tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 26 Jan 2009 02:03:11
From: topspin
Subject: I'm confused...
Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean

1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
can beat even such a good player as Murray
3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
7) This is the weakest era EVER
8) This is the strongest era EVER

Answers on a postcard to Bud Collins, please.

Please send them quickly, since generation/era strength might all have
changed again at the end of the Tsonga/Blake match!

:-))




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 07:36:14
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
On Jan 26, 5:03=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
> can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>
> 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
> the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
> 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
> can beat even such a good player as Murray
> 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
> 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
> 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
> 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
> 7) This is the weakest era EVER
> 8) This is the strongest era EVER
>
> Answers on a postcard to Bud Collins, please.
>
> Please send them quickly, since generation/era strength might all have
> changed again at the end of the Tsonga/Blake match!
>
> :-))

Obviously 1 - Roddick was the past future-Sampras-on-steroids --
Murray is a clown. ;)


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 07:29:43
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
On Jan 26, 7:15=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
> > can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>
> > 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
> > the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
> > 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
> > can beat even such a good player as Murray
> > 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
> > 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
> > 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
> > 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
> > 7) This is the weakest era EVER
> > 8) This is the strongest era EVER
>
> 9) Comparisons of generations in sport are completely useless.
>
> PS.

*Completely useless*? So, for example, there's no way to say that the
Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Chang, Martin, Ivanisevic generation
was better than the Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya, Henman, Johansson
generation?


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 04:49:21
From: topspin
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
On 26 Jan, 12:15, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> 9) Comparisons of generations in sport are completely useless.
>
> PS.

Now you are trying to spoil the fun too!! :-)



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:15:08
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
topspin wrote:
> Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
> can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>
> 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
> the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
> 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
> can beat even such a good player as Murray
> 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
> 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
> 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
> 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
> 7) This is the weakest era EVER
> 8) This is the strongest era EVER

9) Comparisons of generations in sport are completely useless.

PS.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 02:15:20
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
On Jan 26, 5:09=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 26 Jan, 10:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 5:03=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
> > > can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>
> > > 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't bea=
t
> > > the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
> > > 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
> > > can beat even such a good player as Murray
> > > 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
> > > 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
> > > 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
> > > 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
> > > 7) This is the weakest era EVER
> > > 8) This is the strongest era EVER
>
> > > Answers on a postcard to Bud Collins, please.
>
> > > Please send them quickly, since generation/era strength might all hav=
e
> > > changed again at the end of the Tsonga/Blake match!
>
> > > :-))
>
> > It means it's probably not a good idea to draw conclusions from one
> > match.
>
> Now you're spoiling all the fun!-

Yes, sorry ;-)

I forgot this is the place where definitive proof of Fed being better
than Sampras is their giant sample of head-to-head
results!


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:03:47
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:15:20 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 26, 5:09 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Jan, 10:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 26, 5:03 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
>> > > can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>>
>> > > 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
>> > > the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
>> > > 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
>> > > can beat even such a good player as Murray
>> > > 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
>> > > 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
>> > > 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
>> > > 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
>> > > 7) This is the weakest era EVER
>> > > 8) This is the strongest era EVER
>>
>> > > Answers on a postcard to Bud Collins, please.
>>
>> > > Please send them quickly, since generation/era strength might all have
>> > > changed again at the end of the Tsonga/Blake match!
>>
>> > > :-))
>>
>> > It means it's probably not a good idea to draw conclusions from one
>> > match.
>>
>> Now you're spoiling all the fun!-
>
>Yes, sorry ;-)
>
>I forgot this is the place where definitive proof of Fed being better
>than Sampras is their giant sample of head-to-head
>results!


said as if it wouldn't be the opposite way around if sampras had beat
Fed at Wimbledon. gimme a break. it is and will always be:

Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 02:09:10
From: topspin
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
On 26 Jan, 10:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 5:03=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
> > can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>
> > 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
> > the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
> > 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
> > can beat even such a good player as Murray
> > 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
> > 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
> > 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
> > 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
> > 7) This is the weakest era EVER
> > 8) This is the strongest era EVER
>
> > Answers on a postcard to Bud Collins, please.
>
> > Please send them quickly, since generation/era strength might all have
> > changed again at the end of the Tsonga/Blake match!
>
> > :-))
>
> It means it's probably not a good idea to draw conclusions from one
> match.

Now you're spoiling all the fun!


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 02:07:00
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
On Jan 26, 5:03=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
> can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>
> 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
> the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
> 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
> can beat even such a good player as Murray
> 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
> 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
> 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
> 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
> 7) This is the weakest era EVER
> 8) This is the strongest era EVER
>
> Answers on a postcard to Bud Collins, please.
>
> Please send them quickly, since generation/era strength might all have
> changed again at the end of the Tsonga/Blake match!
>
> :-))

It means it's probably not a good idea to draw conclusions from one
match.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:05:17
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: I'm confused...
"topspin" <goolagongfan@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:8539c752-cc80-4122-9a61-713d5adbeed3@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> Perhaps someone with a finger on the pulse of modern tennis analysis
> can enlighten me? Does Murray's loss to Verdasco mean
>
> 1) Murray's generation is weaker than Roddick's, because he can't beat
> the No 14 (and Roddick is still in the competition)
> 2) Murray's generation is stronger than Roddick's, because the No 14
> can beat even such a good player as Murray
> 3) This is the weakest era since 1990 (see reason 1)
> 4) This is the strongest era since 1990 (see reason 2)
> 5) This is the weakest era since Open tennis started
> 6) This is the strongest era since Open Tennis started
> 7) This is the weakest era EVER
> 8) This is the strongest era EVER
>
> Answers on a postcard to Bud Collins, please.
>
> Please send them quickly, since generation/era strength might all have
> changed again at the end of the Tsonga/Blake match!
>
> :-))


Just no more stupid vamos topspin....