Fedalovic Wars

[Denis]

Paul Annacone‘s assessment of Novak vs. Fedal. Harsh!

Haha well that's all that might be left for fedal fans at the end of this year. Like people like Anna Kournikova better than Martina Hingis. Good luck with that!

 

[monfed]

Fed has the GOAT game, if you don't have the GOAT game you can't be the GOAT. Simple as that. Low talent grinders like dull and faker can't be GOAT.
Both faker and dull specially faker had no ATGs chasing them like Fed had dull and faker and that too in slow court era which suits them. So it was unfair for Fed. No ATGs born after 1987. That's why faker is scavenging left and right that's why he's ahead in numbers. Simples.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Now that all three have the same number (I know it won't stay there), let us look at the distribution.

Given that the sum (and hence the average) is the same, other important parameters are range and standard deviation. As you can see, the range is 7 for both Fed and Novak and a whopping 12 for Rafa (less is good in range). Next, if you look at the last column you will see the standard deviation of the distribution. Again, less is good here. Roger has the lowest standard deviation at 2.55. Novak is not very far with 2.73. But, Ralph's std. deviation is way too high. It is at 4.74 almost close to the average.

This should not come as a surprise. Almost everyone know that Rafa's slam counts are skewed. I thought I will just put it out concretely to make it explicit.

	AO​	RG​	W​	USO​	SUM​	MAX​	MIN​	RANGE​	Std. Dev.​
Roger	6​	1​	8​	5​	20​	8​	1​	7​	2.55​
Novak	9​	2​	6​	3​	20​	9​	2​	7​	2.73​
Ralph	1​	13​	2​	4​	20​	13​	1​	12​	4.74​

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This post is not a war post. But did not know which is the most appropriate thread and so I am posting it here.

Starting from 2003 Wimbledon and going up to 2021 Wimbledon, there were 72 slams played (due to Wimbledon 2020 being cancelled). Of the 72, Fedalovic have won 60. That is unbelievable. As a percentage, Fedalovic have won 83.33% of the slams played since Fed won his first slam (at Wimbledon 2003) and the field have won 16.66% of the slams.

Here is the distribution of the other 12 slams. Andy and Stan lead the way with three slams each.

The other six slams were won by the following six players:

Old: Roddick, Gaudio, Safin* one each.

New: JMDP, Cilic and Thiem one each.

* - Safin has two slams, but only one during the Fedalovic era. All the other five player won only one in their career.

 

[tented]

Now that all three have the same number (I know it won't stay there), let us look at the distribution.

Given that the sum (and hence the average) is the same, other important parameters are range and standard deviation. As you can see, the range is 7 for both Fed and Novak and a whopping 12 for Rafa (less is good in range). Next, if you look at the last column you will see the standard deviation of the distribution. Again, less is good here. Roger has the lowest standard deviation at 2.55. Novak is not very far with 2.73. But, Ralph's std. deviation is way too high. It is at 4.74 almost close to the average.

This should not come as a surprise. Almost everyone know that Rafa's slam counts are skewed. I thought I will just put it out concretely to make it explicit.

	AO​	RG​	W​	USO​	SUM​	MAX​	MIN​	RANGE​	Std. Dev.​
Roger	6​	1​	8​	5​	20​	8​	1​	7​	2.55​
Novak	9​	2​	6​	3​	20​	9​	2​	7​	2.73​
Ralph	1​	13​	2​	4​	20​	13​	1​	12​	4.74​

You lose any attempt at objectivity and serious analysis through the numbers when you use “Ralph” in a table.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You lose any attempt at objectivity and serious analysis through the numbers when you use “Ralph” in a table.

As I have already explained "Ralph" is not a disparaging name and I don't use it to disparage either. Kieran came up with that and I found it cute. When I am referring to Rafa in an affectionate (or at least neutral) manner I use "Ralph". When I feel like disparaging Rafa, I use other names for him.

 

[tented]

As I have already explained "Ralph" is not a disparaging name and I don't use it to disparage either. Kieran came up with that and I found it cute. When I am referring to Rafa in an affectionate (or at least neutral) manner I use "Ralph". When I feel like disparaging Rafa, I use other names for him.

Not one user here believes that.

 

[Fiero425]

Not one user here believes that.

Well you know if I use "ralph," it'll signify throwing up for obvious reasons!

 

[Moxie]

Nick Kyrgios is almost more amusing as an interview or Twitterer than he is as a tennis player. Recently, he's holding up the standard for Roger as the GOAT, which is his right, but I have a niggle with one of his comments:

Nick Kyrgios: Roger Federer is Michael Jordan of tennis, without him there’s no Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic - Eurosport

Nick Kyrgios has described Roger Federer as the Michael Jordan of tennis and says without him “there is no Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal”.

www.eurosport.com

He says that: Without Roger, there is no Nadal or Djokovic. Now, I know that Nadal and Djokovic have been generous about how the competition has pushed them, and Roger has, too. And it's likely very true. But to say that they wouldn't exist as top players is a bit not thought out, IMO. I'm not taking offense, just saying that there is no real reason to think that. Probably we all believe that they pushed each other to greater heights, and I don't think any of us believe that Fed would have stayed in so long without Rafa and Novak nipping at his heals. But Nadal and Djokovic are talented in their own right, and would still have been All-time greats, Roger Federer or no.

Say there was no Roger. Was Rafa going to come in less motivated at RG? And he always said he wanted to win Wimbledon, since he was about 15 or 16, so that motivation existed. He might just have won it earlier, if there had been no Roger. Likely he would have won the YEC a time or 3 without Roger, too. And I think Novak is similarly motivated, so he'd still have had Rafa in front of him, then Rafa would have still had Novak to push him.. Not trying to go down any rabbit hole, but to say that there is no Rafa or Novak without Roger is sloppy thinking. My 2 cents.

 

[BratSrbin]

I think Nick Kirgios is a GOAT. In babbling, of course. And I think referring to this charlatan is the lowest possible discussion in tennis.

 

[Moxie]

I think Nick Kirgios is a GOAT. In babbling, of course. And I think referring to this charlatan is the lowest possible discussion in tennis.

What makes Kyrgios a "charlatan"? Compared to your man, Novak, who has put some pretty weirdo ideas out there? Nick's a pretty damned good tennis player, and deserves the microphone as much as anyone, IMO, given that everyone has a twitter account anymore.

 

[BratSrbin]

What makes Kyrgios a "charlatan"? Compared to your man, Novak, who has put some pretty weirdo ideas out there? Nick's a pretty damned good tennis player, and deserves the microphone as much as anyone, IMO, given that everyone has a twitter account anymore.

What else to say about, for example, a man who says that RG is rubbish, than that he is a charlatan?
Yes, he is an outstanding player. He ranks 90th in the rankings.

 

[Moxie]

What else to say about, for example, a man who says that RG is rubbish, than that he is a charlatan?
Yes, he is an outstanding player. He ranks 90th in the rankings.

Thanks for reminding me, I was going to get to THAT self-serving remark. But that doesn't make him a "charlatan." That's just sour grapes about never having gotten past the 3rd round. Being a "charlatan" is claiming to have special skills or knowledge. Let's bring back this old chestnut:

Novak Djokovic: Positive emotions can purify polluted water - Eurosport

Novak Djokovic has touted another myth to his legions of followers… that polluted water can be purified with a positive mindset.

www.eurosport.com

And being ranked #1 doesn't make you more of an expert than being ranked #90. For better or worse, in this age of internet, they all get to have opinions.

 

[BratSrbin]

Thanks for reminding me, I was going to get to THAT self-serving remark. But that doesn't make him a "charlatan." That's just sour grapes about never having gotten past the 3rd round. Being a "charlatan" is claiming to have special skills or knowledge. Let's bring back this old chestnut:

Novak Djokovic: Positive emotions can purify polluted water - Eurosport

Novak Djokovic has touted another myth to his legions of followers… that polluted water can be purified with a positive mindset.

www.eurosport.com

And being ranked #1 doesn't make you more of an expert than being ranked #90. For better or worse, in this age of internet, they all get to have opinions.

You don't have to prove your malice, I'm familiar with it. A long time ago.

This is about your calling for the opinion of a gossip that you are trying hard to turn into something else.

 

[Moxie]

You don't have to prove your malice, I'm familiar with it. A long time ago.

This is about your calling for the opinion of a gossip that you are trying hard to turn into something else.

What malice on my part? I posted a quote from Kyrgios, which I disputed to some extent, actually taking up Novak's side. Then you swooped in all offended. Did you even read my post?

 

[BratSrbin]

This is a discussion about tennis, in case you didn’t know. You are turning the discussion in a nebulous direction.

 

[Moxie]

This is a discussion about tennis, in case you didn’t know. You are turning the discussion in a nebulous direction.

I was discussing tennis, until you chose to change direction, you slippery git. But this is the "Fedalovic Wars" thread, and all is fair in love and war.

 

[BratSrbin]

I was discussing tennis, until you chose to change direction, you slippery git. But this is the "Fedalovic Wars" thread, and all is fair in love and war.

A complete fabrication. Take a closer look. You posted someone's opinion (about tennis) when I claimed it was gossip, of course about tennis. I illustrated that with a concrete example, his opinion about one of the biggest competitions (in tennis), and you turned the discussion in an idiotic direction.

Everyone can be convinced of the truth of these words of mine, it is only necessary to take a few steps back.

By the way, this signature at the end is nice but I don't know the hieroglyphs. I am a literate man.

 

[Moxie]

A complete fabrication. Take a closer look. You posted someone's opinion (about tennis) when I claimed it was gossip, of course about tennis. I illustrated that with a concrete example, his opinion about one of the biggest competitions (in tennis), and you turned the discussion in an idiotic direction.

Everyone can be convinced of the truth of these words of mine, it is only necessary to take a few steps back.

By the way, this signature at the end is nice but I don't know the hieroglyphs. I am a literate man.

I had just posted a quote from Kyrgios on the Covid thread, so I imagined that's why you were calling him a "charlatan," if you don't agree with his opinions. In what other way could you think he's a charlatan? IMO, the bigger snake-oil salesman in tennis is Djokovic, so I said so.

 

[BratSrbin]

I had just posted a quote from Kyrgios on the Covid thread, so I imagined that's why you were calling him a "charlatan," if you don't agree with his opinions. In what other way could you think he's a charlatan? IMO, the bigger snake-oil salesman in tennis is Djokovic, so I said so.

A smart man (woman) cannot invoke the opinion of that charlatan, in my opinion, except in a strictly negative context. Also, he should not uncontrollably write nonsense.