The eye test: was it a thing before 2015?

[Gary Duane]

The best part is when people use either 'eye-test' or stats to then suppose that some hypothetical match-up which never happened would have a definitive outcome.


Scientific fact.

The numbers say it.

My eyes and recall say it.



LAWWWWWL

That's so true. We all start out with conceptions, theories, conjectures. It's where we GO from these things that defines who we are, and if we are seeking answers or just attempting to confirm biases.

An honest evaluation of stats means following where they lead us, with as few expectations as possible, and being able to reject any assumptions we started out with when they no longer turn out to be valid.

I have something I live by: "Everything you know is wrong." Only for me it turns into: "Everything I know is wrong." That means that I'm ready to reject any idea I've assumed is correct in the past, based on new information. This is also something that does not stay static. As you age, you either go more and more in the direction of honesty and flexibility or you become more inflexible and opinionated. No one stays in the same place, and to keep growing is choice you have to embrace and honor.

 

[augustobt]

Everyone has personal bias. They just don't admit it.

I hate when such people behave as knights of impartiality

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Your threads have to most eye test use

I am genuinely interested in the eye test. Mostly because I want to manipulate it to make Stan the monster that the future tennis fans can praise.

 

[RS]

I am genuinely interested in the eye test. Mostly because I want to manipulate it to make Stan the monster that the future tennis fans can praise.

Why noy try a rate Stan AO 13/14 or something to boost up Wawrinka ?

 

[MadariKatu]

Stats can tell you the unforced errors each player made in a set/match. But they won't tell you if those unforced errors were made on the attack, because one of them was too good at defending that the other felt the need to go too much for the lines. They don't show by how much those unforced errors went out.
If one of the players has been runing more distance than the other, it could be because he was getting pushed, and therefore being dominated, or it could mean that he would chase every single ball and it was harder for the other one to finish a point.
There are some players that don't serve very fast, but change placement constantly making it hard to read. How can that be represented by stats? If a player is not playing well, or not as good as usual, how can stats tell that it is caused by the opponents level or by just not playing well enough?

Data and stats are fine, but you need an insane amount of parameters for numbers to truthfully represent what happened in a match. You need eye test, to have the full picture. YOUR full picture.
Also, by choosing which numbers to use for stats, you are already showing bias. I think it was Mark Twain who said there are two kinds of lies: flat out lies and statistics.

 

[Biotic]

Can you give examples of type of eye test?

Based on what years and players etc etc etc?

I know you'd like that, but no. Let's keep it civil.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Wut? Blasphemy.

It's kinda actually true imo, not just joking lightly. Pancho is the most underappreciated of the GOATs since nearly all of his career occurred in the Closed Era. (Unless Tilden is to be considered, but while I respect him as the original GOAT I think the later GOATs have left him a bit behind though he did suffer from the constraints of his time but it is what it is.)

 

[RS]

I know you'd like that, but no. Let's keep it civil.

Fair enough but it would be helpful to know.

 

[NatF]

No. I'm saying that I couldn't find anyone using his own eye test as a trump card.

I mean, you shouldn't let abmk rile you up so much that score an own goal like this...

PETE is just a watered down version of the true GOAT that is PANCHO.

Preach.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

This would be true if fans did not consciously or unconsciously cherry pick stats to support their personal biases.

As for the eye test, the same thing happens. Fans notice things that prop up their faves and don't even see - or want to see - the things that do not prop them up.

There is nothing in the universe that counters lack of objectivity in the minds of those incapable of objectivity.

You seem to suggest people are either always subjective or completely incapable of it.

I think that's too broad of a sweep.

People can choose to be objective based on the subject and time. Those who try to be objective don't always do so either.

 

[NatF]

I still lament greatly that nothing came to fruition of this idea. It ultimately sapped at my motivation to do stat work since the effect is barely there as any conclusions that could've been reached in a honest knowledgeable discussion just wither and die in this sea of side-taking belligerence.

Yeah I started a bunch and then ultimately the energy levels gave way. I've enjoyed contributing to TA's match charting but even that has slowed down to a near stop for me in the last 6 months or so.

 

[NatF]

You seem to suggest people are either always subjective or completely incapable of it.

I think that's too broad of a sweep.

People can choose to be objective based on the subject and time. Those who try to be objective don't always do so either.

What is true objectivity though? Even the act of deciding which measures or stats are important is a subjective excercise.

 

[Biotic]

I mean, you shouldn't let abmk rile you up so much that score an own goal like this...

Well, you're always welcome to come forward with pre-2014-2015 evidence.

And no, ignored users can't rile you up.

 

[Graf1stClass]

'Eye tests' will obviously be biased towards your fave player. Stats >>>>>> personal bias

If only stats weren't used to further personal biases.

 

[Krish0608]

'Eye tests' will obviously be biased towards your fave player. Stats >>>>>> personal bias

Stats also reflect personal bias. The way you cherrypick data exposes their underlying biases. Case in point, Lew.

 

[Gary Duane]

You seem to suggest people are either always subjective or completely incapable of it.

Nope. That's not what I said. Read again.

 

[RS]

No, there were no videos available before 2015.
Only tons and tons of stats. TennisAbstract, ultimatetennisstatistics websites and all were there since beginning of open era. People never used to watch matches lest it ruin on their parade.

never ever watch matches before 2015 (videos are available now) to ascertain how they went, how the players. Why?
they might just burst bubble of THE Djokovic far and away greatest of all time, best in every shot etc.

/end sarcasm

You are the cause of this thread

 

[Born_to_slice]

Poking the eye (test) was a bad idea.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

As a main descriptor of tennis events the stats are the poor replacement for not following the actual matches and the actual stories.

In the past stats were barely on the radar, yet people were able to assign quality to the respective games.

The stats are a useful tool to delve deep into some trends that are already observed, or, on the rare occasion, to find out about a trend that is counter intuitive to what is already observed, but that is about it.

The infatuation with stats is merely a reflexion of the own desire to put to use a "new" tool to understand things better. Instead, a lot of times the stats are used to distort the picture beyond recognition. I am yet to see a massive trend in tennis that is "discovered" with stats that cannot be discovered with a simple consistent observation.

 

[-NN-]

On objectivity, impartiality, etc...

Being intellectually honest is an intent, but it does not guarantee more accurate results or something closer to the truth. Because regardless of intent there are dynamics of causality we are quite blind to, therefore the guess of the idiot can be as good as the guess of the expert — and vice versa. A whole method of coming to judgment can appear noble and honest, but it might just be bunk. A good and 'true' method of coming to judgment may have been subjected to honest and 'impartial' interpretation, yet the interpretation might be rubbish if it were possible to actually test the hypotheses in reality.

In a sense then, it's all a bit of an illusion, at least regarding any topic which isn't concrete, such as trying to compare disparate sports eras. Through proven analogues it's possible to come to more likely conclusions, but it's a complicated exercise. In the case of tennis, it might involve trying to make sense of trends not just within tennis, but across other sports (and beyond).

Spoiler: For if you want to be bored...

That's not to mention the inherent and physiological biases of human cognition. Nothing is given to us in balance. Balance is instead something we attempt to contrive — in this case it's the conundrum of tennis performance. In hastiness for order and understanding we tend to like to conclude things without having the full picture, and increasingly granular statistics provides a tool for hastening such judgment. Anyway, this is a basic heuristic which has led to our survival as a species, but it spills over to the far more trivial aspects of life such as determining who played better tennis.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

What is true objectivity though? Even the act of deciding which measures or stats are important is a subjective excercise.

Objectivity is more an attitude that requires continuous discipline than specific methods.

Numeric analysis aids in that discipline but only when recognizing and acknowledging context, limitations, quality of data and resisting the urge to ascribing or implying predictive value.

A lot of data analysts are biased by their own effort - an attachment to seeing conclusive results (or overstating the confidence in inconclusive ones) because of the effort involved.

I don't say this as someone who has no understanding of statistics and thus dismisses it. I've done graduate level courses in multivariate regression analysis and used it in my line of work so I understand principles such as p-values, confidence and stochastic vs deterministic models.

Nope. That's not what I said. Read again.

You used the word 'incapable' which unless you were being imprecise for the sake of exaggeration, is exactly what it means - a lack of ability to be objective.

That's why I also said it 'suggests' the corollary - that only some then are capable of it.

I don't see how that is an incorrect reading of your words.

 

[Third Serve]

Eye test has been around long before 2015 lol. It's only recently that people have decided to label it "eye test" and immediately wave it away.

Fact of the matter is that people were using the "eye test" long, long before anyone even paid close attention to the stats.

At any rate, I'll take my eye test of how someone played on the day over silly, meaningless "how many top 10 opponents did this player defeat in the year" nothingburgers that tell us zilch about what occurred between the first serve of the match and the last shot of the match. A player's form just can't be defined by such rigid boundaries. Like it or not, a player's level will occasionally go up and down and stats (besides actual match stats which few of the resident "statisticians" actually use) rarely reflect these changes. I would take an "eye test" that accounts for these nuances over stats that don't. It really is just as simple as that.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Knowledge discovery did not start with players and coaches adopting stats. No stat could have taught Agassi this -

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Objectivity is more an attitude that requires continuous discipline than specific methods.

Numeric analysis aids in that discipline but only when recognizing and acknowledging context, limitations, quality of data and resisting the urge to ascribing or implying predictive value.

A lot of data analysts are biased by their own effort - an attachment to seeing conclusive results (or overstating the confidence in inconclusive ones) because of the effort involved.

I don't say this as someone who has no understanding of statistics and thus dismisses it. I've done graduate level courses in multivariate regression analysis and used it in my line of work so I understand principles such as p-values, confidence and stochastic vs deterministic models.



You used the word 'incapable' which unless you were being imprecise for the sake of exaggeration, is exactly what it means - a lack of ability to be objective.

That's why I also said it 'suggests' the corollary - that only some then are capable of it.

I don't see how that is an incorrect reading of your words.

In other words, perfect objectivity is obviously unattainable, but one may try to come as close as possible. A person doing their best to be as objective as possible can be considered properly objective in the sense of honestly striving for it to the greatest extent.

 

[GabeT]

There’s always been eye tests and always been data. Maybe when the data began contradicting some pre conceived notions the eye tests grew in importance to make posters feel better?

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

In other words, perfect objectivity is obviously unattainable, but one may try to come as close as possible. A person doing their best to be as objective as possible can be considered properly objective in the sense of honestly striving for it to the greatest extent.

Yeah and it's a constant and fatiguing effort.

Someone who is otherwise known for objectivity on this forum can drop the ball too from time to time as a response to trolls or just throw up their hands when their reasoned analysis draws less interest than a silly topic that has been debated endlessly.

My issue is with making methods (stats vs eye test) or certain posters (say hitman vs a known troll) unassailable paragons of objectivity.

Nor is objectivity itself the most important thing on a tennis forum - we're not curing cancer here.
.

 

[Third Serve]

There’s always been eye tests and always been data. Maybe when the data began contradicting some pre conceived notions the eye tests grew in importance to make posters feel better?

Yeah but what kind of data would contradict those notions? I can only think of match stats as an example.

 

[GabeT]

Yeah but what kind of data would contradict those notions? I can only think of match stats as an example.

I don’t think either the eye test or the data is generally strong enough to support “time travel tennis analysis”, when we debate who would win if players from different points in time met in a match.

the data provides information on some comparatives, and can really only measure actual accomplishments. So we know that both Wawa and Murray won 3 slams each. And maybe we could compare how many sets/games each one lost on their way to winning. But that will never settle the question of who would beat whom in a hypothetical match.

most of what I see posted here as eye test seems intent on making one particular player or other look better or worse in comparison. Usually aligned with the poster’s player preferences.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

There’s always been eye tests and always been data. Maybe when the data began contradicting some pre conceived notions the eye tests grew in importance to make posters feel better?

Anyone who is trying to be objective has to constantly adjust their positions based on new data - I don't see why that in itself should rule out objectivity.

There are inconsistencies that no stats can explain. Stan obliterated Novak at the biggest stages yet has a weak record against Federer whom Novak has soundly beaten in the same time period. What one conclusion can we draw from that without contradicting other data points?

Matchups, form, surface and various other factors have so much to do with how tennis is actually played in real time.

Exact same reason why one can dispute Roddick/Hewitt being a 'weak era mugs' compared to the competition today simply because they ended up with a negative and lopsided record against Federer.

 

[abmk]

Well, you're always welcome to come forward with pre-2014-2015 evidence.

And no, ignored users can't rile you up.

Biotic after getting owned by me multiple times and now getting bashed rightfully for his thread :

 

[PETEhammer]

I've been here for about a year. IMO there's a clear trend of resorting to the eye test instead of objective criteria.

I used the search function, and I was under the impression that there was a scarce mention of "the eye test" before 2014/2015.

Discuss.

The number of Fedfans triggered by your OP as a ratio to the Djokodal fanbases would be an interesting stat. What it would tell us?

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Worst of all is using past data while engaging in hypothetical scenarios and drawing conclusions based on it.

Stats in such instances offer an illusion of certainty and frankly something to hide behind without challenge when the entire premise is fictional.

Intellectually much more honest to say 'I just fancy player X from the 90s would probably hold his own against player Y who is dominating now'

 

[Krish0608]

"Objectivity" is merely a charade we all try to carry out to hide our biases better. Nobody is "objective" in the objective sense. Not just about tennis, about everything else too.

 

[BrokenGears]

Greater than or less than signs are objective

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I think the eye test is valid when discussing level of play to a certain extent, but Fed fans use it as a sort of coping mechanism.

I think a lot must have cognitive dissonance. They’ve seen their hero defeated over and over again, but they hold on to the belief that mythical peak 04-07 fed beats any player past or present at any slam except Nadal at RG.

 

[RS]

Well, one reason.
The root cause though is blind Djoko fanboyism of Biotic and butthurt that his ignorance/propaganda got exposed big time by people like me and others.

Its hilarious though. I've always maintained that context matters. Watch the matches (if possible) and cross reference with stats. I'm one of the most frequent users of stats in this forum.
But I can't keep giving stats every single time when I write.

Winners to errors to forced error stats?

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

"Objectivity" is merely a charade we all try to carry out to hide our biases better. Nobody is "objective" in the objective sense. Not just about tennis, about everything else too.

Sunk cost fallacy.

 

[abmk]

Winners to errors to forced error stats?

No. Full set of stats.

Reminder that I created this thread after collecting data over many days:

Grand slam matches stats

Grand slam matches stats

This thread is for posting stats for Grand slam matches. Thought we could start off with Grand slam semis and finals. This is for official stats/boxscores. For charts charted by TTW users, check this thread ...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Have like 45+ match stat threads, starting from like 2010:

Thanks @NatF for the reference.

Here are the match stats from me :

1. Federer vs Nalbandian Madrid 2007 F

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-nalbandian-madrid-2007-finals-stats.328653/

2. Sampras vs Stich Wimbledon 1992 QF

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/sampras-stich-1992-wimbledon-qf-stats.327265/

3. Nadal vs Soderling RG 2009 4R

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/nadal-soderling-french-open-2009-4r-stats.327251/

4. Federer vs Agassi TMC 2003 F

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-tennis-masters-cup-2003-finals-stats.326788/

5. Federer vs Nadal TMC 2006 SF

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-nadal-tennis-masters-cup-2006-semis.294238/

6. Federer vs Nadal TMC 2007 SF

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...l-tennis-masters-cup-2007-semis-stats.293142/

7. Courier vs Bruguera RG 1993 F

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...a-french-open-1993-finals-match-stats.293116/

8. Nadal vs Djokovic RG 2008 SF

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vic-french-open-2008-semi-final-stats.558246/

9. Federer vs Ferrero YEC 2003 RR

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-ferrero-yec-2003-rr-stats.559378/

10. Federer vs Hewitt Wimbledon 2004 QF

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-vs-hewitt-wimbledon-2004-qf-stats.569813/

11. Sampras vs Courier AO 94 SF

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...urier-australian-open-1994-semi-stats.573385/

12. Federer vs Hewitt US Open 2005 SF

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-hewitt-us-open-2005-sf-stats.578696/

13. Sampras vs Agassi USO 95 F

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...nd-game-underrated.325038/page-2#post-4609808

14. Roddick vs Safin AO 2004 QF

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...roddick-australian-open-2004-qf-stats.583534/

15. Federer vs Hewitt IW 2005 F

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-hewitt-iw-2005-final-stats.583793/

16. Edberg vs Sampras USO 1992 F

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/edberg-sampras-us-open-1992-final-stats.583876/

17. Djokovic vs Federer AO 2008 SF

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...derer-australian-open-2008-semi-stats.587737/

18. Federer vs Berdych 2006 RG 4R

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...berdych-french-ope-2006-4r-statistics.589639/

19. Federer vs Nadal French Open 2007 F

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-nadal-french-open-2007-final-stats.592930/

20. Stich vs Becker Wimbledon 1991 F

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stich-becker-wimbledon-1991-final-stats.593238/

21. Agassi vs Sampras AO 95 F:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...si-sampras-1995-ao-final.206448/#post-4670891

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...si-sampras-1995-ao-final.206448/#post-4670923

22. UE count for Federer vs Murray Wimbledon 2012 F: (not that much of a difference from official stats)

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-nadal-djokovic-co.450014/page-3#post-7128779

23. UE count for Federer vs Djokovic Wimbledon 2012 SF : (the official stats are clearly off, way too lenient)

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-nadal-djokovic-co.450014/page-2#post-7116159

24. Safin-Hewitt AO 2005 final:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...witt-australian-open-2005-final-stats.596195/

25. Federer Roddick Wimbledon 2003 semi :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-roddick-wimbledon-2003-semi-stats.597325/

26. Mcenroe Lendl USO 84 final:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...uso-final-mcenroe-lendl.210028/#post-11539567

27. Federer Hewitt YEC 2004 final:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-hewitt-tmc-2004-final-stats.599957/

28. Federer Roddick Wimbledon 2009 final :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-roddick-wimbledon-2009-final-stats.601418/

29. Ivanisevic Rafter Wimbledon 2001 final :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vic-rafter-wimbledon-2001-final-stats.602109/

30. Stats for Laver-Ashe Wimbledon 1969 semi:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-from-laver-ashe-wimbledon-1969-sf.165933/
those stats are from urban.

Mine are below in the same thread :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-ashe-wimbledon-1969-sf.165933/#post-11726709

31. Federer Nalbandian Madrid 2006 semi :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-nalbandian-madrid-2006-semi-stats.603190/

32. Federer-Lopez US Open 2007 4R :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-lopez-uso-2007-4r-stats.603339/

33. Hewitt Henman Wimbledon 2002 semi :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/hewitt-henman-wimbledon-2002-semi.604891/

34. Federer Roddick Wimbledon 2005 final :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ddick-wimbledon-2005-final-statistics.607371/

35. Federer Karlovic Wimbledon 2009 QF

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-karlovic-wimbledon-2009-qf.609144/

36. Federer Cilic AO 2018 final :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...australian-open-2018-final-statistics.609400/

37. Edberg Cash AO 1987 final :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/edberg-cash-australian-open-1987-final.610082/

38. Federer Coria Hamburg 2004 final :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-coria-hamburg-2004-final.610899/

39. Edberg Lendl US Open 1991 semi :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/edberg-lendl-us-open-1991-semi-stats.611353/

40. Borg Connors Wimbledon 1978 final :
Thread by Moose :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-1978-w-final-borg-connors.195691/
I added some stats over here :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...78-w-final-borg-connors.195691/#post-11545293

41. Borg Mcenroe Masters 1979 SF :
Thread by krosero :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-1979-masters-sf-borg-mcenroe.217304/

I did the stats not realising thread was already there :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...masters-sf-borg-mcenroe.217304/#post-10972564

42. Borg Connors USO 1981 SF :
Thread by krosero :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-borg-connors-1981-uso-sf.196955/

I added some stats over here :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...org-connors-1981-uso-sf.196955/#post-12078180

43. Federer Djokovic YEC 2010 semi :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-djokovic-yec-2010-semi-stats.619610/

44. Federer Ferrero Wimbledon 2005 4R:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-ferrero-wimbledon-2005-4r-stats.622432/

45. Federer Davydenko USO 2006 SF:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-davydenko-us-open-2006-semi.623420/

46. Federer Hewitt USO 2004 F:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-hewitt-us-open-2004-final-stats.624495/

 

[RS]

No. Full set of stats.

Reminder that I created this thread after collecting data over many days:

Grand slam matches stats

This thread is for posting stats for Grand slam matches. Thought we could start off with Grand slam semis and finals. This is for official stats/boxscores. For charts charted by TTW users, check this thread ...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

I have seen that thread long time ago dw as well some of the others you posted.

 

[Third Serve]

Obviously people have used their eyes to evaluate tennis quality going back to it's inception. Whether it was called "the eye test" or not is irrelevant. What a bizarre thread. Like it or not the only way to actually appraise match level is by watching it, seeing the twists and turns, the play on the big points, quality of defence and hitting etc...The idea that it's more objective to use stats from outside the matches in order to evaluate what happened in them is lunacy. Yes there are some who will twist narratives and evaluate match play in a heavily biased manner but you get that with cherry picked stats etc...as well.

Thread should have ended here, pretty much.

 

[GabeT]

Simple rule: If you can’t predict a real and actual match don’t pretend your eye test skills allow you to know who would win in hypothetical matches across time

 

[RS]

Greater than or less than signs are objective

Who used greater or less signs here?

 

[PETEhammer]

Thread should have ended here, pretty much.

Sort of hard to take Eye-Tests seriously that argue a finalist as being great competition because of mythical form shown in the first set and extrapolating that if that level had been maintained throughout the match said finalist might have won.

 

[BrokenGears]

Who used greater or less signs here?

I didn't say anyone did? Wasn't sure this was a serious thread.

 

[RS]

I didn't say anyone did? Wasn't sure this was a serious thread.

You said greater and less signs were objective in a sarc way so it made me thing you were saying people were using greater signs.

The threat was part bait i think.

 

[RS]

Sort of hard to take Eye-Tests seriously that argue a finalist as being great competition because of mythical form shown in the first set and extrapolating that if that level had been maintained throughout the match said finalist might have won.

Did Roddick only play a good first set?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

 

[Biotic]

The number of Fedfans triggered by your OP as a ratio to the Djokodal fanbases would be an interesting stat. What it would tell us?

That I unintentionally hit the bullzeye?

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

"Objectivity" is merely a charade we all try to carry out to hide our biases better. Nobody is "objective" in the objective sense. Not just about tennis, about everything else too.

Ban TTW

 

[PETEhammer]

Did Roddick only play a good first set?

rate each set out of 10