The Tennis Thread
Discussion
This article does a pretty good job of trying to objectively quantify who the best female tennis player was across different eras. Williams basically doesn't measure up to Graf, Evert, Martina.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/serena-william...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/serena-william...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That quote is taken out of context. As what they then prove using the analysis is that the talent faced by Williams has in fact decreased over time rather than increased. So when you quote the entire section they actually disprove that logic that applies to " most sports" It may sound bizarre to suggest that Williams’s opposition is weak, considering that modern athletes tend to get better and better. For most sports, in a strict time-traveling scenario today’s middling pros would likely beat our heroes of yesteryear, and we don’t have any reason to think this is less true in tennis — if anything, with population increases and worldwide popularity, the talent pool for tennis is probably larger than ever. Yet we engage in cross-era comparisons all the time, and some greats have it easier than others. So what to do?
The somewhat recursive resolution offered by Elo is fairly intuitive: The tier underneath you is “strong” if it consistently beats the tier beneath it, which is strong if it consistently beats the next-lowest tier, and so on. And the tier beneath Williams has been in free-fall:
We can’t directly compare players of today with players of, say, the 1980s, but Elo allows us to compare them indirectly, through common opponents. It builds comparisons, matchup by matchup. Williams herself is a bridge between eras. And her results now compared to then — along with everyone else’s matches against both eras — feed into Elo, which tells us that Williams has been getting better, but the relative strength of other top players has been getting worse. In fact, the gap between Williams and the next tier is so big right now that the most she can gain — about 5 Elo points for a win against Sharapova — is dwarfed by the 15+ points she drops any time she loses. For example, Williams’s loss in the semifinals of an event in Canada to No. 20 Belinda Bencic earlier this month essentially wiped out all the ratings points she had gained at Wimbledon. (If that sounds crazy, think of it this way: Williams’s rating is so good that Elo considers her more likely to win Wimbledon than to lose one match to someone like Bencic.)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Which in a sense makes the point doesn't it? I don't think anyone would dispute that as a game tennis has changed enormously over the last 40 years and that if you could somehow put (say) Bjorn Borg with his wooden racket against almost anyone from the current top 50 he'd lose. However, for me at least that doesn't alter the fact that Borg was a great player and if he'd grown-up in the current era he'd still be right up there with the very best. People seem to confuse the fact that the game has developed with who is (or was) the best and the two are simply different things IMO. Just because someone is the best in the current era (when the game is at its most developed) doesn't automatically make them the best of all time; they're the best of their era and - well that's it actually!bigunit00 said:
This article does a pretty good job of trying to objectively quantify who the best female tennis player was across different eras. Williams basically doesn't measure up to Graf, Evert, Martina.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/serena-william...
An interesting read. Although if we use that rating system for the men then Federer comes in at number 5. Mmm not sure about that.http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/serena-william...
http://sleepomeno.github.io/blog/2015/09/08/Histor...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think a big part of the problem is that people look at how the game has developed across eras (which is fair enough), conclude that the game is probably at the highest level it's ever been (which is also probably fair comment), and then decide that whoever is at the top in the current era must by definition be the best ever. There's an undeniable logic to that but frankly it's just a first class degree in the blatantly obvious! What's far more shaky - but what a lot of people do - is to say that because someone is the best in the current era they're also the greatest of all time; comparing players from different eras is apples and pears and hence not a valid exercise IMO. To say the game has moved on is fair but to say that (for example) Djokovic is a greater player than Borg isn't necessarily correct; he's playing in an era where the level's higher but in my view that doesn't necessarily make him a greater champion or competitor.
Not long to go now until the final - I think it will be a bit closer than Wimbledon but Djokovic will again come out on top. Best of 5 sets and a slow(ish) court, compared to Cinci at least, should give Djokovic the edge.
I see that Becker (and McEnroe) has been whinging about Federer's new tactic of running in and taking his opponents' second serve on the half volley. Not sure why really as it seems a legitimate tactic to use. It also led to Djokovic double faulting more than he usually does when these two met last month.
I see that Becker (and McEnroe) has been whinging about Federer's new tactic of running in and taking his opponents' second serve on the half volley. Not sure why really as it seems a legitimate tactic to use. It also led to Djokovic double faulting more than he usually does when these two met last month.
article said:
Boris Becker says players in his day would have gone "straight at" Roger Federer if he tried his 'sneak-attack' strategy.
Federer used the tactic, which involves charging towards the net as his opponent serves, during a dominant 6-3 6-3 6-1 scamper into the semi-finals of the US Open against Frenchman Richard Gasquet on Wednesday night.
Federer uncorked 50 winners to a mere eight from Gasquet and the Swiss maestro has been looking like a new and improved player of late.
But his net rushing manoeuvre has had a few ex-professionals discussing the tactic in the Sky Sports studio.
"If he would have played a [John] McEnroe, [Jimmy] Connors, [Ivan] Lendl or even me, we would have said 'Roger, in all honesty I like you very much [but] I'll go straight at you'," Becker said.
"In my generation guys would not have accepted as it is now.
"It's almost disrespecting the other guy's serve. Everybody talks about that's his new strategy - he comes in. It's within the rules."
http://www.skysports.com/tennis/us-open/news/32833/9985560/roger-federers-new-tactics-slammed-by-boris-beckerFederer used the tactic, which involves charging towards the net as his opponent serves, during a dominant 6-3 6-3 6-1 scamper into the semi-finals of the US Open against Frenchman Richard Gasquet on Wednesday night.
Federer uncorked 50 winners to a mere eight from Gasquet and the Swiss maestro has been looking like a new and improved player of late.
But his net rushing manoeuvre has had a few ex-professionals discussing the tactic in the Sky Sports studio.
"If he would have played a [John] McEnroe, [Jimmy] Connors, [Ivan] Lendl or even me, we would have said 'Roger, in all honesty I like you very much [but] I'll go straight at you'," Becker said.
"In my generation guys would not have accepted as it is now.
"It's almost disrespecting the other guy's serve. Everybody talks about that's his new strategy - he comes in. It's within the rules."
anonymous said:
[redacted]
article said:
While the move has been amusing for tennis fans and is generally well-regarded by tennis analysts, ESPN’s John McEnroe is a notable critic.
“He’s basically trying to half-volley a male pro tennis players’s serve and take it and come in on it,” McEnroe said after Federer used SABR for the first time in Wednesday’s quarterfinal win. “It wouldn’t be much of a stretch for me to regard that as insulting. ‘Is my serve that bad that he can do that?'”
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/what-is-roger-federers-new-sabr-move“He’s basically trying to half-volley a male pro tennis players’s serve and take it and come in on it,” McEnroe said after Federer used SABR for the first time in Wednesday’s quarterfinal win. “It wouldn’t be much of a stretch for me to regard that as insulting. ‘Is my serve that bad that he can do that?'”
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Didn't see the match but suffice to say I was gutted (albeit not surprised) that Federer didn't win. Just looking at the stats doesn't always tell the full story but on the face of it the failure to convert so many break points does indeed appear to have cost Fed dear; was that because he played a lot of them badly or was it more a case of Djokovic raising his game to fend them off? In the end I guess you just have to say well done to the Djoker as from the sounds of it he was playing a relatively partisan crowd as well as Federer and still came through! anonymous said:
[redacted]
Hmm, like most of the great players Djokovic usually plays the big points very well and sounds like that was the case again last night. He's also excellent at producing his best performance at a tournament when it matters most and, just as at Wimbledon, it appears he did the same at the US Open. To be fair to the bloke he's not number 1 for nothing!BlackLabel said:
Not long to go now until the final - I think it will be a bit closer than Wimbledon but Djokovic will again come out on top. Best of 5 sets and a slow(ish) court, compared to Cinci at least, should give Djokovic the edge.
I see that Becker (and McEnroe) has been whinging about Federer's new tactic of running in and taking his opponents' second serve on the half volley. Not sure why really as it seems a legitimate tactic to use. It also led to Djokovic double faulting more than he usually does when these two met last month.
Indeed a great match last night.I see that Becker (and McEnroe) has been whinging about Federer's new tactic of running in and taking his opponents' second serve on the half volley. Not sure why really as it seems a legitimate tactic to use. It also led to Djokovic double faulting more than he usually does when these two met last month.
article said:
Boris Becker says players in his day would have gone "straight at" Roger Federer if he tried his 'sneak-attack' strategy.
Federer used the tactic, which involves charging towards the net as his opponent serves, during a dominant 6-3 6-3 6-1 scamper into the semi-finals of the US Open against Frenchman Richard Gasquet on Wednesday night.
Federer uncorked 50 winners to a mere eight from Gasquet and the Swiss maestro has been looking like a new and improved player of late.
But his net rushing manoeuvre has had a few ex-professionals discussing the tactic in the Sky Sports studio.
"If he would have played a [John] McEnroe, [Jimmy] Connors, [Ivan] Lendl or even me, we would have said 'Roger, in all honesty I like you very much [but] I'll go straight at you'," Becker said.
"In my generation guys would not have accepted as it is now.
"It's almost disrespecting the other guy's serve. Everybody talks about that's his new strategy - he comes in. It's within the rules."
http://www.skysports.com/tennis/us-open/news/32833/9985560/roger-federers-new-tactics-slammed-by-boris-beckerFederer used the tactic, which involves charging towards the net as his opponent serves, during a dominant 6-3 6-3 6-1 scamper into the semi-finals of the US Open against Frenchman Richard Gasquet on Wednesday night.
Federer uncorked 50 winners to a mere eight from Gasquet and the Swiss maestro has been looking like a new and improved player of late.
But his net rushing manoeuvre has had a few ex-professionals discussing the tactic in the Sky Sports studio.
"If he would have played a [John] McEnroe, [Jimmy] Connors, [Ivan] Lendl or even me, we would have said 'Roger, in all honesty I like you very much [but] I'll go straight at you'," Becker said.
"In my generation guys would not have accepted as it is now.
"It's almost disrespecting the other guy's serve. Everybody talks about that's his new strategy - he comes in. It's within the rules."
And there's nothing wrong with Federer's chip and charge technique.
Becker attacked Federer in a similar way during Wimbledon 2015 when he openely questioned Federer's friendly nature; saying he could never be as friendly as his image suggests (or similar words). Seems to part of the strategy.
Speaking about disrespectfull....
Edited by DeltonaS on Monday 14th September 23:44
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Caught the highlights of the final last night and from what they showed the SABR failed far more times than it worked; looked to me like Fed was usually either passed or lobbed and on the occasions he got a racket to the ball he invariably couldn't control the volley. I suppose the chip and charge may have put pressure on the second serve (and perhaps caused some additional double faults) but I can't imagine that Djokovic would have complained too much about the tactic - suspect he'd have been happy to play those odds all day! Overall it seemed a relatively close match (looking at the stats Djokovic only won 2 more points than Federer) but Novak generally appeared to play the big points a little better and that made the difference. Sad to see Fed lose another GS final and realistically he probably won't play in many more now; given how physically demanding his game is I can't see Djokovic playing at that level when he's 34 but his movement and defence really are exceptional at the moment!Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff