Finally the over-rating of Djokovic based on AO SF/F can end now!

[GabeT]

Yeah like you are the only one who had crystal ball knowing everything about the future event, including the pandemic and NextGen mugs.

Sports analysts/experts are very knowledgable and well experienced, yet many predict the wrong team to win the Super Bowl, NBA champion, World Cup...
That does not mean they only start watching the sport in 2011

You and OP are terrible at predicting matches. So am I. The difference is I don’t pretend I have any special expertise to predict hypothetical matches.

 

[RS]

The immense majority of people that enjoy tennis don’t spend time on “hypotheticals”. I play tennis with different people, probably over 50 if I add up all the different groups, and no one cares about that.

the “I can accurately measure levels of players and use that to predict the outcome of hypothetical matches, and with that can tell you who would win (and therefore rightly be called the GOAT) if time travel tennis were possible” is a unique online phenomenon pushed by posters that have repeatedly shown they can’t predict a real match to save their lives.

this was sort of fun when the slam race was on. Now that it’s over can we move on to something else?

i suspect once all Big 3 retire and the usual gang of idiots finds that all such threads get moved to the cemetery of Former Pros they will get tired of it and wither away. Can’t come soon enough

The problem is hypotheticals won't ever be stopped.

Sure most people don't bother with tennis hypotheticals but the number people do is still large and always will be. Even when the big 3 retire it still won't end and we will have Alcaraz and Sinner fans slowly joining soon to re ash the same arguments used.

 

[GabeT]

The problem is hypotheticals won't ever be stopped.

Sure most people don't bother with tennis hypotheticals but the number people do is still large and always will be. Even when the big 3 retire it still won't end and we will have Alcaraz and Sinner fans slowly joining soon to re ash the same arguments used.

That’s fine. But once the big 3 have retired those discussions will be moved to the Former Pros section where they can be safely ignored.

the reason OP and other Fed fans members of the hypothetical brigade post so much about Novak is because they know that if they posted about Fed instead their threads would be pushed to another forum. And what they crave above all is attention.

These posters simply never expected Novak would end up with all the records. it’s easy to find old posts by them, it was never even a possibility they considered. That‘s a huge shock to their self perception as tennis experts that can accurately gauge tennis levels and outcomes. so they lash out with never ending threads about weak eras and what not.

it’s ok, just as the slam race and time at number 1 race are over so will this be over soon too.

 

[TMF]

You and OP are terrible at predicting matches. So am I. The difference is I don’t pretend I have any special expertise to predict hypothetical matches.

So NBA analyst/personality like Steven A. Smith is an ignorant person if he predict the wrong teams making the NBA finals, let alone picking the wrong team to win? LOL

You pretend that sport is fixed and everything is in a vacuum, and as a result, stats/numbers make you the best, GOAT, yada yada yada...
Sorry pal, tennis enthusiasts don't follow that faulty reasoning

 

[GabeT]

So NBA analyst/personality like Steven A. Smith is an ignorant person if he predict the wrong teams making the NBA finals, let alone picking the wrong team to win? LOL

You pretend that sport is fixed and everything is in a vacuum, and as a result, stats/numbers make you the best, GOAT, yada yada yada...
Sorry pal, tennis enthusiasts don't follow that faulty reasoning

I don't know Steven Smith, don't follow the NBA much.

But let's focus on someone like Gill Gross, who does analysis and does predict matches.

The point with Gill, what differentiates him from the hypothetical brigade here, is not the predictions. It's that Gill understands his limits and does not pretend he knows who would. win in time travel tennis. That is the key difference.

 

[Holmes]

Yeah like you are the only one who had crystal ball knowing everything about the future event, including the pandemic and NextGen mugs.

Sports analysts/experts are very knowledgable and well experienced, yet many predict the wrong team to win the Super Bowl, NBA champion, World Cup...
That does not mean they only start watching the sport in 2011

Speaking of 2011, why do you no longer have Federer stats in your signature?

 

[Holmes]

I don't know Steven Smith, don't follow the NBA much.

But let's focus on someone like Gill Gross, who does analysis and does predict matches.

The point with Gill, what differentiates him from the hypothetical brigade here, is not the predictions. It's that Gill understands his limits and does not pretend he knows who would. win in time travel tennis. That is the key difference.

Unfortunately Gill does not have expertise in >< tennis analysis. Fortunately, he possesses the humility not to pretend otherwise.

 

[fedfan24]

There's only and handful of knowledgable posters on this forum and abmk is one of them. A lot of his posts are informative and unaware by many Djoker fans who only started watching tennis in 2011

I agree, he has a vast knowledge of tennis dating back years and years before a lot of recent fans started watching tennis. He can be abrasive which can put people off, but to be fair you read a lot of crap on this forum so maybe it’s jn response to that.

 

[martinezownsclay]

It's 2024 already and it baffles me that they don't want to admit this era is so weak, after witnessing 90s born failures. To compare this CIE to Federer's era is an insult, since the past prime big 3(especially younger Nole) have vultured 23 slams combined. I mean for Federer's era to rival this weak CIE, players like 30+ years old post prime Sampras + Agassi would have to vulture 20 slams, dominate the field, and consistently rank at the very top. But the truth is, Federer and his peers were too good and took over the tour. Sampras and his peers from the 90s were forced to retire, because they know their days are numbered.

Very well said. Agree on all of that. And it is ridiculous how they use examples like Agassi in his early to mid 30s making slam finals and having a few good results, when Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer were all dominant at points mid to late 30s, and the youngest of the 3 Djokovic is completely dominant at that age for an extended period. The natural succession of the game is always the next generation taking over. Even when the next generation does not have an actual GOAT candidate (eg the McEnroe/Lendl/Becker group or the Hingis/Davenport/Venus group pre Serena and Henin's dominance beginning) the best of the next generation still take over from the previous generation every time. This period has had 2 and now 3 generations fail to do this as the Djokovic/Nadal generation led by those 2 gets older and older (Federer being an even older generation than that one).

 

[ADuck]

the “I can accurately measure levels of players and use that to predict the outcome of hypothetical matches, and with that can tell you who would win (and therefore rightly be called the GOAT) if time travel tennis were possible” is a unique online phenomenon

Description got a chuckle out of me because it's an apt description for what some of us are doing. However, I don't knock it, because what we're doing are just thought experiments. It's the logical conclusion for a group to engage in thought experiments any topic given they're passionate about it. The point is some people get carried away in believing they are "right" and everyone else is moronic and "wrong" for disagreeing with them when they are unfalsifiable.

Thought experiments can also be incredibly useful you know? Einstein used thought experiments to prove general/special theory of relativity.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Technically nothing is provable in these matters, but it doesn't stop the number warriors from scoffing at disagreements as if the bean counting approach yielded scientifically approved truth or something, so it's not like the eye test brigade is the only one complicit, the animosity is mutual as it usually is.

 

[Holmes]

Description got a chuckle out of me because it's an apt description for what some of us are doing. However, I don't knock it, because what we're doing are just thought experiments. It's the logical conclusion for a group to engage in thought experiments any topic given they're passionate about it. The point is some people get carried away in believing they are "right" and everyone else is moronic and "wrong" for disagreeing with them when they are unfalsifiable.

Thought experiments can also be incredibly useful you know? Einstein used thought experiments to prove general/special theory of relativity.

To prove general/special theory of relativity.