17 slam finals post 87..i can see how becker/edberg played their best tennis during lendl's 85-87 run.........it's obvious if you consider the reverse logic universe that takes place on the galaxy "lloyd vult decepi!"..
17 slam finals post 87..i can see how becker/edberg played their best
tennis> during lendl's 85-87 run.
This is misleading, because Edberg and Becker would have made 5-6 slam finals each between 85-87 if peak-Lendl hadn't been around to knock them off.
Oh wait a minute...Sorry, excuse me, i'll just slink out of here....
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
5 on HC from 18 opportunities as opposed to 3 1985-7 (in two of the three Edberg made the Semi and lost to the Tournament winner).
17 slam finals post 87..i can see how becker/edberg played their best
tennis> during lendl's 85-87 run.........it's obvious if you consider the reverse> logic universe that takes place on the galaxy "lloyd vult decepi!"..
Not hard to see why you deprecate stats if this is your idea of how it's done...........
17 slam finals post 87..i can see how becker/edberg played their best>
tennis>
during lendl's 85-87 run.>
This is misleading, because Edberg and Becker would have made 5-6 slam> finals each between 85-87 if peak-Lendl hadn't been around to knock them> off.>
Oh wait a minute...Sorry, excuse me, i'll just slink out of here....>
The thing about Lloyd is he can be so comprehensivley beaten in a thread (like this one), yet shrug it off, regroup & start again in a week or so.
Only 3 HC, note........despite around 18 opportunities as compared to only > 3> 1985-7.
How about looking at the comprehensive performance of Edberg in 85-87,
Edberg, (85-87)
USO 86-87 (semi). Wimbledon 4R (85), 3R(86), Semi (87) FO QF(85) , 2R (86), 1R (87) AO W (85,87),
2 slam wins and 3 slam semi and 1 quarter final. ( 6 quarter finals or better performance in slam), failed to reach QF 5 times.
Edberg ( 89 -91)
USO 3R ( 89), 1R ( 90), W(91) Wimbledon R/U(89, W(90), Semi(91) FO R/U(89), 1R(90), QF(91) AO QF(89), R/U(90), SF(91)
2 slam wins, 3 slam r/u, 2 semi and 2 quarter finals and only 3 times failed to pass 4th round in a slam. so out of 12 slams Edberg reached QF or better 9 times, compare to 85-87 when he contested 11 slams only 6 times got to the QF or better. So conclusion Edberg of 89-91 had 75% of chance to reach grand slam QF or better compare with 85-87 when he had about better than 50% chance to get to slam quarter or better. That is pretty easy to say Edberg was more at his peak in 89-91 rather than 85-87.
5 on HC from 18 opportunities as opposed to 3 1985-7 (in two of the three> Edberg made the Semi and lost to the Tournament winner).>
17 slam finals post 87..i can see how becker/edberg played their best> tennis>> during lendl's 85-87 run.........it's obvious if you consider the reverse>> logic universe that takes place on the galaxy "lloyd vult decepi!"..>
Not hard to see why you deprecate stats if this is your idea of how it's> done...........>
This is misleading, because Edberg and Becker would have made 5-6 slam> > finals each between 85-87 if peak-Lendl hadn't been around to knock them> > off.> >
Oh wait a minute...Sorry, excuse me, i'll just slink out of here....
The thing about Lloyd is he can be so comprehensivley beaten in a thread> (like this one), yet shrug it off, regroup & start again in a week or so.>
Dementia?
Yes, or something that makes him fact-resistant, or simply unable to acknowledge being wrong..?
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
5 on HC from 18 opportunities as opposed to 3 1985-7 (in two of the three> Edberg made the Semi and lost to the Tournament winner).>
17 slam finals post 87..i can see how becker/edberg played their best> tennis during lendl's 85-87 run.........it's obvious if you consider the > reverse>> logic universe that takes place on the galaxy "lloyd vult decepi!"..>
Not hard to see why you deprecate stats if this is your idea of how it's> done...
defacate rather than deprecate is proper word to use for %'s at cincy..GSs and GS finals mean quite a bit more
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:hRN4e.221$6_4.3054@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
2 slam wins, 3 slam r/u, 2 semi and 2 quarter finals> and only 3 times failed to pass 4th round in a slam.> so out of 12 slams Edberg reached QF or better 9 times,> compare to 85-87 when he contested 11 slams only> 6 times got to the QF or better. So conclusion Edberg> of 89-91 had 75% of chance to reach grand slam QF or> better compare with 85-87 when he had about better than> 50% chance to get to slam quarter or better. That is pretty> easy to say Edberg was more at his peak in 89-91 rather> than 85-87.
Undoubtedly he was a little better but then Bob was maintaining that he was barely any good at all from 1985-7. Oh, and your stats are skewed because they include ALL of 1985 when the period in question is from the 1985 USO on. From that period Edberg's slam performances on non-clay surfaces were rather good and fully comparable to his post-87 performances.........
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d32dbl$667$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:hRN4e.221$6_4.3054@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
2 slam wins, 3 slam r/u, 2 semi and 2 quarter finals>> and only 3 times failed to pass 4th round in a slam.>> so out of 12 slams Edberg reached QF or better 9 times,>> compare to 85-87 when he contested 11 slams only>> 6 times got to the QF or better. So conclusion Edberg>> of 89-91 had 75% of chance to reach grand slam QF or>> better compare with 85-87 when he had about better than>> 50% chance to get to slam quarter or better. That is pretty>> easy to say Edberg was more at his peak in 89-91 rather>> than 85-87.>
Undoubtedly he was a little better but then Bob was maintaining that he > was> barely any good at all from 1985-7. Oh, and your stats are skewed because> they include ALL of 1985 when the period in question is from the 1985 USO> on. From that period Edberg's slam performances on non-clay surfaces were> rather good and fully comparable to his post-87 performances.........
Bob was saying that 85-87 were not Edberg's peak years and I agree with that, I think my stats only proove that Edberg was at his peak during 89-91 and he was a better player than he was in 85-87. Most people agree Edberg was a top 4 player in 85-87 but he was not at his best yet. Edberg's performance in FO was rather ordinary in 85-87 with 1 QF finish.>
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d32dbl$667$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:hRN4e.221$6_4.3054@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
2 slam wins, 3 slam r/u, 2 semi and 2 quarter finals>> and only 3 times failed to pass 4th round in a slam.>> so out of 12 slams Edberg reached QF or better 9 times,>> compare to 85-87 when he contested 11 slams only>> 6 times got to the QF or better. So conclusion Edberg>> of 89-91 had 75% of chance to reach grand slam QF or>> better compare with 85-87 when he had about better than>> 50% chance to get to slam quarter or better. That is pretty>> easy to say Edberg was more at his peak in 89-91 rather>> than 85-87.>
Undoubtedly he was a little better but then Bob was maintaining that he > was> barely any good at all from 1985-7.
quit lying lloyd..i never said that..i said that they didn't play their peak tennis from 85-87 (lendl's dom yrs)..and it's true..don't cry.
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:Cub5e.503$%16.6243@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in > message news:d32dbl$667$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>>
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>> news:hRN4e.221$6_4.3054@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
2 slam wins, 3 slam r/u, 2 semi and 2 quarter finals>>> and only 3 times failed to pass 4th round in a slam.>>> so out of 12 slams Edberg reached QF or better 9 times,>>> compare to 85-87 when he contested 11 slams only>>> 6 times got to the QF or better. So conclusion Edberg>>> of 89-91 had 75% of chance to reach grand slam QF or>>> better compare with 85-87 when he had about better than>>> 50% chance to get to slam quarter or better. That is pretty>>> easy to say Edberg was more at his peak in 89-91 rather>>> than 85-87.>>
Undoubtedly he was a little better but then Bob was maintaining that he >> was>> barely any good at all from 1985-7. Oh, and your stats are skewed because>> they include ALL of 1985 when the period in question is from the 1985 USO>> on. From that period Edberg's slam performances on non-clay surfaces were>> rather good and fully comparable to his post-87 performances.........>
Bob was saying that 85-87 were not Edberg's peak years and I agree with > that, I think my stats only proove that Edberg was at his peak during > 89-91 and he was a better player than he was in 85-87. Most people agree > Edberg was a top 4 player in 85-87 but he was not at his best yet. > Edberg's performance in FO was rather ordinary in 85-87 with 1 QF finish.
yes, and this is all obvious stuff. dont' know why lloyd is fighting the obvious with such vigor.
Bob was saying that 85-87 were not Edberg's peak years and I agree with> that, I> think my stats only proove that Edberg was at his peak during 89-91 and he> was> a better player than he was in 85-87. Most people agree Edberg was a top 4> player> in 85-87 but he was not at his best yet. Edberg's performance in FO was> rather> ordinary in 85-87 with 1 QF finish.
Of course you're right.. it's astonishing this kind of basic stuff gets argued on rst..
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:Cub5e.503$%16.6243@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Bob was saying that 85-87 were not Edberg's peak years and I agree with> that, I> think my stats only proove that Edberg was at his peak during 89-91 and he> was> a better player than he was in 85-87. Most people agree Edberg was a top 4> player> in 85-87 but he was not at his best yet.
The difference is that Bob wasn't just saying that Edberg hadn't peaked in 1985-7 (which I have no problem with) but that he was a MILE below his peak......
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d352gt$3br$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"John" <jlang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:Cub5e.503$%16.6243@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>> Bob was saying that 85-87 were not Edberg's peak years and I agree with>> that, I>> think my stats only proove that Edberg was at his peak during 89-91 and >> he>> was>> a better player than he was in 85-87. Most people agree Edberg was a top >> 4>> player>> in 85-87 but he was not at his best yet.>
The difference is that Bob wasn't just saying that Edberg hadn't peaked in> 1985-7 (which I have no problem with) but that he was a MILE below his> peak...
liar lloyd! i said edberg was an excellent player (he won pre 87 slams already) but he wasn't the same edberg who won those USOs and beat becker at 2 W finals...
my pt is that the edberg of 88-92 would've taken some (many?) of lendl's slams right from under his nose..you can admit i'm right.
