MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: Endless Era Debates Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-08-2016 09:24 PM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by retister View Post
Literally everyone but djokofans is going on and on about Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer etc. group sucking, Raonic/Tomic/Nishikori etc. group sucking, Thiem and younger players sucking. Pretty much everyone, Djokovic included, sucking.
Look, it was a simple enough question, if you don't feel like answering it, fine.
I answered your question about "enough" earlier. Here is my personal opinion on topic:

Ferrer is a part of generation of Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, etc. This generation was great. He is far from being the best player of his generation, but he had extremely long and consistent career. Tomorrow he will play his 1000th match at ATP level, that is very, very many matches (10th most in Open Era). Right now he is old and played so much, so he is in terminal decline. For similar careers check Brian Gottfried or Tom Okker.

Tsonga and Berdych are of the same generation as Wawrinka and Nadal, i would say even the same generation as Djokovic and Murray. Their generation is great. These 2 players have pretty good careers and a pretty good game for somebody without slam wins. Right now they are in a phase of natural and probably terminal decline.

I don't have a clear opinion on Nishikori, sorry. Don't know if he should be added to the generation of Del Potro and Cilic and to the previous one altogether, or to the 90-94 generation.

Entire generation 90-94 is undoubtedly the weakest generation in Open Era. We have only 7-8 players of top-20 potential, only 4-5 players of top-10 potential. Even these players are developping really slowly. I wrote this a couple of pages earliler more concretely.

Generation 95-... seems to become great eventually. It is too early to say anything about them although, won only 1 title altogether so far, barely played top-players. Not Djokovic's regular competition yet.

Djokovic is an aging player, 29yo, played almost 900 matches already, so he plays accordingly, concentrating on winning with as few effort as possible. Nothing wrong with that, although it is not very spectacular. The problem is that all his competition is either older than him, or are players from the Generation Useless who wouldn't beat #1 player more than once no matter who this #1 is and how well does he play. So Djokovic needs to apply really few effort to win. That sucks for neutral spectators, but is enough to win, so good for him, his legacy and his fans.
06-08-2016 08:51 PM
retister
Re: Endless Era Debates

Literally everyone but djokofans is going on and on about Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer etc. group sucking, Raonic/Tomic/Nishikori etc. group sucking, Thiem and younger players sucking. Pretty much everyone, Djokovic included, sucking.
Look, it was a simple enough question, if you don't feel like answering it, fine.
06-08-2016 08:39 PM
Slasher1985
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
First of all, there is no such thing as "enough". You cannot predict when this thing happens. This is the answer to the theoretical question. Second, who on Earth believes that we have three distinct terrible generations now (or had at some point?). I've seen (and made) such comments about only one generation (89/90-93/94, i've seen slightly different boundaries). Where have you seen such comments about 3 in a row?
The 3 gen comments refer to shorter periods, but more specifically to the moment some player groups made their presence known around the top 30-50:

1. Dimitrov/Raonic/Nishikori (1989-91)
2. Tomic/Thiem/Pouille (1992-94)
3. Kyrgios/Coric/Kokkinakis (1995-96)

Probably gonna consider Zverev/Fritz/Kozlov as a fourth generation.
06-08-2016 08:32 PM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by retister View Post
Not really sure - have enough tennis players come and gone up to this moment to justify believing in 3 distinct generations appearing in a row, consisting only of tens and tens of dismally bad players?
First of all, there is no such thing as "enough". You cannot predict when this thing happens. This is the answer to the theoretical question. Second, who on Earth believes that we have three distinct terrible generations now (or had at some point?). I've seen (and made) such comments about only one generation (89/90-93/94, i've seen slightly different boundaries). Where have you seen such comments about 3 in a row?
06-08-2016 08:20 PM
retister
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
All i can answer you here is that i have no idea how one can calculate such stuff (but this has nothing to do with 1/{number of players}, that's for sure), don't think this is possible. Worth to mention that you cannot say that a finite non-zero probability is infinitisemally small, it is an incorrect choice of words; and if we repeat experiments long enough, any result with non-zero probability will eventually happen. For example, the possibility of 50 heads in a row in a coin flip game is 1/{2^50} which is very small, but if you flip a coin forever, there will be a moment when you get these 50 heads in a row. Hope this helps.
Not really sure - have enough tennis players come and gone up to this moment to justify believing in 3 distinct generations appearing in a row, consisting only of tens and tens of dismally bad players?
06-08-2016 02:52 PM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by retister View Post
Well then, would you be so kind to give me an answer in the thread I opened for this question specifically?
http://www.menstennisforums.com/2-ge...r-do-eras.html
All i can answer you here is that i have no idea how one can calculate such stuff (but this has nothing to do with 1/{number of players}, that's for sure), don't think this is possible. Worth to mention that you cannot say that a finite non-zero probability is infinitisemally small, it is an incorrect choice of words; and if we repeat experiments long enough, any result with non-zero probability will eventually happen. For example, the possibility of 50 heads in a row in a coin flip game is 1/{2^50} which is very small, but if you flip a coin forever, there will be a moment when you get these 50 heads in a row. Hope this helps.
06-08-2016 02:36 PM
retister
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
I am a mathematician, what would you like to hear from me when i see a reference to a "law", and this "law" is in fact one of the most common fallacies that people not knowing probability theory have about probablities?
Well then, would you be so kind to give me an answer in the thread I opened for this question specifically?
http://www.menstennisforums.com/2-ge...r-do-eras.html
06-08-2016 02:30 PM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by retister View Post
I am a mathematician, what would you like to hear from me when i see a reference to a "law", and this "law" is in fact one of the most common fallacies that people not knowing probability theory have about probablities?
06-08-2016 02:08 PM
retister
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
Do you know what the variance of a random variable is? Anyway, it doesn't make sense to use the law of large numbers on such a small sample (of what, 12 generations of players?). Law of averages is not a law but a bullshit.
06-08-2016 12:04 PM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinoj View Post
The reason i didnt do it because it will complicate things further. For example, you could argue when federer Defeated Nadal, Nadal was just a Formidable opponent and not an ATG or when he defeated Djokovic, he was an EasyMeat, so if you downgrade Federer in case of Djokovic, There was a lot of small arguments against Federer also.

Its better to keep as it is.
If one can argue about so many small things, better to keep just 17 vs. 12.
06-08-2016 12:00 PM
Shinoj
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
A player of 32yo or older won a Slam only once since 1972: Agassi at AO-2003, and he hasn't played any top-10 player there, so it basically doesn't count. I also think that a player who's played over 1000 matches already has never won a Slam, at least since 1972. So it is logical to assume that level of difficulty opponents over 32yo and/or 1000 matches played should be downgraded, no? Downgrade Agassi (in 1 final vs. Federer) and Federer (in 3 finals vs. Djokovic) and see what happens.
The reason i didnt do it because it will complicate things further. For example, you could argue when federer Defeated Nadal, Nadal was just a Formidable opponent and not an ATG or when he defeated Djokovic, he was an EasyMeat, so if you downgrade Federer in case of Djokovic, There was a lot of small arguments against Federer also.

Its better to keep as it is.
06-08-2016 11:47 AM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by retister View Post
But there is a matter of probability from my thread that no one seems to want to enter.
How likely is it that a whole friggin generation of players appears, and every last one of them is worse than he should be by the law of averages? Notice that even just one really good player among them would be enough to change the balance at the top, if the very best player in the world is nothing special.
Do you know what the variance of a random variable is? Anyway, it doesn't make sense to use the law of large numbers on such a small sample (of what, 12 generations of players?). Law of averages is not a law but a bullshit.
06-08-2016 11:35 AM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinoj View Post
Lets look at the Opponents Federer and Djokovic had to defeat for his 17 Slams.
I had categorized the opponents in three categories.

1) Easymeats
Opponents who have not won Grand Slam ever. Like Baghdatis,Philipousis,Tsonga etc

2) Formidable
Opponents who have won Grand Slams before. Like a couple of them max. Like Murray,Safin,Wawa

3) Top Tiered
Opponents who belong to Top Tiers of Tennis. Like Fedalovic.


Federer

1) Mark Philip (Easy Meat)
2) Marat Safin(Formidable)
3) Andy Roddick(Formidable)
4) Lleyton Hewitt(Formidable)
5) Andy Roddick(Formidable)
6) Andre Agassi(Top Tiered)
7) Marco Baghdatis(Easy Meat)
8) Rafael Nadal(Top Tiered)
9) Andy Roddick(Formidable)
10) Fernando Gonzalez(Easy Meat)
11) Nadal(Top Tiered)
12) Djokovic(Top Tiered)
13) Andy Murray(Formidable)
14) Soderling(Easy Meat)
15)Roddick(Formidable)
16) Andy Murray(Formidable)
17) Andy Murray(Formidable)

So he had 4 Easymeats,9 Formidables and 4 Top Tiered.

% Wise, He got 23.5 % Easymeats,53% Formidables and again 23.5 % Top Tiered.


Lets look at Djokovics

1)Tsonga(Easy Meat)
2) Andy Murray(Formidable)
3) Rafael Nadal(top Tiered)
4) Rafael Nadal(top Tiered)
5) Rafael Nadal(top Tiered)
6) Andy Murray(Formidable)
7) Roger Federer(Top Tiered)
8) Andy Murray(Formidable)
9) Roger Federer(Top Tiered)
10) Roger Federer(Top Tiered)
11) Andy Murray(Formidable)
12) Andy Murray(Formidable)

So his Percentage wise Break Wise

Easy Meats (8.33%)
Formidables(41.66 %)
Top Tiered(50%)

So Djokovic got less easymeats just 1, and a lot more Top tiered opponents in his Grand Slams than Federer.

Federer got a lot more easymeats and lot less top Tiered Opponents in Finals which he won.

I rest my case on who got it a little bit easy.
A player of 32yo or older won a Slam only once since 1972: Agassi at AO-2003, and he hasn't played any top-10 player there, so it basically doesn't count. I also think that a player who's played over 1000 matches already has never won a Slam, at least since 1972. So it is logical to assume that level of difficulty opponents over 32yo and/or 1000 matches played should be downgraded, no? Downgrade Agassi (in 1 final vs. Federer) and Federer (in 3 finals vs. Djokovic) and see what happens.
06-08-2016 11:23 AM
retister
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
What they do is a mirror strategy. They didn't start weak era discussions. Everyone has an era he has. By laughing on beating Murray in Slam final for the 5th time they just mirror fedhaters who laughed on beating Roddick in 4 finals. They would agree that Murray plays awesome tennis only if fedhaters agreed that Roddick played pretty good tennis (on grass & hard), and the same goes for Hewitt BTW.
This is true, they didn't start it, but neither did djokotards. It was actually started by rafatards, and now fedtards are taking it out on Djokovic since they can not use it against Rafa.
Suicidal strategy, imo, since it just further and further exposes Federer's weak competition from 2003-2006, but what else can they do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
My personal complaints to this era are the following:

1) Generation 90-94 is extremely weak, almost unprecedentedly. And no, i am not talking about slams. They are too late in everything - in entering top-200, in entering top-100, in making first ATP finals, in winning first titles, in winning 500s (only 3 500s so far! and we are in June 2016!), in entering top-10... The speed of development of Raonic and Dimitrov is that of occasional top-10 players who've made 1-2 Slam SFs, maybe one Final in their careers (Dimitrov can be compared with Nicolas Lapentti career-wise, for example), not of multiple Slam champions. Don't know if Thiem masters himself into a multiple champion, but even he is still severely behind an average 2-3 Slam champion. He entered top-200 already as 20yo, come on! Maybe he catches the graphic, maybe not. Not there yet, in any case.
This can all be easily explained in a completely different way - they seem weak even though they are not, just because guys above them are that good.
There is no objective proof for either theory.
But there is a matter of probability from my thread that no one seems to want to enter.
How likely is it that a whole friggin generation of players appears, and every last one of them is worse than he should be by the law of averages? Notice that even just one really good player among them would be enough to change the balance at the top, if the very best player in the world is nothing special.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
2) An hierarchy is established - at least it was so last year, we see some shifts this year. Very few upsets in top-20 in 2015. Not shocking upsets by nonames, just upsets. If #7 plays #15 (the numbers are arbitrary), he wins. If #2 plays #6, he wins. If #1 plays #2, he wins. Almost all the time. And i like the unpredictability - or competitiveness. Not like in WTA, but like in 2009, for example.
You may like the unpredictability, but many upsets are an actual sign of a weak era, not the other way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
3) This follows from 2). If you know that your opponent, who is ranked lower, doesn't believe he'll win, you play worse than you can, much worse. So the level of tennis is worse than he would be if players were more competitive. Very few good matches at Slams.
You think it is likely that any top player would come out on a court against a scrub and think "Wait, this guy has a serious chance of beating me, I better start playing like my life depends on it from the start"?
Anyway, lower ranked players are not giving up in advance against top guys. This is one of the most absurd theories around here. No, they are simply not capable of beating them because they are that good.
This is why we have this epidemics of people ballbashing non stop against Djokovic this year. Wawrinka set the blueprint for the only way to beat him, last year at RG, and now everyone is trying to emulate it.
This is why we get so many weird matches nowadays - players are desperate and ready to try anything in order to beat him.
He is just that good.
06-08-2016 11:17 AM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by retister View Post
Whatever, If I wasn't clear before, here it is - when has a player of overall Baghdatis' level ever beaten any all-time great in his first gs final, let alone someone comparable to Federer? Is there any indication that he would win even if Fed played much worse that day?
I don't know. There have been more multiple slam champions than one-slam wonders, so it's not easy to understand with whom i should compare this story. Again, in 2006 Baggy made another slam SF and it looked like his future is bright, so i have no idea what career would he have had he won that final or had he not have those injuries. I guess you know that many youngsters won their first finals against all-time greats, but most of them turned out to be great players themselves. The most precise comparison would be to Mark Edmondson at AO-1976 beatin Rosewall in SF and Newcombe in F. But can we compare young Marcos to Noah, to Chang or to Becker? I don't know.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome