Mens Tennis Forums banner

Who, according to you, is the 2006 Challenger Player of the Year?


  • Total voters
    132
  • Poll closed .
141 - 160 of 167 Posts

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #141
Canas a Challenger player? Lol!!!

He just played for a few months and should have won all those events with the talent that he has. Honestly..... he can get back to the top 30 very soon.


You should have Dmitry Tursunov in there then. :devil: Why isn't he there? He played two of the biggest Challengers in the world and won both. ;)
It's highly unfair if you have Canas in there and not Dima.

I find the comment about our 25K+Hs being weak extremely funny. What about the futures-in-disguise Challengers Tipsy was playing in Uzbekistan?
I understand the arguments about Cañas and I fully support them, however it would be wrong to leave him out based on his results. Tursunov did not have to play Challengers and when he did, his win/loss ratio was awesome, but he did not work his way up. Cañas did, through WCs, SEs and stuff. The way he fought back is amazing and worthy of recognition.

And I already mentioned that those Challengers Tipsarevic played are weak. Incidentally, they are also $25K+Hs :) But Janko won Belgrade and Mons, two events that are a few times tougher than Shrewsbury or Wrexham or whatever.
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #142
Last time I checked 25K events were still called challengers.
You can't say he only won 2 25k's and discount that because this is for challenger player of the year.
So Canas played for only a little while, and Boggo maybe played smaller ones but they are all CHALLENGERS.

Yes you were wrong about Dancevic as well. Well done but still can't accpet Bogdanovic mistake eh? Be a man and admit it.
I won't admit it, as I did not make a mistake. Nor did Nathaliia.

Your logic is that $75Ks, $50Ks, $25Ks and others should all be treated alike? I don't agree. But there is the option Other for those who think that it is :wavey:
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #143
By the way, if this poll is supposed to give equal preference to singles and doubles, why doesn't it have specialist doubles players in there? :confused:

You have Tipsy in there, who has had just 4 wins in 11 attempts in doubles, and many of those came against inferior players. So he is very much a singles player.

You can't really argue that you are giving them equal priority, because you don't have a single doubles specialist in there.
Because the specialist doubles players simply did not do as well as the likes of Behrend, Granollers-Pujol etc. Lipsky and Martin have had a good season, Murray too, but not good enough to top some of these guys. Look at the list of titles and finals and see for yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
I understand the arguments about Cañas and I fully support them, however it would be wrong to leave him out based on his results. Tursunov did not have to play Challengers and when he did, his win/loss ratio was awesome, but he did not work his way up. Cañas did, through WCs, SEs and stuff. The way he fought back is amazing and worthy of recognition.

Canas' fightback isn't worthy of special recognition. It wasn't like he was injured or something. He wasn't there due to his own fault! And he was training hard all this while, not like he was unable to.


And that's ridiculous. Since when was the title of the poll "The 2006 I-needed-to-play-challengers Challenger Player of the year thread"? :confused: This is the "The 2006 Challenger Player of the Year Thread", meaning all players who played Challengers should be considered. Tursunov played Challengers and that means that he is a Challenger player.
We are supposed to vote for the person with the best Challenger record in the year, and Dima is a worthy candidate and must be nominated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Because the specialist doubles players simply did not do as well as the likes of Behrend, Granollers-Pujol etc. Lipsky and Martin have had a good season, Murray too, but not good enough to top some of these guys. Look at the list of titles and finals and see for yourself.
No one is contesting the fact that Granollers-Pujol had a season superior to Jamie Murray's.

You said that you consider singles and doubles to be equally good. Therefore you can't have Tipsy in there without having Murray.

Tipsy's singles highlights:
Titles - 4 including two Challengers which were worse than some Futures.
Finals - 1.
SFs - 1.
Number of top 100 singles players defeated - 1.

Jamie's doubles highlights:
Titles - 1.
Finals - 6.
SFs - 3.
Number of top 100 doubles players defeated - 4. (Consider the fact that he plays against two players at the same time, so divide it by 2 and you get 4/2 = 2).

And also the rankings jumps between January and December -

Tipsy in singles - 140 to 64.
Jamie in doubles - 281 to 77.

You didn't nominate Jamie in there, so don't pretend that you treat singles and doubles equally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
And I already mentioned that those Challengers Tipsarevic played are weak. Incidentally, they are also $25K+Hs :) But Janko won Belgrade and Mons, two events that are a few times tougher than Shrewsbury or Wrexham or whatever.

It's got nothing to do with the prize money on offer. This is tennis that we are playing. What matters is the strength of the field, which is not always related directly to money.

Tipsy's good performances came in -

Belgrade: Cut was 174.
Bukhara: Cut was 429. The WCs went to really ordinary players!
Mons: Cut was 179.
Samarkand: Cut was 486. Not only 15K+Hs, but even 15K Futures are better at times!:eek: The WCs went to really ordinary players!
Dresden: Cut was 204.

Bogdanovic's good performances came in -

Bergamo: Cut was 243.
Wrexham: Cut was 245.
Mons: Cut was 179.
Shrewsbury: Cut was 281.

How exactly are Belgrade and Mons "a few times tougher" than Shrewsbury and Wrexham?? :confused:

But Shrewsbury and Wrexham are indeed a few times tougher than Samarkand and Bukhara. :)
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #147
Canas' fightback isn't worthy of special recognition. It wasn't like he was injured or something. He wasn't there due to his own fault! And he was training hard all this while, not like he was unable to.


And that's ridiculous. Since when was the title of the poll "The 2006 I-needed-to-play-challengers Challenger Player of the year thread"? :confused: This is the "The 2006 Challenger Player of the Year Thread", meaning all players who played Challengers should be considered. Tursunov played Challengers and that means that he is a Challenger player.
We are supposed to vote for the person with the best Challenger record in the year, and Dima is a worthy candidate and must be nominated.
You can start your separate poll. Frankly, I am fed up with all your posts saying what is wrong, wrong and wrong. If you try to make a selection, you will find that people will always complain. No player is excluded in this poll. You can vote for each and every single one of them :wavey:
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #148
It's got nothing to do with the prize money on offer. This is tennis that we are playing. What matters is the strength of the field, which is not always related directly to money.

Tipsy's good performances came in -

Belgrade: Cut was 174.
Bukhara: Cut was 429. The WCs went to really ordinary players!
Mons: Cut was 179.
Samarkand: Cut was 486. Not only 15K+Hs, but even 15K Futures are better at times!:eek: The WCs went to really ordinary players!
Dresden: Cut was 204.

Bogdanovic's good performances came in -

Bergamo: Cut was 243.
Wrexham: Cut was 245.
Mons: Cut was 179.
Shrewsbury: Cut was 281.

How exactly are Belgrade and Mons "a few times tougher" than Shrewsbury and Wrexham?? :confused:

But Shrewsbury and Wrexham are indeed a few times tougher than Samarkand and Bukhara. :)
Cuts do not really tell the big picture, now do they?
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #149
No one is contesting the fact that Granollers-Pujol had a season superior to Jamie Murray's.

You said that you consider singles and doubles to be equally good. Therefore you can't have Tipsy in there without having Murray.

Tipsy's singles highlights:
Titles - 4 including two Challengers which were worse than some Futures.
Finals - 1.
SFs - 1.
Number of top 100 singles players defeated - 1.

Jamie's doubles highlights:
Titles - 1.
Finals - 6.
SFs - 3.
Number of top 100 doubles players defeated - 4. (Consider the fact that he plays against two players at the same time, so divide it by 2 and you get 4/2 = 2).

And also the rankings jumps between January and December -

Tipsy in singles - 140 to 64.
Jamie in doubles - 281 to 77.

You didn't nominate Jamie in there, so don't pretend that you treat singles and doubles equally.
Now you are just funny :shrug: :lol: I mean, wanting Bogdanovic nominated is one thing, but now wanting Murray in as well is beyond ethnocentrism :haha: You have every right to believe Murray had a stellar season, ranking him above a lot of other players. And Nathaliia and I have the right to disagree. Again, vote for him in Other :wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Now you are just funny :shrug: :lol: I mean, wanting Bogdanovic nominated is one thing, but now wanting Murray in as well is beyond ethnocentrism :haha: You have every right to believe Murray had a stellar season, ranking him above a lot of other players. And Nathaliia and I have the right to disagree.

Not for a moment have I said that Jamie Murray should be there. I said that you can't say that you consider singles and doubles to be equal and nominate Tipsy ahead of Jamie. (Personally I consider doubles to be inferior to singles and hence Boggo should be there ahead of people like Mamiit.)

You yourself have clearly indicated that you yourself don't rate singles and doubles in the same light by the comment that wanting Murray in there ahead of Tipsy is "beyond ethnocentrism". So please don't say otherwise!



Cuts do not really tell the big picture, now do they?
They definitely tell the big picture better than the prize money alloted. ;)




You can start your separate poll. Frankly, I am fed up with all your posts saying what is wrong, wrong and wrong. If you try to make a selection, you will find that people will always complain. No player is excluded in this poll. You can vote for each and every single one of them :wavey:
If you think that we can vote for Boggo in "Other", then stop attacking us for voting him. If we are allowed to vote for him, it means that we have every right to vote for him and it's highly unfair to call us "biased" or "zealots" just because of that.

And I mean this as a polite request and not an attack. This a poll and we have a right to vote for whoever we want. If you can't respect someone's opinion and take it, then you shouldn't be taking part in polls in the first place.

Vox populi vox Dei or whatever they say about democracies. :D
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #151
Not for a moment have I said that Jamie Murray should be there. I said that you can't say that you consider singles and doubles to be equal and nominate Tipsy ahead of Jamie. (Personally I consider doubles to be inferior to singles and hence Boggo should be there ahead of people like Mamiit.)

You yourself have clearly indicated that you yourself don't rate singles and doubles in the same light by the comment that wanting Murray in there ahead of Tipsy is "beyond ethnocentrism". So please don't say otherwise!
Three players are in that poll mostly because of their doubles results. And others because they have proven to be all-round. So what you are saying holds no truth.





They definitely tell the big picture better than the prize money alloted. ;)
Hmm, sometimes this is undeniably true. But the cut-off does not reflect the strength of a tournament.





If you think that we can vote for Boggo in "Other", then stop attacking us for voting him. If we are allowed to vote for him, it means that we have every right to vote for him and it's highly unfair to call us "biased" or "zealots" just because of that.

And I mean this as a polite request and not an attack. This a poll and we have a right to vote for whoever we want. If you can't respect someone's opinion and take it, then you shouldn't be taking part in polls in the first place.

Vox populi vox Dei or whatever they say about democracies. :D
Well, you are right of course. But I may have been too naïve in believing that people would actually vote rationally. And I was hoping for that. Zealot is the right term to use though, as is biased. And you are being myopic if you cannot see that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,766 Posts
I vote for Boggo :angel: ;)

But please guys..give Nathii and Tijn a break...their picks are very well chosen and they have put so much time into the challenger forum and know it inside out.
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,389 Posts
Discussion Starter #155
It's so sad, you cant just say: "Yeah , we were wrong about Boggo, not the player of the year but definitely one of the top 10."

Shame! :mad:
:lol: He is not Top 15 for me :wavey:

I have asked this question before (I am not sure if it was to you who I posed it) and did not get a reply. But if Bogdanovic would not have been British, would you have voted for him?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,200 Posts
never ending discussion however in about two weeks it is 2007 so maybe then it stops
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
I won't admit it, as I did not make a mistake. Nor did Nathaliia.

Your logic is that $75Ks, $50Ks, $25Ks and others should all be treated alike? I don't agree. But there is the option Other for those who think that it is :wavey:
Thankyou! There is an option for those who think it was someone else. Which is what a lot of people seemed to think about Bogdanovic. Why give people the option then kick off like a baby when they use it in a way you don't like??? :confused:

To the Scot who's not bothered about his history! I do something called reading which enables me to learn about what people in the past were like, who they spent time with and what their opinions on things were. Most Scots (the people who made you what you are) still exist because they were not prepared to utter disgraceful comments like the one you wrote about being ashamed to be British.

Back to Tijn!
I would not have voted for Bogdanovic if I was not British, but I am, so I know the story of his performances and results in a way you do not. Granted you know much more about many of the other players and therefore have a right to your comments. It is just odd you won't accept the thoughts of so many and it comes across as being too proud
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,596 Posts
Thankyou! There is an option for those who think it was someone else. Which is what a lot of people seemed to think about Bogdanovic. Why give people the option then kick off like a baby when they use it in a way you don't like??? :confused:

To the Scot who's not bothered about his history! I do something called reading which enables me to learn about what people in the past were like, who they spent time with and what their opinions on things were. Most Scots (the people who made you what you are) still exist because they were not prepared to utter disgraceful comments like the one you wrote about being ashamed to be British.

Back to Tijn!
I would not have voted for Bogdanovic if I was not British, but I am, so I know the story of his performances and results in a way you do not. Granted you know much more about many of the other players and therefore have a right to your comments. It is just odd you won't accept the thoughts of so many and it comes across as being too proud
I'm a history stuent :wavey:
So, tell me, why would a man who wanted an independant Scotland (not that i give a shit what he would have thought of me :lol: ) hate a person who said he was sometimes ashamed to be British. If you didn't notice, Wallace didn't have much time for all of the British, what with him killing lots of them :lol:.

I also also asked last time why he'd have found me "lily-livered" :confused:. Don't you have an answer for that? :sad:

I know :topic: sorry :eek:
 
141 - 160 of 167 Posts
Top