Yes, but isn't this obvious ?summerblues wrote:So no factors are "missed", it is just that whoever adopts this definition does not value those other factors.
- Posts : 5418
Join date : 2013-05-03
Is what not obvious?Kim Jong-Un wrote:Yes, but isn't this obvious ?summerblues wrote:So no factors are "missed", it is just that whoever adopts this definition does not value those other factors.
- Posts : 4907
Join date : 2012-05-19
Tenez wrote:Djoko is another player "better" than Federer despite having a negative H2H. Sure conds helped Djoko but even on faster conds, it would still be a struggle for Federer. It is clear that with mouvement being so good, having a DHBH is a huge advantage.
Conds woudl have to be pretty fast to give Federer the advantage again. I mean faster than Dubai.
Federer, serves better (usually), volleys better, has a better FH, but all that is useless if Djoko can simply bombard his BH. until an UE comes along.
Nadal is pretty far behind Djoko now on slow hard....and I am pretty sure it's not going to be any closer on clay.Thta's why H2H only tell one side of the story...well they tell a good side, but it can hide a lot too. Same with the slam count.
What I like about the slam count however is that it shows, to some extend, how much you were able to differentiate yourselves from your peers.
Federer says it cleary, he calls his generation, the Nalby, Hewit, Roddick, Safin.....not the Nadal, Murray, Djoko.
A month later Djoko proved me right by beating Nadal quite convincingly.
- Posts : 20364
Join date : 2012-06-18
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum