After ending day one in 132nd, have clawed my way up to 29th, mainly thanks to Bolelli and Ancic. Losing Moya, Monaco and Dammit (aka Giraldo) is a blow as I had them all into last 16.

<< rant start >>
 
Stephen, for the next pickem, would you please over-rule any pick I make that involves that garlic eating malingerer winning. He either loses to some no-hoper or just doesn't bother even turning up. Every single bloody pickem I have him down to get through 2 or 3 rounds (against my better judgement) and he always flops at the first ( or zero'st in this case ) hurdle. How the hell has he still got a ranking for gods sake. I bet if you did a breakdown of his ranking points that were got in our Pickems in the last 6 months it'd be as near zero as makes no difference.

<< rant over >>

Drew wrote:

---

I noticed that someone had Giraldo to win !!! What were they on

---

90% of pickers have (by default) got Giraldo to win. That's how many people are still taken in by "I don't give a Damn(it)". To be honest I'd rather have a lucky loser like Giraldo than an out an out loser like Damnit.

eblunt wrote:

---

<< rant start >>
 
Stephen [editor's note: ], for the next pickem, would you please over-rule any pick I make that involves that garlic eating malingerer winning. He either loses to some no-hoper or just doesn't bother even turning up. Every single bloody pickem I have him down to get through 2 or 3 rounds (against my better judgement) and he always flops at the first ( or zero'st in this case ) hurdle. How the hell has he still got a ranking for gods sake. I bet if you did a breakdown of his ranking points that were got in our Pickems in the last 6 months it'd be as near zero as makes no difference.
<< rant over >>

---

Ah, but that's what he wants, you see - he wants you to give up on him just as he's due for his twice-yearly respectable run in one of the big events!

The Dammit Paradox

Have you ever found yourself thinking something along the lines of: "Surely Gasquet's going to justify my faith in him soon - he's no. 9 in the world, he must do well in quite a lot of tournaments, even if I can only remember the semi at Wimby and the semi at the Paris Masters."

Something Fed said (when he was asked after his RG R1 match whether he was surprised to see a second Swiss player in the top 10) hints at the reason why you can only remember him doing well in those two events:

"So at the end of the day, I'm not surprised. I mean, basically, if you get two good results, you can be in the top ten, because I, Rafa, and Djokovic are head of the pack."

Sounds a bit arrogant? Maybe. But as usual when he says something that sounds a bit arrogant, he's just telling it as it is.

The effect of the top few running away with it

Over the last 12 months, the top 4 have shovelled up around 21000 ranking points between them, leaving such slim pickings for the rest that 1575 is enough for a top 10 place.

Back the summer of 2002 when Fed turned 21, when we were briefly in between the Sampras/Agassi and Fed/Rafa eras, world no. 1 Lleyton Hewitt had less points than world no. 3 Nole has now, the top four (Hewitt, Safin, Haas & Kafelnikov - Tigger was no. 5) had just 14000 points between them (over 30% less than now) and you needed 2000 (30% more than now) to make the top 10, with 1575 (what Stani has now) only enough for 18th place.

Combine this low threshold for getting in the top 10 with the massive bias in the ranking system towards people who have the odd stellar tournament (and/or take advantage of a lucky draw) over those who are consistent, and it doesn't take long to realise why it's not just an illusion that, defining a muppet as a player who only performs in the big events once or twice a year, half of the cast of the Muppet Show (e.g. Dammit the Frog, Mandy Muppet, Berdbrain, Numpty ... not to mention Gonzo, who was there until early this year before plummeting) seem to be in or just outside the top 10 these days.

Dammit, for example, has managed to reach the top 9 with just:
 
- those two mandatory SFs (450 points for Wimby & 225 for Paris - the only 2-3 weeks last year when he played like he's capable of playing)
- a couple of optional Finals (175 for winning Mumbai, the same for Tokyo R-up)
- a L16 in Australia (150, from a nice draw)
- one match won at the TMC (100)

Other than that, he's reached R4 in two AMS events (matching his seeding), but has suffered two R2 exits in slams and R1 meltdowns in the remaining SIX AMS events.

If it wasn't for his Wimby points, he'd be ranked 24 or 25 right now!

Drew said: No I mean someone has picked Giraldo to win the whole thing...or is did that person pick Gasguet to win and now has the LL Giraldo winning the FO...ok penny dropped

Yes, that's right, though as one of the CC players said today: "When I saw he'd picked Giraldo to win RG, I laughed my head off. Then I realised it meant he must have picked Gasquet to win the title and I laiughed even harder!"

You'd think a French entrant from Dammit's own site would have suffered enough to know better, wouldn't you!

Finally, an interesting insight from someone else on CC:

I think I made the wrong pick for the title!

With my crossword-compiling hat on I have just had a dramatic mystical revelation that Federer is going to resort to underhand means on Sunday week.

You see,

"Roland Garros Coupe des Mousquetaires"

is a perfect anagram for:

"Roger does use a poo curse, Mr Nadal quits"

Obvious really.

I've been stuck in front of the computer ever since I came home around two and a half hours ago. I've had lunch on my chair, following matches like Vassallo Arguello vs. Lopez or Fish vs. Calleri, which I normally wouldn't care about unless you paid me.

Not had a great day so far as I've lost many of the matches where my players had a half chance - Calleri, Lopez, Lopez, Ascione and Crivoi.





The Americans are doing incredibly well - Fish, Reynolds, Odesnik and Blake have all won, plus Spadea is fighting back.

Yep.

Now Jenkins breaks Horna, groovy.

Mathieu is 2-6, 1-2* down to Hernandez. NEVER trust a Frenchman to perform to their potential.