Re: Grass - 2017

by Tenez Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:10 pm

Daniel wrote:
Tenez wrote:I know I sound like a broken record......but again the winners this week are a 34 and 35yo.

Yup. You are. These guys didn't win a slam or a Masters event. These things are seen as nothing but warm ups for Wimbledon. The only over 30s doing anything are Nadal Fed and sometimes Wawrinka. Zverev won Rome.

We'll see who wins Wimbledon. Where it counts.

And it's a record you don't like, isn't it?

If you want to consider slams only then you are even more in trouble.
regarding TMS1000 only Zverev won 1 this year the others 4 were won by 31yo+
Same for TMS500 as only Thiem won 1 as under 30 the other 7 TMS500 were won by 30yo or more.

Your only stats that you were holding on to is melting fast under June's hot temperature.

by N2D2L Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:24 pm

Tenez wrote:I know I sound like a broken record......but again the winners this week are a 34 and 35yo.

This isn't what you predicted though, you predicted back in 2014 if I recall correctly that the young guns are going to step up and making the current dominating crew extinct. If you want I can find the quotes!

by Tenez Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:52 pm

DECIMA wrote:
Tenez wrote:I know I sound like a broken record......but again the winners this week are a 34 and 35yo.

This isn't what you predicted though, you predicted back in 2014 if I recall correctly that the young guns are going to step up and making the current dominating crew extinct. If you want I can find the quotes!

I was right. Djoko and Murray are nowhere to be seen and Nadal will go back into his shelf after the clay season.

by N2D2L Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:22 pm

Tenez wrote:
DECIMA wrote:
Tenez wrote:I know I sound like a broken record......but again the winners this week are a 34 and 35yo.

This isn't what you predicted though, you predicted back in 2014 if I recall correctly that the young guns are going to step up and making the current dominating crew extinct. If you want I can find the quotes!

I was right. Djoko and Murray are nowhere to be seen and Nadal will go back into his shelf after the clay season.

Yeah but even then you are quite a few years late.

by N2D2L Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:36 pm

You just seem to use whatever happens as evidence you are 'right'.

When older people do well you tell Daniel about how the winners of major events have been 30+, but a few years ago you used to always repeatedly say how you thought the young guns would come and make the older players obsolete- no doubt if instead of what has happened the younger players had done well you would be smugly pointing to those predictions.

by Daniel Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:16 pm

You're too short sighted to realize how silly you are going to look in the next few years after Nadal and Federer are finished. Those type of players playing well into their 30s are an exception, not a rule. Federer is the greatest there has been at this age. You use these 2 players to bolster an argument you feel destroys the entire known history of the Open Era. And it doesn't. You cling to results in ATP 250 and 500. Any little win is seen as proof that older players are better.

The history of the Open Era is on my side. Not to mention, Thiem and Zverev have been doing very well recently. Federer is a freak and may just manage Wimbledon. But he's an exception - like Nadal on clay. A player that comes along once every 50 years. Once they are gone, you are going to look colossally stupid when the top 10 and all the winners return to being 21-27. The Slams certainly will.

Also, as DECIMA points out, you're like Bogbrush (the "Great Oracle") - you state things and then only return to big up predictions or statements you have been correct on (and it isn't that many). Confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

They should start calling you and Bogbrush Mr and Mrs Confirmation Bias.

I remember you telling us all how Nishikori was going to dominate - and how he was already better than Djokovic. How did that work out? The guy is the best all right - at retiring.

by Tenez Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:17 pm

I make 2 points which may seem contradicting but are not:

1 - Players typically do not produce their best tennis at 26 but closer to 30. This doesn't need to be proven anymore....unlike you who believed federer suddenly declined in 2013 when clearly he had a back problem then, likewise about Nadal. You were so wrong.....once again! Eat your humble cake.

2 - Because of the first point I am saying do not over rate the road runners who are lucky to have been very successful thanks to using new technologies (string and extra red cells) against the old generation who learnt the game on fast surface and then got conds all over the slams slowed down. But unlike all past generations in the open era, there has seen a stagnation in new technologies so this new generation has no extra help to beat the top players.

What I was saying in 2014 terefore is that this new generation (Cilic, Nishi, Dimi, etc....) will be better than the RRunners and should beat them soon. I agree they are still lagging behind and will never have the chance to win as many slams as teh RRunners generation who benefited from having new weapons against their older rivals.

by Tenez Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:25 pm

Daniel wrote:You're too short sighted to realize how silly you are going to look in the next few years after Nadal and Federer are finished. Those type of players playing well into their 30s are an exception, not a rule. Federer is the greatest there has been at this age. You use these 2 players to bolster an argument you feel destroys the entire known history of the Open Era. And it doesn't. You cling to results in ATP 250 and 500. Any little win is seen as proof that older players are better.

The history of the Open Era is on my side. Not to mention, Thiem and Zverev have been doing very well recently. Federer is a freak and may just manage Wimbledon. But he's an exception - like Nadal on clay. A player that comes along once every 50 years. Once they are gone, you are going to look colossally stupid when the top 10 and all the winners return to being 21-27. The Slams certainly will.

Also, as DECIMA points out, you're like Bogbrush (the "Great Oracle") - you state things and then only return to big up predictions or statements you have been correct on (and it isn't that many). Fake positive reinforcement. I remember you telling us all how Nishikori was going to dominate - and how he was already better than Djokovic. How did that work out? The guy is the best all right - at retiring.

You are too stubborn, short sighted and clearly of bad faith to admit you are wrong. It's not about Federer and Nadal....it's about Stan, Murray, Djoko, Lopez, Muller, etc...

It's not about slams, who have all been won by 29+ players for the last 2 years, 28+yo for the last 3 but the whole tour being aging like it ages in the pre-pro era.

You have been so wrong its comical! Share the humble cake with Amri ..you are a fine team you two! Laugh

by Daniel Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:02 am

Murray? What's he been up to lately?
What have any of the others been up to in Slams and Masters events? Since when did ATP 250 and 500 become the barometer? Ah, yeah, since your argument depended on them. This is an absurdly weak era in terms of the younger players coming through. That explains things more than age does.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:27 am

My point was Tenez that you like covering yourself, so whatever the results are you use it as 'proof' you were right.
If the young players did do well between 2014-2016, I'm literally 100% sure you would be bringing up all those all quotes where you kept promising that 'Players X is about to make a big breakthrough' etc. Pretty sure even back in 2013 after Dimitrov beat Djokovic in Madrid you were very positive about his chances of winning a Slam within next few years.
I can't remember which year it was, I think 2014, where you declared that we would have a new number 1 by the end of that year.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:41 am

Daniel wrote:This is an absurdly weak era in terms of the younger players coming through. That explains things more than age does.

Yes the young players just haven't been champion quality. Nishikori is fragile, Raonic is too reliant on serve, Dimitrov's groundstrokes aren't consistent enough, Kyrgios has time but currently not mentally right, Thiem is consistent on clay but frankly not even close to where Murray was at his age, etc.

I do actually think that when it comes to explaining the top 50 as a whole (average age has increased), what Tenez is saying about no new technology coming through has a lot of validity... but what I had to call out is Tenez's habit of covering all the bases so that whatever happens he can claim he is right.

I am humble enough to admit that I didn't see Federer or Nadal resurgence coming, but that doesn't mean any of them are peaking. Federer is a genius, and he has made up for what has declined with age with fantastic serving and aggressive returning. If you look at players who do well 35+, cheap points are very important. His rallies and overall groundstrokes are still not where they were when he was mid-twenties. BTW I noticed Tenez said last month that Thiem now is better than Federer in his mid-twenties. Ppl wrongly labelled me a Federer hater but I've never said anything as insulting to mid-twenties Federer than that.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:42 am

Daniel wrote:Murray? What's he been up to lately?

Nothing! He is just world number 1, Wimbledon title holder and ...he is 30!

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:44 am

DECIMA wrote:My point was Tenez that you like covering yourself, so whatever the results are you use it as 'proof' you were right.
If the young players did do well between 2014-2016, I'm literally 100% sure you would be bringing up all those all quotes where you kept promising that 'Players X is about to make a big breakthrough' etc. Pretty sure even back in 2013 after Dimitrov beat Djokovic in Madrid you were very positive about his chances of winning a Slam within next few years.
I can't remember which year it was, I think 2014, where you declared that we would have a new number 1 by the end of that year.

No. I am very consistent...I have been saying players were "probably not peaking at 26/27" since 2009. Now we have the proof in the pudding.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:02 am

DECIMA wrote: BTW I noticed Tenez said last month that Thiem now is better than Federer in his mid-twenties. Ppl wrongly labelled me a Federer hater but I've never said anything as insulting to mid-twenties Federer than that.

Yes. I hold on to that...on clay. Only because federer had a smaller frame and could not keep on running a la Nadal or Thiem. Nadal 2006/7 is really not nearly as good as Rafa today so to see Thiem able to rally with him is quite impressive.

I however think that had Fed learnt to play with today conds and a bigger racquet, he would have never lost to Nadal....well bar the odd match maybe, Like Fed loses to Berds every Feb 29th.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:04 am

Tenez wrote:
No. I am very consistent...I have been saying players were "probably not peaking at 26/27" since 2009. Now we have the proof in the pudding.

OK firstly you dodged what I actually said there (regarding you covering all bases with constant predictions about how a young gun is about to become a star for last 4 years).

Secondly, consistent since 2009? OK, let's have a look.

Tenez Thu Apr 05, 2012:
Tenez- Of course this clay season is going to be key for him to remain at number 2 but imo it's just a question of months before he starts sliding seriously, especially if he cannot accumulate enough points on clay which has been the surface that saved him all those years of much lower ranking.
Laverfan- Any player at the top who starts losing matches early in tourneys has similar dilemma, like Federer or Murray.
Tenez- Yes LF, it will happen to Federer soon too because of his age.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:09 am

Tenez wrote:
DECIMA wrote: BTW I noticed Tenez said last month that Thiem now is better than Federer in his mid-twenties. Ppl wrongly labelled me a Federer hater but I've never said anything as insulting to mid-twenties Federer than that.

Yes. I hold on to that...on clay.

I don't care if it's clay or sludge; Federer 2006 wouldn't be touched by this pathetic bottle-job Thiem on any surface even if he was handcuffed while playing.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:21 am

DECIMA wrote:
Tenez wrote:
No. I am very consistent...I have been saying players were "probably not peaking at 26/27" since 2009. Now we have the proof in the pudding.
OK firstly you dodged what I actually said there (regarding you covering all bases with constant predictions about how a young gun is about to become a star for last 4 years).

Secondly, consistent since 2009? OK, let's have a look.

Tenez Thu Apr 05, 2012:
Tenez- Of course this clay season is going to be key for him to remain at number 2 but imo it's just a question of months before he starts sliding seriously, especially if he cannot accumulate enough points on clay which has been the surface that saved him all those years of much lower ranking.
Laverfan- Any player at the top who starts losing matches early in tourneys has similar dilemma, like Federer or Murray.
Tenez- Yes LF, it will happen to Federer soon too because of his age.

I am not contradicting myself here. I never said Fed would peak at 35!!!. I am just surprised, maybe a bit less than everybody else, that players can improve well past their 30s. I knew some part of their game woudl improve past 30 or 35 even but all in all they would not, especially considering the match recovery factor certainly getting worse after 27.

In FO 2010 (not 2009 sorry), I saw fed lose to Soderling....yet it occured to me in that match that he was playing better on clay than before. That is when I started to realise that players kept improving well past their 26th anniversary.

And this is why I am surprised younger players are not as successful as I thought they woudl be cause clearly players are gaining more from experience than I even thought in the first place.

by Daniel Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:26 am

You've been sussed Tenez. If Nishikori had won 2 or 3 slams, you'd be posting quotes about how you knew all along he was a world beater. It's just the same Bogbrush handybook. Confirmation bias.

Federer has weaker opposition now than he did in 2006-12. How Many slams has he won since 2013? As for Thiem being as good as Fed on clay! Or better! Laugh

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:28 am

Tenez wrote:
DECIMA wrote:
Secondly, consistent since 2009? OK, let's have a look.

Tenez Thu Apr 05, 2012:
Tenez- Of course this clay season is going to be key for him to remain at number 2 but imo it's just a question of months before he starts sliding seriously, especially if he cannot accumulate enough points on clay which has been the surface that saved him all those years of much lower ranking.
Laverfan- Any player at the top who starts losing matches early in tourneys has similar dilemma, like Federer or Murray.
Tenez- Yes LF, it will happen to Federer soon too because of his age.

I am not contradicting myself here. I never said Fed would peak at 35!!!.

He was 30 at the time and you said he would 'soon' start losing matches early due to age.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:35 am

Daniel wrote:You've been sussed Tenez. If Nishikori had won 2 or 3 slams, you'd be posting quotes about how you knew all along he was a world beater.

Yes I remember the hyperbolic statements about Nishikori winning Slams imminently too, but can't remember the exact time and date so can't get the quote. Try and find it.

Daniel wrote:
As for Thiem being as good as Fed on clay! Or better!

Thiem is better on clay now than 2006 Federer at his athletic prime (remember Rome 2006!); and this whole theory started when Tenez watched Fed's 2010 clay loss to Soderling where he played a bit crap with many UEs and concluded it was better than 2006 Federer.
As I said a few posts above, I do actually agree with Tenez's point about the lack of new technology meaning youngsters don't have an edge, which partly explains why top 50 has such a high average age, but frankly if you say as many wildly different things as Tenez does it's impossible for them all to be wrong.
If Federer did start 'losing early in tournaments soon due to age' after aged 30 as Tenez said in 2012, no doubt Tenez would be bringing up that quote and using it as proof he knew what age would do to Roger.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:35 am

DECIMA wrote:
Tenez wrote:
DECIMA wrote:
Secondly, consistent since 2009? OK, let's have a look.

Tenez Thu Apr 05, 2012:
Tenez- Of course this clay season is going to be key for him to remain at number 2 but imo it's just a question of months before he starts sliding seriously, especially if he cannot accumulate enough points on clay which has been the surface that saved him all those years of much lower ranking.
Laverfan- Any player at the top who starts losing matches early in tourneys has similar dilemma, like Federer or Murray.
Tenez- Yes LF, it will happen to Federer soon too because of his age.

I am not contradicting myself here. I never said Fed would peak at 35!!!.
He was 30 at the time and you said he would 'soon' start losing matches early due to age.

Exactly. As I said I did not envisage him to stay that good much longer. My view then is that we would see a decline after 31 or 32....so a year later max (as he was 3 months short of being 31 when I said that).

I can only base my theory or thinking on what I observe. I certainly did not know what woudl happen past 30. I coudl see some players were having good results past 30...but that was it.

I still think federer's best woudl have been around 30-32...had he adopted that larger racquet earlier....though I believe knowing timing can improve past your 35. Just look at how old are the doubles top players.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:46 am

Daniel wrote:You've been sussed Tenez. If Nishikori had won 2 or 3 slams, you'd be posting quotes about how you knew all along he was a world beater. It's just the same Bogbrush handybook. Confirmation bias.

Federer has weaker opposition now than he did in 2006-12. How Many slams has he won since 2013? As for Thiem being as good as Fed on clay! Or better!

You have not swallowed the bitter pill BB gave you. smiley

and likewise you have difficulty swallowing the lecture I gave you on players peaking past their 26th birthday. Even Amri let's you down on this one it seems. You are on your own Daniel. Winking

yes Nishi does not deliver, either the mind or the body is letting him down. I think he is struggling with fitness. I can't predict those I am afraid.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:51 am

Tenez on 9th June 2012:

Raonic, delpotro, dolgo, Harison and others we don't know yet are already on their way to create upsets. Not all will succeed but they will get there before Djoko and Nadal decline. They will get used to that game and find the weapons to defeat it.
While we will have players like Rao, Delpo Dolgo able to hit through some those current players, otherswill becomes better retireving versions than Djoko and Nadal to also give Rao and his peers a very tough opposition. Tomic can be seen as a possible better retriever than Djoko ever will be.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:59 am

Tenez wrote:
I still think federer's best woudl have been around 30-32...had he adopted that larger racquet earlier...

Well that's a very convenient thing to say now in mid-2017 isn't it, but the fact is in 2012 instead of saying that you said that Federer aged 30 would 'soon' start losing matches in tournaments early because 'of age'.
If he did start losing early soon after you said that, you would use it as proof your great tennis analysis has fantastic predictive power.
As I said you are being shown up here to be someone who says so many wildly different things that you can always claim u were correct later.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:19 am

You are a bit silly here. Did you expect me to say in 2012 that Federer woudl peak at 36? I did believe then that players peaked between 29 and 32. And I still believe that's the case. They can play better after that on the day but usually can;t string matches due to recovery problems. And it is very much down to the players too, motovations, skills, etc...

I for instance believe that fed may have lost the AO final had he not got that extra day rest (said it here before).

Again I base my views on what I see....therefore I could not say in 2012 how fed woudl play in 2017...and I certainly don;t think he woud play better or as well now had he kept his 90inch racquet.

What dont you understand?

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:23 am

Tenez wrote:You are a bit silly here. Did you expect me to say in 2012 that Federer woudl peak at 36? I did believe then that players peaked between 29 and 32.

What?
If you thought players peaked between 29 and 32 why did you say when Federer was 30 that he would soon start losing matches early in tournaments due to age? You would say he has a good 1-2 years of peak tennis left before declining.
Can someone ring up the people who write the dictionary and tell them to get their pens out because the word 'soon' is being given one hell of a redefinition here.

by Daniel Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:54 am

As Decima says, when you make every prediction and definition, it's easy to go back and cherry pick what is suitable. Mystic Meg logic. "I'm seeing a 29 year old Slam champion... or 30... or 31.... or 32...." "His name is Nishikori... or Raonic.... or Cilic.... or Wawrinka"

by bogbrush Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:53 am

Daniel, 2017 has not been a great season for you this far but I can't help but admire your persistence and dogged determination to hold on. Yes, it's a bit like how a crab holds on to a bait as it's hauled from the sea to its death, but it's fascinating to witness.

Certainly by now I'd have admitted I had been proven comprehensively wrong, but that's obviously a hypothetical scenario as I never am.

by Slippy Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:09 am

DECIMA wrote:Tenez on 9th June 2012:

Raonic, delpotro, dolgo, Harison and others we don't know yet are already on their way to create upsets. Not all will succeed but they will get there before Djoko and Nadal decline. They will get used to that game and find the weapons to defeat it.
While we will have players like Rao, Delpo Dolgo able to hit through some those current players, otherswill becomes better retireving versions than Djoko and Nadal to also give Rao and his peers a very tough opposition. Tomic can be seen as a possible better retriever than Djoko ever will be.

Tomic a better retriever than Djokovic??? Of all the poor analysis I've seen, the leaden footed Tomic ever having the potential to move better than Novak is right up there.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:16 am

Slippy wrote:
DECIMA wrote:Tenez on 9th June 2012:

Raonic, delpotro, dolgo, Harison and others we don't know yet are already on their way to create upsets. Not all will succeed but they will get there before Djoko and Nadal decline. They will get used to that game and find the weapons to defeat it.
While we will have players like Rao, Delpo Dolgo able to hit through some those current players, otherswill becomes better retireving versions than Djoko and Nadal to also give Rao and his peers a very tough opposition. Tomic can be seen as a possible better retriever than Djoko ever will be.
Tomic a better retriever than Djokovic??? Of all the poor analysis I've seen, the leaden footed Tomic ever having the potential to move better than Novak is right up there.

Well it is very difficult to predict how a youngster will evolve. But what I said remeains true....Djoko, Murray and Nadal, like Federer at his time, will find better players before they decline. Well actually Federer might be an excepton. Djoko got beaten twice by Kyrgios this year and Murray keeps losing to everybody. Regarding nadal, I must say he keeps dominating where fitness is key, which means science is improving faster than youngsters!, yet we will have to see what he can do outside clay where more skills are needed.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:17 am

bogbrush wrote:Daniel, 2017 has not been a great season for you this far but I can't help but admire your persistence and dogged determination to hold on. Yes, it's a bit like how a crab holds on to a bait as it's hauled from the sea to its death, but it's fascinating to witness.

Certainly by now I'd have admitted I had been proven comprehensively wrong, but that's obviously a hypothetical scenario as I never am.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:02 pm

Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in Halle.

by Slippy Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:52 pm

Not much they could do is there? They've already given out wild cards, so he has to qualify. On the plus side, his ranking is now in the top 100 so he will have direct slam entry (providing it doesn't drop) moving forwards.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:15 pm

bogbrush wrote:Daniel, 2017 has not been a great season for you this far but I can't help but admire your persistence and dogged determination to hold on. Yes, it's a bit like how a crab holds on to a bait as it's hauled from the sea to its death, but it's fascinating to witness.

Certainly by now I'd have admitted I had been proven comprehensively wrong, but that's obviously a hypothetical scenario as I never am.

You just go after posters you don't like and the ones you do like, you give a free pass; if I had just found quotes from Daniel that I had found for Tenez, you would be making 200 sarcastic jokes on why thinking Ryan Harrison will breakthrough or Tomic will better than Djokovic is worthy of ridicule.
Very easy going after a Nadal fan like me on this forum, with everyone else on your side (as forum has more Fed fans than Nadal fans), or even going after a newer poster like Daniel; criticising Tenez would perhaps take more balls
Btw as for you never having been proven comprehensively wrong, I have some examples of debates in past 1-2 years where we were on the same side and it's clear from these debates that we both didn't see Fed or Nadal playing well in 2016 coming- atleast I am humble enough to admit I was wrong there. Now though I will focus on Tenez, as he was so smug yesterday.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:29 pm

You are really getting silly Decima. A real fan who who suddenly reappear to boast about Nadal recent success you who had spend a year finishing him off.

And then you have the guts to look and search at 5 year old quotes, out of context, to find non prophetised predixtions about youngsters!!!.. ..is that all you found? You are a joke.
Tell us how more insightful you have been about this game and make us laugh!

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:30 pm

Tenez wrote:
Slippy wrote:
DECIMA wrote:Tenez on 9th June 2012:

Raonic, delpotro, dolgo, Harison and others we don't know yet are already on their way to create upsets. Not all will succeed but they will get there before Djoko and Nadal decline. They will get used to that game and find the weapons to defeat it.
While we will have players like Rao, Delpo Dolgo able to hit through some those current players, otherswill becomes better retireving versions than Djoko and Nadal to also give Rao and his peers a very tough opposition. Tomic can be seen as a possible better retriever than Djoko ever will be.
Tomic a better retriever than Djokovic??? Of all the poor analysis I've seen, the leaden footed Tomic ever having the potential to move better than Novak is right up there.
Well it is very difficult to predict how a youngster will evolve. But what I said remeains true...

No, unfortunately it doesn't remain true, at all, let's have a look at the rest of your post where you talked about Harrison, Tomic etc.:
"In short I don't know who will be dominating in 2 years but I know it won't be Nadal and Djokovic, certainly not as much as now."
Since you said that post, Djokovic has won 7 Slams and Nadal has won 5 slams- out of a possible 21. Only one of those 21 Slams has been won by someone younger than Djokovic, Marin Cilic.
So you weren't just wrong, you were catastrophically wrong.
Stagnating technology may explain the current trend of average age in top 50 going up and up, but it can't explain your mistake as you knew the technology Rao, Delpo, Dolgo, Harrison, and Tomic all used.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:40 pm

Maybe some people think I've been unfair to Tenez in accusing him of 'covering all bases'- basically saying so many wildly different things that whatever happens afterwards he can selectively recall what he's said and act smug.

Case in point, within the space of a day:

Daniel on this very thread yesterday challenging Tenez on Murray doing well despite the fact he's getting older. This was Tenez' response:

Tenez wrote:
Daniel wrote:Murray? What's he been up to lately?
Nothing! He is just world number 1, Wimbledon title holder and ...he is 30!

Tenez to me just now, when I challenged him on the fact he predicted youngsters to breakthrough and dominate the already established top players including Murray every year from 2012-now:

Tenez wrote:Djoko got beaten twice by Kyrgios this year and Murray keeps losing to everybody.

Clear as daylight.

by bogbrush Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:53 pm

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Daniel, 2017 has not been a great season for you this far but I can't help but admire your persistence and dogged determination to hold on. Yes, it's a bit like how a crab holds on to a bait as it's hauled from the sea to its death, but it's fascinating to witness.

Certainly by now I'd have admitted I had been proven comprehensively wrong, but that's obviously a hypothetical scenario as I never am.
You just go after posters you don't like and the ones you do like, you give a free pass; if I had just found quotes from Daniel that I had found for Tenez, you would be making 200 sarcastic jokes on why thinking Ryan Harrison will breakthrough or Tomic will better than Djokovic is worthy of ridicule.
Very easy going after a Nadal fan like me on this forum, with everyone else on your side (as forum has more Fed fans than Nadal fans), or even going after a newer poster like Daniel; criticising Tenez would perhaps take more balls
Btw as for you never having been proven comprehensively wrong, I have some examples of debates in past 1-2 years where we were on the same side and it's clear from these debates that we both didn't see Fed or Nadal playing well in 2016 coming- atleast I am humble enough to admit I was wrong there. Now though I will focus on Tenez, as he was so smug yesterday.

I am scrupulously impartial, everyone knows that. Daniel had poked the nest further up the page and will be man enough to accept the hurly-burly of the forum.

As for my allegedly being "comprehensively wrong" I would be delighted to see examples, with sources. I think there's a difference between erroneous predictions, which even I sometimes make, and the kind of deep mining that Daniel is doing in the this thread.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:03 pm

bogbrush wrote:
I am scrupulously impartial, everyone knows that. Daniel had poked the nest further up the page and will be man enough to accept the hurly-burly of the forum.
As for my allegedly being "comprehensively wrong" I would be delighted to see examples, with sources.

Well I have a few examples, some where we were both on the same side. But not now, let's not focus on everything at once.

Bogbrush wrote:I am scrupulously impartial, everyone knows that.

OK then, so impartially tell me what you think about my recent analysis on Tenez's technique of covering all bases by making lots of ridiculous different predictions. And even an example a few posts above of using exactly the same results as evidence for two contradicting things, now that's a classic.

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:16 pm

on Tenez's technique of covering all bases by making lots of ridiculous different predictions. And even an example a few posts above of using exactly the same results as evidence for two contradicting things, now that's a classic.
===============
Which one?

by bogbrush Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:17 pm

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
I am scrupulously impartial, everyone knows that. Daniel had poked the nest further up the page and will be man enough to accept the hurly-burly of the forum.
As for my allegedly being "comprehensively wrong" I would be delighted to see examples, with sources.

Well I have a few examples, some where we were both on the same side. But not now, let's not focus on everything at once.

Bogbrush wrote:I am scrupulously impartial, everyone knows that.
OK then, so impartially tell me what you think about my recent analysis on Tenez's technique of covering all bases by making lots of ridiculous different predictions. And even an example a few posts above of using exactly the same results as evidence for two contradicting things, now that's a classic.

I don't generally get involved, though there's nothing actually contradictory about Tenez's comments on Murray. After all, there can't be absolute contradictions when both comments were factually correct. He IS #1 and Wimbledon Champion and he IS getting beaten by everyone. Those statements aren't mutually exclusive.

by N2D2L Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:25 pm

bogbrush wrote:
I don't generally get involved, though there's nothing actually contradictory about Tenez's comments on Murray. After all, there can't be absolute contradictions when both comments were factually correct. He IS #1 and he IS getting beaten by everyone. Those statements aren't mutually exclusive.

Correct, I never said they both weren't factually correct. But pay close attention!
My point was he tried to use the same 'set'- i.e. Murray's recent results, to show to Daniel that older players are doing well, and also to show to me that his prediction in 2012 and every year since that youngsters would overtake Murray and current top players wasn't wrong. So for the first stance he used Murray's ranking and Wimbledon title as evidence, and for the second stance he switched to 'Murray losing everything' talking about recent form.
Both these points, if switched, could be used against his positions, we could argue that Murray as number 1 now shows that his predictions that established top players would be dominated soon' in 2012 (and every year since) due to youngsters (such as Harrison) was completely nonsensical; and the fact Murray is doing poorly now could be used to say that some players do decline once they get older.
Farcical!

by Tenez Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:52 pm

Life must be too complex for a simple brain like yours Decima.

Besides some over rated expectations on some yougsters i m not sure where i have been wrong. The Murrays exampke clearly shows the complexity of things. Get on with it.

by noleisthebest Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:11 pm

Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in Halle.

The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.

by Slippy Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:22 pm

... wrote:
Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in Halle.
The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.

Shaps is the current Wimbledon junior champ. Rublev isn't.

by Jahu Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:41 pm

... wrote:
Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in Halle.
The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.

What? So discrimination now? Or is it just hurting you cause you melt for russians? Doh

Tennis does not need any drugged russians Laugh

by noleisthebest Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:52 pm

Jahu wrote:
... wrote:
Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in Halle.
The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.

What? So discrimination now? Or is it just hurting you cause you melt for russians?

Tennis does not need any drugged russians

You are wrong.
I don't melt for Russians, I respect them and have a few things n common.

Esp as they are straight thinking just like me Cool

by noleisthebest Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:55 pm

Slippy wrote:
... wrote:
Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in Halle.
The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.
Shaps is the current Wimbledon junior champ. Rublev isn't.

Fair point.

However, I wasn't lazy and checked that Rublev was a RG singles junior champion in 2014 and never got a WC there in 2015.

He was also a runner up in juniors doubles in Wimbledon (2014), so not a nobody.

Doesn't matter. His time will come.

by Veejay Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 pm

Jahu wrote:
... wrote:
Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in Halle.
The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.

What? So discrimination now? Or is it just hurting you cause you melt for russians?

Tennis does not need any drugged russians

its really cause he is black *rolls eyes*

by Jahu Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:29 pm

Vee, you into black again? Since Serena got fertilized, I though you given up on the black thingy you had Laugh

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31