Medvedev sets the bar low: win a match in Madrid, Rome and French Open

[jm1980]

So, you didn't understand back then, and you don't understand now, that it is a mere statement of fact, that removing their respective points in full would have put Medvedev ahead and are arguing on the basis of the current state of affairs, which is one where Djokovic gets to keep half of his points? It has literally nothing to do with how the race to the #1 plays out during the clay court season. The clay court scenarios were merely a pointer that Medvedev's chances even then, are more than good (which continues to be true).

You can save your childish theories about "jinxing" for the DN thread or wherever else you get together. Medvedev missed two clay court tournaments, because of testing positive, but I see that the Djoke fanboys will say anything and everything to excuse the laughable decision to hand him on a platter even more freebies than he already enjoys. It must be extremely sensitive topic for you to watch Djokovic being the biggest benefactor of the status quo: the exact opposite of what the Djoke fans have been crying about for years: to the point of not even willing to accept when someone points at their and their favourite's own hypocrisy, and (get that) going about it in threads that have nothing to do with the topic, like you did the other day, when you started to talk about the rankings completely unprovoked and out of the blue.

Remove enough points and eventually every #2 becomes the "virtual #1." And of course this part of the season is prime real estate for these scenarios because there is a huge amount of points at stake. It was in this part of the season that Nadal lost the #1 spot to Fed in 2009 after failing to defend his 2008 points; Fed gave it back to Nadal in 2010, and Nadal to Djokovic in 2011.

But for this to happen, the players in question had to perform well on clay, and I told you then that unless he proved otherwise, Medvedev wasn't going to do anything of note on the dirt. We can reconvene after the French in a couple weeks, but I highly doubt he'll make it past the first week.

PS: Djokovic would still be ahead of Medvedev at this point without the half points he was granted. The earliest Medvedev could have overtaken Djokovic, even without the last change, would have been the end of the FO

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Remove enough points and eventually every #2 becomes the "virtual #1." And of course this part of the season is prime real estate for these scenarios because there is a huge amount of points at stake. It was in this part of the season that Nadal lost the #1 spot to Fed in 2009 after failing to defend his 2008 points; Fed gave it back to Nadal in 2010, and Nadal to Djokovic in 2011.

But for this to happen, the players in question had to perform well on clay, and I told you then that unless he proved otherwise, Medvedev wasn't going to do anything of note on the dirt. We can reconvene after the French in a couple weeks, but I highly doubt he'll make it past the first week.

PS: Djokovic would still be ahead of Medvedev at this point without the half points he was granted. The earliest Medvedev could have overtaken Djokovic, even without the last change, would have been the end of the FO

Boooo hoooo, so you actually have nothing to say except that Djokovic is on the course to retain his ranking because of the system in place, and Medvedev to be deprived of attacking that ranking spot with a high probability of success, because of that favourable decision, which was my point from the very beginning.

I am enjoying the Djoke fans more with each day that farce continues. You be a good boy and don't ever forget to remind me of your hypocrisy.

 

[Born_to_slice]

I'm glad to see this thread getting some well deserved attention. Thanks @Tennis_Hands & @jm1980

 

[jm1980]

Boooo hoooo, so you actually have nothing to say except that Djokovic is on the course to retain his ranking because of the system in place, and Medvedev to be deprived of attacking that ranking spot with a high probability of success, because of that favourable decision, which was my point from the very beginning.

I am enjoying the Djoke fans more with each day that farce continues. You be a good boy and don't ever forget to remind me of your hypocrisy.

You still don't get it, do you? Djokovic's benefit from the system in place are the 500 points he kept from 2019 Madrid and 45 from 2019 Miami. This is somewhat evened out by Medvedev keeping 180 points from 2019 Monte Carlo. So the net benefit for Djokovic is only 365 points.

The points difference between them sits at 1683 points, and 1683 > 365. This means with or without the system the rankings would be the same. No hypocrisy here. I'll be the first to call out the system in place if and when Djokovic gets to keep his spot because of shenanigans. Right now Medvedev is not in position to attack anything, not because of the system, but because this is his level of confidence on clay:

"So the goal actually for all three tournaments, Rome, Roland Garros, and Madrid, is to at least win one match in each of them. You know, step by step."

Medvedev once again went into his troubles on clay.

“I don’t think it will change, to be honest. I think my shots, my movement, my physical appearance doesn’t suit clay.

 

[malbaker86]

At worst, after Wimbledon Djokovic has 9323 points (meaning Rome SF or worse, RG QF or worse, Wimbledon SF or worse). At the same time, at worst Medvedev will have 9640, and probably more. So Djokovic really needs to win Wimbledon or maintain some points at RG to hold on to #1.

so two wins each at both slams and if Novak doesn’t replicate RG 2020 and Wimbledon 2019 he’s #2

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You still don't get it, do you? Djokovic's benefit from the system in place are the 500 points he kept from 2019 Madrid and 45 from 2019 Miami. This is somewhat evened out by Medvedev keeping 180 points from 2019 Monte Carlo. So the net benefit for Djokovic is only 365 points.

The points difference between them sits at 1683 points, and 1683 > 365. This means with or without the system the rankings would be the same. No hypocrisy here. I'll be the first to call out the system in place if and when Djokovic gets to keep his spot because of shenanigans. Right now Medvedev is not in position to attack anything, not because of the system, but because this is his level of confidence on clay:

"Right now" is the operative phrase for your hypocrisy, and it is not the first time you do that, as the potential benefits for Djokovic do not include only the points up to "right now", but up until after Wimbledon. The fact that you hold on to that cheating tactic is indicative of what you would, or wouldn't do, or why. Not a peep about Medvedev's "reduced" schedule either.

Anyway, if I wanted to talk to a brick, I would have talked to my wall, it is about as resourceful as you are.

 

[jm1980]

"Right now" is the operative phrase for your hypocrisy, and it is not the first time you do that, as the potential benefits for Djokovic do not include only the points up to "right now", but up until after Wimbledon. The fact that you hold on to that cheating tactic is indicative of what you would, or wouldn't do, or why. Not a peep about Medvedev's "reduced" schedule either.

"Right now" is the only reality. What will happen down the line is mere speculation. Djokovic may very well defend half his points, like he already has at MC and Rome

Medvedev missed one tournament, and even if he by some miracle won that, he would still be behind

 

[Tennis_Hands]

"Right now" is the only reality. What will happen down the line is mere speculation.

Hahahahahaha.

The discussion about the ranking was entirely about the projection what will happen in the future, so your joke of an excuse to continue with that farce only illustrates my point.

Now >>>>>>

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

This is our almost world no.1...

Win a match on clay is his bar

 

[jm1980]

The discussion about the ranking was entirely about the projection what will happen in the future, so your joke of an excuse to continue with that farce only illustrates my point.

What was the future then is the present now, and your scenario has not yet materialized.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What was the future then is the present now, and your scenario has not yet materialized.

I already pointed at the period in discussion. Back then, and just in this thread, so your excuse why you are still here arguing your hypocrisy doesn't work.

Don't worry. That hypocrisy of Djoke and his fans will be exposed time and again as we advance in the time.

The fact that even the mere thought of exposing the greatest benefactor of the status quo prompts you to post day in and day out with references to the problem, while trying to ignore the implications from it with the "right now" is hilarious beyond words.

 

[jm1980]

I already pointed at the period in discussion. Back then, and just in this thread, so your excuse why you are still here arguing your hypocrisy doesn't work.

Here's what you said back then:

If the current ranking system going forward was not in place, Medvedev would have had a realistic chance (more like, would have almost certainly) to raise to the #1 ranking in the months up until the NA HC season.

We are definitely in "the months up until the NA HC season." We are also roughly 50% of the way through the period in question, both in terms of time, and points in play.

Don't worry. That hypocrisy of Djoke and his fans will be exposed time and again as we advance in the time.

The fact that even the mere thought of exposing the greatest benefactor of the status quo prompts you to post day in and day out with references to the problem, while trying to ignore the implications from it with the "right now" is hilarious beyond words.

You keep using that word "hypocrisy" but I don't think you know what it means. It's not "hypocritical" for me to point out things I said probably wouldn't happen, in fact haven't happened

I also told you then:

LOL, expected from you. I am going to bump this thread in the coming months to show you just how wrong you were.

I'll have the decency to also bump it if I turn out to be wrong though, because unlike you, I am not so afraid to admit when I'm wrong that I'll entirely backpedal out of what I'd been arguing for

Since that thread has been deleted, I'm finding other ways of reminding you of your erroneous statements

 

[Tennis_Hands]

We are definitely in "the months up until the NA HC season." We are also roughly 50% of the way through the period in question, both in terms of time, and points in play.

The farce continues. First he pretends that he doesn't know about the time horizon of the comments, and then, when found out, he tries to ignore it completely.

With this quote you are digging yourself a deeper hole: by confirming the exact time period in question, something I pointed at, and something that you have been trying to ignore ever since you started posting in this thread. There is no cutoff, just the period in which it could happen.

You keep using that word "hypocrisy" but I don't think you know what it means. It's not "hypocritical" for me to point out things I said probably wouldn't happen, in fact haven't happened

Oh, I know what it means: it means someone like you saying that he would be "the first to recognise" the problem, but actually trying to sweep under the carpet its implications, not least by inventing his own narratives, like the one with pursuing random cutoffs. It is hilarious. The bigger hypocritcy is obviously the cries about Djoke being the "outsider" when he is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) benefactor of the system in place (not only the ranking system).

How many cheating tactics have you used in this here brief conversation:

1) "forgot" about the time horizon of the comments
2) tries to create cutoffs that do not exist
3) the "right now" hilarity

Since that thread has been deleted, I'm finding other ways of reminding you of your erroneous statements

Your hypocrisy serves for "ways of reminding", just not what you think you are reminding of. It is also the usual tactic that you employ of twisting what is being said in as many posts, because you are being tolerated. Which is about to end.

 

[jm1980]

The farce continues. First he pretends that he doesn't know about the time horizon of the comments, and then, when found out, he tries to ignore it completely.

With this quote you are digging yourself a deeper hole: by confirming the exact time period in question, something I pointed at, and something that you have been trying to ignore ever since you started posting in this thread. There is no cutoff, just the period in which it could happen.

How many cheating tactics have you used in this here brief conversation:

1) "forgot" about the time horizon of the comments
2) tries to create cutoffs that do not exist
3) the "right now" hilarity

You said Medvedev would have a chance to overtake Djokovic in the months leading up to the NA HC season. Where are we, if not in the months leading up to the HC season?

You delved into pointless speculation about imaginary benefits in the future. You counted on Medvedev miraculously improving upon his clay results. And now you were proven wrong -- as usual.

Oh, I know what it means: it means someone like you saying that he would be "the first to recognise" the problem, but actually trying to sweep under the carpet its implications, not least by inventing his own narratives, like the one with pursuing random cutoffs. It is hilarious. The bigger hypocritcy is obviously the cries about Djoke being the "outsider" when he is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) benefactor of the system in place (not only the ranking system).

Oh, do enlighten me on how Djokovic is materially benefitting from the system. This should be a good one.

Your hypocrisy serves for "ways of reminding", just not what you think you are reminding of. It is also the usual tactic that you employ of twisting what is being said in as many posts, because you are being tolerated. Which is about to end.

LMAO, what are you going to do? Get yet another thread deleted to hide your many mistakes?

 

[jm1980]

Oh, I know what it means: it means someone like you saying that he would be "the first to recognise" the problem, but actually trying to sweep under the carpet its implications, not least by inventing his own narratives, like the one with pursuing random cutoffs. It is hilarious. The bigger hypocritcy is obviously the cries about Djoke being the "outsider" when he is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) benefactor of the system in place (not only the ranking system).

Hilarious stuff. There's nothing more hypocritical than whining about Djokovic being one of the greatest benefactors of the system, when there's a guy who should be ranked in the hundreds but instead is artificially propped up at #8, and enjoying an undeserved #1 seed and first round bye as we speak.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You said Medvedev would have a chance to overtake Djokovic in the months leading up to the NA HC season. Where are we, if not in the months leading up to the HC season?

The fact that you continue to cling to imaginary cutoffs is telling the whole story really: I already explained it, so there is no need to do it for a 4th time.

You delved into pointless speculation about imaginary benefits in the future. You counted on Medvedev miraculously improving upon his clay results. And now you were proven wrong -- as usual.

It is not a "pointless speculation" even now, so that is the end of your fantasies about what is what. I didn't "count" on anything, and certainly not on limiting Medvedev chances to his clay performance to reach the #1 ranking, so you are making up additional stories to an already hypocritical stance on what was being discussed.

Oh, do enlighten me on how Djokovic is materially benefitting from the system. This should be a good one.

It should be a good one, just like the current one is a good one. Sadly, you can't seem to get over this current one either.

LMAO, what are you going to do? Get yet another thread deleted to hide your many mistakes?

The answer is obvious, isn't it?

BTW, I have absolutely nothing to do with the deletion of any thread with that topic, so I suggest you turn your "lmaos" to your fellow Djoke fans, who jump like stung at every such thread that reveals their hypocrisy on a number of matters, including that one. Not everyone from them has a thick skull like yourself and can tailspin like you do. Most of them are quick to take down threads that reveal the real situation with Djokovic.

 

[jm1980]

The fact that you continue to cling to imaginary cutoffs is telling the whole story really: I already explained it, so there is no need to do it for a 4th time.

This isn't a "cutoff" -- you are wrong now with a good chance of continuing to be wrong in the months to come.

It is not a "pointless speculation" even now, so that is the end of your fantasies about what is what.

It was pointless speculation then, and it will continue to be pointless speculation until such a time when Djokovic is ranked #1 when he shouldn't be.

I didn't "count" on anything, and certainly not on limiting Medvedev chances to his clay performance to reach the #1 ranking, so you are making up additional stories to an already hypocritical stance on what was being discussed.

Hohoho

Medvedev doesn't need to "gobble up" clay or grass points to reach the number 1ranking, IF the system didn't award Djokovic those extra points. He needs to do marginally better than his atrocious results in the past.

That is neither unreasonable, nor unexpected, seeing that he also has moved up elsewhere, so it is like I said: you predict almost the most unfavourable circumstances for Medvedev and the almost most favourable for Djokovic for Djokovic to stay ahead.

BTW, I have absolutely nothing to do with the deletion of any thread with that topic, so I suggest you turn your "lmaos" to your fellow Djoke fans, who jump like stung at every such thread that reveals their hypocrisy on a number of matters, including that one. Not everyone from them has a thick skull like yourself and can tailspin like you do. Most of them are quick to take down threads that reveal the real situation with Djokovic.

"Real situation" such as Djokovic being ranked exactly where he should be, except in an imaginary world where he sits idly by while Medvedev dominates on clay and grass

Also, not a peep about the real biggest benefactor of the system

 

[Tennis_Hands]

This isn't a "cutoff" -- you are wrong now with a good chance of continuing to be wrong in the months to come.

You literally determined the cutoff with your "right now" comments and you continue in this post with it. Hilarious stuff.

It was pointless speculation then, and it will continue to be pointless speculation until such a time when Djokovic is ranked #1 when he shouldn't be.

The discussion about the implications from choosing to retain half of the points up until the NA HC season is one of scenarios. The fact that you feel pressed to call the scenarios "pointless" tells the whole story of how much you wanted to avoid that subject: so much, that you now try to put out the fire, by literally spamming the forum with the same intensity. Did it also the other day, when my post wasn't even about the ranking of the players. Imagine being so pressed that it haunts you, and you see it everywhere.

Hohoho

"Real situation" such as Djokovic being ranked exactly where he should be, ..

Have you found a suitable excuse why the players should be keeping half of their points up until the beginning of the NA HC season?

 

[jm1980]

You literally determined the cutoff with your "right now" comments and you continue in this post with it. Hilarious stuff.




The discussion about the implications from choosing to retain half of the points up until the NA HC season is one of scenarios. The fact that you feel pressed to call the scenarios "pointless" tells the whole story of how much you wanted to avoid that subject: so much, that you now try to put out the fire, by literally spamming the forum with the same intensity. Did it also the other day, when my post wasn't even about the ranking of the players. Imagine being so pressed that it haunts you, and you see it everywhere.









Have you found a suitable excuse why the players should be keeping half of their points up until the beginning of the NA HC season?

I told you then this change to the rankings made no sense, so I'm certainly not defending it.

I also told you then we should wait and see how it would play out in the months to come, because there was a good chance it would make no difference as far as the #1 race was concerned. But of course you insisted it would take the "most unfavourable circumstances" for it to not negatively affect Medvedev's chances.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Boooo hoooo, so you actually have nothing to say except that Djokovic is on the course to retain his ranking because of the system in place, and Medvedev to be deprived of attacking that ranking spot with a high probability of success, because of that favourable decision, which was my point from the very beginning.

I am enjoying the Djoke fans more with each day that farce continues. You be a good boy and don't ever forget to remind me of your hypocrisy.

Medvedev actually has benefits also with the current system.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I told you then this change to the rankings made no sense, so I'm certainly not defending it.

Awwwwwwwww.

So, what are you here in this thread for?

I also told you then we should wait and see how it would play out in the months to come, because there was a good chance it would make no difference as far as the #1 race was concerned.

Hahhahahahahahaha.

THAT is your hope, isn't it: that it plays out with no difference, but you don't realise that that is immaterial. You think that what you just said is actually a good explanation, when in reality you made your corrupt thinking about it even more clear: the worst in your involvement/position here is not that you are trying to sweep under the carpet the implications from that laughable decision, they are obvious, so you cannot do it, even if you tried, which is why your attempts are not even very well concealed. The worst is that you are trying to impose censorship of thinking about scenarios, even though that is just about the least one can do in that barren ATP landscape - under the pretext that that activity is "useless", "pointless" etc.

Tell me, "defender" of the useful, since when discussing possibilities and about rare events, that are the harbingers of new things at that, is a bad thing?

The status quo, that you are defending (for a reason) is what makes you call them that, not the probability of them happening. There is nothing wrong in discussing them. The fact that you call for them to not be discussed, is about as old instrument of preserving the things as they are, as they get. It is older than most methods that the status quo has thought of, in its whole existence.

Nothing happens > no need to discuss the corrupt decision about the imposed system > no need to discuss why that decision was taken in the first place > there is no problem.

But of course you insisted it would take the "most unfavourable circumstances" for it to not negatively affect Medvedev's chances.

Aaaah, indeed, Medvedev being forced to miss MC and Barcelona, because of illness, having a goal of winning one match in Major events from the tennis calendar as "befitting" to the until recently the world #2 and one of those that supposedly should take over the tennis world, that is "completely normal".

As if I need more proof that the Djoke fans have grown so used to their favourite ruling in the weakest years of the OE that now they point at that weak era as the new "normal", and get all aggressive even at the mention of something that could change. THAT is their/your version of "loving" the competition.

Hilarity, following hypocrisy (of the so called "fans" of the competition), following corrupt thinking. That is the essence of your display here.

 

[jm1980]

THAT is your hope, isn't it: that it plays out with no difference, but you don't realise that that is immaterial.

Sure, in an indirect way I hope it plays out with no difference, because I certainly hope Djokovic can defend half the points. But only because I want him to perform well; not because I'm hoping it masks the problem.

You think that what you just said is actually a good explanation, when in reality you made your corrupt thinking about it even more clear: the worst in your involvement/position here is not that you are trying to sweep under the carpet the implications from that laughable decision, they are obvious, so you cannot do it, even if you tried, which is why your attempts are not even very well concealed. The worst is that you are trying to impose censorship of thinking about scenarios, even though that is just about the least one can do in that barren ATP landscape - under the pretext that that activity is "useless", "pointless" etc.

Tell me, "defender" of the useful, since when discussing possibilities and about rare events, that are the harbingers of new things at that, is a bad thing

The status quo, that you are defending (for a reason) is what makes you call them that, not the probability of them happening. There is nothing wrong in discussing them. The fact that you call for them to not be discussed, is about as old instrument of preserving the things as they are, as they get. It is older than most methods that the status quo has thought of, in its whole existence.

Nothing happens > no need to discuss the corrupt decision about the imposed system > no need to discuss why that decision was taken in the first place > there is no problem.

LOL, censorship? Feel free to talk about whatever you want. It's still pointless speculation that was at least 3 months too early when you posted the thread.

Many posters pointed out at the time, nobody saw a problem because they didn't see Medvedev as deserving of the #1 spot then, or Djokovic undeserving of that spot.

There wasn't a problem then, there still isn't a problem now, and realistically there won't be a problem until the end of Wimbledon -- if a problem emerges at all.

While we are talking about corruption, your silence on Federer benefitting from the system, and the deliberate choice of the timeframe that just so happens to maximize Medvedev's chances while ignoring the litany of undeserved points he retained from his NA HC campaign in 2019, show your obviously corrupt agenda: your intention was always to undermine Djokovic's position rather than decry corruption within the ATP

Aaaah, indeed, Medvedev being forced to miss MC and Barcelona, because of illness, having a goal of winning one match in Major events from the tennis calendar as "befitting" to the until recently the world #2 and one of those that supposedly should take over the tennis world, that is "completely normal".

Medvedev is 1-7 on clay since that Barcelona final. His statements on the issue show he has realistic goals on the surface, instead of wild pipe dreams of making a play for #1 during the clay season.

This also reminds me Medvedev actually got 180 (2019 MC) + 150 (2019 Barcelona) = 330 free points thanks to last rankings change

 

[jm1980]

Medvedev actually has benefits also with the current system.

@Tennis_Hands knows this, but acts like Djokovic is the sole beneficiary

Medvedev has a lot of 2019 points from tournaments that were held in 2020, but those are not "corrupt" at all since they don't benefit Djokovic

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Sure, in an indirect way I hope it plays out with no difference, because I certainly hope Djokovic can defend half the points. But only because I want him to perform well; not because I'm hoping it masks the problem.

Awwwwwww. Too hypocritical for words.

Is that why you are making remarks towards posts, even when they have nothing to do with your obsession: because you "just hope that Djokovic performs well"? Boooo hooooo

LOL, censorship? Feel free to talk about whatever you want. It's still pointless speculation that was at least 3 months too early when you posted the thread..

I don't need your permission to talk about it: that doesn't make your desperate posting on the subject any less desperate, and your desire to stop it by attacking it any less hilarious. You do this even right now.

Many posters pointed out at the time, nobody saw a problem because they didn't see Medvedev as deserving of the #1 spot then, or Djokovic undeserving of that spot.

It is a discussion about a despicable decision that no one has any decent explanation why it was taken in the first place (including you), and, judging by how the thread that I made back then was attacked, including by being deleted because of certain someones, some surely saw a problem with reading about that situation, so, try again.

There wasn't a problem then, there still isn't a problem now, and realistically there won't be a problem until the end of Wimbledon -- if a problem emerges at all..

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Thank you for proving my point.

While we are talking about corruption, your silence on Federer benefitting from the system, and the deliberate choice of the timeframe that just so happens to maximize Medvedev's chances while ignoring the litany of undeserved points he retained from his NA HC campaign in 2019, show your obviously corrupt agenda: your intention was always to undermine Djokovic's position rather than decry corruption within the ATP

Considering how I personally told you that I consider Federer's ranking also underserved, you are now lying through your teeth about what I do and don't do related to that decision. I have talked about Federer having his ranking guaranteed via the so called protected ranking due to his injury, and till when, if that was important, or that Federer's ranking is almost immaterial for his current status, which is one where he barely plays, and his further participation on the tour is presently more of one of him just being there than contesting titles. I also have written about how the system favours the top players at the expense of the up and comers, most recently how such decisions in the near past have stopped Sinner from having a deserved seeded ranking at AO.

So, not only what you are saying is not true, but it is also via ignoring the facts that you can do those assertions.

How is that for a "defender of the useful"?

Oh, you are saying that "useful" is what is "useful" to you.

Medvedev is 1-7 on clay since that Barcelona final. His statements on the issue show he has realistic goals on the surface, instead of wild pipe dreams of making a play for #1 during the clay season.

This also reminds me Medvedev actually got 180 (2019 MC) + 150 (2019 Barcelona) = 330 free points thanks to last rankings change

It is the #2/#3 of the era, but I forgot that that is the "competition" that the Djoke fans have grown used to. Other than that, you haven't illustrated anything other than clinging to those random cutoffs (for a 5th time, as hilarious and absurd as it is).

 

[jm1980]

Awwwwwww. Too hypocritical for words.

Is that why you are making remarks towards posts, even when they have nothing to do with your obsession: because you "just hope that Djokovic performs well"? Boooo hooooo

I don't need your permission to talk about it: that doesn't make your desperate posting on the subject any less desperate, and your desire to stop it by attacking it any less hilarious. You do this even right now.

If I were trying to stop the discussion, I wouldn't be replying, and I would simply let it die its natural death

Like I said, feel free to post wild and unsubstantiated BS, and I'll feel free to call you out on said BS

It is a discussion about a despicable decision that no one has any decent explanation why it was taken in the first place (including you), and, judging by how the thread that I made back then was attacked, including by being deleted because of certain someones, some surely saw a problem with reading about that situation, so, try again.

Delusional as per usual. Sure, it was deleted because people didn't want some grand conspiracy about the corruption within the ATP to be revealed, and not because of your repeated inflammatory comments towards Djokovic and his fans.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Thank you for proving my point.

You still don't get how that is not problem outside of randomly concocted scenarios that may or may not materialize.

Considering how I personally told you that I consider Federer's ranking also underserved, you are now lying through your teeth about what I do and don't do related to that decision. I have talked about Federer having his ranking guaranteed via the so called protected ranking due to his injury, and till when, if that was important, or that Federer's ranking is almost immaterial for his current status, which is one where he barely plays, and his further participation on the tour is presently more of one of him just being there than contesting titles. I also have written about how the system favours the top players at the expense of the up and comers, most recently how such decisions in the near past have stopped Sinner from having a deserved seeded ranking at AO.

So, not only what you are saying is not true, but it is also via ignoring the facts that you can do those assertions.

How is that for a "defender of the useful"?

Oh, you are saying that "useful" is what is "useful" to you.

You only paid lip service to it after I pressed you on the issue of Federer multiple times, and you still excuse it by implying it makes no difference for Federer. But somehow it's a huge deal for Djokovic, even though for all practical purpose (draw/seeding) the #1 and #2 rankings are identical.

No mention of how Medvedev himself was greatly benefitted by this system, either. The cognitive dissonance on display is staggering.

It is the #2/#3 of the era, but I forgot that that is the "competition" that the Djoke fans have grown used to. Other than that, you haven't illustrated anything other than clinging to those random cutoffs (for a 5th time, as hilarious and absurd as it is).

Yes, a good player who is inept on a surface is unheard of in tennis. Certainly no #1 players, and/or players with 14 Slams would ever be utterly mediocre on one of the surfaces.

Also it's hilarious how the tone has shifted from "Medvedev is the virtual #1 unjustly robbed by the system" to "Medvedev is poor competition and still #2/#3 in this era"

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If I were trying to stop the discussion, I wouldn't be replying, and I would simply let it die its natural death

You are not forwarding the topic: you are continuing for the very same reason why you wouldn't talk about it as a problem: as you already confirmed. You are obfuscating.

Delusional as per usual. Sure, it was deleted because people didn't want some grand conspiracy about the corruption within the ATP to be revealed, and not because of your repeated inflammatory comments towards Djokovic and his fans.

It was deleted, because your friends by fanboy affiliation reported it, and it must have been many of them, as normal threads discussing the possibility of a young player reaching the #1 spot are nothing exceptional or controversial to be deleted. It speaks volumes about who out of the two of us is right.

There is no "conspiracy", just a massive knee-jerk reaction from the Djoke fanbase every time Djokovic is exposed as a benefactor from the status quo.

You still don't get how that is not problem outside of randomly concocted scenarios that may or may not materialize..

You still don't have an explanation why it exists in the first place, and you yourself hypocritically said that you are against it, but now you are backtracking on your words by returning to how you really feel. Nice to see that if you talk long enough on the subject your true stance on that matter resurfaces. I only need to keep you in check and you submit your true stance. Unfortunately, after the N-th time of repeating the same BS, it becomes tedious to reset you to your original position for you to make the same thing. It is boring.

You only paid lip service to it after I pressed you on the issue of Federer multiple times, and you still excuse it by implying it makes no difference for Federer. But somehow it's a huge deal for Djokovic, even though for all practical purpose (draw/seeding) the #1 and #2 rankings are identical.

So, after you lied that I haven't spoken about Federer as a benefactor, you are now concocting another fantasy to excuse your lies?

Oh, look what I found:

The breakdown of first ranking protection

Firstly I have to mention that this analysis shouldn’t be taken 100% seriously. Some players decided to skip certain events due to the format and we can’t know for sure what outcome it would give us. It’s possible that I may have missed some events so if you spot a mistake please mention it. I...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Oh, look who is posting just after my post. You actually agreed with me, calling it "self-evident", but here it "is not a problem". Obviously for the Djoke fans making it harder for the up and comers to break through with pampering the rankings is "not a problem", and why should it be, when it protects the stronghold of their player.

No mention of how Medvedev himself was greatly benefitted by this system, either. The cognitive dissonance on display is staggering.

Medvedev is not benefitting in any significant way from the decision to further hold on to half of the ranking points, unlike Djokovic, which is what the thread I opened was about (among other things). A decision that you or anyone else hasn't explained as to why it was taken! Still waiting for that explanation!

Yes, a good player who is inept on a surface is unheard of in tennis. Certainly no #1 players, and/or players with 14 Slams would ever be utterly mediocre on one of the surfaces.

Apart from regurgitating the same false claims (about Medvedev supposedly having to take over during the clay court season), he beat ....Tsitsipas and Djokovic back to back on clay, so we know that he can play on that surface, but brace your fake competition Lord and hold on to it: that is what defines the whole lot of you. Can't blame you, it is in the life story of your fanbase.

YAlso it's hilarious how the tone has shifted from "Medvedev is the virtual #1 unjustly robbed by the system" to "Medvedev is poor competition and still #2/#3 in this era"

Nothing has "shifted". Medvedev is hosed by that decision, I was commenting on the implications from your focusing on Medvedev as a competition on clay, which is the only implication that is worth mentioning in that regard, not your completely fabricated cutoffs.

 

[EllieK]

Well so far he’s only achieved a third of his goals.

 

[Milanez82]

Next year he should skip clay and train hard on grass, this years goals didn't work out

 

[jm1980]

It was deleted, because your friends by fanboy affiliation reported it, and it must have been many of them, as normal threads discussing the possibility of a young player reaching the #1 spot are nothing exceptional or controversial to be deleted. It speaks volumes about who out of the two of us is right.

It doesn't surprise me that someone utterly incapable of recognizing what civil discussion looks like thinks there was "nothing exceptional or controversial" in that thread

So, after you lied that I haven't spoken about Federer as a benefactor, you are now concocting another fantasy to excuse your lies?

It's called hyperbole. Compared to your incessant whining over Djokovic, you haven't said anything about Federer; or even when you say anything, you claim it's "immaterial." Where's your thread questioning why Fed is still in the Top 10? Where are the constant jabs at Fed for benefitting from the system?

You still don't have an explanation why it exists in the first place, and you yourself hypocritically said that you are against it, but now you are backtracking on your words by returning to how you really feel. Nice to see that if you talk long enough on the subject your true stance on that matter resurfaces. I only need to keep you in check and you submit your true stance. Unfortunately, after the N-th time of repeating the same BS, it becomes tedious to reset you to your original position for you to make the same thing. It is boring.

Oh, look who is posting just after my post. You actually agreed with me, calling it "self-evident", but here it "is not a problem". Obviously for the Djoke fans making it harder for the up and comers to break through with pampering the rankings is "not a problem", and why should it be, when it protects the stronghold of their player.

It is self-evident that any decisions to extend points will benefit the players with the most points extended.

The implications of this however are not what you think they are; as Djokovic does not materially benefit from these points

Being against the decision but acknowledging it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things are not even contradictory positions to hold, let alone "hypocritical"

Apart from regurgitating the same false claims (about Medvedev supposedly having to take over during the clay court season),

For him to reach #1 before the NA HC season he has to do a little better than his stated goal of winning one match in each of the tournaments

Nothing has "shifted". Medvedev is hosed by that decision, I was commenting on the implications from your focusing on Medvedev as a competition on clay, which is the only implication that is worth mentioning in that regard, not your completely fabricated cutoffs.

LOL at "fabricated cutoffs." Reality right now is not a "fabricated cutoff." The only thing "fabricated" is your wild speculation over what could happen months down the line

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It doesn't surprise me that someone utterly incapable of recognizing what civil discussion looks like thinks there was "nothing exceptional or controversial" in that thread

Oh, please, do tell, which infractions were the reason for its deletion.

It's called hyperbole. Compared to your incessant whining over Djokovic, you haven't said anything about Federer; or even when you say anything, you claim it's "immaterial." Where's your thread questioning why Fed is still in the Top 10? Where are the constant jabs at Fed for benefitting from the system?

There is no "incessant whining". I have made exactly one thread, and it wasn't aimed at Djokovic. In fact, it referenced Medvedev's chances. It is your insecurities that prompted you to make it about Djokovic. In this here thread you started the "whining", and you also tried on several other occasions, including your most recent confusion about what a post of mine was about, and you tagging me in the TripleA thread. So, the incessant whining is yours. I have discussed the scandalous decision, which goes well beyond Djokovic.

BTW, if you don't understand the difference in importance of a new young player getting to the number 1, and a player who hasn't played about an year until recently, and about who we would be discussing whether he would be #5 or #50, you need to calibrate your understanding of what is important in tennis. Even then, Federer hasn't been spared in any way from me (I can post many more references like the one I already linked).

It is self-evident that any decisions to extend points will benefit the players with the most points extended.

The implications of this however are not what you think they are; as Djokovic does not materially benefit from these points

Being against the decision but acknowledging it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things are not even contradictory positions to hold, let alone "hypocritical"

You don't get it, do you?

The decision illustrates that the tennis authorities are determined to keep their golden hens at the top, including by supporting them with points: this goes against the fair competition, it is corruption on the highest level, and now openly demonstrated. It changes "much", unless you yourself consider corruption "normal". You already admitted to who benefits the most in the order of earned ranking points, so talking senseless is not really anything that anyone will be paying attention to: it is a contradiction that you admit it, and at the same time dismiss its implications. The hypocrisy is not whether you can distinguish between the two, the hypocrisy is about whether you really want to talk about it/want others to keep talking about it. Similar to the hilarity of you claiming that you discuss the topic, when I pointed at your participation for what it is: obfuscation in an effort to stop it from being talked about. I will tell you that that is not happening.

LOL at "fabricated cutoffs." Reality right now is not a "fabricated cutoff."

It is, because no one ever put that matter as a "reality check" during the clay court season. I haven't made such comments. In fact, you quoted me, and in your quote the framework is very clearly put. Pity, that you cannot read.

 

[jm1980]

BTW, if you don't understand the difference in importance of a new young player getting to the number 1, and a player who hasn't played about an year until recently, and about who we would be discussing whether he would be #5 or #50, you need to calibrate your understanding of what is important in tennis. Even then, Federer hasn't been spared in any way from me (I can post many more references like the one I already linked).

You don't get it, do you?

The decision illustrates that the tennis authorities are determined to keep their golden hens at the top, including by supporting them with points: this goes against the fair competition, it is corruption on the highest level, and now openly demonstrated. It changes "much", unless you yourself consider corruption "normal". You already admitted to who benefits the most in the order of earned ranking points, so talking senseless is not really anything that anyone will be paying attention to: it is a contradiction that you admit it, and at the same time dismiss its implications. The hypocrisy is not whether you can distinguish between the two, the hypocrisy is about whether you really want to talk about it/want others to keep talking about it. Similar to the hilarity of you claiming that you discuss the topic, when I pointed at your participation for what it is: obfuscation in an effort to stop it from being talked about. I will tell you that that is not happening.

You are entirely misguided. Why would the tennis authorities protect Djokovic (nevermind that they never really cared much for him to begin with) at the expense of a young up and comer? A new player rising to #1 would make for a better story than Djokovic staying at the top for more time, specially now that he's surpassed the record and any additional weeks for him are much less meaningful or interesting than a brand new #1.

Not to mention they have to push the new talent as best they can and as soon as possible since the old "golden hens" aren't going to be around forever. From a business perspective, it doesn't make sense in the long term (or even the short term) to prop Djokovic up.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You are entirely misguided. Why would the tennis authorities protect Djokovic (nevermind that they never really cared much for him to begin with)

Hahahahahahahaha.

This statement shows where you really are coming from, and that I am correct about the where the "final stand" is. The boy still lives with the "Djokovic is an outsider" idea. I shudder to think what is behind that.

..... at the expense of a young up and comer? A new player rising to #1 would make for a better story than Djokovic staying at the top for more time, specially now that he's surpassed the record and any additional weeks for him are much less meaningful or interesting than a brand new #1.)

Djokovic is part of the narrative about the Big 3. They need to stay at the top for as long as they can for the tennis authorities to milk that. Medvedev is not going anywhere with a flick at the #1.

There is also another thing: Medvedev reaching the #1 ranking without even having won a Major. WTA has been absolutely obliterated with criticism about their standing because of such an event.

But you knew all that, didn't you? That is how you "forward" discussions: by avoiding to talk about the real implications, and implying the opposite of them.

Not to mention they have to push the new talent as best they can and as soon as possible since the old "golden hens" aren't going to be around forever. From a business perspective, it doesn't make sense in the long term (or even the short term) to prop Djokovic up.

They took away Sinner's seeded position at AO and drew him on purpose with another massive young up and commer of promise: so that they have their cake and eat it too, so they don't give a squirrel dropping about the "new talent". They can use it in other ways and have the big 3 narrative protected.

 

[jm1980]

Djokovic is part of the narrative about the Big 3. They need to stay at the top for as long as they can for the tennis authorities to milk that. Medvedev is not going anywhere with a flick at the #1.



But you knew all that, didn't you? That is how you "forward" discussions: by avoiding to talk about the real implications, and implying the opposite of them.



They took away Sinner's seeded position at AO and drew him on purpose with another massive young up and commer of promise: so that they have their cake and eat it too, so they don't give a squirrel dropping about the "new talent". They can use it in other ways and have the big 3 narrative protected.

You cannot be serious! How would Djokovic going from #1 to #2 change the Big 3 narrative? Do you think Federer being ranked #40 or #400 instead of where he is would change a thing as far as how people see him?

The smartest thing for the tennis authorities to do is to push new talent while the Big 3 are still active. That window is very quickly closing, and new players taking out the old guard while they are near the top would be more compelling than these guys falling off due to old age

There is also another thing: Medvedev reaching the #1 ranking without even having won a Major. WTA has been absolutely obliterated with criticism about their standing because of such an event.

And you don't think there will be just as much criticism if Medvedev is prevented from reaching a rightfully earned #1 only because of the rules?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You cannot be serious! How would Djokovic going from #1 to #2 change the Big 3 narrative? Do you think Federer being ranked #40 or #400 instead of where he is would change a thing as far as how people see him?

Hohohoho

How? If you haven't noticed, in the last many years it is not about the Big 3 as direct competitors, but how each of them can individually break new ground. Nadal and Djokovic have faced each other in Majors finals only 3 times in 7 years and a total of 5 times in Majors for the same period. That is laughable for direct competitors of the same age who are constantly occupying the top 3 spots! That is also why Nadal is getting the easy draws at Flushing Meadows.

Federer is a completely different kettle of fish. He literally doesn't have the legs to keep up with the tour, so his presence as viewed by the ATP is barely of practical nature. He is more like that big star that is paid a bonus fee to participate in a tournament to promote it, more than him actually giving his best effort. Lose in R1/2, and stick around to do promotional activity. That is currently his role. Of course, there is also hope that he will get back to some resemblance of competitiveness, but that is only in vague terms. No guarantees there, and certainly not such linked to his great achievements that are expected from him at this point.

The smartest thing for the tennis authorities to do is to push new talent while the Big 3 are still active. That window is very quickly closing, and new players taking out the old guard while they are near the top would be more compelling than these guys falling off due to old age

I already explained to you that they can "push for new talent" the way they understand it: create as many new matchups between the new generations without really obstructing the march of each of the Big 3 towards their individual promotion, and that is what is happening.

Presenting that as black and white issue is what bureaucrats like you do, to obstruct the view from the reality, and the reality is that they can have their cake, and eat it too. Sure, the cake becomes stale after a while, but it still has that nice sheen to it to the outsiders.

And you don't think there will be just as much criticism if Medvedev is prevented from reaching a rightfully earned #1 only because of the rules?

I know for a fact, that as long as the ATP marketing machine is spinning no one will be left to criticise that move. Who asked the hard questions why that decision was made? What did ATP answer? The answer of both is: ATP didn't give answers of any adequate quality, not least because there aren't such, unless they want to lay bare their intentions as described above.

Promoting Medvedev by allowing him to attack the #1 spot more easily doesn't actually work for them: I already explained why. Majorless #1 looks bad for all sorts of reasons, so, the hilarity of you completely missing to address that as a problem and instead playing unaware is not lost here. Like I said, WTA was blasted for similar thing, and, unlike the situation with the WTA, we still have two fully operational 18 plus Majors winning ATGs.

ATP: Oh, look how their legend grows pumping their resumes with all means available!