It's become de rigeur for Graf-detractors to make ironic remarks about her post-1989 slump, suggesting that it's a fabrication and that What Really Happened was that the competition suddenly became a lot hotter and poor lil' Steff couldn't cope.
OTOH Grafans are guilty of believing that Graf fully emerged from her slump and after a few years in the wilderness suddenly reclaimed her passion, joie de tennis, and peak form and finally reclaimed her destiny in 1995 and 96.
In fact, despite my being a loyal Grafan I have to part with them on this issue. Steffi NEVER regained her 1987-9 form except maybe for a brief period in early 1994. What did happen is that from 1993 on - and especially in 1995/6 - the competition decreased considerably so that even B or C Graf could still win a bunch of slams.
Which just exemplifies my theory that luck (in the form this time of absence of competition) has a lot to do with slam victories.........
The Terminator 18 March 2005 09:29:45 [ permanent link ]
Lloyd wrote:> It's become de rigeur for Graf-detractors to make ironic remarks about her> post-1989 slump, suggesting that it's a fabrication and that What Really> Happened was that the competition suddenly became a lot hotter and poor lil'> Steff couldn't cope.>
OTOH Grafans are guilty of believing that Graf fully emerged from her
slump> and after a few years in the wilderness suddenly reclaimed her passion, joie> de tennis, and peak form and finally reclaimed her destiny in 1995 and 96.>
In fact, despite my being a loyal Grafan I have to part with them on
this> issue. Steffi NEVER regained her 1987-9 form except maybe for a brief period> in early 1994. What did happen is that from 1993 on - and especially
1995/6 - the competition decreased considerably so that even B or C
Graf> could still win a bunch of slams.>
Which just exemplifies my theory that luck (in the form this time of
absence> of competition) has a lot to do with slam victories.........
I am a big fan of Graf and completely agree with you. Peter Graf almost ruined her career because of the scandal and Gunther Parsche revived her career with a knife.
We do not know what would have happened if Seles never got stabbed, but I have a strong belief Graf would have regained the No.1 anyway. Everyone would have figured out Seles 1-dimensional game eventually and she would have ended with 13 slams max. Graf would have won around 20 slams anyway.
Now Lloyd lets investigate how many slams Lendl would have won if by SOME PARALLEL word magic Sampras was Lendl (I mean he played in the 80s) and Lendl was Sampras (I mean Lendl played in the 90s).
"The Terminator" <villainintown@rediffmail.com> wrote in message news:1111123785.374438.147100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> I am a big fan of Graf and completely agree with you. Peter Graf almost> ruined her career because of the scandal and Gunther Parsche revived> her career with a knife.>
We do not know what would have happened if Seles never got stabbed, but> I have a strong belief Graf would have regained the No.1 anyway.> Everyone would have figured out Seles 1-dimensional game eventually and> she would have ended with 13 slams max. Graf would have won around 20> slams anyway.
Figuring out your opponent's game is one thing but to actually execute your gameplan is another when your opponent is a great player. One of the main responsibilities of the coach is to match-up his player's strengths and weaknesses against the opponents' especially the ones to beat. When Seles was dominating the game, players already knew her weaknesses - mobility, low balls, net. However they didn't have much opportunity to execute their gameplan against her consistently because Seles was too darn good with her shots. Just like everybody had already figured out Garf's main weakness - her backhand side. Yet nobody actually could capitalize on that, why, because Graf was too darn good. When Graf or Seles was off on a particular day, their weapons would start to malfunction and that would be the time when their respective weaknesses were easily attacked. So I completely disagree that after a few more years, if Seles hadn't been stabbed, lots of players would ve beaten her just because they would have figured out how to beat her. If Seles hadn't been stabbed, I strongly believe her game was top notch for many many more years. That 1995 Seles that I have seen since was simply another Seles.
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d1dnre$7cc$1@news-02.connect.com.au...> It's become de rigeur for Graf-detractors to make ironic remarks about her> post-1989 slump, suggesting that it's a fabrication and that What Really> Happened was that the competition suddenly became a lot hotter and poor > lil'> Steff couldn't cope.>
OTOH Grafans are guilty of believing that Graf fully emerged from her > slump> and after a few years in the wilderness suddenly reclaimed her passion, > joie> de tennis, and peak form and finally reclaimed her destiny in 1995 and 96.>
In fact, despite my being a loyal Grafan I have to part with them on this> issue. Steffi NEVER regained her 1987-9 form except maybe for a brief > period> in early 1994. What did happen is that from 1993 on - and especially in> 1995/6 - the competition decreased considerably so that even B or C Graf> could still win a bunch of slams.>
Which just exemplifies my theory that luck (in the form this time of > absence> of competition) has a lot to do with slam victories.........>
It's become de rigeur for Graf-detractors to make ironic remarks about her> post-1989 slump, suggesting that it's a fabrication and that What Really> Happened was that the competition suddenly became a lot hotter and poor lil'> Steff couldn't cope.>
OTOH Grafans are guilty of believing that Graf fully emerged from her slump> and after a few years in the wilderness suddenly reclaimed her passion, joie> de tennis, and peak form and finally reclaimed her destiny in 1995 and 96.>
In fact, despite my being a loyal Grafan I have to part with them on this> issue. Steffi NEVER regained her 1987-9 form except maybe for a brief period> in early 1994. What did happen is that from 1993 on - and especially in> 1995/6 - the competition decreased considerably so that even B or C Graf> could still win a bunch of slams.
Yes, she never got back to her best '89 form. '90 & '91 were rock bottom - even lost to Sabatini 6 straight I believe?
She did play better '92 - '96, but never got back to her best.
Which just exemplifies my theory that luck (in the form this time of absence> of competition) has a lot to do with slam victories.........>
IMO, Steffi would probably have 5-6 fewer slam titles if Seles hadn't been> stabbed. But of course we can't know for sure, so Steffi has to be at #1 on> a list of "greatest careers" of the open era.
Someone mentioned had Venus got stabbed after '01 USO we'd be saying how many slams would she have won. That's a good point - + given Seles was never dominant v Graf in h2h, & the fact Graf was obviously slumping (eg 6 straight losses to Sabatini of all people), means Seles gets no consideration for extra slams. Had she been thumping Graf 6-2 6-3 in slam finals (ala MN v Evert early 80's) I'd think differently..
Beyond that, of course, we're> free to discuss all the ifs-and-buts we want to.>
Imo Graf woulda won 1 more slam had Seles not been stabbed - seriously.
IMO, Steffi would probably have 5-6 fewer slam titles if Seles hadn't
been> > stabbed. But of course we can't know for sure, so Steffi has to be at #1
a list of "greatest careers" of the open era.
Someone mentioned had Venus got stabbed after '01 USO we'd be saying how> many slams would she have won.
Yes, probably so.
That's a good point - + given Seles was> never dominant v Graf in h2h, & the fact Graf was obviously slumping
ROFL!
(eg> 6 straight losses to Sabatini of all people), means Seles gets no> consideration for extra slams. Had she been thumping Graf 6-2 6-3 in> slam finals (ala MN v Evert early 80's) I'd think differently..
You shouldn't be. h2h and scorelines mean little to nothing, not when we have extensive data. Seles had been clear #1 for 2.5 years. She'd established total dominance at 3/4 slams. Then, as soon as she was knocked out, Graf won 4 straight slams, after having won 3 the previous 3.25 years.
It's plain as day Graf benefitted tremendously - probably 5-6 slams worth.
Beyond that, of course, we're> > free to discuss all the ifs-and-buts we want to.
Imo Graf woulda won 1 more slam had Seles not been stabbed - seriously.
I know. It's a crazy idea but i know you actually believe it.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
Lloyd wrote:> It's become de rigeur for Graf-detractors to make ironic remarks about her> post-1989 slump, suggesting that it's a fabrication and that What Really> Happened was that the competition suddenly became a lot hotter and poor lil'> Steff couldn't cope.>
OTOH Grafans are guilty of believing that Graf fully emerged from her
slump> and after a few years in the wilderness suddenly reclaimed her passion, joie> de tennis, and peak form and finally reclaimed her destiny in 1995 and 96.>
In fact, despite my being a loyal Grafan I have to part with them on
this> issue. Steffi NEVER regained her 1987-9 form except maybe for a brief period> in early 1994. What did happen is that from 1993 on - and especially
1995/6 - the competition decreased considerably so that even B or C
Graf> could still win a bunch of slams.>
Which just exemplifies my theory that luck (in the form this time of
absence> of competition) has a lot to do with slam victories.........
You obviously didn't watch Graf play neither in 87-89 nor in 95/96. Her wins against AO champ Pierce in Paris (indoors) 95 final(6-2, 6-2), Sabby at FO 95 quarters(6-1, 6-0), Fernandez at Wimbledon 95 quarters(6-3, 6-0), Rubin in Key Biscayne 96 final(6-3, 6-1), Martinez at FO 96 semis (6-3, 6-1), Novotna in Wimbledon 96 quarters (6-3, 6-2), ASV in Wimbledon 96 final (6-3, 7-5), Seles at USO 96 final (7-5, 6-4) are equal to Graf's best matches in 87-89. Maybe Graf was a little bit more consistent in 88/89.
93/96 is underestimated because there were no English native speakers at the top of the rankings. U.S. and Commonwealth tennis fans tend to lose interest in tennis during times like those because the don't relate well to players who come from non-English-speaking countries. Nothing new ... (Remember Lendl!!)
The Terminator 19 March 2005 02:17:46 [ permanent link ]
Calimero wrote:> Lloyd wrote:> > It's become de rigeur for Graf-detractors to make ironic remarks> about her> > post-1989 slump, suggesting that it's a fabrication and that What> Really> > Happened was that the competition suddenly became a lot hotter and> poor lil'> > Steff couldn't cope.> >
OTOH Grafans are guilty of believing that Graf fully emerged from
slump> > and after a few years in the wilderness suddenly reclaimed her> passion, joie> > de tennis, and peak form and finally reclaimed her destiny in 1995> and 96.> >
In fact, despite my being a loyal Grafan I have to part with them
this> > issue. Steffi NEVER regained her 1987-9 form except maybe for a
brief> period> > in early 1994. What did happen is that from 1993 on - and especially> in> > 1995/6 - the competition decreased considerably so that even B or C> Graf> > could still win a bunch of slams.> >
Which just exemplifies my theory that luck (in the form this time
absence> > of competition) has a lot to do with slam victories.........>
You obviously didn't watch Graf play neither in 87-89 nor in 95/96.> Her wins against AO champ Pierce in Paris (indoors) 95 final(6-2,
6-2),> Sabby at FO 95 quarters(6-1, 6-0), Fernandez at Wimbledon 95> quarters(6-3, 6-0), Rubin in Key Biscayne 96 final(6-3, 6-1), Martinez> at FO 96 semis (6-3, 6-1), Novotna in Wimbledon 96 quarters (6-3, 6-2),> ASV in Wimbledon 96 final (6-3, 7-5), Seles at USO 96 final (7-5, 6-4)> are equal to Graf's best matches in 87-89. Maybe Graf was a little
more consistent in 88/89.>
93/96 is underestimated because there were no English native speakers> at the top of the rankings. U.S. and Commonwealth tennis fans tend to> lose interest in tennis during times like those because the don't> relate well to players who come from non-English-speaking countries.> Nothing new ... (Remember Lendl!!)
Lendl and Graf were loved everywhere except America because Lendl beat the crap out Americans Connors and McEnroe and Steffi beat the crap out of Americans Evert, Navratilova and later Seles when she became American.
No wonder the BIGOT Jaros hates both Ivan and Steffi.
You obviously didn't watch Graf play neither in 87-89 nor in 95/96.
I watched her in both era's and my observations that she wasn't the same player are borne out by the detailed stats.
Her wins against AO champ Pierce in Paris (indoors) 95 final(6-2, 6-2),> Sabby at FO 95 quarters(6-1, 6-0), Fernandez at Wimbledon 95> quarters(6-3, 6-0), Rubin in Key Biscayne 96 final(6-3, 6-1), Martinez> at FO 96 semis (6-3, 6-1), Novotna in Wimbledon 96 quarters (6-3, 6-2),> ASV in Wimbledon 96 final (6-3, 7-5), Seles at USO 96 final (7-5, 6-4)> are equal to Graf's best matches in 87-89. Maybe Graf was a little bit> more consistent in 88/89.
As I said even B Steffi was way better than almost every other player around but I remember her blitzing MN and CE back to back at Key Biscayne in 1987 and I can't recall anything from her in 1995/6 quite as good........
"The Terminator" <villainintown@rediffmail.com> wrote in message news:1111123785.374438.147100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Now Lloyd lets investigate how many slams Lendl would have won if by> SOME PARALLEL word magic Sampras was Lendl (I mean he played in the> 80s) and Lendl was Sampras (I mean Lendl played in the 90s).>
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:_Tz_d.13491$N15.4083@okepread06...
the point is that you haven't (and apparently can't) explain why this
means> that slams shouldn't be regarded as the standard of greatness.
Because they differ in their quality. Chris O'Neil's 1978 AO is worth what......? A late 80's era men's USO is worth a ton because of the competition at the time. And each slam-win has a different measure of "greatness"...............
Lloyd wrote:> "The Terminator" <villainintown@rediffmail.com> wrote in message> news:1111123785.374438.147100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>
Now Lloyd lets investigate how many slams Lendl would have won if
SOME PARALLEL word magic Sampras was Lendl (I mean he played in the> > 80s) and Lendl was Sampras (I mean Lendl played in the 90s).> >
This will really make the Lendl haters sore!>
Working on it.............
Let me give you a start. During Lendl's time 2 of the slams were played on grass - his worst surface. If AO swicthed to rubber (which would be his favorite surface) things could have been quite different.
Imagine Lendl beating Brian Teacher on rubber in 1980 finals and 81 and 82 AO finals against Johan Kriek. He never lost to Teacher and lost only once to Kriek I guess in 18 ocassions. He would have smoked Mac in 83 and 84 on rubber. And 85-87 would have been a cakewalk. So thats 8 additional AOs totalling 16 slams.
So you could have an alternate universe in which AO switched to rubber in 1978 instead of 1988.
And what about an alternate universe in which Lendl met Pioline, Chang, Martin and Ivanisevic types instead of McEnroe, Cash, Becker and Edberg types in 5 Wimbledon semis and 2 finals.
"Robbie" <robvanzant@email.com> wrote in message news:1111216966.138243.50580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Lloyd wrote:>> "The Terminator" <villainintown@rediffmail.com> wrote in message>> news:1111123785.374438.147100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>
Now Lloyd lets investigate how many slams Lendl would have won if> by>> > SOME PARALLEL word magic Sampras was Lendl (I mean he played in the>> > 80s) and Lendl was Sampras (I mean Lendl played in the 90s).>> >
This will really make the Lendl haters sore!>>
Working on it.............>
Let me give you a start. During Lendl's time 2 of the slams were played> on grass - his worst surface. If AO swicthed to rubber (which would be> his favorite surface) things could have been quite different.>
Imagine Lendl beating Brian Teacher on rubber in 1980 finals and 81 and> 82 AO finals against Johan Kriek. He never lost to Teacher and lost> only once to Kriek I guess in 18 ocassions. He would have smoked Mac in> 83 and 84 on rubber. And 85-87 would have been a cakewalk. So thats 8> additional AOs totalling 16 slams.>
So you could have an alternate universe in which AO switched to rubber> in 1978 instead of 1988.>
See your point, but don't buy it...
And what about an alternate universe in which Lendl met Pioline, Chang,> Martin and Ivanisevic types instead of McEnroe, Cash, Becker and Edberg> types in 5 Wimbledon semis and 2 finals.>
Lloyd wrote:> "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote in message>
You obviously didn't watch Graf play neither in 87-89 nor in 95/96.>
I watched her in both era's
That was only a joke ...
and my observations that she wasn't the same> player are borne out by the detailed stats.>
Her wins against AO champ Pierce in Paris (indoors) 95 final(6-2,
6-2),> > Sabby at FO 95 quarters(6-1, 6-0), Fernandez at Wimbledon 95> > quarters(6-3, 6-0), Rubin in Key Biscayne 96 final(6-3, 6-1), Martinez> > at FO 96 semis (6-3, 6-1), Novotna in Wimbledon 96 quarters (6-3, 6-2),> > ASV in Wimbledon 96 final (6-3, 7-5), Seles at USO 96 final (7-5, 6-4)> > are equal to Graf's best matches in 87-89. Maybe Graf was a little
more consistent in 88/89.>
As I said even B Steffi was way better than almost every other player
around> but I remember her blitzing MN and CE back to back at Key Biscayne in 1987> and I can't recall anything from her in 1995/6 quite as good........
MN and CE didn't play in 95/96 ... But maybe you are right. Let's say that Graf played at the same level in 95/96 as in 87/89 in 85 % of matches but had more really awesome matches in 87/89 and more off-days in 95/96.
It's a pity - I never watched the Key Biscayne 87 matches.
the point is that you haven't (and apparently can't) explain why this> means> > that slams shouldn't be regarded as the standard of greatness.>
Because they differ in their quality. Chris O'Neil's 1978 AO is worth> what......? A late 80's era men's USO is worth a ton because of the> competition at the time. And each slam-win has a different measure of> "greatness"...............
Discerning posters already recognize that the slams differ prestige-wise from each other, i.e., we assign different points to different slams based on prestige.
But that doesn't say anything towards bringing non-slam factors into the equation.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
"Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote in message>
You obviously didn't watch Graf play neither in 87-89 nor in 95/96.>
I watched her in both era's and my observations that she wasn't the same> player are borne out by the detailed stats.>
Her wins against AO champ Pierce in Paris (indoors) 95 final(6-2, 6-2),>>Sabby at FO 95 quarters(6-1, 6-0), Fernandez at Wimbledon 95>>quarters(6-3, 6-0), Rubin in Key Biscayne 96 final(6-3, 6-1), Martinez>>at FO 96 semis (6-3, 6-1), Novotna in Wimbledon 96 quarters (6-3, 6-2),>>ASV in Wimbledon 96 final (6-3, 7-5), Seles at USO 96 final (7-5, 6-4)>>are equal to Graf's best matches in 87-89. Maybe Graf was a little bit>>more consistent in 88/89.>
As I said even B Steffi was way better than almost every other player around> but I remember her blitzing MN and CE back to back at Key Biscayne in 1987> and I can't recall anything from her in 1995/6 quite as good........>
Yes, 6-1 6-2 v Evert s/f & 6-3 6-2 v MN in final. Sure she woulda played that level sporadically, but she appeared to put it all together & that arguably was her best ever form.
I woulda loved to see that Graf take on Henin's prettiest stuff - man it wouldn't get better than that.
"The Terminator" <villainintown@rediffmail.com> wrote in message>>news:1111123785.374438.147100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>
Now Lloyd lets investigate how many slams Lendl would have won if>
SOME PARALLEL word magic Sampras was Lendl (I mean he played in the>>>80s) and Lendl was Sampras (I mean Lendl played in the 90s).>>>
This will really make the Lendl haters sore!>>
Working on it.............>
Let me give you a start. During Lendl's time 2 of the slams were played> on grass - his worst surface. If AO swicthed to rubber (which would be> his favorite surface) things could have been quite different.
So the surface change actually benefitted Lendl, & he still won only 7 slams (gifted 1)?
How about if Sampras got a similar break - ie 2 slams on grass - > 20 slams total?
"The Terminator" <villainintown@rediffmail.com> wrote in message>>news:1111123785.374438.147100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>
Now Lloyd lets investigate how many slams Lendl would have won if>
SOME PARALLEL word magic Sampras was Lendl (I mean he played in the>>>80s) and Lendl was Sampras (I mean Lendl played in the 90s).>>>
This will really make the Lendl haters sore!>>
Working on it.............>
Let me give you a start. During Lendl's time 2 of the slams were played> on grass - his worst surface. If AO swicthed to rubber (which would be> his favorite surface) things could have been quite different.>
Imagine Lendl beating Brian Teacher on rubber in 1980 finals and 81 and> 82 AO finals against Johan Kriek. He never lost to Teacher and lost> only once to Kriek I guess in 18 ocassions. He would have smoked Mac in> 83 and 84 on rubber. And 85-87 would have been a cakewalk. So thats 8> additional AOs totalling 16 slams.>
So you could have an alternate universe in which AO switched to rubber> in 1978 instead of 1988.>
And what about an alternate universe in which Lendl met Pioline, Chang,> Martin and Ivanisevic types instead of McEnroe, Cash, Becker and Edberg> types in 5 Wimbledon semis and 2 finals.>
Becker 3-0 v Lendl at Wimbledon, Sampras 3-0 v Becker at Wimbledon. Would Lendl win a set in 10 matches v Sampras at Wimbledon?
It's a pity - I never watched the Key Biscayne 87 matches.> >
That is a pity for someone like you. Lloyd's probably right - Graf at her majestic best - MN/Evert stood flat-footed as winners whizzed by them left & right....
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:ZTT_d.13767$N15.11580@okepread06...> Discerning posters already recognize that the slams differ prestige-wise> from each other, i.e., we assign different points to different slams based> on prestige.
Wrong as well...each INDIVIDUAL alam is different. You don't lumpo together all W's USO's, etc........
But that doesn't say anything towards bringing non-slam factors into the> equation.
THAT doesn't, but results at non-slams when top players are obviously desperate to win does............
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:QSU_d.462$M17.12408@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Calimero wrote:
That is a pity for someone like you. Lloyd's probably right - Graf at> her majestic best - MN/Evert stood flat-footed as winners whizzed by> them left & right....
Yeah Whisper but it was a meaningless TUNEUP.........
Becker 3-0 v Lendl at Wimbledon, Sampras 3-0 v Becker at Wimbledon.>
Different Beckers..........
Yep, lloyd's got this one right.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
Discerning posters already recognize that the slams differ prestige-wise> > from each other, i.e., we assign different points to different slams
based> > on prestige.>
Wrong as well...each INDIVIDUAL alam is different. You don't lumpo
together> all W's USO's, etc........
Of course you do, unless you have a compelling reason. Examples would be 73 W which was boycotted, 93-96 women's slams sans Seles, Lendl's AO win over Edberg when Edberg defaulted.
But absent glaring, obvious anomalies like those, they are substantively the same.
But that doesn't say anything towards bringing non-slam factors into the> > equation.>
THAT doesn't, but results at non-slams when top players are obviously> desperate to win does...
No, that tells us nothing, because slams are the recognized championship events and we can presume players are primed for them. No one ever regrets losing a Masters final or a Lipton final, eg, but Mac says he still can't watch a tape of the 84 FO final - too painful more than 2 decades later...
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:F38%d.14125$N15.322@okepread06...
Of course you do, unless you have a compelling reason. Examples would be
W which was boycotted, 93-96 women's slams sans Seles, Lendl's AO win over> Edberg when Edberg defaulted.
What about 92 and 96 AO when Graf wasn't there? Selectivity.........
No, that tells us nothing, because slams are the recognized championship> events and we can presume players are primed for them. No one ever regrets> losing a Masters final or a Lipton final,
They don't? Who says? I've seen players give up in slams and fight their guts out in non-slams. No doubt ON AVERAGE most players try harder at slams but there's no hard rule........
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:QSU_d.462$M17.12408@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
Calimero wrote:>
That is a pity for someone like you. Lloyd's probably right - Graf at>>her majestic best - MN/Evert stood flat-footed as winners whizzed by>>them left & right....>
Yeah Whisper but it was a meaningless TUNEUP.........>
There wasn't the pressure of a slam on the line yes, but Graf was up & commer & trying to make a statement, MN trying to hold her off.
It's easier to swing free & easy in a tune-up, so even though you can play purer tennis like Graf did, it means much more to squeak out a slam win playing crap technically..
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message> news:F38%d.14125$N15.322@okepread06...>
Of course you do, unless you have a compelling reason. Examples would be>
W which was boycotted, 93-96 women's slams sans Seles, Lendl's AO win over>>Edberg when Edberg defaulted.>
What about 92 and 96 AO when Graf wasn't there? Selectivity.........
He'll say injuries don't count as extenuating circs - part of the game etc.
No, that tells us nothing, because slams are the recognized championship>>events and we can presume players are primed for them. No one ever regrets>>losing a Masters final or a Lipton final,>
They don't? Who says? I've seen players give up in slams and fight their> guts out in non-slams. No doubt ON AVERAGE most players try harder at slams> but there's no hard rule........
You think Shara would lose 6-0 6-0 at Wimbledon....?
Becker 3-0 v Lendl at Wimbledon, Sampras 3-0 v Becker at Wimbledon.> >
Different Beckers..........> >
Becker arguably played his best ever tennis in '96....
I wish it were so.. then again Pete didn't beat Becker in 96. He beat him in 93 (clearly inferior to years past), 95 (strong Becker, but not up to 85-90 form) and 97 Becker (fading fast...).
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
Of course you do, unless you have a compelling reason. Examples would be> 73> > W which was boycotted, 93-96 women's slams sans Seles, Lendl's AO win
over> > Edberg when Edberg defaulted.>
What about 92 and 96 AO when Graf wasn't there? Selectivity.........
Why wasn't Graf there...?
No, that tells us nothing, because slams are the recognized championship> > events and we can presume players are primed for them. No one ever
regrets> > losing a Masters final or a Lipton final,>
They don't? Who says? I've seen players give up in slams and fight their> guts out in non-slams. No doubt ON AVERAGE most players try harder at
slams> but there's no hard rule........
On average is what matters because we're making categorical statements...
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:R_9%d.637$M17.17577@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > They don't? Who says? I've seen players give up in slams and fight their> > guts out in non-slams. No doubt ON AVERAGE most players try harder at slams> > but there's no hard rule........>
You think Shara would lose 6-0 6-0 at Wimbledon....?
If she was being outblasted sure. Considering that she's striving to be #1 do you think she's not giving it everything?
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:%Mh%d.14146$N15.7121@okepread06...
They don't? Who says? I've seen players give up in slams and fight their> > guts out in non-slams. No doubt ON AVERAGE most players try harder at> slams> > but there's no hard rule........>
On average is what matters because we're making categorical statements...
Wrong. Historians try to judge each event on its own terms and try to take all factors into account. A Masters Final between Hewitt and Fed is going to be fought just as hard as a Slam match and I'd like to see you prove otherwise. OTOH I wouldn't rate Queen's as a big deal because it's obviously a real tuneup........
They don't? Who says? I've seen players give up in slams and fight
their> > > guts out in non-slams. No doubt ON AVERAGE most players try harder at> > slams> > > but there's no hard rule........> >
On average is what matters because we're making categorical
statements...>
Wrong. Historians try to judge each event on its own terms and try to take> all factors into account.
No, only if they are interested in what makes an event unique. If they are trying to discern patterns across events, they look for commonalities.
A Masters Final between Hewitt and Fed is going to> be fought just as hard as a Slam match
That's preposterous. No one ever regrests losing a Masters final. Slam finals losses are never forgotten. Just ask Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Mac, etc.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:7R9%d.634$M17.17577@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
It's easier to swing free & easy in a tune-up,
Given that it was in February on a hardcourt in the USA with the next slam over four months away on a different continent on a completely different surface how was it a "tuneup"?
No, only if they are interested in what makes an event unique. If they
trying to discern patterns across events, they look for commonalities.>
You're confusing "Philosophy of History" for History itself........
ROFL!
A Masters Final between Hewitt and Fed is going to> > > be fought just as hard as a Slam match> >
That's preposterous. No one ever regrests losing a Masters final. Slam> > finals losses are never forgotten. Just ask Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Mac,> > etc.>
Oh, and you have? Some of those non-slam Finals have been full-on> dogfights........
None of them are close to slams. Hey you admitted this yourself.
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message> news:%Mh%d.14146$N15.7121@okepread06...>
They don't? Who says? I've seen players give up in slams and fight their>>>guts out in non-slams. No doubt ON AVERAGE most players try harder at>>
slams>>
but there's no hard rule........>>
On average is what matters because we're making categorical statements...>
Wrong. Historians try to judge each event on its own terms and try to take> all factors into account. A Masters Final between Hewitt and Fed is going to> be fought just as hard as a Slam match and I'd like to see you prove> otherwise. OTOH I wouldn't rate Queen's as a big deal because it's obviously> a real tuneup........
Proof is not necessary as it's basic common sense. They may well try 100%, but the stakes are far lower so they don't feel anywhere near the same pressures.
eg Fed may decide to come out & blast everything at the lines, go for 2nd serve aces, approach net on dodgy balls etc - ie low % play he wouldn't dream of attempting in a slam as stakes are too high.
Mickelson shooting 59 the other day is nothing compared to doing it say last rd at Masters to win by a shot.
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message> news:dJs%d.15272$N15.15215@okepread06...>
Wrong. Historians try to judge each event on its own terms and try to>
take>
all factors into account.>>
No, only if they are interested in what makes an event unique. If they are>>trying to discern patterns across events, they look for commonalities.>
You're confusing "Philosophy of History" for History itself........>
A Masters Final between Hewitt and Fed is going to>>>be fought just as hard as a Slam match>>
That's preposterous. No one ever regrests losing a Masters final. Slam>>finals losses are never forgotten. Just ask Lendl, Becker, Sampras, Mac,>>etc.>
Oh, and you have? Some of those non-slam Finals have been full-on> dogfights........>
Sure, & fun for us to watch. But we can't assign greatness for performances at 'less than great events', for obvious reasons.
Tiger shot 59 in practice for what it's worth.... does it at British Open & it will be discussed forever....
This is why I have a big problem rating Pancho....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:7R9%d.634$M17.17577@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
It's easier to swing free & easy in a tune-up,>
Given that it was in February on a hardcourt in the USA with the next slam> over four months away on a different continent on a completely different> surface how was it a "tuneup"?>
When you see me using 'tune-up' you can assume it includes practice-type events where there is zero on the line legacy-wise....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:m0w%d.202$8O2.4530@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
This is why I have a big problem rating Pancho....
Apparently those head-to-head Tours were some of the most intense tennis ever played. If you lost you became an also-ran; if you won you were the Champ..........
Generally speaking these tune-ups are not a big indicator of greatness,>> for obvious reasons...>
Circular reasoning again.> You're full of it and not even aware.
I've already demonstrated the best players don't give their best at tune-ups - Federer admitted he wasn't going to stretch for everything at Colonial just before AO. If he says that, are we going to count him losing there as significant...?
