Can You Say 2011??

[Kieran]

In fairness, the prestige of the WTF isn't at stake, and nor is it the issue...

Yes, the issue is whether or not 5 MS events is magically better than 4 MS events and the YEC. I don't see how it is debatable. Bottom line is that the YEC is a much bigger deal than an MS event and that is pretty much all that needs to be said.

Actually, the conversation I was having is whether Novak's achievements in 2011 were greater than Roger's in 2006. Both are great, that doesn't need to be said, both are vintage, so it's like comparing two pints of Guinness, but for putting Rafa so irrefutably to the sword in 2011, decapitating the chap on clay, and running through his real breakthrough season like a man obsessed, I prefer Nole's 2011. He even had Roger to face down. The guy broke Fedal in two, but he seriously damaged Rafa, who is the H2H king of modern tennis.

Roger was great in 2006 as well, but who else would have won things that year? Rafa was nascent on grass, and not a threat at the HC majors yet. To rubberstamp this, he withdrew from Oz. Baggy, Gonzo, A-Rod, Blake? It was a great year for Roger, but he was already on the peak and the rest knew he was.

Nole in 2011? The most extraordinary and furious breakthrough to the very summit I think I've ever seen...

 

[Front242]

^ Not Roger's fault he's older and the younger guys took till he was a grandad till they peaked. Equally brilliant years either way for Novak and Roger in 2011 and 2006.

 

[Kieran]

^ Not Roger's fault he's older and the younger guys took till he was a grandad till they peaked. Equally brilliant years either way for Novak and Roger in 2011 and 2006.

Two seasons for the ages, no doubt about it. This last ten years has seen maybe 9 seasons for the ages. :snigger

I think we need some real tennis to start again soon, eh? The Davis Cup just doesn't cut it for me...

 

[Front242]

^ Not Roger's fault he's older and the younger guys took till he was a grandad till they peaked. Equally brilliant years either way for Novak and Roger in 2011 and 2006.

Two seasons for the ages, no doubt about it. This last ten years has seen maybe 9 seasons for the ages. :snigger

I think we need some real tennis to start again soon, eh? The Davis Cup just doesn't cut it for me...

Bigtime. I barely watched it. Monte Carlo starts on Sunday already?

 

[Kieran]

Yeah. It might tell the tale of the dirt, although it didn't last year. I'm looking forward to seeing Roger play there. He might put the cat among the pigeons...

 

[Ricardo]

^ Darth, I get the point of 1:1 in today's game…yes, they would rather win the YEC, if they had one option in a year. It has more points, and it has recently come to more prestige. And I would say "recently." However, I suspect you're comparing the Fedal relative resumes, too, with the Olympics and the YEC. (Nadal has a gold medal; Federer has many YECs, whereas Rafa has none.) Some folks might not believe it, but I'm really trying to compare the tournaments that are of relatively the same structure, with the ones that aren't the same. And with no especial agenda. 250-1000s respect the same ranking privilege and draw format. The only difference in the Slams is that there are no byes, and (on the men's side,) it's best of 5.

YEC, DC and Olympics work from a different structure. If I haven't made it clear before, I will say it now: I think DC championships and Olympic Gold medals (for example, for Nadal,) are resume buffers, but I don't consider them "deal-breakers" in any comparison, if you know what I mean. They are structured in a way that a player has less control over the outcome. Nice to have, but it doesn't make you the better player. It sort of makes you the more fortunate, as to timing, and place of birth. The YEC is different from that but it is structured differently from every other tournament of the year. Clearly, it's nice to have, but it is one big apple compared to the oranges of the rest of the year. IMO, it's still a bit of an exhibition/money-maker that they turned into a points event.

Fair enough, but I just disagree with the last part. Since I started watching in the early 90's it was always considered a big deal. It is a tournament between the world's best with a lot of points, money, bragging rights on the line not to mention whoever wins it "finishes the year right" and might get momentum going into the following year. I know Ricardo is insulting everyone as usual yet I have to agree that under no circumstances is 5 MS better than 4 MS and a YEC even with 5 being the shared record.

i am insulting EVERYONE? damn, so many posters need to be corrected :lolz:

 

[Ricardo]

Show me where I "tried to downplay the importance of the WTF..."

"But would any player take a year where they set a record of MS titles in one season? I think that's also quite unique (until Rafa equalled it, of course)."

number of MS was never considered even 'important', prior to Novak11 do people even mention that Fed and Rafa won 4 MS1000 in one year (a record then) also? if you state that a player would take a year for 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF obviously you've valued it less than a MS1000 - on the face value it was a record for MS wins (which nobody even cared to count or made a big deal of previously).

To quote your good self: "now you're trying to divert the focus."

So, again, show me where I "tried to downplay the importance of the WTF..."

Don't make me ask you three times. It looks like you're evading the answer if I do.

And while you're at it, show me where I said "that a player would take a year for 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF..."

exactly where i quoted you, don't play dumb now just because i exposed it..... if a player would take 5 MS over 4 MS + WTF and you say because its 'unique', then obviously you rate the WTF technically lower than MS which i say is a bloody joke - like most of your jealousy-driven posts.

so you didn't word it exactly that, but you are not fooling anyone. You didn't straight out 'weak competition' for Federer yet your posts clearly poke left and right in that direction, and i don't care how you explain or excuse yourself.

 

[Ricardo]

In fairness, the prestige of the WTF isn't at stake, and nor is it the issue...

Yes, the issue is whether or not 5 MS events is magically better than 4 MS events and the YEC. I don't see how it is debatable. Bottom line is that the YEC is a much bigger deal than an MS event and that is pretty much all that needs to be said.

Actually, the conversation I was having is whether Novak's achievements in 2011 were greater than Roger's in 2006. Both are great, that doesn't need to be said, both are vintage, so it's like comparing two pints of Guinness, but for putting Rafa so irrefutably to the sword in 2011, decapitating the chap on clay, and running through his real breakthrough season like a man obsessed, I prefer Nole's 2011. He even had Roger to face down. The guy broke Fedal in two, but he seriously damaged Rafa, who is the H2H king of modern tennis.

Roger was great in 2006 as well, but who else would have won things that year? Rafa was nascent on grass, and not a threat at the HC majors yet. To rubberstamp this, he withdrew from Oz. Baggy, Gonzo, A-Rod, Blake? It was a great year for Roger, but he was already on the peak and the rest knew he was.

Nole in 2011? The most extraordinary and furious breakthrough to the very summit I think I've ever seen...

Novak had Roger to face down in 2011, so we are talking a peak Federer as a tough nut to crack? in 3 majors where they faced, Novak won at AO while Fed won at RG and when it came to USO it took Federer to blink at match points to give Novak a win...... i don't see how peak Novak's tennis was so superior to a guy who was past his prime like you claimed.

Going back to Novak vs Rafa, he did outplay Nadal the whole time and even on clay, yet it was close between him and Federer, is that evidence enough that there is match up issue between Fed and Nadal for you....... something you kept refusing to admit

why not explain to us how Novak could be so difficult for Nadal on all surfaces while Federer is always a problem for Novak, yet Nadal owns Fed outright?

 

[Ricardo]

BTW Kieran the conversation was whose year was more successful, in which case only the results can decide the outcome of that. In fact even as greatness is concerned, it's still up to the RESULTS not how your imaginary difficulty is compared. I don't see anyone ever refuting Laver's greatness (in 69) by saying he didn't win RG by beating someone of Nadal or Borg's calibre but a mere Tony Roche, who is more or less about Hewitt's overall standing in Aussie tennis (behind Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Newcombe etc etc). And i am yet to see anyone making excuse for Fed for narrowly missing out on winning the Holy grail because Nadal defeated him in that RG final. The only diff was that, Fed didn't win it while Laver did so Laver's year was 'greater' or more successful.

Another words, how you value players greatness/success is totally delusional and totally your own opinion which is so far off that it's a JOKE.

Be quiet unless you can tell me, why you never assessed how 'easier' it was for Laver to win his GS and who he had to overcome.... and why you never discounted Sampras's major victories in defeating Martin and Pioline...... but it upsets you so much that Fed beat Gonzo and Baggy to win his titles at AO

Put simply, you need to explain yourself why you are not a total joke based on your rubbish posts......

 

[britbox]

OK, cool down guys and keep it civil.

The value of "the field/competition" will always be based on opinion and nothing else.

The value of winning a YEC is greater than a Masters 1000 - that's not opinion but fact. There are more points up for grabs and it's a more prestigious event. As the ITF run the slams, it's the ATP's biggest tournament and you're only facing the best players in the world. Historically, it's always been important - it used to attract more stars than the AO in the 70s and early 80s.

 

[Kieran]

Actually buddy, the relative value of a field that has Fedal versus a field that has Baggy/Gonzo doesn't really come down to opinion. Nadal was coming off his peak year, and Roger was still a force. Nobody is downgrading Roger here, but look at Nole going into 2011, look at Fedal - and then see what he done.

It was incredible, and more so, given who he faced down.

Ricardo: third time of asking. Show me where, and stop putting words in my mouth.

Go for it. And when you can't, admit it and move on. I'm not the kind of chap who'd call you a liar in public, so don't worry about that, okay?

 

[Ricardo]

Actually buddy, the relative value of a field that has Fedal versus a field that has Baggy/Gonzo doesn't really come down to opinion. Nadal was coming off his peak year, and Roger was still a force. Nobody is downgrading Roger here, but look at Nole going into 2011, look at Fedal - and then see what he done.

It was incredible, and more so, given who he faced down.

Ricardo: third time of asking. Show me where, and stop putting words in my mouth.

Go for it. And when you can't, admit it and move on. I'm not the kind of chap who'd call you a liar in public, so don't worry about that, okay?

already showed your quote, it is what it is and there is no way you can twist out of this - cowards like you would not admit it, instead resort to playing word games.

Now value of a field is based on opinion, you keep talking as if you have something to say but you never had a point. The fact that you say strong/weak field is NOT an opinion shows exactly what your opinions are all about.... pure garbage.

btw don't keep telling us how good Fed was, when you told how far off his best Sampras was in 2001 when Fed beat him. You apply double standards all the time, and that's exactly what liars do - and think they are 'witty'. I'll summarize you right here:

when Fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon, he beat a player on one leg.
when Fed beat Rafa, it was peak Fed beating a green horn.
when someone beat Fed, they (Djoker, Murray, Delpo etc) were all beating peak Fed.
Sampras beating Pioline and Martin was not weak competition, only Fed beating Baggy/Gonzo was.

don't have time to list all these but surely everyone can see the pattern, and that's what you are made of :clap

 

[Kieran]

Ricardo, buddy, pal:

But would any player take a year where they set a record of MS titles in one season? I think that's also quite unique (until Rafa equalled it, of course).

^^ This, does not equal this:

you state that a player would take a year for 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF

How you think it does can only be explained by using terms that are detrimental to your shredded reputation, and since Britbox asked us to be civil, one of us will try.

Why don't you admit that you made it all up, a silly attempt to discredit me, and accept that I didn't try "to downplay the importance of the WTF" and then move on? Why not man up, buddy, and then forget it?

I think that would be the wisest act on your part. Now, go on, do that and we won't mention any of this again...

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, buddy, pal:

But would any player take a year where they set a record of MS titles in one season? I think that's also quite unique (until Rafa equalled it, of course).

^^ This, does not equal this:

you state that a player would take a year for 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF

How you think it does can only be explained by using terms that are detrimental to your shredded reputation, and since Britbox asked us to be civil, one of us will try.

Why don't you admit that you made it all up, a silly attempt to discredit me, and accept that I didn't try "to downplay the importance of the WTF" and then move on? Why not man up, buddy, and then forget it?

I think that would be the wisest act on your part. Now, go on, do that and we won't mention any of this again...

get off the high horse, your opinion is you think a player would choose to take the record masters in a year then that's exactly what the case in discussion is, that taking 5 MS1000 over 4 MS1000 + WTF. Of course you put a question mark there, but you already justified it by saying its unique...... how about no word games here?

sure that does not equal to you flat out saying it, but there is the substance .... right there where i can see it. Have you mentioned 'weak competition' and word that exactly? probably not but i dare say that almost everyone can see that's what many of your posts lead up to......... oh i must be putting it in your mouth too :nono

 

[Kieran]

Nice of you to admit you're wrong, buddy. I appreciate that, and I'm sure the forum is glad that you're humble enough to own up to your fabrications.

Your problems are multiple, but you'd help yourself if you took a few deep breaths before posting, and paid some attention to what it is you're replying to. I give this advice in friendship, and free of charge...

 

[DarthFed]

Actually buddy, the relative value of a field that has Fedal versus a field that has Baggy/Gonzo doesn't really come down to opinion. Nadal was coming off his peak year, and Roger was still a force. Nobody is downgrading Roger here, but look at Nole going into 2011, look at Fedal - and then see what he done.

It was incredible, and more so, given who he faced down.

Ricardo: third time of asking. Show me where, and stop putting words in my mouth.

Go for it. And when you can't, admit it and move on. I'm not the kind of chap who'd call you a liar in public, so don't worry about that, okay?

Old man Federer, who actually won nothing of note until Fall that year, was a force yet Rafa who was in the middle of the longest clay court streak ever wasn't? That's the problem with the argument at times.

That said I will agree with the opinion that Nole had it tougher in 2011 due to the fact Rafa was a force on all surfaces compared to 2006, but when you look at it you'll notice that Nole's losses are weaker and there were more of them than Roger had in 2006. And as Ricardo and others have pointed out, Roger clearly had the more successful season given he made all 4 finals, won the YEC vs. an extra Master event, and had a significantly better record.

 

[Federberg]

^Where does it all end though? One point Ricardo makes that I hadn't considered is.. if you start making "value judgements" on the quality of Federer's 2006 where does it all end. It's a slippery slope.. should we then parse through the matches in Laver's 1969?? Put like that I have to agree. By the numbers without subjective "quality filters" Federer's 2006 is the superior year, it's very simple and very clear. In 20 years time, we'll just be focussing on the numbers, why not do that now?

 

[DarthFed]

^Where does it all end though? One point Ricardo makes that I hadn't considered is.. if you start making "value judgements" on the quality of Federer's 2006 where does it all end. It's a slippery slope.. should we then parse through the matches in Laver's 1969?? Put like that I have to agree. By the numbers without subjective "quality filters" Federer's 2006 is the superior year, it's very simple and very clear. In 20 years time, we'll just be focussing on the numbers, why not do that now?

Good points. The way I look at it is that quality of competition is based on opinion while the results are a fact. It is a fact that Roger had the better results in 2006 than Nole had in 2011.

 

[Kieran]

Yes, it's only an opinion that prime Rafa is greater than young Rafa, and that Federer in 2011 was still meaner than gonzo, baggy and fozzy bear, combined.

Statistically, Federer's 2006 was a marvel, a wonder. Nobody is disputing that. But he was the only all-court great that season, and he had the confidence of the 3 previous seasons to back him up. He was prime in 2006.

But in 2011, Nole was battling his own previous failings, he had Nadal, who he not only owned but owned on clay, and he had Federer too. These things maybe subjective, but number crunching doesn't do justice to Nole's bug-eyed intensity of 2011. It was actually like watching the speed limit being broken. It certainly was far more dramatic and exciting than any season in the modern game, and every season in the modern game breaks some sort of record.

Anyhow, roll on Monte Carlo! Let's see if 2011 is revisited. Let's hope that - at Monte Carlo and Paris at least, it is...

 

[britbox]

^I think the point being made was 2006 Rafa was more relevant than 2011 Federer when comparing fields.