tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 14 Jan 2009 08:03:27
From: Professor X
Subject: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
Federer was at his peak in 2006 as we all know
in 2006 the top 10 looked like this:

1)Federer
2)Nadal
3)Davydenko
4)Ljubicic
5)Blake
6)Robredo
7)Roddick
8)Nalbandian
9)Gonzalez
10)Ancic

Top 10 now

1)Fed
2)Nadal
3)Djokovic
4)Murray
5)Davydenko
6)Tsonga
7)Simon
8)Roddick
9) Del Potro
10)Blake.

fed nadal still 1/2
3) Djokovic > Denko
4) Murray > Ljubicic
5)Davydenko >Blake
6)Tsonga >Robredo
7)Simon = Roddick
8)Roddick=Nalbandian
9)Del potro >gonzalez
10)Blake=ancic

thus top 10 is FAR stronger now.




 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:13:45
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:03:27 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Top 10 now
>
>1)Fed
>2)Nadal

Interesting.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 23:24:36
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
"Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:cc0adef8-5192-407b-9efa-e9c87ecfaa68@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Federer was at his peak in 2006 as we all know
> in 2006 the top 10 looked like this:
>
> 1)Federer
> 2)Nadal
> 3)Davydenko
> 4)Ljubicic
> 5)Blake
> 6)Robredo
> 7)Roddick
> 8)Nalbandian
> 9)Gonzalez
> 10)Ancic
>
> Top 10 now
>
> 1)Fed
> 2)Nadal
??????????????? erm no.




  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:28:50
From: TT
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
Iceberg wrote:
> "Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc0adef8-5192-407b-9efa-e9c87ecfaa68@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> Federer was at his peak in 2006 as we all know
>> in 2006 the top 10 looked like this:
>>
>> 1)Federer
>> 2)Nadal
>> 3)Davydenko
>> 4)Ljubicic
>> 5)Blake
>> 6)Robredo
>> 7)Roddick
>> 8)Nalbandian
>> 9)Gonzalez
>> 10)Ancic
>>
>> Top 10 now
>>
>> 1)Fed
>> 2)Nadal
> ??????????????? erm no.
>
>

Shit, I didn't even notice...lol.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 10:31:23
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
On Jan 14, 1:26=A0pm, Hops <kev8...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 8:44 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 4:03 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Federer was at his peak in 2006 as we all know
> > > in 2006 the top 10 looked like this:
>
> > > 1)Federer
> > > 2)Nadal
> > > 3)Davydenko
> > > 4)Ljubicic
> > > 5)Blake
> > > 6)Robredo
> > > 7)Roddick
> > > 8)Nalbandian
> > > 9)Gonzalez
> > > 10)Ancic
>
> > > Top 10 now
>
> > > 1)Fed
> > > 2)Nadal
> > > 3)Djokovic
> > > 4)Murray
> > > 5)Davydenko
> > > 6)Tsonga
> > > 7)Simon
> > > 8)Roddick
> > > 9) Del Potro
> > > 10)Blake.
>
> > > fed nadal still 1/2
> > > 3) Djokovic > Denko
> > > 4) Murray> Ljubicic
> > > 5)Davydenko>Blake
> > > 6)Tsonga>Robredo
> > > 7)Simon =3D Roddick
> > > 8)Roddick=3DNalbandian
> > > 9)Del potro>gonzalez
> > > 10)Blake=3Dancic
>
> > > thus top 10 is FAR stronger now.
>
> > I'd say Roddick > Simon, and Gonzalez > Del Potro. But the rest of
> > your statements are correct. Certainly no one can deny the field at
> > the top has improved recently and Fed's performance has declined as a
> > result.
>
> Fed's form may have dropped anyway regardless of his opponents.
>
> Correlation does not imply causation.

I had thought the braindead "clown era" meme would vanish for good
after your hilarious post a few years ago detailing the historic
succession of "clown eras," but the cult of illogic persists. RST
itself will disappear before the silliest ideas in RST disappear.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 14 Jan 2009 16:07:02
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
Joe Ramirez <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:26 pm, Hops <kev8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Fed's form may have dropped anyway regardless of his opponents.
>>
>> Correlation does not imply causation.
>
> I had thought the braindead "clown era" meme would vanish for good
> after your hilarious post a few years ago detailing the historic
> succession of "clown eras," but the cult of illogic persists. RST
> itself will disappear before the silliest ideas in RST disappear.
>

Which, btw, means Hops should be writing the next chapters of the "Clown Era"
post. ;)


   
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:14:10
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:07:02 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
<ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

>Joe Ramirez <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 1:26 pm, Hops <kev8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Fed's form may have dropped anyway regardless of his opponents.
>>>
>>> Correlation does not imply causation.
>>
>> I had thought the braindead "clown era" meme would vanish for good
>> after your hilarious post a few years ago detailing the historic
>> succession of "clown eras," but the cult of illogic persists. RST
>> itself will disappear before the silliest ideas in RST disappear.
>>
>
>Which, btw, means Hops should be writing the next chapters of the "Clown Era"
>post. ;)

Or at least repost the old one.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 10:26:25
From: Hops
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
On Jan 14, 8:44 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 4:03 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Federer was at his peak in 2006 as we all know
> > in 2006 the top 10 looked like this:
>
> > 1)Federer
> > 2)Nadal
> > 3)Davydenko
> > 4)Ljubicic
> > 5)Blake
> > 6)Robredo
> > 7)Roddick
> > 8)Nalbandian
> > 9)Gonzalez
> > 10)Ancic
>
> > Top 10 now
>
> > 1)Fed
> > 2)Nadal
> > 3)Djokovic
> > 4)Murray
> > 5)Davydenko
> > 6)Tsonga
> > 7)Simon
> > 8)Roddick
> > 9) Del Potro
> > 10)Blake.
>
> > fed nadal still 1/2
> > 3) Djokovic > Denko
> > 4) Murray> Ljubicic
> > 5)Davydenko>Blake
> > 6)Tsonga>Robredo
> > 7)Simon = Roddick
> > 8)Roddick=Nalbandian
> > 9)Del potro>gonzalez
> > 10)Blake=ancic
>
> > thus top 10 is FAR stronger now.
>
> I'd say Roddick > Simon, and Gonzalez > Del Potro. But the rest of
> your statements are correct. Certainly no one can deny the field at
> the top has improved recently and Fed's performance has declined as a
> result.


Fed's form may have dropped anyway regardless of his opponents.

Correlation does not imply causation.










 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 08:44:50
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
On Jan 14, 4:03 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Federer was at his peak in 2006 as we all know
> in 2006 the top 10 looked like this:
>
> 1)Federer
> 2)Nadal
> 3)Davydenko
> 4)Ljubicic
> 5)Blake
> 6)Robredo
> 7)Roddick
> 8)Nalbandian
> 9)Gonzalez
> 10)Ancic
>
> Top 10 now
>
> 1)Fed
> 2)Nadal
> 3)Djokovic
> 4)Murray
> 5)Davydenko
> 6)Tsonga
> 7)Simon
> 8)Roddick
> 9) Del Potro
> 10)Blake.
>
> fed nadal still 1/2
> 3) Djokovic > Denko
> 4) Murray> Ljubicic
> 5)Davydenko>Blake
> 6)Tsonga>Robredo
> 7)Simon = Roddick
> 8)Roddick=Nalbandian
> 9)Del potro>gonzalez
> 10)Blake=ancic
>
> thus top 10 is FAR stronger now.

I'd say Roddick > Simon, and Gonzalez > Del Potro. But the rest of
your statements are correct. Certainly no one can deny the field at
the top has improved recently and Fed's performance has declined as a
result.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 21:47:20
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Legitimate proof of clown era:-
GOAT wrote:
> On Jan 14, 4:03 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Federer was at his peak in 2006 as we all know
>> in 2006 the top 10 looked like this:
>>
>> 1)Federer
>> 2)Nadal
>> 3)Davydenko
>> 4)Ljubicic
>> 5)Blake
>> 6)Robredo
>> 7)Roddick
>> 8)Nalbandian
>> 9)Gonzalez
>> 10)Ancic
>>
>> Top 10 now
>>
>> 1)Fed
>> 2)Nadal
>> 3)Djokovic
>> 4)Murray
>> 5)Davydenko
>> 6)Tsonga
>> 7)Simon
>> 8)Roddick
>> 9) Del Potro
>> 10)Blake.
>>
>> fed nadal still 1/2
>> 3) Djokovic > Denko
>> 4) Murray> Ljubicic
>> 5)Davydenko>Blake
>> 6)Tsonga>Robredo
>> 7)Simon = Roddick
>> 8)Roddick=Nalbandian
>> 9)Del potro>gonzalez
>> 10)Blake=ancic
>>
>> thus top 10 is FAR stronger now.
>
> I'd say Roddick > Simon, and Gonzalez > Del Potro. But the rest of
> your statements are correct. Certainly no one can deny the field at
> the top has improved recently and Fed's performance has declined as a
> result.


If the field quality was the same as 2 yrs ago Fed would still be
winning 3 slams/yr & 10 tune-ups.