tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:14:10
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
The ATP rankings, that is: all of the top eight, and nine of the top
ten in the last sixteen, seems pretty impressive to me. Or it could be
that the Australian is the Slam whose surface least affects the
outcome, or best approximates some sort of Tour average.




 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 18:10:11
From:
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
In article
<ba24c737-4efa-4204-a81e-9f813f2b8d95@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com >,
pedrodias@snip.net (Pedro Dias) wrote:

>
> The ATP rankings, that is: all of the top eight, and nine of the top
> ten in the last sixteen, seems pretty impressive to me. Or it could
> be
> that the Australian is the Slam whose surface least affects the
> outcome, or best approximates some sort of Tour average.

Or it could be one of those random things - once in a while the tournament
does follow the rankings.

Especially given that the top four were never likely to be in danger of
losing before the qf.

wg


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 23:18:44
From: Edward McArdle
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
In article <nfKdnWEz8-p-MObUnZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com >,
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>In article
><ba24c737-4efa-4204-a81e-9f813f2b8d95@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>pedrodias@snip.net (Pedro Dias) wrote:
>
>>
>> The ATP rankings, that is: all of the top eight, and nine of the top
>> ten in the last sixteen, seems pretty impressive to me. Or it could
>> be
>> that the Australian is the Slam whose surface least affects the
>> outcome, or best approximates some sort of Tour average.
>
>Or it could be one of those random things - once in a while the tournament
>does follow the rankings.
>
>Especially given that the top four were never likely to be in danger of
>losing before the qf.
>
>wg

Except of course that Federer nearly lost today. Lost the first two sets.
In the women, I don't think there are a lot of seeds left!

--
Edward McArdle


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 07:56:37
From:
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
In article <mcardle-2501092318440001@192.168.1.4 >, mcardle@ozemail.com.au
(Edward McArdle) wrote:

>
> In article <nfKdnWEz8-p-MObUnZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><ba24c737-4efa-4204-a81e-9f813f2b8d95@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >pedrodias@snip.net (Pedro Dias) wrote:
> >
>
> Except of course that Federer nearly lost today. Lost the first two
> sets.
> In the women, I don't think there are a lot of seeds left!

Well, I was talking about the men, and Federer did get through.

As for the women, the #1, #6, and #5 seeds are gone, but #2, #3, and #4
are all still alive in the tournament. So if you ignored the names and
only looked at the numbers you could say there's really only been one big
upset. :)

wg


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:24:14
From:
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
On Jan 24, 6:22=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> GOAT wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 6:14 pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
> >> The ATP rankings, that is: all of the top eight, and nine of the top
> >> ten in the last sixteen, seems pretty impressive to me. Or it could be
> >> that the Australian is the Slam whose surface least affects the
> >> outcome, or best approximates some sort of Tour average.
>
> > yes, and it's certainly not worth only 3/7 of Wimbledon as some fools
> > around here will tell you.
>
> Could have been in times when AO was played in December and many top
> players skipped it. Nowadays none skip it.
>
> Of course Wimbledon should have only 3 points during many Sampras years
> when many players didn't even bother to play it. Definitely then it was
> less prestigious in eyes of these players than say FO.

Yes, all those top players who skipped Wimbledon even though they had
a great chance to win it - why was that?





  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 20:35:27
From: TT
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:22 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> GOAT wrote:
>>> On Jan 24, 6:14 pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>>>> The ATP rankings, that is: all of the top eight, and nine of the top
>>>> ten in the last sixteen, seems pretty impressive to me. Or it could be
>>>> that the Australian is the Slam whose surface least affects the
>>>> outcome, or best approximates some sort of Tour average.
>>> yes, and it's certainly not worth only 3/7 of Wimbledon as some fools
>>> around here will tell you.
>> Could have been in times when AO was played in December and many top
>> players skipped it. Nowadays none skip it.
>>
>> Of course Wimbledon should have only 3 points during many Sampras years
>> when many players didn't even bother to play it. Definitely then it was
>> less prestigious in eyes of these players than say FO.
>
> Yes, all those top players who skipped Wimbledon even though they had
> a great chance to win it - why was that?
>

Because Wimbledon meant nothing to them. No prestige at all.


--
"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: 24 Jan 2009 22:45:58
From: Marty Fremen
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Yes, all those top players who skipped Wimbledon even though they had
>> a great chance to win it - why was that?
>
> Because Wimbledon meant nothing to them. No prestige at all.

I blame the anti-drugs hysteria.
No athlete wants to be seen to be "on grass".


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:18:23
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
On Jan 24, 6:14=A0pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net > wrote:
> The ATP rankings, that is: all of the top eight, and nine of the top
> ten in the last sixteen, seems pretty impressive to me. Or it could be
> that the Australian is the Slam whose surface least affects the
> outcome, or best approximates some sort of Tour average.

yes, and it's certainly not worth only 3/7 of Wimbledon as some fools
around here will tell you.


  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 20:22:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: Maybe They Know What They're Doing Dept.
GOAT wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:14 pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>> The ATP rankings, that is: all of the top eight, and nine of the top
>> ten in the last sixteen, seems pretty impressive to me. Or it could be
>> that the Australian is the Slam whose surface least affects the
>> outcome, or best approximates some sort of Tour average.
>
> yes, and it's certainly not worth only 3/7 of Wimbledon as some fools
> around here will tell you.

Could have been in times when AO was played in December and many top
players skipped it. Nowadays none skip it.

Of course Wimbledon should have only 3 points during many Sampras years
when many players didn't even bother to play it. Definitely then it was
less prestigious in eyes of these players than say FO.


--
"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"