Week 41 - ATP Masters 1000 - Shanghai, China (Hard) - doubles

KK · Club Coach

RE: Week 41 - ATP Masters 1000 - Shanghai, China (Hard)

RJA · Hall of fame

Bouncy has a career high of 80. I doubt Ward will get that high but it doesn't stop me hoping.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

RJA wrote:
Bouncy has a career high of 80. I doubt Ward will get that high but it doesn't stop me hoping.

I'm definitely hoping. I like James, and think he's good enough. Every time he's gotten close though he's got injured. With an injury free run, I don't see why not. We all know his potential!

Priesty · Challenger level

I think it's worth remembering too that the standard of the 80th-ranked player in Castle's day (late 80s/early 90s) would probably have been way below the standard required to reach 80 in today's game.

Spectator · All-time great

80 doesn't feel out of the question. The frequency of good wins has been much higher recently.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Week 41 - ATP Masters 1000 - Shanghai, China (Hard) - doubles

RJA · Hall of fame

Jamie and John lost 4 and 5 so getting in as alternates has cost them 90 points each. They now have 7 mandatory zeros on their rankings.

-- Edited by RJA on Tuesday 7th of October 2014 11:54:48 AM

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Priesty wrote:
I think it's worth remembering too that the standard of the 80th-ranked player in Castle's day (late 80s/early 90s) would probably have been way below the standard required to reach 80 in today's game.

That's very true, I hadn't thought about that.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Helen40 wrote:
Priesty wrote:
I think it's worth remembering too that the standard of the 80th-ranked player in Castle's day (late 80s/early 90s) would probably have been way below the standard required to reach 80 in today's game.
That's very true, I hadn't thought about that.

I am a huge fan of Ward and the complete opposite of Castle, but I'm not sure that comment is completely fair, nonetheless.

Castle was obviously inferior on an absolute basis. But you wouldn't say that Seb Coe was vastly superior to Roger Bannister just because he ran the mile quicker. If so, there would be zillions nowadays who are vastly superior to Bannister. Which is totally misleading. You are a product of your times.

Obviously, if the number of players on tour was hugely less in Castle's time, then getting to WR 80 loses value, then as opposed to now. And this may well be true. But the exact numbers are important, and how you measure them.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

And Anderson promptly crashes out by 4 & 2 to Kuku (WR 85)! hmm

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

RJA wrote:
Jamie and John lost 4 and 5 so getting in as alternates has cost them 90 points each. They now have 7 mandatory zeros on their rankings.

That's disappointing. cry I was hoping to come back from lunch to find that they'd turned things round.

Miriambee · Futures level

Stircrazy wrote:
And Anderson promptly crashes out by 4 & 2 to Kuku (WR 85)!

Kukushkin is on a roll, he beat Robredo in the 1st round.

KK · Club Coach

Coup Droit wrote:
Helen40 wrote:
Priesty wrote:
I think it's worth remembering too that the standard of the 80th-ranked player in Castle's day (late 80s/early 90s) would probably have been way below the standard required to reach 80 in today's game.
That's very true, I hadn't thought about that.

I am a huge fan of Ward and the complete opposite of Castle, but I'm not sure that comment is completely fair, nonetheless.
Castle was obviously inferior on an absolute basis. But you wouldn't say that Seb Coe was vastly superior to Roger Bannister just because he ran the mile quicker. If so, there would be zillions nowadays who are vastly superior to Bannister. Which is totally misleading. You are a product of your times.
Obviously, if the number of players on tour was hugely less in Castle's time, then getting to WR 80 loses value, then as opposed to now. And this may well be true. But the exact numbers are important, and how you measure them.

Roger Bannister is obviously exceptional, but I think you can say it is a greater achievement to win an athletics Olympic gold medal today than it was in the 1950s as the pool of potential competitors is now so much greater. My grandfather won an Olympic hurdles gold medal in 1928, but the pool of nations which supplied competitors was not large and he came from an affluent background so had the advantage of good nutrition, something which a significent number of his fellow countrymen did not have. It would be a far greater achievement to win such a medal today.

I'm not sure if the number of people on tour was smaller in Castle's time, but the number of countries producing tennis players probably was.

steven · Tennis legend

KK wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Helen40 wrote:
Priesty wrote:
I think it's worth remembering too that the standard of the 80th-ranked player in Castle's day (late 80s/early 90s) would probably have been way below the standard required to reach 80 in today's game.
That's very true, I hadn't thought about that.

I am a huge fan of Ward and the complete opposite of Castle, but I'm not sure that comment is completely fair, nonetheless.
Castle was obviously inferior on an absolute basis. But you wouldn't say that Seb Coe was vastly superior to Roger Bannister just because he ran the mile quicker. If so, there would be zillions nowadays who are vastly superior to Bannister. Which is totally misleading. You are a product of your times.
Obviously, if the number of players on tour was hugely less in Castle's time, then getting to WR 80 loses value, then as opposed to now. And this may well be true. But the exact numbers are important, and how you measure them.

Roger Bannister is obviously exceptional, but I think you can say it is a greater achievement to win an athletics Olympic gold medal today than it was in the 1950s as the pool of potential competitors is now so much greater. My grandfather won an Olympic hurdles gold medal in 1928, but the pool of nations which supplied competitors was not large and he came from an affluent background so had the advantage of good nutrition, something which a significent number of his fellow countrymen did not have. It would be a far greater achievement to win such a medal today.
I'm not sure if the number of people on tour was smaller in Castle's time, but the number of countries producing tennis players probably was.

I assume that means your grandfather was Lord Burghley? Quite something to have an Olympic gold medallist in the family As you say, it must have been easier back then in the sense of there not being as much international competition but in a way, international athletes back then probably had to be more intrepid.

In the late 1980s, tennis was already quite international (men's tennis at least - the rise of central/eastern Europe in women's tennis since then means it is, I think, much, much more difficult to get into the WTA top 100 now than it was then) but there were 27 Americans and 11 Swedes in the top 100 when Andrew Castle hit his CH (see http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=13.06.1988&r=1&c=#) and much fewer players from the countries that tend to produce clay court specialists. I think there were a lot fewer tournaments held on clay back then and hence the rise in the number of clay court tournaments has led to more of the top 100 being filled with players from Spain, Argentina, etc, which must make it harder to get into the top 100 than it was then.