[Tennis Fool]

How were my replies to this topic negative tennis fool?

Reread it.

 

[Layla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Generation N?

Your retort was even more clever, my dear

And that's your answer? At least I had something to say.

 

[ys]

If todays generation is such apparent crap, what are you watching for, when you could dip over to the WTA where you will be blessed with all time greats and potential greats?

Sometimes, your posts really disappoint me. Sometimes you sound smart beyond your age, but not this time. What's a point of asking stupid rhetoric questions, which are as well based on something that I've never said. I repeat the n-th time in this thread. I am not discussing whether generation is crap or not. I am discussing a possibility, which now looks like a clear probability for anyone capable of thinking, that this generation ( unlike any previous generations ) might end up producing no all-time greats. And I am talking about what is a differential between these guys and those who played the game, 10-20-30 years ago. But instead, you are just repeatedly picking on something I never said to be a certainty.

 

[Layla]

I repeat the n-th time in this thread. I am not discussing whether generation is crap or not. I am discussing a possibility, which now looks like a clear probability for anyone capable of thinking, that this generation ( unlike any previous generations ) might end up producing no all-time greats. And I am talking about what is a differential between these guys and those who played the game, 10-20-30 years ago. But instead, you are just repeatedly picking on something I never said to be a certainty.

You can repeat that until the cows come home, but when you say things like

Doesn't it look like we are having a generation of N(obodies), N(on-greats) these days?

Overhyped new balls do not perform as expected.

It's just that the form of whole tour is degrading quicker than the game of Andre and Pete is degrading with age.

you are contradicting yourself, because that is exactly what you are discussing.

 

[ys]

you are contradicting yourself, because that is exactly what you are discussing.

I am sorry, English is my second language and is not good enough to understand what you mean.. Could you please elaborate?

 

[vaiva]

And I am talking about what is a differential between these guys and those who played the game, 10-20-30 years ago. But instead, you are just repeatedly picking on something I never said to be a certainty.

From your previous/initial post I understood that you were saying exactly the opposite: none of the New Balls will be a great player (referring to some names and their failures) except, maybe, Roddick. That was your statement summarising the post. My reply was that I thought you made your conclusions too early.

Sorry that I misunderstood you. Where did you ask about the differential you refer to now?

 

[walee]

Notice that all of the people mentioned in your answer were already tagged as potential stars before they began to win slams?

What's disconcerting is that journeymen are sneaking through as well as two people named Sampras and Agassi. No one else.

It's like if Tathiana Garbin, Barbara Rittner, and Herietta Nagyova won or reached the finals of the last 5 Slams on the women's side, along with Steffi Graf (if she was still playing) and Aranxta-Sanchez Vicario, while the young stars (Williams sisters, Lindsay, Amelie, Hingis, the Belgians) couldn't get it together.

Notice that your answer to my post is pretty long, should I feel honored ? But what's your point here? So they are potential stars and did I deny that ? My saying is, give them time to prove themselves or you're just so impatient that you think we should label them as journeyman NOW ? The depth of ATP is different from the depth of WTA, do you not know?

At least y_s is trying to make a point here. Maybe you should just stick to your one-line respond is better, long or short, they are equally non-sense.

 

[Layla]

I am sorry, English is my second language and is not good enough to understand what you mean.. Could you please elaborate?

Hahahahahaha and more ha.

There is no better (or indeed other) way to elaborate than by a good, healthy

I assume this conversation is over.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Notice that your answer to my post is pretty long, should I feel honored ? But what's your point here? So they are potential stars and did I deny that ? My saying is, give them time to prove themselves or you're just so impatent that you think we should label them as journeyman NOW ? The depth of ATP is different from the depth of WTA, do you not know?

If you bothered to read the thread, you'll notice that I said I agreed with Y_S.

And as a short (since you seem to get angry over long ones) answer, McEnroe was through winning Slams by the age of 25.
I don't think being young is necessarily an excuse for sucking at Slams.

 

[walee]

If you bothered to read the thread, you'll notice that I said I agreed with Y_S.

And as a short (since you seem to get angry over long ones) answer, McEnroe was through winning Slams by the age of 25.
I don't think being young is necessarily an excuse for sucking at Slams.

Of course I read the thread, you think I bother to only read your posts lol . I don't get angry at long ones, I got annoyed by non-sense ones long or short, just so happened that they are produced by you in this thread. I also did not say that give them excuses for being young, I say not to write them off the bet just bcos they still have time. Is my words too complicated for you to understand? So Agassi didn't win his first until he's 22 and won more slams after he turned 29. So should we use McEnroe as the standard or Agassi?

 

[Tennis Fool]

Of course I read the thread, you think I bother to only read your posts lol . I don't get angry at long ones, I got annoyed by non-sense ones long or short, just so happened that they are produced by you in this thread. I also did not say that give them excuses for being young, I say not to write them off the bet just bcos they still have time. Is my words too complicated for you to understand? So Agassi didn't win his first until he's 22 and won more slams after he turned 29. So should we use McEnroe as the standard or Agassi?

Speaking of nonsense. You better keep your stuff short too

 

[walee]

.

Speaking of nonsense. You better keep your stuff short too

Thanks for proving my point, again .

 

[Tennis Fool]

.

Thanks for proving my point, again .

And mine

 

[walee]

Now I feel silly. Why am I talking to a frog? lol @ myself .

*Go read a book or do something productive like finish my paper*

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Layla - English actually is his second language.

 

[Tennis Fool]

*Go read a book or do something productive like finish my paper*

Yeah...you go do something productive...

Have a good night

 

[vaiva]

I don't think being young is necessarily an excuse for sucking at Slams.

Thank you for reminding me Roddick's great run at slams.

This is a clear indication that he'll rule the tennis world and nobody/nothing will stop him.

 

[Layla]

Layla - English actually is his second language.

Yes, I know. It's my second language too, as he would have seen from my Slovene flag. If he uses words like elaborate, than he sure as hell knows what it means to contradict oneself, especially since I actually added a (unnecessary) tag by saying it was exactly what he was discussing. So my point was perfectly clear.

That was sheer sarcasm Becca, as was my response.

 

[ys]

So my point was perfectly clear.

No, dear, it wasn't.. I understood the "contradict" word ( yes, it was difficult, but I did ). What I failed to understand is what contradicts what. I know the way lady's logics works is sometimes a very sophisticated process, so I beg you to elaborate the sources of that contradiction...

 

[Dissident]

I dont see Roddick as a dominant player because he just runs out of steam once he has a tough match.
He beat El Aynaoui in that incredible match... What for? Lose next round because he was out of gas...
I just remember Guga in the French Open... Vs Russell, he was down two sets to love and matchpoint. He turned it all around, and that costed him a HUGE bunch of energy, especially in the emotional. What did he do next? Run out of gas? NO! He used that as motivation and won the whole shit. And is Guga a prime of physicall condition? lol
Anyway, the point is, we really are lacking a huge performance from one young guy. Someone to do something like Guga did in 1997. I agree...

The players are taking more time to develop themselves. The mental part is not as strong as it used to be, true. There are not a triplet of dominant players to win everything, and some guys are managing to win stuff out of nowhere. But usually the more experienced ones, who take advantage of the weak minds of some of the young guys.
BUT, those young guys will soon be middle-balls, and then maybe THEY will use the mental stability to grab titles. Playing good tennis.
Thats what I care for: good tennis. Some players like Ferrero, Haas, Safin, Federer etc all showed us great stuff for some time at least.
And the "Nobodies", as you call them, are playing good tennis to get where they are!
So whats bad about that?? I fail to understand. Its exciting!
Well, maybe thats just my opinion....