because that year dipped, but if we ran the numbers for the beginning of his career through to 2015, then 2016, then 2017, then 2018, then 2019, I'm not sure what would happen but I suspect his career average would not go lower. For that to happen he'd have to play a lot longer in decline, I think.
 
Last edited:
NoleFam said:
Not necessarily. Not if you're Nadal. He had a 88.8% season when he was 19. Federer on the other hand was at 54.5% at 19. That's the main difference.

The later years helped Federer not hurt him in any way in this stat. The truth is, Federer's overall percentage has basically gradually increased over time and it's basically at its highest point or close to it. I also think basing anyone's overall percentage on their peak though is a mistake since there is no way anyone can maintain that over a 20 year career.

The other two are ahead because of their younger years and I actually think this stat is pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...
Nadal will be the outlier because he was such a prodigy. I'm too tired to run the numbers, which I could do if I were determined. It would be about computing W/L each year and seeing how things changed. I would assume 2014-2016 would tank his career stats for any surface, and grass has probably been going down for a very long time. But Fed had many weak years before 2004, with even 2003 being far weaker than the next years, and Novak had all those years before 2010. With career number there is always a tipping point. I don't know exactly where it is re Fed and Novak, but I would wager more towards the present day for both.

Overall I don't trust fans who continually try to prove with stats that their faves are best. I trust people like me, who often find and report that what they find is not at all what they expected. In other words, if you have read my posts, you know I always root against Djokovic unless he's playing someone I loathe. I don't like his game. I have no reason. But I continually state that I believe he's right in the running for GOAT, although I don't like the concept, and that gets (other) Fed fans really pissed at me because they automatically think I'm a fan of Djokovic.

For instance, I see no stats at all that suggest anyone for decades has won more than 40% of return games for a year on HCs, and I believe he hit 41% in 2011. It might have happened a long time ago because there have been some amazing years, and player in the past won fewer games serving and more returning because of the equipment.

I also believe that if his service game was stronger - and he may be able to further strengthen it still - he'd already be about tied with Fed for majors. I lot of my conclusions have nothing to do with who I enjoy watching. And so on...
 
Gary Duane said:
This is correct. You have to start out with something that is neutral, and stick to it.

I'm not a fan of Lew's stats because I believe he starts out with assumptions and then tries to prove them right.

There are too many variables to be completely objective about assessing careers. First, there is the question of eras, and how things have changed. Comparing Laver against any of the Big Three seems impossible to me because of changes in tech, training, medicine and so on. So I don't even go there. The only thing I look at is how much things have changed so far as winning is concerned. From my own investigations it seems that the way the very top players win games has stayed pretty steady throughout the open era, so you have guys like Borg and Nadal with very similar stats on clay, and guys like Borg, Sampras and Fed very similar on grass. Does that prove anything?

Probably not. It certainly does not mean the play the same way or look the same in videos. How much of that is due to the rackets/strings themselves I don't know.

For this modern era I honestly do not try to prove that any of the Big Three are better overall. That's for history to judge, and it's pointless before they have all ended their careers. But my own stats suggest that Djokovic is the strongest on HCs, career, and that has made Fed fans attack me, thinking that this is the way I want it to be. In my own stats Fed comes out on top on grass, roughly tied with Sampras. Nadal is so superior to everyone, you have to go back to Borg to find a guy who was in his day the same kind of monster.

As for eras, including weak and strong eras, I see no way to prove that the overall talent in any year is stronger or weaker based on the records of the top players that year. It's not like swimming or track, where you can look at the number of people breaking records for speed. I see no way to do anything other than rate the best against the field each year, and let the results speak for themselves.

As for careers, I think it is cherry-picking to pick windows of time. We know Novak is going to look great from 2011 forward, Fed from 2003-1007, and Nadal is going to be more complicated because of so many years with injuries and his clay dominance. I would personally exclude earlier challenger events, which the ATP does not count, but so far I include everything else, including DC and Olympics. Reason? Probably because it is easier, but it does not change much.

I can tell you that by averaging careers from the very first ATP match things continue to go up for a long time even when players are not quite at their peak level, because any year they are about their career average that career average will go up. In Fed's case that would go up a long time because of weak years on the ATP tour in the beginning, and I'm pretty sure that same thing is true now for Novak. His career average has to balance against his much weaker record through 2010, which is why more than anyone else I see him as having two careers, before and after the gluten solution. There were certainly signs that he could be an amazing player before 2011, and judging only by 2010 is not fair because that year dipped, but if we ran the numbers for the beginning of his career through to 2015, then 2016, then 2017, then 2018, then 2019, I'm not sure what would happen but I suspect his career average would not go lower. For that to happen he'd have to play a lot longer in decline, I think.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on Lew II assessment. His efforts are valiant. People usually comment that he is cherry picking, but rarely specifically address what is wrong in a specific set of his data/analysis. In this particular case of analysis, I think that he addressed the issue of overcoming surface bias when considering someone as an all round tennis player. I think that he provided a great platform for the discussion.
 
Gary Duane said:
Nadal will be the outlier because he was such a prodigy. I'm too tired to run the numbers, which I could do if I were determined. It would be about computing W/L each year and seeing how things changed. I would assume 2014-2016 would tank his career stats for any surface, and grass has probably been going down for a very long time. But Fed had many weak years before 2004, with even 2003 being far weaker than the next years, and Novak had all those years before 2010. With career number there is always a tipping point. I don't know exactly where it is re Fed and Novak, but I would wager more towards the present day for both.

Overall I don't trust fans who continually try to prove with stats that their faves are best. I trust people like me, who often find and report that what they find is not at all what they expected. In other words, if you have read my posts, you know I always root against Djokovic unless he's playing someone I loathe. I don't like his game. I have no reason. But I continually state that I believe he's right in the running for GOAT, although I don't like the concept, and that gets (other) Fed fans really pissed at me because they automatically think I'm a fan of Djokovic.

For instance, I see no stats at all that suggest anyone for decades has won more than 40% of return games for a year on HCs, and I believe he hit 41% in 2011. It might have happened a long time ago because there have been some amazing years, and player in the past won fewer games serving and more returning because of the equipment.

I also believe that if his service game was stronger - and he may be able to further strengthen it still - he'd already be about tied with Fed for majors. I lot of my conclusions have nothing to do with who I enjoy watching. And so on...
Click to expand...

Gary, I think it is - or should be - about honesty (and intellectual honesty) and it's good to read your posts for that reason.

Per this era, I generally see three players who tower above all contemporaries and who (by almost all reliable metrics) stand above every other player of the Open Era. It's hard for me to compare them with Laver and Rosewall, whose careers both preceded and culminated in the OE. My sense is that they're superior to those legendary Aussies as well, but my heart isn't completely in those arguments. Too many years, and too many tour variables.

Personally, I'd like to see both Rafa and Novak surpass Fed's "slam count", but I don't need this to happen, if you will. Unless something dramatic happens between now and when they retire, I regard them as essentially equal - although they play different styles, have different personalities and have traveled different paths.

Honestly, I have participated (in about 9 months here) in my share of GOAT threads, and even started some. Admittedly, it is hard to resist weighing in on who's the greatest of the greatest, even though they're all still quite active and even though "GOAThood" is mostly mythical. But as a tennis fan whose love for the sport preceded The Big 3 and will (hopefully) well outlast them as well, generally I marvel at each one of them.
 
Nobody seems to have noted that, OPs stats not only are supposed to 'deal with' surface specialists, they also remove carpet. Laver moving up from 8th (80.27) to 6th (81.28) is entirely because of removing his carpet results. In fact his non-Carpet winrate is 5th at 81.94% which then comes down to 81.28% if you take the average of the three surface. Same goes for Wilander.
 
Dekalog12 said:
Nobody seems to have noted that, OPs stats not only are supposed to 'deal with' surface specialists, they also remove carpet. Laver moving up from 8th (80.27) to 6th (81.28) is entirely because of removing his carpet results. In fact his non-Carpet winrate is 5th at 81.94% which then comes down to 81.28% if you take the average of the three surface. Same goes for Wilander.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, it doesn't take into account carpet. But I couldn't include it, since it disappeared for half of the OE.
 
NoleFam said:
You implied they have a higher winning percentage because of Federer's age so it is an excuse, especially when him playing later actually helped him. He would be behind Connors otherwise. If they can remain healthy, I think their percentages aren't changing that much especially not negatively.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


8-)
 
Gary Duane said:
Yes, but these percentages vary according to when you start. When you start with 1998 there are losses that are statistically going to be slow to overcome.

For example, just go by a career %, then look at years above and below. That career % is brought down not only by matches in later years and matches in very early years. On the other hand, you start with 2004-2007, throw in the end of 2003, then Fed has been going down somewhat since 2008.

It turns out to be a deceptive game the way most people compute because they set out to prove their favorites are clearly superior.
Click to expand...

Percentages measured from the first consistent M1000 wins (i.e. at least two wins in two consecutive seasons) for prime, and first consistent Majors wins (at least two wins in two consecutive seasons) for peak are the relevant ones. Unfortunately, when dealing with people who have no idea what they are talking about, you are in for a lot of cheating and whining on their way to denying everything that might get in the way of their children fiction.

8-)
 
The Big 3 are nearly identical at 82% each. Quite honestly, this stat makes Lendl look like a GOAT contender. He’s close, despite the fact that he played on far more diverse surfaces. The courts were also much faster then, which worked against his style of play.

Lendl separates from the players from his era by a wide margin.

Of course, there’s a lot more to a player’s greatness than this stat. But I put Lendl in the top 5 ever. I saw him play a lot. After he fixed his diet at the end of 1984, he was nearly unplayable by going 34-7 vs the top 5 during his first 3 years on
the new diet. Nobody is close to that 34-7 mark. Djoker did manage 32-10, which is solidly in 2nd place in this metric
 
Tennis_Hands said:
You don't know anything about tennis really, and the bolded in the post I quoted showcases it beautifully.

Your only saving grace will be that you will disappear once the things start going downhill for Novak (and Nadal).

:cool:
Click to expand...

Like I said, a troll. Get lost. I know you're bored and looking for the next poster to troll with your embarrassing antics but I'm not interested. Act your age instead of being an elderly child. Also, 80% of the people on TTW have better tennis knowledge than you. That's not even challenging.
 
NoleFam said:
Like I said, a troll. Get lost. I know you're bored and looking for the next poster to troll with your embarrassing antics but I'm not interested. Act your age instead of being an elderly child. Also, 80% of the people on TTW have better tennis knowledge than you. That's not even challenging.
Click to expand...

The interesting part is that you call me a troll, but actually don't respond to my criticism of what you have written, so, why don't you show me all those improving numbers/percentages with age of the former ATGs at the tail end of their careers? You know, to prove your point.

:cool:
 
smoledman said:
Federer at 82% having played nearly 1500 matches. No way Djoker & Nadal maintain their > 82% for much longer.

Also Borg is less than 1% above Federer with 50% less matches played!

More evidence that Fed is GOAT.
Click to expand...
Let's go several years in the past...
No way Nadal walk at 30 yo, he will be in wheelchair...
No way Novak make come back, yet he holds last 3 slams...
Etc...etc...
 
Tennis_Hands said:
The interesting part is that you call me a troll, but actually don't respond to my criticism of what you have written, so, why don't you show me all those improving numbers/percentages with age of the former ATGs at the tail end of their careers? You know, to prove your point.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Or you should show your data to show that they are wrong, which you claim...Or you claim that from back of your head, which may be just a empty space...
 
RaulRamirez said:
......
Personally, I'd like to see both Rafa and Novak surpass Fed's "slam count", but I don't need this to happen, if you will. Unless something dramatic happens between now and when they retire, I regard them as essentially equal - although they play different styles, have different personalities and have traveled different paths.

......
Click to expand...

Sure, very convenient hypotheses.. They are all "equal now" when they are 3 and 5 slams less. However something dramatic happens =" should one of them cross Federer " , then Federer will not be equal to them...

LMFAO at the hypocrisy.
 
NoleFam said:
Federer's winning percentage from 1998-2012 was 81.6%. Federer increased his winning percentage in his later years. And why wouldn't he when he was ranked in the top 3 most of the time? You guys need to stop all these age excuses everytime he is not #1 in a stat.
Click to expand...
Federer increased his winning percentage mainly because the average level of the competition dropped off after his prime years.
 
travlerajm said:
Federer increased his winning percentage mainly because the average level of the competition dropped off after his prime years.
Click to expand...

He also skipped large parts of the season in the recent years where his percentage would have greatly suffered, and also would have dragged his level elsewhere down. No doubt about that.

Not to mention the ridiculous inclusion of the years before he even got a serious footing on the tour (1998-2001) that bring his overall percentage down.

Some people are cheating in plain sight and think that appealing for "understanding" will do it.

:cool:
 
EasyGoing said:
Agreed he is often quite aggresive and sometimes even abusive, but he got it spot on this time. Your statement is abysmally wrong, and he is right to point out how you intentionally used the wrong methodology to suit your blatant agenda. You Lewed it, so to speak :)
Click to expand...

My blatant agenda even though I didn't start the thread and only pointed out an error in saying Federer's percentage is lower because of him playing in advanced age. No his isn't spot on and neither is your comment. You only agree because you support the same player, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Lew II said:
Well, yes, it doesn't take into account carpet. But I couldn't include it, since it disappeared for half of the OE.
Click to expand...

Erm no...carpet courts were still in use as late as 2005 (the YEC was held on carpet that year I think), many ATG's had their best success on HC - Becker is someone who was almost an indoor specialist in his later years. Carpets have been a major part of the OE.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Gary, I think it is - or should be - about honesty (and intellectual honesty) and it's good to read your posts for that reason.

Per this era, I generally see three players who tower above all contemporaries and who (by almost all reliable metrics) stand above every other player of the Open Era. It's hard for me to compare them with Laver and Rosewall, whose careers both preceded and culminated in the OE. My sense is that they're superior to those legendary Aussies as well, but my heart isn't completely in those arguments. Too many years, and too many tour variables.
Click to expand...
There is no question that training and medicine have improved. The way players are trained today is very different. But I think most people ignore the incredible differences in equipment.

I'm a musician, pianist, and I've been playing since I was very young. In my lifetime the piano has not changed. A Steinway grand 100 years ago played the same way as one built last year. But there are older instruments that play very
differently, and the difference is monumental. Unlike tennis, where no one today is going to compete with wood, there are modern players recording on the old instruments, and you can compare both the sound and the technique used to play them. The technique is radically different, and so it the sound.

I don't try to imagine how peak Borg would play with modern rackets and strings because it is a "different instrument". But I think that in his time he dominated on clay in the same ridiculous way as Nadal, so probably a clone of Borg, born the same time as Nadal, would do very well today. Other than that I don't think about it much.
Personally, I'd like to see both Rafa and Novak surpass Fed's "slam count", but I don't need this to happen, if you will. Unless something dramatic happens between now and when they retire, I regard them as essentially equal - although they play different styles, have different personalities and have traveled different paths.
Click to expand...
I will be fine if either eventually wins more majors, but I like the style of Fed far more and would like to see that style remain dominant in the future rather than the increasingly rarer style with less and less net play.
Honestly, I have participated (in about 9 months here) in my share of GOAT threads, and even started some. Admittedly, it is hard to resist weighing in on who's the greatest of the greatest, even though they're all still quite active and even though "GOAThood" is mostly mythical. But as a tennis fan whose love for the sport preceded The Big 3 and will (hopefully) well outlast them as well, generally I marvel at each one of them.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty much the same, and I just look at really big eras. Going back to the 50s and 60s it's pretty much Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver, and these guys were amazing. We get an idea of it seeing how well they all played in the open era, although Gonzalez was already 40 in 1968, and you have to watch old players today to appreciate how good he was in his 40s. Then I think it was Connors, Borg, McEnroe. After that pretty much Lendl with no one in his league, then Sampras and Agassi, then the Big Three. I don't compare too much between these eras.
 
NoleFam said:
My blatant agenda even though I didn't start the thread and only pointed out in error an in saying Federer's percentage is lower because of him playing in advanced age. No his isn't spot on and neither is your comment. You only agree because you support the same player, nothing more.
Click to expand...

pot_calling_the_kettle_black_t_shirt-rd35fdb72b599405f8fd7e60b3cc37846_k2gr0_307.jpg


BTW, Federer was 51-50 from 1998 to 2000 which skews your numbers, but I think you knew that.

That was a transition period in tennis as fewer and fewer players were serve volleying, but here you had Federer with a one-handed BH right in the middle of the transition who was idolizing Pete and Edberg and Becker as a kid when he was learning the game.

It took him some time to figure out exactly what he was going to do (aggressive baseliner who looked to finish at net but didn’t serve volley). His mechanics weren’t good enough in his BH and Bh footwork (something Carter and Lundgren and Roche helped him with) as a teen becuse he probably didn’t think he was going to wind up playing on the baseline as much as he did.

Now, we have to give credit to prodigies who win right from the get go, but there are reasons why Federer didn’t really have a great record as a teen compared to some other ATGs
 
NoleFam said:
My blatant agenda even though I didn't start the thread and only pointed out in error in saying Federer's percentage is lower because of him playing in advanced age. No his isn't spot on and neither is your comment. You only agree because you support the same player, nothing more.
Click to expand...

You can push an agenda only if you start a thread? Interesting theory, but untrue.

You didn't point out at any error. You responded to this:

"They have a higher win percentage now but they have played in less years outside of their athletic peak than what Federer has. Only time will tell if they can match Federer's win percentages he has posted at 33-38 years of age."

By completely ignoring the sentence in red, and quoting the percentage of the period 1998-2012 and juxtaposing it to the percentage after 2012 as a proof that years outside of the athletic peak can also contribute to higher percentage, deliberately ignoring the fact that you include some of the most unsuccessful years of Federer on tour which were also outside of his athletic peak, thus bringing down his overall percentage in his athletic peak (whatever exactly that means, as the Lewboys never even can say straightforwardly what they mean by it).

Effectively you falsified both his percentage in his "athletic peak" by bringing it down, because you included his weakest years on tour which were not part of his athletic peak, and his percentage outside of his athletic peak, boosting it by not including towards it the years I already mentioned.

You also did that quite randomly, without putting any considerations how many years you compare and why exactly that many. This will play a significant role, if you are to propose a parallel comparison for Djokovic/Nadal.

My remark was about your speculation: both towards the intentional cheating with the percentages and the overall conclusion that goes against pretty much anything known in tennis until now.

Your last remark deserves the question: if you believe in such logic, and it is to be applied to your opinions, what will happen to them?

:cool:
 
Last edited:
ghostofMecir said:
pot_calling_the_kettle_black_t_shirt-rd35fdb72b599405f8fd7e60b3cc37846_k2gr0_307.jpg


BTW, Federer was 51-50 from 1998 to 2000 which skews your numbers, but I think you knew that.

That was a transition period in tennis as fewer and fewer players were serve volleying, but here you had Federer with a one-handed BH right in the middle of the transition who was idolizing Pete and Edberg and Becker as a kid when he was learning the game.

It took him some time to figure out exactly what he was going to do (aggressive baseliner who looked to finish at net but didn’t serve volley). His mechanics weren’t good enough in his BH and Bh footwork (something Carter and Lundgren and Roche helped him with) as a teen becuse he probably didn’t think he was going to wind up playing on the baseline as much as he did.

Now, we have to give credit to prodigies who win right from the get go, but there are reasons why Federer didn’t really have a great record as a teen compared to some other ATGs
Click to expand...

Geez. What is wrong with this certain group of you? You really need to chill and get over it. I am baffled by the inability to just accept the truth and move on. I've already said that Federer was less than stellar in that period and whatever the reasons were, they aren't that important if I am just pointing out that's how he fell behind in this particular stat. You are jumping through hurdles to try to prove something when it isn't even that serious. Some guys start winning earlier than others. It is what it is. To be so bothered by something so meaningless is just ridiculous.
 
NoleFam said:
Geez. What is wrong with this certain group of you? You really need to chill and get over it. .
Click to expand...

So when your inaccuracies or obfuscations are pointed out, you resort to ad hominem? You either didn’t know what you were doing (possible but unlikely) or deliberately tried to pass on a disingenuous argument hoping nobody would catch on. Now you’re called on it and you resort to ad hominem.
 
NatF said:
Erm no...carpet courts were still in use as late as 2005 (the YEC was held on carpet that year I think), many ATG's had their best success on HC - Becker is someone who was almost an indoor specialist in his later years. Carpets have been a major part of the OE.
Click to expand...

Haha "Half of the OE".

Apparently for some the OE started in 1990.

8-)
 
ghostofMecir said:
So when your inaccuracies or obfuscations are pointed out, you resort to ad hominem? You either didn’t know what you were doing (possible but unlikely) or deliberately tried to pass on a disingenuous argument hoping nobody would catch on. Now you’re called on it and you resort to ad hominem.
Click to expand...

There is nothing inaccurate about what I said but your inability to receive it is troublesome. You are trying to prove Federer's worth and explain why he wasn't winning at 19-20 when it's irrelevant to the overall conclusion. This doesn't even matter that much since he still achieved more than anyone ever. He just won't have a higher winning percentage. Accept that and move on with your life.
 
Last edited:
ghostofMecir said:
More ad hominem. He ripped your argument to absolute shreds and you know that you don’t the intellectual capacity to rebut him.
Click to expand...

Lol. I didn't even read it. The fact that you think someone rips my argument means absolute zero to me, because your opinions on here are not any that I hold in any high regard. Your stance on this is just ridiculous. PS, if you're going to insult someone's intellectual capacity, at least form a proper sentence.
 
Last edited:
NoleFam said:
Lol. I didn't even read it. The fact that you think someone rips my argument means absolute zero to me, because your opinions on here are not any that I hold in any high regard. Your stance on this is just ridiculous. PS, if you're going to insult someone's intellectual capacity, at least form a proper sentence.
Click to expand...

"Didn't read it" is fine although we know that you a kind of did or at least knew what was coming.

Really ..... I don't mind that ..... it shows resolve to defend logically and with facts your position .... and you are doing a bad job from it, but, more importantly, you ran away just when it started getting interesting ..... which is anti-climatic, as you seemed quite eager to discuss, but I digress.

Where was I, ah, yes, what is with the name-calling? Noone needs that really, and the life advice: it seems that you need it more than anyone .... too bad.

:cool:
 
NatF said:
Baffling statement really, my retort will probably go unanswered.
Click to expand...

My suspicion is that Lew doesn't think the situation through, so he just makes up explanations as he encounters the objections to his logic, and since his entire arguments are inconsequential one more thing doesn't make any difference to him.

Anyway, he will probably ask that the thread is deleted: can't have his absurd statements preserved as a testament to his knowledge.

8-)
 
Tennis_Hands said:
My suspicion is that Lew doesn't think the situation through, so he just makes up explanations as he encounters the objections to his logic, and since his entire arguments are inconsequential one more thing doesn't make any difference to him.

Anyway, he will probably ask that the thread is deleted: can't have his absurd statements preserved as a testament to his knowledge.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Well, if a guy can argue Stakhovsky is better than Wilander what can you say ??
 
NatF said:
Erm no...carpet courts were still in use as late as 2005 (the YEC was held on carpet that year I think), many ATG's had their best success on HC - Becker is someone who was almost an indoor specialist in his later years. Carpets have been a major part of the OE.
Click to expand...
Well you're right.

The fact is that carpet became marginal in 2000, and irrelevant 2008, while hard/clay/grass were the three surfaces that always had their importance in the Open Era. That's why I excluded carpet.
 
Lew II said:
Well you're right.

The fact is that carpet became marginal in 2000, and irrelevant 2008, while hard/clay/grass were the three surfaces that always had their importance in the Open Era. That's why I excluded carpet.
Click to expand...

You think it's fair to exclude carpet for players that played their best tennis pre 2000?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top