Appreciation of the unappreciated (e.g. 'vulturing' and 'pushing') [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Appreciation of the unappreciated (e.g. 'vulturing' and 'pushing')

n8
03-26-2013, 02:43 AM
Am I the only one on this board who actually appreciates these things?

Take Zemlja. Mid last year he was 25 years old and never been in the top 100. He decides to enter three consecutive Chinese Challengers (having never played a Challenger there previously) and wins two. This gives him confidence and straight afterwards he qualifies and makes the 3rd round of the US Open. This propels him into the top 100 and before you know it he's made an ATP final. This year he's a direct acceptance into every event he's entered (all tour level) and in comes the money. I admire this creative scheduling and think those Chinese Challengers may have progressed his career faster than other scheduling choices (such as playing ATP qualifying in Europe or the USA).

I also appreciate the motivation and dedication it requires to be at your best at smaller events.

'Pushing' is not as easy as some posters make it out to be and I admire the skill of some 'pushers'. It requires patience, endurance and anticipation. It provides another array of match ups, some of which are fascinating such as Simon-Federer. Also kudos to those who can push when the situation calls for it, such as Murray.

Do you also appreciate these things (even a little)? And which other generally unappreciated skills do you appreciate?

Sorry to put everything in inverted commas. :angel:

Snowwy
03-26-2013, 02:48 AM
Am I the only one on this board who actually appreciates these things?

Take Ferrer. He could choose to only play the bigger events, hence probably get pushed down the rankings. This will lower his seedings and have a flow on effect. Instead he schedules intelligently to maximise his prize money and ranking (which is the primary goal of most tennis professionals) and confidence for that matter. It takes skill to select the best schedule and he seems to do just that. He knows where he stands with the rest of the top 5 and works around that.
'Vulturing' by players lower down the rankings makes even more sense sometimes. I also appreciate the motivation and dedication it requires to be at your best at smaller events.

'Pushing' is not as easy as some posters make it out to be and I admire the skill of some 'pushers'. It requires patience, endurance and anticipation. It provides another array of match ups, some of which are fascinating such as Simon-Federer. Also kudos to those who can push when the situation calls for it, such as Murray.

Do you also appreciate these things (even a little)? And which other generally unappreciated skills do you appreciate?

Sorry to put everything in inverted commas. :angel:
I do appreciate them.

Action Jackson
03-26-2013, 02:53 AM
I don't appreciate them and appreciate the terms even less.

Topspindoctor
03-26-2013, 02:54 AM
Don't really appreciate it, but these guys make good mug filters to give an indication if other players are ready for the big boys. The only thing I dislike is vultures overstepping their bounds and getting higher rank than should be allowed. Take Ferrer for example. Struggles to win games against Nadal and yet still ranked higher. They make a good target practice for top guys to hone their skills on so they are useful in that regard


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Mark Lenders
03-26-2013, 02:57 AM
Am I the only one on this board who actually appreciates these things?

Take Ferrer. He could choose to only play the bigger events, hence probably get pushed down the rankings. This will lower his seedings and have a flow on effect. Instead he schedules intelligently to maximise his prize money and ranking (which is the primary goal of most tennis professionals) and confidence for that matter. It takes skill to select the best schedule and he seems to do just that. He knows where he stands with the rest of the top 5 and works around that.
'Vulturing' by players lower down the rankings makes even more sense sometimes. I also appreciate the motivation and dedication it requires to be at your best at smaller events.

'Pushing' is not as easy as some posters make it out to be and I admire the skill of some 'pushers'. It requires patience, endurance and anticipation. It provides another array of match ups, some of which are fascinating such as Simon-Federer. Also kudos to those who can push when the situation calls for it, such as Murray.

Do you also appreciate these things (even a little)? And which other generally unappreciated skills do you appreciate?

Sorry to put everything in inverted commas. :angel:

Why exactly do any of these things deserve appreciation? Getting an inflated ranking through vulturing weak events and winning matches by feeding off errors instead of by your own shotmaking does not deserve praise, but endless amounts of criticism.

Take a university student who gets a passing grade because he slept with the professor and another one who got a passing grade because he actually studied and knew the material. Or someone who got a job/got promoted ahead of someone else because he/she slept with the boss. Sure, he was smart, he knew where he stood, that he had no chance on his own merits, and he knew it was the only way to get a passing grade/a job/a promotion. Does he deserve praise for taking the easy way out? Hell no. He deserves criticism for cheating the system and robbing more deserving people.

By the same token, Ferrer deserves criticism for abusing the ranking system to get better seedings in big events than players who are better than him and also for feeding off opponents' errors to win matches.

n8
03-26-2013, 03:05 AM
Why exactly do any of these things deserve appreciation? Getting an inflated ranking through vulturing weak events and winning matches by feeding off errors instead of by your own shotmaking does not deserve praise, but endless amounts of criticism.

Take a university student who gets a passing grade because he slept with the professor and another one who got a passing grade because he actually studied and knew the material. Or someone who got a job/got promoted ahead of someone because he/she slept with the boss. Sure, he was smart, he knew where he stood and he knew it was the only way to get a passing grade/a job/a promotion. Does he deserve praise for taking the easy way out? Hell no. He deserved criticism for cheating the system and robbing more deserving people.

By the same token, Ferrer deserves criticism for abusing the ranking system to get better seedings in big events than players who are better than him and also for feeding off opponents' errors to win matches.

That is a terrible analogy, Ferrer is not doing anything immoral. A better one would be: take a student who isn't naturally very bright but works very hard and studies all the time. He does every last little bit of assessment and places 4th in the class and gets a scholarship. Then lots of people mock this student because he is not as gifted as other students who missed out.

Johnny Groove
03-26-2013, 03:05 AM
I appreciate:

1. The all-serve mug
2. The all-return mug
3. The vulture
4. The pusher
5. The moonballer
6. The brainless ballbasher
7. The choker
8. The talented headcase
9. The tanker
10. The fixer
11. The doper

Any more I missed?

n8
03-26-2013, 03:11 AM
I appreciate:

1. The all-serve mug
2. The all-return mug
3. The vulture
4. The pusher
5. The moonballer
6. The brainless ballbasher
7. The choker
8. The talented headcase
9. The tanker
10. The fixer
11. The doper

Any more I missed?

One-surface pony?

Mark Lenders
03-26-2013, 03:12 AM
That is a terrible analogy, Ferrer is not doing anything immoral. A better one would be: take a student who isn't naturally very bright but works very hard and studies all the time. He does every last little bit of assessment and places 4th in the class and gets a scholarship. Then lots of people mock this student because he is not as gifted as other students who missed out.

The student in that example had the exact same opportunities as all the others though, he just studied more and reaped the rewards. Ferrer is distorting the playing field by selecting events with very weak fields: for instance, Berdych got 300 ranking points for his final in Dubai for which he had to beat Federer, Ferrer got the exact same points in Acapulco in the same week for beating a collection of players outside the top 30. Conversely, he got 1000 ranking points by beating Janowicz and Llodra in a Masters, Haas got 250 points for beating Federer and Berdych in the same tournament in Halle, Del Potro got 600 for beating Djokovic and Murray in Indian Wells.

You see where I'm getting at? Ferrer is not the student who works hard and does every last bit of assessment, he's the student who gets an early peek at the final exam and memorizes the answers to pass. I can quote the post I made the other day about his 20 titles but in short Soderling in Valencia 2010 was the only thing resembling a top player he beat in any of those runs.

n8
03-26-2013, 03:20 AM
I don't appreciate them and appreciate the terms even less.

Sure, the terms are unflattering, but it is handy to have a single word for different things that are discussed regularly. What do you suggest we call them?

MrPlateperson
03-26-2013, 03:24 AM
Ferrer is the kind of student who does decent at tests (slams, m1000's). But does hours of extra credit (250 events) to make up for his average tests so his grade (ranking) is higher than where it should probably be.

Johnny Groove
03-26-2013, 03:25 AM
One-surface pony?

Oh yes, the one surface mug. So we have 12 terms you can use to describe any player. Some players can be described using multiple.

emotion
03-26-2013, 03:27 AM
"vulturing" is in no way bad. It lets people see the top Guys more. But it irritates me Ferrer is given as the example for better or worse when statistically Tsonga, Tipsarevic, Gasquet, and del Potro do it more

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

leng jai
03-26-2013, 03:27 AM
When it comes to appreciating wildlife I much prefer llamas .

MichaelKrep
03-26-2013, 03:27 AM
That is a terrible analogy, Ferrer is not doing anything immoral. A better one would be: take a student who isn't naturally very bright but works very hard and studies all the time. He does every last little bit of assessment and places 4th in the class and gets a scholarship. Then lots of people mock this student because he is not as gifted as other students who missed out.
I do not appreciate vulturing and I appreciate pushing even less, but I have to say this is a fair analogy.
I think I have said this already: There is no such a thing as an "unfair" ranking. Sure, a player might get an easy draw or benefit from opponents out of form, but these things even themselves out over time. And yes, picking a smart schedule is a valid way to get ahead in the rankings. It might not win a player many fans (it sure hasn't in Ferrer's case), but it is a legitimate strategy nonetheless.

n8
03-26-2013, 03:29 AM
The student in that example had the exact same opportunities as all the others though, he just studied more and reaped the rewards. Ferrer is distorting the playing field by selecting events with very weak fields: for instance, Berdych got 300 ranking points for his final in Dubai for which he had to beat Federer, Ferrer got the exact same points in Acapulco in the same week for beating a collection of players outside the top 30. Conversely, he got 1000 ranking points by beating Janowicz and Llodra in a Masters, Haas got 250 points for beating Federer and Berdych in the same tournament in Halle, Del Potro got 600 for beating Djokovic and Murray in Indian Wells.

You see where I'm getting at? Ferrer is not the student who works hard and does every last bit of assessment, he's the student who gets an early peek at the final exam and memorizes the answers to pass. I can quote the post I made the other day about his 20 titles but in short Soderling in Valencia 2010 was the only thing resembling a top player he beat in any of those runs.

So basically, Ferrer should've tanked Paris because that would've been the legitimate thing to do. And choose to play a tournament other than one on his best surface. I'm going to :banghead: then study for my 2% test...

Mark Lenders
03-26-2013, 03:35 AM
So basically, Ferrer should've tanked Paris because that would've been the legitimate thing to do. And choose to play a tournament other than one on his best surface. I'm going to :banghead: then study for my 2% test...

Paris is a case of taking advantage of serial tanking, but the rest is vulturing in its purest form. Check out the field for the tournaments he won last year. Here's that post about Ferrer's titles btw:

Ok, let's examine these 20 titles to see what they're really worth.


1-Bucharest 2002 (250) - best opponent faced was Acasuso, ranked #56 at the time.

2-Stuttgart 2006 (250) - best opponent faced was 20yo Berdych, ranked #15 at the time.

3-Auckland 2007 (250) - Boredo, #7 at the time. But come on, it's Boredo. He did beat declining Gaudio in this one I suppose.

4-Bastaad 2007 (250) - Volandri #27 and Almagro #37 :facepalm:

5-Tokyo 2007 (500) - Gasquet #13.

6-Valencia 2007 (500) - Boredo #18, Almagro #27

7-St Hertogenbosh 2008 (250) - Ancic in one of his first events after mono, #43

8-Acapulco 2010 (500) - Gonzalez #12, Ferrero #16, both declining

9-Valencia 2010 (500) - Soderling #5. At last we find a win worthy of that name, beating Soderling indoors is great.

10-Auckland 2011 (250) - Kohlschreiber #34, Nalbandian #27

11-Acapulco 2011 (500) - Almagro #13

12-Auckland 2012 (250) - Verdasco #24

13-Buenos Aires 2012 (250) - Almagro #11

14-Acapulco 2012 (500) - Verdasco #27

15-St Hertogenbosh 2012 (250) - Paire #60 :facepalm:

16-Bastaad 2012 (250) - Almagro #10

17-Valencia 2012 (500) - Almagro #12, Dolgopolov #21

18-Paris 2012 (1000) - Wawrinka #17. I guess if you want to include tanking opponents then Tsonga #7. Faced #121 and #69 in SF and F.

19-Auckland 2013 (250) - Kohlschreiber #19

20-Buenos Aires 2013 (250) - Wawrinka #17



I'll let people make their own conclusions with the data provided. My conclusion starts with a V and has wings.

Avoiding tournaments with good fields to pad stats does not deserve praise at all. He has won 7 games in 5 sets against the real top 7 this year, showing he does not belong there.

n8
03-26-2013, 03:44 AM
Paris is a case of taking advantage of serial tanking, but the rest is vulturing in its purest form. Check out the field for the tournaments he won last year. Here's that post about Ferrer's titles btw:



Avoiding tournaments with good fields to pad stats does not deserve praise at all. He has won 7 games in 5 sets against the real top 7 this year, showing he does not belong there.

I'm not saying Ferrer hasn't taken advantage of weaker tournaments, I'm saying I appreciate how he has done it.

OK, so you don't appreciate 'vulturing' or 'pushing' (I think virtually everyone on this board already knew that). That's fair enough, no need to explain further why you don't appreciate it.

MrPlateperson
03-26-2013, 04:02 AM
I can understand the pushing appreciation (endurance, patience) but how can you defend vulturing? A guy like Ferrer knows he shouldnt be no4 in the world so he plays smaller torunaments just to keep the inflated ranking. God forbid he ever spends sometime adding a weapon to hurt the big 4, instead just takes the easy way out and plays 250's

Pratik
03-26-2013, 04:15 AM
Why exactly do any of these things deserve appreciation? Getting an inflated ranking through vulturing weak events and winning matches by feeding off errors instead of by your own shotmaking does not deserve praise, but endless amounts of criticism.

Take a university student who gets a passing grade because he slept with the professor and another one who got a passing grade because he actually studied and knew the material. Or someone who got a job/got promoted ahead of someone else because he/she slept with the boss. Sure, he was smart, he knew where he stood, that he had no chance on his own merits, and he knew it was the only way to get a passing grade/a job/a promotion. Does he deserve praise for taking the easy way out? Hell no. He deserves criticism for cheating the system and robbing more deserving people.

By the same token, Ferrer deserves criticism for abusing the ranking system to get better seedings in big events than players who are better than him and also for feeding off opponents' errors to win matches.

That is just a terrible analogy.

A more appropriate one would be a university student who takes 'easier' courses to improve his GPA. Easier in terms of course content or in a relative grading system, a course where more percentage of students get the top grade. It is like someone who couldn't do too well in a job in the best of companies, so chose to work in a smaller company, and thus got promoted faster.

If you are a software programmer who works at a company other than Google, Facebook or Microsoft, does that make you a vulture? You will try your luck to get in there, but when you don't get it you don't sit around and cry all day long. You go get a job at a 'lesser' company. Does he stand a chance on his own merits against the best in the best companies? Probably not. Does he deserve praise for taking the easy way out? Probably not. But what should he have done? Waited around for years jobless till he gets in one of the big companies? No. He did the right thing after all.

None of the so called 'vultures' do anything to cheat the system. You seem to forget this system can't be beat. 4 GS and 8 TMS are counted in your ranking, no matter how may other events you play, and how well you play in them. Go take a look at Ferrer's ranking breakdown. All his tournament wins don't even count to his ranking. Right now there are two 250 wins that contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to his overall ranking. It has been like this for him for a long time. An who are the more deserving people he is robbing? The people who could barely dream of beating him on any surface? The people who can not compete with him on their own merits?

Kyle_Johansen
03-26-2013, 04:19 AM
I have no problem with what Ferrer does, and I only think he should play less because he runs out of gas when the big matches come around.

Dougie
03-26-2013, 05:51 AM
The student in that example had the exact same opportunities as all the others though, he just studied more and reaped the rewards. Ferrer is distorting the playing field by selecting events with very weak fields: for instance, Berdych got 300 ranking points for his final in Dubai for which he had to beat Federer, Ferrer got the exact same points in Acapulco in the same week for beating a collection of players outside the top 30. Conversely, he got 1000 ranking points by beating Janowicz and Llodra in a Masters, Haas got 250 points for beating Federer and Berdych in the same tournament in Halle, Del Potro got 600 for beating Djokovic and Murray in Indian Wells.

You see where I'm getting at? Ferrer is not the student who works hard and does every last bit of assessment, he's the student who gets an early peek at the final exam and memorizes the answers to pass. I can quote the post I made the other day about his 20 titles but in short Soderling in Valencia 2010 was the only thing resembling a top player he beat in any of those runs.

Wow..must have taken you a while to find the arguments that best fit your cause. Acapulco and Dubai are both 500-tournaments, how is it possible to vulture by choosing to play one over the other? Of course Ferrer chooses the surface that is better for him, you think he should have chosen to play Dubai just so he could have faced tougher opponents? Thatīs just stupid. Besides, Berdych et. al were probably very well compensates financially for choosing Dubai.

Paris is a Masters-event, a player canīt choose his draw, itīs not Ferrerīs fault he faced Llodra and Janowicz. It is ridicilous to suggest a player can vulture a TMS-event..

Just hypothetically, if Ferrer would have chosen to play Dubai instead of Acapulco, but Ferrer and Federer would have lost early and Ferrer would have won the title, would you call that vulturing? Because essentially that is what you are claiming his Paris-title was about.

Kyle_Johansen
03-26-2013, 05:56 AM
And speaking of Paris, I am completely against the notion that any tennis player "tanks." If Murray "tanked" against Janowicz, then how come he had a match point?

bouncer7
03-26-2013, 06:41 AM
I appreciate when Fedmug and Ferrer vulturing Valencia, Basel, Rotterdam or Acapulco, when they are on their own where they belong, happy to prevent some smaller vulture.

Also appreciate Fedmug clueless slicing on hardcourt vs Simon , that is highlight of modern pushfest.

leng jai
03-26-2013, 07:41 AM
The premise of vulturing is debatable but what's not up for question is anti-vulturing aka Halle 2012.

n8
03-26-2013, 07:47 AM
I've changed my 'vulturing' example in the OP to Zemlja to reduce discussions about Ferrer that have occurred many times already.

BroTree123
03-26-2013, 07:53 AM
Ferrer is the most disgusting player I have ever seen in tennis history. He is far from a 'top player' in my book.

Time Violation
03-26-2013, 08:09 AM
He deserves criticism for cheating the system and robbing more deserving people.

He's cheating ATP by playing official ATP events :spit: This amount of hatred must be something personal, admit it Lenders, did Ferrer come to Portugal and insult your neighbor or something? :p

Topspindoctor
03-26-2013, 08:12 AM
He's cheating ATP by playing official ATP events :spit: This amount of hatred must be something personal, admit it Lenders, did Ferrer come to Portugal and insult your neighbor or something? :p

Ferrer vs Del Potro: 6-2

That's where the angst comes from :lol: Mug Lenders is the biggest fangirl on the forum, sort of like Sapeod, but for Delpo

leng jai
03-26-2013, 08:14 AM
Ok, let's examine these 20 titles to see what they're really worth.


1-Bucharest 2002 (250) - best opponent faced was Acasuso, ranked #56 at the time.

2-Stuttgart 2006 (250) - best opponent faced was 20yo Berdych, ranked #15 at the time.

3-Auckland 2007 (250) - Boredo, #7 at the time. But come on, it's Boredo. He did beat declining Gaudio in this one I suppose.

4-Bastaad 2007 (250) - Volandri #27 and Almagro #37

5-Tokyo 2007 (500) - Gasquet #13.

6-Valencia 2007 (500) - Boredo #18, Almagro #27

7-St Hertogenbosh 2008 (250) - Ancic in one of his first events after mono, #43

8-Acapulco 2010 (500) - Gonzalez #12, Ferrero #16, both declining

9-Valencia 2010 (500) - Soderling #5. At last we find a win worthy of that name, beating Soderling indoors is great.

10-Auckland 2011 (250) - Kohlschreiber #34, Nalbandian #27

11-Acapulco 2011 (500) - Almagro #13

12-Auckland 2012 (250) - Verdasco #24

13-Buenos Aires 2012 (250) - Almagro #11

14-Acapulco 2012 (500) - Verdasco #27

15-St Hertogenbosh 2012 (250) - Paire #60

16-Bastaad 2012 (250) - Almagro #10

17-Valencia 2012 (500) - Almagro #12, Dolgopolov #21

18-Paris 2012 (1000) - Wawrinka #17. I guess if you want to include tanking opponents then Tsonga #7. Faced #121 and #69 in SF and F.

19-Auckland 2013 (250) - Kohlschreiber #19

20-Buenos Aires 2013 (250) - Wawrinka #17



I'll let people make their own conclusions with the data provided. My conclusion starts with a V and has wings.

Almagro = vulture-ee

Litotes
03-26-2013, 08:30 AM
Am I the only one on this board who actually appreciates these things?


No, you're not. I never hold it against any player that playing many events is part of their competitive strategy. As for "Pushing", I don't critizise that either, but I will quite often find other players more entertaining to watch.

n8
03-26-2013, 08:35 AM
I have no problem with what Ferrer does, and I only think he should play less because he runs out of gas when the big matches come around.

Maybe he could've made some matches more competitive if he was rested, but his finish in the tournament probably wouldn't have changed. I mean he made AO semis after a very busy start to the year, and won Paris straight after titling in Vienna.

No, you're not. I never hold it against any player that playing many events is part of their competitive strategy. As for "Pushing", I don't critizise that either, but I will quite often find other players more entertaining to watch.

Responding to the primary topic. :worship:

Action Jackson
03-26-2013, 08:58 AM
Sure, the terms are unflattering, but it is handy to have a single word for different things that are discussed regularly. What do you suggest we call them?

Anything Lenders says, the opposite is usually the case. Lets see for the guys who can make it direct for the Slams and TMS, they only get 5 countable events so it doesn't matter if they win 6 or 7 of them.

How is Zemlja is a vulture? Lu is the one you should be calling one if you are serious about this.

Players have to play tournaments how dare they do that, as for the other part well there are no marks for style.

Puschkin
03-26-2013, 09:01 AM
The student in that example had the exact same opportunities as all the others though, he just studied more and reaped the rewards. Ferrer is distorting the playing field by selecting events with very weak fields: for instance, Berdych got 300 ranking points for his final in Dubai for which he had to beat Federer, Ferrer got the exact same points in Acapulco in the same week for beating a collection of players outside the top 30.

Why don't you never talk about Tsonga winning Metz and getting 300 points in Bejing with two retirements?

leng jai
03-26-2013, 09:02 AM
You can basically hand pick tournaments from any player and make a case for them being a vulture.

ProdigyEng
03-26-2013, 09:03 AM
Why don't you never talk about Tsonga winning Metz and getting 300 points in Bejing with two retirements?

Because he is a closet Ferru tard who will eventually come out as one when Ferru retires.

n8
03-26-2013, 09:13 AM
Anything Lenders says, the opposite is usually the case. Lets see for the guys who can make it direct for the Slams and TMS, they only get 5 countable events so it doesn't matter if they win 6 or 7 of them.

How is Zemlja is a vulture? Lu is the one you should be calling one if you are serious about this.

Players have to play tournaments how dare they do that, as for the other part well there are no marks for style.

Zemlja went out of his way (away from his residents and other events) to play notoriously weaker Challengers in China. He doesn't do that in general, but last year he did and it looks to have paid off.

Lu is a smart scheduler in my opinion. Win a couple of Asian Challengers then bump around the main tour. It's 'vulturing' that makes a lot of sense so I applaud him for that. Why make life more difficult than it has to be.

Pratik
03-26-2013, 09:26 AM
Why don't you never talk about Tsonga winning Metz and getting 300 points in Bejing with two retirements?

Or any of following wins of Del Potro(highest rank opponent in bracket)

Rotterdam 2013(Benneteau #39)
Vienna 2012(Matosevic #55)
Estoril 2012(Gasquet #13)
Delray Beach 2011(Fish #16)
Auckland 2009(Soderling #17)
Washington 2008(Haas #48)
Kitzbuhel 2008(Hanescu #59)
Stuttgart 2008(Gasquet #15)

Everyone is a 'vulture' in their own right.

leng jai
03-26-2013, 09:26 AM
Or any of following wins of Del Potro(highest rank opponent in bracket)

Rotterdam 2013(Benneteau #39)
Vienna 2012(Matosevic #55)
Estoril 2012(Gasquet #13)
Delray Beach 2011(Fish #16)
Auckland 2009(Soderling #17)
Washington 2008(Haas #48)
Kitzbuhel 2008(Hanescu #59)
Stuttgart 2008(Gasquet #15)

Everyone is a 'vulture' in their own right.

This one is another case of anti-vulturing.

Action Jackson
03-26-2013, 09:48 AM
Zemlja went out of his way (away from his residents and other events) to play notoriously weaker Challengers in China. He doesn't do that in general, but last year he did and it looks to have paid off.

Lu is a smart scheduler in my opinion. Win a couple of Asian Challengers then bump around the main tour. It's 'vulturing' that makes a lot of sense so I applaud him for that. Why make life more difficult than it has to be.

No, you are a fan of Lu, this is the difference. He'd play Futures if he could as so he doesn't leave Asia. Unlike many of the other players he has enough cash.

Zemlja, he played those Chinese Challengers with Bedene because they were sponsored by Li Ning clothing a Chinese company. Yes, they were weak events but it was sponsorship reasons.

If he was truly a vulture then he'd have gone to Asia all the time, but didn't. He has never made 3rd round at the Aus Open, it was winning the grass challenger beating Beck and getting a wildcard to Wimbledon.

Zemlja when he played at ATP level outside of top 100 had won matches at ATP level. It's not others who can't make the jump.

BackhandDTL
03-26-2013, 10:22 AM
Honestly, no, not generally.

As a (former?) competitive player, I know what it's like to go out there and scrape through a match because the guy across the net from you is playing not to miss, junk-balling, and generally just playing the ball to stay in the point.

That said, my use of the term is much less liberal than others here. I don't consider a player a pusher simply because they, for whatever reason, fail or refuse to regularly hit through the ball.

Moreover, I'm subjective in my perception of various oft-labeled pushers and vultures, particularly based on whether or not I find something redeemable about them. Take Simon for instance. He's often considered a pusher, and criticized for numerous things. While I'm not particularly impressed by his game, there's something about the simplicity of his game that I like.

atennisfan
03-26-2013, 10:22 AM
I don't care about vulture.

But I don't appreciate pushing.
ugh. so boring.

Abel
03-26-2013, 10:49 AM
I don't really care about vulturing because all players should do what they can do to get the best results for themselves.

The above could be said for pushing too but it inhibits my enjoyment of tennis the sport so I dislike it more.

ProdigyEng
03-26-2013, 10:53 AM
Or any of following wins of Del Potro(highest rank opponent in bracket)

Rotterdam 2013(Benneteau #39)
Vienna 2012(Matosevic #55)
Estoril 2012(Gasquet #13)
Delray Beach 2011(Fish #16)
Auckland 2009(Soderling #17)
Washington 2008(Haas #48)
Kitzbuhel 2008(Hanescu #59)
Stuttgart 2008(Gasquet #15)

Everyone is a 'vulture' in their own right.
If Muger didn't play shit that wouldn't have been the case.

atennisfan
03-26-2013, 11:04 AM
I don't really care about vulturing because all players should do what they can do to get the best results for themselves.

The above could be said for pushing too but it's inhibits my enjoyment of tennis the sport so I dislike it more.

+1000
you said it very eloquently

ogbg
03-26-2013, 11:54 AM
I don't think vulturing is really much of an issue at all. I find that players' rankings generally tend to follow their performances in the biggest events that they enter. Ferrer isn't number 4/5 from vulturing, he's 4/5 because he gets to lots of Grand Slam semi-finals. Just because he always fails when he gets there doesn't suddenly mean that his points all come from smaller tournaments.

Regarding pushing, I'm more interested in the mental and tactical side of sport than I am in the technical and physical so I can appreciate it if it is done effectively. But when it's uneffective it looks like a pathetic way to lose.

Pirata.
03-26-2013, 01:57 PM
Ferrer is the kind of student who does decent at tests (slams, m1000's). But does hours of extra credit (250 events) to make up for his average tests so his grade (ranking) is higher than where it should probably be.

Average tests? Ferrer has made semis and quarterfinals at the last, what, five or so slams? That's hardly "average" for a player who isn't one of the Big 4 :scratch:

lalit
03-26-2013, 02:29 PM
Vultures get their asses handed to them in slams so I don't care. Pushers are best avoided.

Deathless Mortal
03-26-2013, 02:37 PM
You can basically hand pick tournaments from any player and make a case for them being a vulture.

Exactly, it's just that not all of us are huge haters with nothing else to do with our lives, unlike Clownders.

Vinceremo
03-26-2013, 02:44 PM
The best way of showing any type of 'appreciation' would be to let that ridiculous term die. AJ and some others nailed it, why you're even including it in the thread's title is beyond me.

Hewitt =Legend
03-26-2013, 03:03 PM
Or any of following wins of Del Potro(highest rank opponent in bracket)

Rotterdam 2013(Benneteau #39)
Vienna 2012(Matosevic #55)
Estoril 2012(Gasquet #13)
Delray Beach 2011(Fish #16)
Auckland 2009(Soderling #17)
Washington 2008(Haas #48)
Kitzbuhel 2008(Hanescu #59)
Stuttgart 2008(Gasquet #15)

Everyone is a 'vulture' in their own right.

Del Potro is actually a bigger vulture than Ferrer... that's pretty interesting... Well then you probably have to refer to the H2H to see who is the better tennis player... Who is leading in that department again..??? IDEMO!!!

Mark Lenders
03-26-2013, 06:44 PM
You can basically hand pick tournaments from any player and make a case for them being a vulture.

You can. Except I didn't hand pick tournament, I listed every single tournament he ever won.

Why don't you never talk about Tsonga winning Metz and getting 300 points in Bejing with two retirements?

By the same token, let's also mention he had to beat Djokovic in three of his title runs, one of them in the final. How could he even have predicted players would retire anyway, Beijing had one of the best fields of any 500 last year with two top 8 players in it.

GSMnadal
03-26-2013, 06:47 PM
Vulture appreciation thread? Now I've seen everything :o

But since we're talking about feasting off weak draws:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/09/article-2170656-13FB4D6A000005DC-422_634x873.jpg

atennisfan
03-26-2013, 10:19 PM
Regarding pushing, I'm more interested in the mental and tactical side of sport than I am in the technical and physical so I can appreciate it if it is done effectively.

Pushing is not physical?
:rolls:

Let's see, who expends more energy on court, Federer or Murray?

ogbg
03-26-2013, 10:51 PM
Pushing is not physical?
:rolls:

Let's see, who expends more energy on court, Federer or Murray?

By pushing I mean more like the Simon type game of often playing tricky deep balls without much power when not necessarily in a defensive position. What Murray does is stay alive defending on shots which against many players would be winners, which leads to him expending lots of energy trying to equalize his position in the next couple of shots. I'm not sure what the term for it is but it's not like pushing.

amirbachar
03-27-2013, 01:45 AM
It's all about maximizing your profits, so what you call vulturing, I simply call smart scheduling.
About pushing, I think that sometimes players think about the short term, instead of trying to improve and earn more in the long term. There is nothing wrong with playing more defensively in iteslf.

mike s.
03-27-2013, 01:50 AM
In Simon's case, he would make a ton of errors if he was aggressive on every shot because his shots are so flat. That's why he waits for his opportunity to go for it. It's a smart strategy and the best way for him to maximize his potential. I love watching him because he's unpredictable from point to point about when he'll go for his shots but I understand it's not for everyone.

Kyle_Johansen
03-27-2013, 01:57 AM
It's all about maximizing your profits, so what you call vulturing, I simply call smart scheduling.
About pushing, I think that sometimes players think about the short term, instead of trying to improve and earn more in the long term. There is nothing wrong with playing more defensively in iteslf.

Ferrer doesn't schedule smartly. Neither does a guy like Isner who plays too much over the summer.

rocketassist
03-27-2013, 01:59 AM
With Simon I don't get why he's happy to tip-tap the ball back and forth with low percentage plays especially for 60 shots against a clowning Monfils, although he can volley and has some feel which makes him more watchable than the likes of Troicki.

Kyle_Johansen
03-27-2013, 02:00 AM
@GSMNadal: you think Fed had easy draws?

USO2006: Blake, Davydenko, Roddick
USO2007: Isner, Lopez, Roddick, Davydenko, Djokovic
AO2006: Haas, Davydenko, Kiefer, Baghdatis
USO2005: Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi
AO2004: Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Safin

I would hardly call those easy draws, and twice he's gone through Murray and Djokovic to win majors.

lucyfur
03-27-2013, 05:18 AM
Or any of following wins of Del Potro(highest rank opponent in bracket)

Rotterdam 2013(Benneteau #39)
Vienna 2012(Matosevic #55)
Estoril 2012(Gasquet #13)
Delray Beach 2011(Fish #16) Every player Delpo beat here was higher ranked than him.:wavey:
Auckland 2009(Soderling #17)
Washington 2008(Haas #48)
Kitzbuhel 2008(Hanescu #59)
Stuttgart 2008(Gasquet #15) All but one was ranked higher than him here.:wavey:
Everyone is a 'vulture' in their own right.

:)

Litotes
03-27-2013, 06:25 AM
@GSMNadal: you think Fed had easy draws?


GSMnadal (lowercase n, surprisingly few notice this) is valiantly defending his claim that Nadal is superior to Federer in most threads he posts, at least in GM. One has to admire the effort, the same way politicians can admire colleagues working for opposition parties.

In his arguments, if Federer beats Nadal in a slam final - weak draw, weak era. If Nadal beats Federer - tough draw, strong era. One sees the point, of course. Playing Federer is a much tougher draw than playing Nadal, that's his message, loud and clear. Still, what can you do? Impossible to draw yourself. Perhaps one day Nadal will be sufficiently accomplished for his fans to admit drawing him is/was in fact a tough draw.

motorhead
03-27-2013, 09:03 AM
One has to admire the effort, the same way politicians can admire colleagues working for opposition parties.



:lol:

Jverweij
03-27-2013, 09:07 AM
donīt care about vulturing, but appreciate pushing? never!

Chris Kuerten
03-27-2013, 09:11 AM
In his arguments, if Federer beats Nadal in a slam final - weak draw, weak era. If Nadal beats Federer - tough draw, strong era. One sees the point, of course. Playing Federer is a much tougher draw than playing Nadal, that's his message, loud and clear. http://media.tumblr.com/68f8c069dcc9a4ca9ecd6df476fd81b7/tumblr_inline_mgny3mRq2B1r29lcx.gif

motorhead
03-27-2013, 09:15 AM
a closet Ferru tard who will eventually come out as one when Ferru retires.

:haha::haha:

Newcomer
03-27-2013, 09:15 AM
Ferrer, Monaco, Gasquet - worst examples of pushing and vulturing.
For me, they are killers of the game.

Dougie
03-27-2013, 09:30 AM
Ferrer, Monaco, Gasquet - worst examples of pushing and vulturing.
For me, they are killers of the game.

:lol::lol: So lame.

chalkdust
03-27-2013, 10:57 AM
I appreciate:

1. The all-serve mug
2. The all-return mug
3. The vulture
4. The pusher
5. The moonballer
6. The brainless ballbasher
7. The choker
8. The talented headcase
9. The tanker
10. The fixer
11. The doper

Any more I missed?

Apart from the single-surface player, you also missed out:

13. The butt-picker
14. The faker, and his friend the tactical injury-timeout guy
15. The shoulder-charger (at change of ends)
16. The guy who abuses the rule over time allowed between points
17. The guy who never loses, unless injured
18. The guy with mafia backing who gets to choose his draw at Slams

... and a few more!! Just teasing Johnny G, please don't take offence.

I have to admit, even as a Murray fan, I do despair of his pushing tendencies. I actually don't mind pushing so much if it is the best tactic a player has; pushing when it is the wrong way to play is the most frustrating thing.

Vulturing is annoying but mostly because of the way that ranking points are allocated. I think maybe there could be an adjustment for the strength of the entry list or something.

Jverweij
04-01-2013, 06:18 AM
after yesterday's final, it just felt right to put this thread back into the minfield :lol:

Sophitia36
04-01-2013, 08:36 AM
The student in that example had the exact same opportunities as all the others though, he just studied more and reaped the rewards. Ferrer is distorting the playing field by selecting events with very weak fields: for instance, Berdych got 300 ranking points for his final in Dubai for which he had to beat Federer, Ferrer got the exact same points in Acapulco in the same week for beating a collection of players outside the top 30. Conversely, he got 1000 ranking points by beating Janowicz and Llodra in a Masters, Haas got 250 points for beating Federer and Berdych in the same tournament in Halle, Del Potro got 600 for beating Djokovic and Murray in Indian Wells.

You see where I'm getting at? Ferrer is not the student who works hard and does every last bit of assessment, he's the student who gets an early peek at the final exam and memorizes the answers to pass. I can quote the post I made the other day about his 20 titles but in short Soderling in Valencia 2010 was the only thing resembling a top player he beat in any of those runs.

Mmm so basically, according to you, Berdych and co are not free to register for the events Ferrer participates in? :confused:

Nonsense.

buddyholly
04-01-2013, 09:03 PM
There is no such thing as vulturing unless you count the players feeding off the decaying Nadal and Federer.
And a pusher is the elite of tennis because he is like a cat with a mouse, just toying with an opponent before the inevitable snapping of the neck. Great entertainment. Pushing combines skill and brains.

janko05
04-01-2013, 09:49 PM
There is no such thing as vulturing unless you count the players feeding off the decaying Nadal and Federer.
And a pusher is the elite of tennis because he is like a cat with a mouse, just toying with an opponent before the inevitable snapping of the neck. Great entertainment. Pushing combines skill and brains.

Pics is that you?

superslam77
04-01-2013, 11:07 PM
I appreciate:

1. The all-serve mug
2. The all-return mug
3. The vulture
4. The pusher
5. The moonballer
6. The brainless ballbasher
7. The choker
8. The talented headcase
9. The tanker
10. The fixer
11. The doper

Any more I missed?


:eek: :facepalm:

buddyholly
04-02-2013, 02:34 AM
Pics is that you?
Yes

BackhandDTL
04-02-2013, 02:52 AM
Only on MTF is pushing considered "elite". Competitive players and weekend warriors everywhere weep at this reception.

Jverweij
04-02-2013, 05:44 AM
There is no such thing as vulturing unless you count the players feeding off the decaying Nadal and Federer.
And a pusher is the elite of tennis because he is like a cat with a mouse, just toying with an opponent before the inevitable snapping of the neck. Great entertainment. Pushing combines skill and brains.

holy cow! No wonder you don't post in GM that much..