General tennis news 2013-2014

[Kieran]

RE: General tennis news

He's nowhere near a top pro? Tommy Robredo? Are we talking about the same chap?

 

[DarthFed]

RE: General tennis news

He's nowhere near a top pro? Tommy Robredo? Are we talking about the same chap?

What's your definition of a "top pro"? I'd say top ten. Robredo was rarely a top ten player and hasn't been for awhile now.

Also keep in mind that this was a hard court. I doubt Robredo has ever shown any game on a HC before...

 

[Moxie]

RE: General tennis news

He's nowhere near a top pro? Tommy Robredo? Are we talking about the same chap?

What's your definition of a "top pro"? I'd say top ten. Robredo was rarely a top ten player and hasn't been for awhile now.

Also keep in mind that this was a hard court. I doubt Robredo has ever shown any game on a HC before...

Tommy was top ten for nearly 2 years, and as high as top 5, and is currently #18. He has 5 HC titles, only one (Metz 250) being in singles. Still, Darth, you would be setting the bar to high to exclude Tommy from any notion of 'Top Pro.' He's spent a lot of his playing years as one of at worst the top 20-30 players in the world.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: General tennis news

Yes he was top ten in 2006 and 2007 back when he had no prayer at Roger anyways and has absolutely no accomplishments on HC. Thus 10-1 isn't good.

 

[Moxie]

RE: General tennis news

You are so tough. 18 is only 8 places outside of the top 10, and "absolutely no accomplishments on HC" means zero, which I have told you that isn't the case. You barely tolerate a loss by Roger to the Big 3, and nearly every other tennis player on earth is a 2nd-stringer and therefore unworthy to touch The Man's hem, let alone beat him, according to you. Sheesh. I understand being disappointed by a loss, but it shouldn't always be an occasion for outrageous mislabeling and slandering of every opponent's accomplishments and capabilities.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: General tennis news

You are so tough. 18 is only 8 places outside of the top 10, and "absolutely no accomplishments on HC" means zero, which I have told you that isn't the case. You barely tolerate a loss by Roger to the Big 3, and nearly every other tennis player on earth is a 2nd-stringer and therefore unworthy to touch The Man's hem, let alone beat him, according to you. Sheesh. I understand being disappointed by a loss, but it shouldn't always be an occasion for outrageous mislabeling and slandering of every opponent's accomplishments and capabilities.

4 doubles tournaments and 1 250 level win. Am I being too tough in saying he isn't accomplished on HC given that? He has made the QF of AO and USO once, I'd say that's a much better accomplishment than winning a very small tournament. How slanderous to talk down such achievements! I bet Tommy winning Metz made the 9 time hardcourt GS winner feel so much better about losing in straight sets at Flushing Meadows.

Calling Robredo a 2nd-stringer?? I like that, I might have to use that one in the future when talking certain players worthy of the title. I think we both know why you might be giving Robredo a decent amount of credit here. Two words...but I won't mention them again, lest I be accused of slander

 

[Kieran]

RE: General tennis news

You know, Darth, you're the best debater in favour of the "weak competition" argument...

 

[Moxie]

RE: General tennis news

You are so tough. 18 is only 8 places outside of the top 10, and "absolutely no accomplishments on HC" means zero, which I have told you that isn't the case. You barely tolerate a loss by Roger to the Big 3, and nearly every other tennis player on earth is a 2nd-stringer and therefore unworthy to touch The Man's hem, let alone beat him, according to you. Sheesh. I understand being disappointed by a loss, but it shouldn't always be an occasion for outrageous mislabeling and slandering of every opponent's accomplishments and capabilities.

4 doubles tournaments and 1 250 level win. Am I being too tough in saying he isn't accomplished on HC given that? He has made the QF of AO and USO once, I'd say that's a much better accomplishment than winning a very small tournament. How slanderous to talk down such achievements! I bet Tommy winning Metz made the 9 time hardcourt GS winner feel so much better about losing in straight sets at Flushing Meadows.

Calling Robredo a 2nd-stringer?? I like that, I might have to use that one in the future when talking certain players worthy of the title. I think we both know why you might be giving Robredo a decent amount of credit here. Two words...but I won't mention them again, lest I be accused of slander

You weren't saying he "isn't accomplished on HC," you said he had "absolutely no accomplishments on HC." I was correcting you. I'm not saying he's up to Federer, but you do get hyperbolic…it's a bit all or nothing with you. (And the part I bolded, I'm not sure what that refers to…but I'm not trying to give Robredo more credit than he's due. It's simply that you give him none. I'm pointing out the facts of his record.)

And I'm afraid Kieran's got you a bit with his remark, however tongue-in-cheek. :lolz: (Tommy is 31 ½.)

 

[DarthFed]

RE: General tennis news

You know, Darth, you're the best debater in favour of the "weak competition" argument...

I think this is reading a bit too much into what is being said. Roger should be able to handle a clay courter who is on average about #20 in the world throughout his career. If you told Roger he'd be 10-1 against Robredo he'd probably be disappointed, if you told him the loss would be a 4th round at a major he'd be furious. A barely top 20 player on average is almost never going to beat a top 3 player in any sport, or am I missing something?

 

[Moxie]

RE: General tennis news

You know, Darth, you're the best debater in favour of the "weak competition" argument...

I think this is reading a bit too much into what is being said. Roger should be able to handle a clay courter who is on average about #20 in the world throughout his career. If you told Roger he'd be 10-1 against Robredo he'd probably be disappointed, if you told him the loss would be a 4th round at a major he'd be furious. A barely top 20 player on average is almost never going to beat a top 3 player in any sport, or am I missing something?

I don't think too much is being read in. You've been incautious about how you value other players. You're perpetually black/white: Federer loses, it's his fault and a disaster. He loses to someone out of the top 4, same…and worse, they are beneath contempt as someone he 'shouldn't' have lost to. All equally, and without any respect to their individual records. As far as you're concerned, I'd wager, a loss to Stakhovsky is exactly equal to a loss to Robredo. Would you have been so offended if the resurgent 'Tommy' was Haas who had beaten him, instead? I suspect not, if only slightly less so. But there is something to be said for a wily veteran, who was having a good run after an injury lay-off. Robredo had some great victories in 2013, and not just over Fed.

I would turn your question (which I bolded above,) on its head: A player who can average top 20-30 and reach as high as top 5, by the law of averages might beat that top 3 player once in 11 matches. It's not as unrealistic or insulting as it seems to you.

I DO understand your frustration about that particular loss, and I won't pretend that it wasn't surprising, or an upset. I'm just trying to put a little perspective on it. (And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what else I was insinuating.)

 

[DarthFed]

RE: General tennis news

You weren't insinuating anything. I'd also argue that Robredo's "average" chance vs. Roger in 11 matches is below 9% but we won't put too much math into it. Fact of the matter is a nobody on hard courts easily took him out at a slam. Robredo should never beat him on hards, even a version way past his best.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: General tennis news

I think I know better to jump into the middle of your fight. However, I found the
NY blog on Fed's loss to Robredo to be very interesting. I think it accurately portrays
what went on.

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/federer-paid-price-for-not-adjusting-his-game-plan/?_r=1

In some sense, Fed took Robredo for granted and was using him to practice for the
impending match with Nadal (if he won that one). Fed can hang with Robredo in
base line game and does not have to be too aggressive. But he came in too often
and got passed many times. As the article says, even after realizing that things are
not working out, Fed stuck with the same approach instead of going back to the
basics.

 

[Moxie]

RE: General tennis news

I think we both know why you might be giving Robredo a decent amount of credit here. Two words...but I won't mention them again, lest I be accused of slander

I'll ask again: why do you think I was giving Robredo more credit than you think he's due?

You weren't insinuating anything. I'd also argue that Robredo's "average" chance vs. Roger in 11 matches is below 9% but we won't put too much math into it. Fact of the matter is a nobody on hard courts easily took him out at a slam. Robredo should never beat him on hards, even a version way past his best.

I'll agree that no one has easily taken Roger out at a Slam. It's simply a fact that Robredo did. When you say he "shouldn't" have, you start to sound like people like Cali. It doesn't matter what "should" have been, in your opinion, it is just a matter of what is. You can be angry that he did it, but don't denigrate his whole career because it offends you that he beat Federer. That's all I'm saying.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: General tennis news

I think we both know why you might be giving Robredo a decent amount of credit here. Two words...but I won't mention them again, lest I be accused of slander

I'll ask again: why do you think I was giving Robredo more credit than you think he's due?

You weren't insinuating anything. I'd also argue that Robredo's "average" chance vs. Roger in 11 matches is below 9% but we won't put too much math into it. Fact of the matter is a nobody on hard courts easily took him out at a slam. Robredo should never beat him on hards, even a version way past his best.

I'll agree that no one has easily taken Roger out at a Slam. It's simply a fact that Robredo did. When you say he "shouldn't" have, you start to sound like people like Cali. It doesn't matter what "should" have been, in your opinion, it is just a matter of what is. You can be angry that he did it, but don't denigrate his whole career because it offends you that he beat Federer. That's all I'm saying.

Why do I think you are giving Robredo more credit than is due? Your Spanish fever is why.

There is no career to denigrate, fact of the matter is this is basically someone who has absolutely no game on an HC and very little game period. That's not slander. Would you be happier if I said Roger's H2H with Robredo is just "OK?" 10-1 isn't a disaster I suppose though no reason one wouldn't assume he should win all 11.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: General tennis news

OK, let's be clear about one thing, if we're going to argue that Fed's loss to Robredo was shameful (and I think it is, to be honest), then I don't want to hear the same people argue that Rosol/Darcis would have beaten anyone that day and "Rafa has always been garbage in the first week of Wimbledon" (which isn't totally true by the way, but I digress), or that no version of Nadal could have beaten Rosol.

I'm actually in the camp that believes Federer should never lose in a slam to Tommy Robredo, under any circumstances. If it sounds harsh or disrespectful to Robredo, then sorry, but that's life. However, I apply the same standards to Nadal losing to Rosol/Darcis.

 

[isabelle]

RE: General tennis news

OK, let's be clear about one thing, if we're going to argue that Fed's loss to Robredo was shameful (and I think it is, to be honest), then I don't want to hear the same people argue that Rosol/Darcis would have beaten anyone that day and "Rafa has always been garbage in the first week of Wimbledon" (which isn't totally true by the way, but I digress), or that no version of Nadal could have beaten Rosol.

I'm actually in the camp that believes Federer should never lose in a slam to Tommy Robredo, under any circumstances. If it sounds harsh or disrespectful to Robredo, then sorry, but that's life. However, I apply the same standards to Nadal losing to Rosol/Darcis.

Is is "better " to be defeated by Tommy R on hardcourt than by Stakhovsky on grass ?? Your opinion por favor

 

[Kieran]

RE: General tennis news

If guys in the top 20 haven't a chance to beat the top 4 or 5, then the competition is weak, point blank...

 

[DarthFed]

RE: General tennis news

If guys in the top 20 haven't a chance to beat the top 4 or 5, then the competition is weak, point blank...

Everyone has a chance but when we are getting far out like #20, #30, etc. vs. #1-3 the chances are tiny unless there are special circumstances like the match is on clay and the higher ranked player isn't good on that surface.

In talking Fed-Robredo Roger shouldn't lose 1 out of 20 to that chap off of clay. Even the ancient way past his prime Roger. That's the point being made.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: General tennis news

OK, let's be clear about one thing, if we're going to argue that Fed's loss to Robredo was shameful (and I think it is, to be honest), then I don't want to hear the same people argue that Rosol/Darcis would have beaten anyone that day and "Rafa has always been garbage in the first week of Wimbledon" (which isn't totally true by the way, but I digress), or that no version of Nadal could have beaten Rosol.

I'm actually in the camp that believes Federer should never lose in a slam to Tommy Robredo, under any circumstances. If it sounds harsh or disrespectful to Robredo, then sorry, but that's life. However, I apply the same standards to Nadal losing to Rosol/Darcis.

Is is "better " to be defeated by Tommy R on hardcourt than by Stakhovsky on grass ?? Your opinion por favor

Both are pretty bad. It's tough to pick what is the "better" loss when both are fairly disastrous.

 

[Front242]

RE: General tennis news

Losing to Robredo on hardcourt is far worse. I like Tommy and gotta admire the year he had but he shouldn't be beating Roger on hardcourt. Stakhovsky in fairness played a blinder of a match and much to do with that loss was no one was expecting a retro 90's S&V fest at all, least of all Roger himself. I've watched that match a few times and full credit to Stakh, he played great and even so the result came down to a few points with two TB sets. The BH shank that Fed lost the match on was one of such points. Had he won that point it was back level at 6-6 in the 4th set TB.