Tennis Volume 7: Roger That!

[mankytoes]

Guys, lets move on. We've done this one to death. Nearly all tennis fans are in agreement, and the others aren't going to come around.

This crucial difference is this-

On 9/11/2018 at 6:32 PM, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

And yes, the player and the occasion do matter. It’s pretty universal across sports.

Most people think the umpire should follow the rules, so they are supporting him. A minority think that the player and occasion should matter, so they're supporting her.

 

Current Grand Slam totals-

Federer- 20

Nadal- 17

Djokovic- 14

Does Federer need a couple more to be sure neither will overtake him? It looked like the stranglehold these three had on the slams was loosening, and then bam, they've won eight in a row (though they are a little less dominant than the old days- none of the last seven finals have been all big four. 

I don't think Roger has too much left, but I thought the same a few years ago. I'm thinking he's unlikely to get more than one more.

Considering Nadal's injury history, I don't think he's going to be at the top level for that much longer either. Retirement age is going up a lot lately, obviously there are always advances in health but I think Federer and Serena are having an effect. I think we might see a sudden flood of retirements in the men's game, and I don't see Nadal greatly outlasting Roger. 

Novak could be the biggest threat. It's a big ask, but if he can average two slams a year over the next three years, that would put him on twenty. If Rafa and Roger don't have long left at the top, that could give him that window to pick a few more up. 

[BigFatCoward]

Just think how many they would each have if the other 2 didn't exist. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Guys, lets move on. We've done this one to death. Nearly all tennis fans are in agreement, and the others aren't going to come around.

This crucial difference is this-

Most people think the umpire should follow the rules, so they are supporting him. A minority think that the player and occasion should matter, so they're supporting her.

 

This lacks the nuance I’ve been trying to provide, but I’ll leave it at this. Yes I have defended Serena, but I have not absolved her of blame. The point is the ref should also get a big chunk of it. He needs to know the situation and better manage it. And this need to follow the strictest letter of the law is bizarre to me. Refs show leniency all of the time to avoid injecting themselves into whatever sport they’re officiating.

Furthermore, what set me off is the complete dismissal of her belief that she experienced sexism, going so far as to say that she was saying so for gamesmanship purposes. Haven’t we all learned by now in the wake of the #MeToo movement that we need to listen to women when they express such feelings?

[mankytoes]

32 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Just think how many they would each have if the other 2 didn't exist. 

Murray's the real loser here, because his record against players outside the top four is so good. He has hit quarters and semis very consistently.

[BigFatCoward]

37 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

This lacks the nuance I’ve been trying to provide, but I’ll leave it at this. Yes I have defended Serena, but I have not absolved her of blame. The point is the ref should also get a big chunk of it. He needs to know the situation and better manage it. And this need to follow the strictest letter of the law is bizarre to me. Refs show leniency all of the time to avoid injecting themselves into whatever sport they’re officiating.

Furthermore, what set me off is the complete dismissal of her belief that she experienced sexism, going so far as to say that she was saying so for gamesmanship purposes. Haven’t we all learned by now in the wake of the #MeToo movement that we need to listen to women when they express such feelings?

NVM 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Murray's the real loser here, because his record against players outside the top four is so good. He has hit quarters and semis very consistently.

Indeed. He might have been Fed if Fed, Nadal and Novak didn't exist.

To your previous question, I doubt that Fed will be overtaken by one of the two. Nadal is my favorite player, but I don't think he has much left. I think he'll break down too much, and I can't see him playing elite tennis for more than a year or two. I hope I can get another feel good from him, but I'm not expecting one. Novak in theory is the more likely candidate. He should be solid for another three years, and I wouldn't be shocked if collects half the slams over that period. Fed seems to be able to play forever, but I don't know how many slams he has left. I feel like he needs to win one or two more the secure his spot a top the mountain.

I'm curious how people will rank Fed in the Fed-Nadal-Novak debate if the latter does overtake him. Will he still be considered the best ever if Novak has 21 to his 20? 

[Clueless Northman]

7 hours ago, Risto said:

It seems that this has now come down to culture and background.

Simply, Americans don't follow tennis. It's simple as that. Djokovic spoke about how loud NYC audience is, which is rather unique for tennis audience. Most Americans would not be able to speak about tennis players which is why the name of McEnroe, who retired in 1992, gets mentioned in this debate. Yes, the argument is valid about Serena because they mention McEnroe who played 30 years ago. Give_me_a_break.

And that is the thing. Serena said a thing and now we have entire USA repeating it like parrots. No one, like absolutely no one questions her words, no one from the public forum is questioning Serena's rather personal attack on the umpire. And even when they do, the thing in American media, it just gets casually mentioned as it somehow doesn't pertain to the debate.

Well, you basically described the entire media debate in US mainstream media, about pretty much any topic - and specially about politics and foreign affairs.

To be fair, you also described what happens most of the time, the world over, when media report about topics they barely grasp. That's not merely a US thing, it's blatant in Europe as well every time you have mainstream media journalists that don't have a solid grasp about the issue they're reporting about, even more so when it's a topic they don't expect the audience to know much about, because they feel they can easily get away with not doing their research. They just pick an interpretation that fit their preconceived ideas and analyze the whole thing on this basis, then report it en masse - and when some in the audience actually have a good knowledge of the topic at hand, they tend to shake their head.

[mankytoes]

17 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I'm curious how people will rank Fed in the Fed-Nadal-Novak debate if the latter does overtake him. Will he still be considered the best ever if Novak has 21 to his 20? 

He will in my head. Honestly, I'd be absolutely gutted if either of them took his record. 

[BigFatCoward]

7 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

He will in my head. Honestly, I'd be absolutely gutted if either of them took his record. 

I'd rather Novak, because if its Nadal his GS record probably looks like 1,15,2,3.

[baxus]

16 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Lol, I actually picked it because of Zidane. Everyone in the world outside of France would have given him a red card for what he did. That’s the point. The ref had no choice. That was a straight red, regardless of when and where it happened. The coaching code violation is not the same thing, and again, you have to weight that that was the moment that really set her off. It’s unlikely that she blows up if that didn’t happen.

It's definitely not the same thing. That's why Serena was not thrown out of the match on the spot like Zidane was, but given a warning instead.

16 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Dude, do you understand how hard it is to prove that an individual has unconscious biases, and furthermore, how hard they are to identify? I’ve merely argued that they exist, they could have impacted the situation and that most importantly, Serena felt she was a victim of sexism. That was initially in response to people arguing that she was claiming it was sexism for a variety of reasons, none of which had to do with her legitimately feeling she was a victim. Do you not get that? It’s quite possible that she wasn’t, as I’ve said numerous times, but her feelings matter a lot more than spectators’ opinions on the subject. Why is this so hard? How many times have I said Serena was wrong? Why can’t you understand that she wasn’t the only one in the wrong, and how her life experience is going to color how she saw what was happening?

Dude, do you understand that you can't claim something unless you prove it? You can't say "oh, there are racists and sexists in the world so umpire must be racist and sexist."

Serena's a professional athlete who broke the established rules of her sport and got caught. If her feelings were hurt by that, then tough luck. Her life experience will influence how she perceives events around her. Still doesn't mean she's right to claim it was because of racism or sexism.

16 hours ago, john said:

Who’s proving a point? I’m giving an opinion. And a preference for officials who are not total sticklers for the rules and let a game flow is not exactly an unusual opinion.

Fair enough.

[David Selig]

11 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'd rather Novak, because if its Nadal his GS record probably looks like 1,15,2,3.

Not just that, Novak just has a better overall record aside from number of Grand Slams won. More weeks at Number 1 in the ATP rankings, more years in which he finished Number 1, more ATP finals titles (5 to Nadal's 0), and Nadal never had an year where he dominated the tour to the extend Novak did in 2011 and 2015.

[Calibandar]

20 hours ago, Risto said:

It seems that this has now come down to culture and background.

Simply, Americans don't follow tennis. It's simple as that. Djokovic spoke about how loud NYC audience is, which is rather unique for tennis audience. Most Americans would not be able to speak about tennis players which is why the name of McEnroe, who retired in 1992, gets mentioned in this debate. Yes, the argument is valid about Serena because they mention McEnroe who played 30 years ago. Give_me_a_break.

A

It's true, in the US tennis is not followed the way it is in Europe, it is one of the big sports here with many fans.

In the US you do get people who go to the stadiums to watch when the atp tour comes around but it is not followed as thoroughly all year round as you elsewhere, generally speaking.

Their opinion ( and specifically Tywin's)  on this Serena case looks very uninformed. Repeated requests for even a single example have been ignored. Case closed.

16 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Guys, lets move on. We've done this one to death. Nearly all tennis fans are in agreement, and the others aren't going to come around.

 

Current Grand Slam totals-

Federer- 20

Nadal- 17

Djokovic- 14

Does Federer need a couple more to be sure neither will overtake him? It looked like the stranglehold these three had on the slams was loosening, and then bam, they've won eight in a row (though they are a little less dominant than the old days- none of the last seven finals have been all big four. 

I don't think Roger has too much left, but I thought the same a few years ago. I'm thinking he's unlikely to get more than one more.

Considering Nadal's injury history, I don't think he's going to be at the top level for that much longer either. Retirement age is going up a lot lately, obviously there are always advances in health but I think Federer and Serena are having an effect. I think we might see a sudden flood of retirements in the men's game, and I don't see Nadal greatly outlasting Roger. 

Novak could be the biggest threat. It's a big ask, but if he can average two slams a year over the next three years, that would put him on twenty. If Rafa and Roger don't have long left at the top, that could give him that window to pick a few more up. 

I think Novak is the one with the biggest chance even though he still needs 3 more to even get to Nadal.

I think we know why he is the biggest candidate, at this point in his career and back in shape you could see him be at the top for say 3 more years.

However, 3 more wins for Nadal is not unthinkable. He's got Roland Garros which he could very well win the rest of his career as long as he's as fit as he was this year or last. Plus their could be a hardcourt slam for him in there as well.

Federer is a questionmark but with him it also possible that he adds a few more slams. He has no chance at RG but continues to be in the running for the other 3.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Nadal probably has one French Open left in him. Honestly, I would be surprised if Fed collects another Grand Slam.

Of course, the above changes if Novak goes out with an extensive injury. Because the biggest barrier to more Grand Slams for the other two, is Novak himself.

As to GOAT. Novak already has a positive win ratio against both Fed and Nadal. If he also overtakes both of their Grand Slam totals, on what basis would you not rate him the best ever?

I think it will be very difficult for him to reach 20, though. He will likely overtake Nadal, but perhaps fall slightly short of Fed. That then will make the GOAT question an interesting one, between Novak and Roger.

[Calibandar]

I still think you'd be writing Federer off prematurely by stating at this point you don't see him win even one more Slam.

It just reminds me of all those other cases I saw here in the last few years. "Oh Nadal is never coming back". "Djokovic is definitely done for now, he does not get back from such an injury" ( this was said as late as early 2018 here). "Federer should have retired in 2015". I say this not to beat myself on the chest but in all those cases I argued that it is way too premature to write these guys off and reality has proven that to be correct. 

What I would do is look at what these guys have done the last two and three years. Federer was the best player in 2017 and had some phenomenal runs. Up until he lost at Wimbledon this year it seemed he was continuing the 2017 revival, he seems to have issues now but I don't see why that would continue. He's far from done playing, by his own admission, and I think he will continue to challenge for the Slams next year. 

 

[mankytoes]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nadal probably has one French Open left in him. Honestly, I would be surprised if Fed collects another Grand Slam.

Of course, the above changes if Novak goes out with an extensive injury. Because the biggest barrier to more Grand Slams for the other two, is Novak himself.

As to GOAT. Novak already has a positive win ratio against both Fed and Nadal. If he also overtakes both of their Grand Slam totals, on what basis would you not rate him the best ever?

I think it will be very difficult for him to reach 20, though. He will likely overtake Nadal, but perhaps fall slightly short of Fed. That then will make the GOAT question an interesting one, between Novak and Roger.

Well are we talking about greatest or best? If he can break Fed's main records- he can definitely do weeks at numbers one as well- then you've got to recognise him as the best. But I think "greatness" is normally seen as a lot more subjective. It's extremely unlikely that Djokovic will ever achieve the global profile and popularity that Federer has. He is a less inventive player and hasn't had a rivalry as iconic as Federer v Nadal. A comparison would be Muhammed Ali. It's quite common to consider him "the greatest", but it's hard to statistically justify that. 

Note I fully accept I'm a Federer fanboy and none of this is remotely objective. 

[polishgenius]

Timing counts, and it's not all just about pure numbers. Federer and Nadal faced each other more-or-less in each others' primes. Djokovic has dominated in a time when those two slowed down and no-one apart from him took their place. I think it's fair to say either one of their numbers would be considerably higher if the other hadn't been around, whereas Djokovic doesn't have the same rivalry digging into his slam count.

 

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

A comparison would be Muhammed Ali. It's quite common to consider him "the greatest", but it's hard to statistically justify that. 

Well, it's a bit different with Ali, his 'greatest' comes from beyond boxing. He's The Greatest, but very few people who seriously follow boxing actually consider him the GOAT boxer (that's normally reserved for Sugar Ray Robinson).

But yeah, the point overall does also stand that Federer and Nadal are somewhat elevated above Djokovic in the historical culture, so to speak. We're gonna discuss what we saw these two do a lot longer than we'll remember Djokovic, great as he's been.

[baxus]

18 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Timing counts, and it's not all just about pure numbers. Federer and Nadal faced each other more-or-less in each others' primes. Djokovic has dominated in a time when those two slowed down and no-one apart from him took their place. I think it's fair to say either one of their numbers would be considerably higher if the other hadn't been around, whereas Djokovic doesn't have the same rivalry digging into his slam count.

Federer and Nadal "slowing down" was in no small part due to Djokovic "speeding up".  

Even if we disregard the fact that Djokovic started winning GS in 2008 and count 2011 as a breakout year for Djokovic, Federer was 30-31 and Nadal 24-25 at the time. Neither of them was not past their prime at the time.

Djokovic doesn't have such rivalry digging into his Slam count? You are aware that this year's US Open was the first Grand Slam he won in which he didn't have to beat either Federer, Nadal or at least Murray on his way to the title? And he's lost most of the Grand Slams finals to one of them, too. I don't know what could count as rivalry if that doesn't qualify.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, baxus said:

It's definitely not the same thing. That's why Serena was not thrown out of the match on the spot like Zidane was, but given a warning instead.

But she was given a warning because of another person's actions, and most commentators I've seen have said they would not have done so. The point is that the transgression needs to be blatant to punish someone in a moment like that, and it clearly was not. And it’s the exact moment that sent the match off of the rails. Serena most likely would not have freaked out if that didn’t happen, and again, if you look at it from her perspective, with her history, it becomes a lot easier to understand why and how she reacted the way she did. That doesn’t make it right, but you can empathize with it.

Quote

Dude, do you understand that you can't claim something unless you prove it? You can't say "oh, there are racists and sexists in the world so umpire must be racist and sexist."

How do you prove subtle racism and sexism?  That’s what women and minorities have been complaining about for ages. It’s rarely overt these days, and subjective in the moment. Not all racists wear white hoods and not all sexists are telling women to go make them a sandwich in the kitchen while they’re barefoot and pregnant. Serena can absolutely feel she was the victim of sexism and the official can absolutely feel that he was treating her fairly. The point is that you shouldn’t immediately dismiss Serena’s opinion because you disagree and/or it makes you uncomfortable.

Quote

Serena's a professional athlete who broke the established rules of her sport and got caught. If her feelings were hurt by that, then tough luck. Her life experience will influence how she perceives events around her. Still doesn't mean she's right to claim it was because of racism or sexism.

To be clear, she did not break a rule, her coach did. And it’s something that largely gets a pass. If you want to call it in the second round to set the tone, fine. Don’t randomly do it in the Finals if it hasn’t been previously established. As I’ve said ad nauseam, basically everyone admits that they do it, and want her coach was doing was so minimal. Either allow it or ban the coach from the box. Don’t have a rule that’s open to interpretation and application as to affect a championship match.  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Their opinion ( and specifically Tywin's)  on this Serena case looks very uninformed. Repeated requests for even a single example have been ignored. Case closed.

I feel like we’re on a beach and you’re asking me to show you sand. I see highlights of dudes freaking out all the time with differing results. Show me one in a championship match where that happens. Where the official inserts himself and effectively ends the match. I’ve never seen that before, but if you have examples I’m all ears.

[Mladen]

36 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I feel like we’re on a beach and you’re asking me to show you sand. I see highlights of dudes freaking out all the time with differing results. Show me one in a championship match where that happens. Where the official inserts himself and effectively ends the match. I’ve never seen that before, but if you have examples I’m all ears.

At some point, this became ridiculous. No, seriously, you have failed to provide any legitimate argument for your views, refused to give answers, subjected others to accusations of racism and sexism and continuously argued despite what has been said. I am sorry, but this level of intellectual dishonesty, even for Internet debate, is a bit too much.

Can you give us any example? No, you can't. You know you are unable to do it, I know you are unable to do it. We all know that. You argue with people who follow tennis for years and yet all you were able to say "I see dudes freaking out all the times". I and many others posted videos of players who said far less than Serena that night and got the same sanction. Yes, for them it was first, so it is just a warning, for Serena it was third and it was a game penalty. So, unlike you, we have given time and time again, factual proof that validate our point of view. You haven't even worse you behave like it is so obvious that you don't even have to.

If you are on the beach and someone asked you to show sand, then you grab some into your hand and show it. That is what you seem to be unable to do in this debate and why this debate became pointless long time ago.

Constructive debate can be held about what happened on Saturday night, even about sexism in tennis and sexism and racism Williams has endured over the past years. Unfortunately, I believe you are not the right person to have that debate with. 

Finally, that is all I have to say on the subject... Moving on...