NextGen Finals, Milan

[El Dude]

Just admit it, Ricardo: You have a big hard-on for me because I called you on your 1950s sexism. So now you stalk me, waiting for a chance to harass, and make mountains out of mole-hills (e.g. the Pioline thing, which is beyond absurd - I mentioned him once among other names of players who might have underachieved, and only because someone mentioned him on another site - not based upon my own observations of him).

Anyhow, the actual quote is "I suppose Ferrer is his absolute upside." Suppose is not lecturing. It is casually speculating.

And yes, I admit that I don't know what I'm talking about - that there are limits to my knowledge. I guess that puts me several steps ahead of you.

 

[Moxie]

you were not speculating but used that tone of lecturing......'his absolute upside is Ferrer' does that sound like speculating or drawing up conclusion? give it a break al dud, you really don't know what you are talking about.

While I think that folks might be seeing more defensiveness in Chung's game than I did when I watched him play, what's wrong with making a call on Chung, going forward? You could also call him a "Berdych." It tells more or less the same story. And let's face it: who has seen enough of Chung's game to categorize him? I've been sort of championing him mostly only because @britbox and I got into a tussle over his possibilities a few years back. BB had failed to notice that he'd grown tall and rather big. I saw a pretty good game in him, real confidence, and that he had a big following amongst the Asian-American fans at the USO. Most of that stuff is peripheral, and doesn't say who he really is as a player. I just see them as basic up-sides. Obviously, taking the #NextGen tourney as he did, (w/o losing) was a big calling card. But does he have any big weapons? Haven't seen that. So he's got a lot going for him, but I don't fault El Dude for putting him at a Ferrer level. David Ferrer, to all of us, just forget about his style of play, means "a player who made the most of his talents." So far, I think that's not a bad comparison for Chung.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, and also "a player who maxes out at less than true elite level." That's really what I meant by comparing him to Ferrer. David is (was) a very good "bottom feeder": he was never really capable of winning a big title unless the true elite were out, but he scooped up a lot in the process (mostly ATP 500s and 250s).

I was also contrasting Chung with Rublev, who could be quite deadly when he wasn't getting upset. In a way Rublev was more like a Tsonga type - a guy with weapons, but maybe not the overall game and/or mentality to be a true elite.

But obviously these guys are too young to nail down their futures, but it is interesting to speculate.

 

[Moxie]

I really hate the term "bottom-feeder." But if you like, I think Davydenko was, then, too. Another way of seeing it might be those who had real strengths, but didn't match up to the elite, and figured out the way to make the best of their gifts, by sometimes cleverly avoiding top players.

 

[Fiero425]

I really hate the term "bottom-feeder." But if you like, I think Davydenko was, then, too. Another way of seeing it might be those who had real strengths, but didn't match up to the elite, and figured out the way to make the best of their gifts, by sometimes cleverly avoiding top players.

Oh my, who said that? I've never used that term even for the worst of players! I start with "less than elite," then drift into "also-rans," WC's, & qualifiers before I get ticked off with what I consider "gutless" play! They will get that out of me; sorta like what Goffin tried to do yesterday for Nadal and Sasha successfully did today vs Fed; "DROP A MATCH with multiple MP's!" o_O

 

[Federberg]

While I think that folks might be seeing more defensiveness in Chung's game than I did when I watched him play, what's wrong with making a call on Chung, going forward? You could also call him a "Berdych." It tells more or less the same story. And let's face it: who has seen enough of Chung's game to categorize him? I've been sort of championing him mostly only because @britbox and I got into a tussle over his possibilities a few years back. BB had failed to notice that he'd grown tall and rather big. I saw a pretty good game in him, real confidence, and that he had a big following amongst the Asian-American fans at the USO. Most of that stuff is peripheral, and doesn't say who he really is as a player. I just see them as basic up-sides. Obviously, taking the #NextGen tourney as he did, (w/o losing) was a big calling card. But does he have any big weapons? Haven't seen that. So he's got a lot going for him, but I don't fault El Dude for putting him at a Ferrer level. David Ferrer, to all of us, just forget about his style of play, means "a player who made the most of his talents." So far, I think that's not a bad comparison for Chung.

It's one thing to say that a player reminds you of Ferrer, it's another thing to assert that their "level" or "upside" is like Ferrer. It speaks to a massive presumption about how much can be predicted beforehand. One could easily say that Chung is reminiscent of Chang, and I doubt anyone here would have an issue with that. But to say that his upside is limited to Ferrer without any factual evidence is provocative and a rather pointless assertion to be honest. We are not gods, just fans of tennis. I fully get why @Ricardo might roll his eyes at such statements

 

[Ricardo]

Just admit it, Ricardo: You have a big hard-on for me because I called you on your 1950s sexism. So now you stalk me, waiting for a chance to harass, and make mountains out of mole-hills (e.g. the Pioline thing, which is beyond absurd - I mentioned him once among other names of players who might have underachieved, and only because someone mentioned him on another site - not based upon my own observations of him).

Anyhow, the actual quote is "I suppose Ferrer is his absolute upside." Suppose is not lecturing. It is casually speculating.

And yes, I admit that I don't know what I'm talking about - that there are limits to my knowledge. I guess that puts me several steps ahead of you.

see how easily i put you into defence, albeit a very weak one. and i definitely don't need to self-proclaim i am several steps ahead of you......as you are the best evidence right here

to make it short, you know jack about absolute upside of a player who just turned 20. you see why nobody else plays the role of an authority, or talks like one. after all, we are somehow experienced enough not to make a fool of ourselves and we certainly know that Pioline wasn't some great underachiever, even if some idiot out there told so....sorry that is rubbish excuse

 

[Ricardo]

While I think that folks might be seeing more defensiveness in Chung's game than I did when I watched him play, what's wrong with making a call on Chung, going forward? You could also call him a "Berdych." It tells more or less the same story. And let's face it: who has seen enough of Chung's game to categorize him? I've been sort of championing him mostly only because @britbox and I got into a tussle over his possibilities a few years back. BB had failed to notice that he'd grown tall and rather big. I saw a pretty good game in him, real confidence, and that he had a big following amongst the Asian-American fans at the USO. Most of that stuff is peripheral, and doesn't say who he really is as a player. I just see them as basic up-sides. Obviously, taking the #NextGen tourney as he did, (w/o losing) was a big calling card. But does he have any big weapons? Haven't seen that. So he's got a lot going for him, but I don't fault El Dude for putting him at a Ferrer level. David Ferrer, to all of us, just forget about his style of play, means "a player who made the most of his talents." So far, I think that's not a bad comparison for Chung.

it doesn't sit well with me when someone sees a player a little shallow bit and thinks he knows enough about his 'absolute upside/potential' when he could possibly still be almost 10 years away from it. If you noticed its not about Ferrer not being good enough for a comparison with Chung, its mouthing off trying to look smart. But of course David Ferrer actually had an awesome career.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's one thing to say that a player reminds you of Ferrer, it's another thing to assert that their "level" or "upside" is like Ferrer. It speaks to a massive presumption about how much can be predicted beforehand. One could easily say that Chung is reminiscent of Chang, and I doubt anyone here would have an issue with that. But to say that his upside is limited to Ferrer without any factual evidence is provocative and a rather pointless assertion to be honest. We are not gods, just fans of tennis. I fully get why @Ricardo might roll his eyes at such statements

Are you a racist?

 

[Federberg]

Are you a racist?

Lol! I did notice the name similarity when I was typing!

 

[El Dude]

Talk about much ado about nothing. It is ridiculous how folks get upset about a bit of speculation - and speculation that was not spoke authoritatively (I even used the word "suppose"). Not to mention, an upside of Ferrer is actually quite good. How many better players have there been in the Open Era? Thirty? Forty? He's definitely top 50 of the last 50 years.

Ricardo, I'm not sure I've ever seen such a good example of someone who argues against strawmen. You create an opinion to disagree with, but in so doing miss what anyone (in this case, me) is actually saying. This is part of the reason I largely ignore you these days.

Oh yeah, Chung didn't "just turn 20." He is 21, his birthday in May - so technically he's 21.5, about a year and a half older than you are saying, which makes a difference at that age.

 

[Ricardo]

this is why you are all-dud, you simply don't know what you are talking about but you act as if you do. Lets see, majority of your posts go like this, player A is elite, player B is near elite, player C has 'absolutely upside' (when he is only 21) of a 'near elite', player D belongs to tier 3, blah blah blah. Name me one poster who would self-appoint to be overall judge of all players, can't think of one except all-dud. Otherwise the only people i can think of who come close to doing this are actual experts who have the knowledge and experience.

But one major difference between you and them, they don't mistake Pioline as a great underachiever. (Gets old i know, but who can help but laugh when you think about it?) its all-dud the self-appointed judge who talks like an expert, except we know what he is really about....sorry just had to poke that bubble

 

[Fiero425]

this is why you are all-dud, you simply don't know what you are talking about but you act as if you do. Lets see, majority of your posts go like this, player A is elite, player B is near elite, player C has 'absolutely upside' (when he is only 21) of a 'near elite', player D belongs to tier 3, blah blah blah. Name me one poster who would self-appoint to be overall judge of all players, can't think of one except all-dud. Otherwise the only people i can think of who come close to doing this are actual experts who have the knowledge and experience.

But one major difference between you and them, they don't mistake Pioline as a great underachiever. (Gets old i know, but who can help but laugh when you think about it?) its all-dud the self-appointed judge who talks like an expert, except we know what he is really about....sorry just had to poke that bubble

Fiero425 = The Historian :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

this is why you are all-dud, you simply don't know what you are talking about but you act as if you do. Lets see, majority of your posts go like this, player A is elite, player B is near elite, player C has 'absolutely upside' (when he is only 21) of a 'near elite', player D belongs to tier 3, blah blah blah. Name me one poster who would self-appoint to be overall judge of all players, can't think of one except all-dud. Otherwise the only people i can think of who come close to doing this are actual experts who have the knowledge and experience.

But one major difference between you and them, they don't mistake Pioline as a great underachiever. (Gets old i know, but who can help but laugh when you think about it?) its all-dud the self-appointed judge who talks like an expert, except we know what he is really about....sorry just had to poke that bubble

I don't understand why you go out of your way to disparage El Dude. He offers opinions for us to debate, very usefully. You, however, rarely ofter an original opinion. Your inclination is reaction, often with reproach. Which is fine, but you might consider not giving such a hard time to those who put themselves out there, when you are not so willing to.

 

[El Dude]

My only response to Ricardo:

 

[Ricardo]

My only response to Ricardo:

finally you found you should be embarrassed for mouthing off with dumb ass bs, about time

 

[El Dude]

Evidently you are not versed in emoticons. That one is called a "facepalm." Look it up.

 

[Ricardo]

Evidently you are not versed in emoticons. That one is called a "facepalm." Look it up.

that's all you got left as a comeback? oh okayyyyyy.......bhahahahahaha

 

[Ricardo]

I don't understand why you go out of your way to disparage El Dude. He offers opinions for us to debate, very usefully. You, however, rarely ofter an original opinion. Your inclination is reaction, often with reproach. Which is fine, but you might consider not giving such a hard time to those who put themselves out there, when you are not so willing to.

ok grandma, point taken.

 

[El Dude]

that's all you got left as a comeback? oh okayyyyyy.......bhahahahahaha

Or maybe I just don't want to play in the sandbox with you, flinging shit?