Listen I feel I should highlight where I'm coming from on this. I don't dispute what you're saying that he used to be so-and-so rank and that he got glandular fever and everything. But when it comes to debating whether a player is "good" or not, I tend to wait until I can see with my own eyes what the case is. I don't like to jump onboard bandwagons like that, and I think it's important to see what I can observe with my own eyes. It's the case whether they're hyped up and I go and I see if they're overrated or if they're actually good, or maybe they've been ignored and I see that actually that's unfair or justified. Whatever the populist impression is, it's not in my nature to trust their say so just because it's what they say.

In the case of Ancic, when I saw him play, he was weak! I'm sorry but I can't lie to you and say he was good. He was inconsistent, he was not solid at all, he was all over the place and kind of unravelling and going to pieces. He was making basic mistakes. Furthermore, he was getting frustrated. He was letting the situation get to him and not keeping his emotions under his own control. He certainly did not have it together mentally, which is what you need to be a good player, and that mental solidity is what separates the great players from the mediocre. At best, he was competent but I could see he was never going to be a great player. He just didn't have what it takes!

That's what I saw. People can turn it around for themselves if they work out their issues and get it together, there's always the chance to do that, I definitely believe that - I don't believe in anything like condemning or condoning a person permanently, unlike most people who seem far too quick to judge permanently based on whims. For this reason I would be very happy for Ancic to show me that he can do better than that. But he hasn't shown me yet. I'm not going to sing his praises until I can see it for myself.

-- Edited by LadyTigress on Friday 5th of March 2010 12:29:50 PM

I do apologise if anyone thought I was being argumentative - I wasn't really properly explaining before where I was coming from, the fact that the way I operate is by being cautious about passing judgement and trying to go on what I see personally. I'm sure Ancic has played good matches, but if I haven't actually seen them then I can't really come out and say I know all the details of how that match went or what was going on. Because you know how populist opinion can be, it's very far from always right and people in my experience very often do make snap judgements based on the tiniest of things (which they could easily have misinterpreted or misunderstood) and do let bias cloud what they say a LOT!!! For that reason I naturally prefer to hold off on going along with it or forming a judgement until I can actually take a look myself. I don't dispute Ancic's past results, certainly, but I didn't see those matches and am not qualified to comment on them. I'm certain he did have good matches in his day, as every player has ups and downs, utter shockers and matches of sheer, glorious genius.

And illness or injury is always very unlucky, the most unfortunate thing about them being that you CAN'T ever know how it would have gone otherwise.

Josh wrote:

---

In a forum where most of the players being discussed are outside the top 500, anyone with achievements such as those Ancic boasts simply can't be described as "absolutely rubbish" and "not having what it takes".

Maybe if this was an Andy Murray forum then yes, Ancic could be described as rubbish compared to Andy, although that's still pretty harsh.  In a general British tennis fourm where the 'boundaries' may be a bit different to other international forums Ancic has to be seen as a serious top level player.

A bit like Heather beating Vaidasova this week, she may not be the player she used to be and could be seen as becoming a bit of a joke in other places, she is still a top level player.

---

No, no I disagree. You have to look at each player in their context, such as the tournaments they are playing, the people they're playing against, what they are aiming for and what you might expect at that level. I look at Ancic within the context of the top 100 and the top 10, and he doesn't have what it takes to reach the top of that context (i.e. top 5 and no 1, multiple slams etc). I'm comparing him to his some-time peers. It's what differentiates him from the guy next to him that's gonna see whether he moves up or down, not people ranked hundreds of places below him. If you compare anyone with massive ranking differences you're always going to get the answer thrown up that "so-and-so is better than so-and-so". It doesn't tell me much if Roger Federer defeats the world no 500. It does tell you something, how he plays against the world top 50, or the world number 2 or 3.

Also, you take the quotes there completely out of context. I said that in my seeing, in the matches I've seen of him, he was playing absolutely rubbish and didn't have what it took. By "didn't have what it takes", by the way, I meant "to be a great player", "to be world number one" and "to win a Slam", that should have been obvious. Do you dispute that any player can have a stinker of a match? Furthermore I clearly stated that I am only going on what I see, and that I do not question Ancic's past results, but I did not see his past results and cannot comment on them. I will not agree that Ancic is a "great" player because I don't take people's word on such things since populist opinion is frequently biased, I only go on what I can observe with my own eyes, and as I said, I invite Ancic to show me that he can play better than that. But I haven't seen it yet.

-- Edited by LadyTigress on Friday 5th of March 2010 02:37:58 PM

-- Edited by LadyTigress on Friday 5th of March 2010 02:39:40 PM

I watched Sampras a few weeks back in an exhibition match. He was rubbish. How did he ever win a grand slam!!