ATP World Tour Finals

[GameSetAndMath]

Unlike Group B, Group A's scenario chart is much simpler. Novak has already qualified and has 75% chance of being the winner of that group. Isner is not quite eliminated and still has some theoretical chances. But, the most likely scenario would be that Novak would be the winner and Sasha would be the runner-up.

Sasha has 62.5% chance, Cilic has 25% chance and Isner has 12.5% to advance, assuming all possibile scenarios are equally probable.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Interesting Factoids.

Factoid 1: Roger could beat Anderson in straight sets and still not advance.

Factoid 2: Roger could lose in straight sets to Anderson and still advance.

For more info, see the scenario chart in the previous page of this thread.

p.s. But, fortunately Roger would know precisely what needs to be done to qualify when he enters the court tomorrow evening.

 

[Moxie]

Alright, it is an overstatement to say that they make up the majority, but I do think he, more than other male players, has a huge amount of "alterior motive" fans. You don't find it odd that a lot of Sampras fans quickly latched onto him? Can you pick two great players in the game that are more different than Sampras and Nadal?

I know this is our little sidebar conversation, but no one really cares that much about most of the matches in this YEC until the SFs, anyway. You really just don't believe that people like Rafa for his tennis, (which you actually said on this thread.) It's very old news that Sampras fans turned to Nadal. You do realize that Pete has been out of the game for 16 years. That's 2 generations of fans who didn't even watch him play. There are whole swathes of fans that came to the game fresh and picked Nadal. Pete and Rafa's games may be different, but Kieran, for one, liked their "alpha-maleness," so there is common ground. After all these years, you have to realize that people may come for the appetizer, then stay for the meal. Your notion that Nadal fans have more than the usual amount of "alternative motives" is wildly outdated. That was many years ago, at best. And he has more fans with alternate motives than any other male player, you say? How about that many/most of Djokovic's fans come from the Serbian community/diaspora? Sure, he picked up fans when he got to the top of the pile, but do you really think that folks like Mastoor and Billie love him so much because they randomly prefer his style of tennis? Look, fandom is not a wholly logical thing. It's intimate and passionate. (Look how worked up YOU get.) But to pretend that millions of people support Nadal with such loyalty is about hating on Roger, or hanging onto some vestigial love of Sampras is absurd. Most of his fans would likely have no idea what you're talking about. This is forum-speak.

 

[herios]

Thiem is really a member of the LostGen, born in September of 1993. I know my year ranges aren't official and also rather artificial, but I see Lost Gen as those players born 1989-93, with NextGen 1994-98 (this would technically fold Shapo and the Little Minotaur in with kids like Aliassime and Draper). In other words, after Cilic/del Potro (both Sept, 1988) and before Pouille (b 1994), although in a way 1994-95 are more transitional, with 96+ being the heart of NextGen. Lost Gen being: Nishikori, Raonic, Goffin, Dimitrov, Tomic, Sock, Thiem, etc.

In that sense, like the others Thiem is in danger of being skipped over by younger and more talented players. Rafa's resurgence in 2017 probably diminished his chances of a Slam more than any other player. But he is only 25 and has a solid 5+ years of peak level, maybe more given today's context. He may have a chance to sneak one in.

We shall see if he manages more than the Nishi, Raonic, Dimitrov trio.
So far he did not.

 

[Moxie]

Thiem is really a member of the LostGen, born in September of 1993. I know my year ranges aren't official and also rather artificial, but I see Lost Gen as those players born 1989-93, with NextGen 1994-98 (this would technically fold Shapo and the Little Minotaur in with kids like Aliassime and Draper). In other words, after Cilic/del Potro (both Sept, 1988) and before Pouille (b 1994), although in a way 1994-95 are more transitional, with 96+ being the heart of NextGen. Lost Gen being: Nishikori, Raonic, Goffin, Dimitrov, Tomic, Sock, Thiem, etc.

In that sense, like the others Thiem is in danger of being skipped over by younger and more talented players. Rafa's resurgence in 2017 probably diminished his chances of a Slam more than any other player. But he is only 25 and has a solid 5+ years of peak level, maybe more given today's context. He may have a chance to sneak one in.

I've always argued that Thiem doesn't belong to the Lost Gen because of when he came to prominence. Maybe Goffin same. I think they're both on the cusp. But still, Thiem is no real superstar...he's a hard worker with a good head. @DarthFed said earlier in this thread that Thiem was artificially bumped up to #2 on clay with Novak, Stan, Andy struggling/injured and Roger not playing. This is a very good point. And this is where I think Thiem's being almost Lost Gen will hurt him...he's in danger of getting jumped over, like all the other players of that group. If he doesn't make serious noise in the next year or two, I do think the more talented youngsters will pass him. That's why I don't peg him for a Coupe des Mousquetaires.

 

[Moxie]

Rafa did fail to win 2 years in a row RG, in 2015 and 2016. It could happen.

Yes, poor year and a withdrawal. It really does come down to Rafa's health and level for the next years that he stays in. He's proven that he's miles better than everyone at RG. If he focuses on that, he could keep the streak.

 

[El Dude]

One thought about this whole fandom question. Do we really choose our favorites, at least consciously? I would say not, that it is similar to who we are attracted to or fall in love with - it just happens. Now we may be open to falling in love, but it isn't a conscious choice (thus "fall" - you can't choose to fall, that's called jumping).

 

[El Dude]

Yes, poor year and a withdrawal. It really does come down to Rafa's health and level for the next years that he stays in. He's proven that he's miles better than everyone at RG. If he focuses on that, he could keep the streak.

He's not miles better than peak Novak.

 

[Moxie]

He's not miles better than peak Novak.

At RG, I disagree. Just look at their history there.

 

[El Dude]

At RG, I disagree. Just look at their history there.

If we agree that peak Novak starts in 2011, we get:
2012: Rafa in 4 sets
2013: Rafa in 5 sets
2014: Rafa in 4 sets
2015: Novak in 3 sets

In total sets that's 9-7, Rafa. Sure, Rafa was far from his best in 2015, but it was also Novak at his very best.

"Miles better" would imply straight-setting him regularly, and he hasn't done that since 2008.

So yeah, I stand by my assertion that Rafa is not "miles better" of Novak. I'd still give him the edge, but not by a huge margin.

 

[Carol]

It is a bit exaggerated to say everyone misses Rafa. Maybe all his fans and some fans of other players. I do not miss Rafa.

Of course you don't miss Rafa because you are too much in love with Federer :lulz2::whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Just doing the math doesn't tell the story. This is where being a stats nerd and a Roger fan maybe doesn't help you. I doubt you watched those matches as closely as those of us more interested did. 2012 Rafa dominated the match, until it rained. Still, he won in 4, on the second day, recouping from a break down. 2013, Rafa served for the match in the 4th. Novak was lucky to get a 5th, and note that he lost the 3rd, after he won the 2nd, at 1-6. That was a tough match, but deceptively close. Rafa had the match on his racquet in the 4th. 2014: hot, humid day and neither played especially brilliantly for long patches, but Rafa did win in 4. I see that "miles better" only means "straight sets" in your vocab. There is another way to look at it than yours. They've played 7 times at RG and Novak has only won once, in 2015, when everyone and their maiden aunt beat Rafa. Nadal has won the tournament 11 times to Novak's one. That's "miles better," right there. And Novak has DF'd twice on championship point in their finals. He runs out of energy and ideas when he plays Rafa at RG. You can call it close, but I don't think it really has been. Going forward, who knows? I won't pretend that Novak doesn't bother Nadal.

 

[Carol]

I can't wait till that day comes. There will be a big party at my place when he is finally off the tour once and foreva!

Between Fiero and you I'm not sure which of you are more ridiculous, troll and pathetic . Federer soon is going to retire but I won't celebrate it because him but because you probably will despair like all the Roger's sick fanatics B-)

 

[Carol]

I miss Rafa losing to Novak at RG.

I miss Novak losing so many times to Nadal at RG :spank2:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

History does not matter. When they play at RG next time (or for that matter from now on), no one would say that Rafa is miles better than Novak based on the current situation.

If you are talking about career achievements of Ralph at RG, no one would argue with you. But, we are now in the business of predicting the future.

 

[Carol]

Novak is a bluff of tennis, he always plays well when the others are not doing well or are injured or too old

 

[Carol]

History does not matter. When they play at RG next time (or for that matter from now on), no one would say that Rafa is miles better than Novak based on the current situation.

If you are talking about career achievements of Ralph at RG, no one would argue with you. But, we are now in the business of predicting the future.

We can't see the future, only the past and of course what is happening now and we can see the Tour is the worst we have seen for long time

 

[Carol]

I will cheer for Anderson, hope he wins this boring tournament :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

History does not matter. When they play at RG next time (or for that matter from now on), no one would say that Rafa is miles better than Novak based on the current situation.

If you are talking about career achievements of Ralph at RG, no one would argue with you. But, we are now in the business of predicting the future.

I have to say "history doesn't matter" is rather a punter's response. It's what you hope. Sure, things change and they are aging. But it's not like Nadal only won RG 8 times. Nadal isn't just better on clay, he's sturdier in general, mentally. Healthy, he wins.

 

[El Dude]

See Moxie, I would argue that focusing on ancient history is what you hope. We were talking about peak Novak, right? Anything before 2011 is meaningless. Since 2011 he has held his own against Rafa at RG, more so than any other player. And yes, sets do matter. It isn't just being a stats nerd--and has nothing to do with being a Roger fan (that's a red herring if I've ever seen one)--but simply looking at the actual results. And I did watch the last few rather closely and saw Novak hold his own, moreso than anyone else has.

But the point is, as Game said, no one is denying that Rafa's RG performance is way better than anyone else's, but we were talking about right now and going forward - as you know. And of course at the end of your mostly irrelevant post, you crawl your way to saying just as much at the end. So we're agreed: right now, and as far as peak Novak is concerned (2011-present), Rafa is not "miles better" at RG.