Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: On earth......Sometimes.
Re: 2004 Masters Series Leaders
((RANT ON)) Is this legit, because it deosn't make any sense to me?
Is this ranked by how many matches won within the Master's tournaments or the tournaments alone?
Because I don't understand placing Marat over Roger because he won more matches, BUT won less tournaments.
For example: If Roger had ONLY played and WON the Aussie Open, W, and the USO Lleyton would get some type of senority(sp) in the GrandSlams if he played ALL FOUR but ONLY made the finals, giving Roger a record of 21-0 in GS for the year and Lleyton 24-0.
THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I WOULD PUT LLEYTON'S "FOUR FINAL APPEARANCES" OVER ROGER'S "THREE FINAL WINS".
((RANT ON)) Last year I believe Roddick had the best year in the TMS, but Federer played slightly more matches, had slightly more points, but did not under any circumstances hold ANY weight over Roddick's back-to-back TMS titles.
Too many meaningless ranks/polls/blah blah blah.((RANT OFF))
((KISS ASS ON)) p.s. Try not to bruise my ego too much. I'm sensitive dammit.((KISS ASS OFF))
Hypocrites always wanna play innocent,
Always wanna take it to the full out extent,
Always wanna make it seem like good intent,
And never wanna face it when it's time for punishment.
Lauryn Hill "Lost Ones"
(That's for anyone saying Fed's success boils down to "weak" competition. Well so does your logic.)