Week 43 - ATP 500 - Erste Bank Open 500 - Vienna, Austria (hard)

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Week 43 - ATP 500 - Erste Bank Open 500 - Vienna, Austria (hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

There's a bit of both to be truthful IMO. Players can play very differently from day to day let alone tournament to tournament. And certainly Pouille, Tsonga and Kyle can so a few potential variables in there. Which of course helps keep things interesting.

It suggests pretty good general form here from Chardy so all things being equal and even a little unequal looks better than if he had been beaten in the final. But most folk for obvious reasons, especially if not having witnessed matches, are careful of reading too much into he beat he beat scenarios.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 29th of October 2017 08:12:45 PM

Spectator · All-time great

Pouille can be very good (though as Indiana notes, he JWT and Mr Edmund are all variable in the sense that they can at times play a blinder and at times be less spectacular). I wouldn't have seen a loss to him as problematic whatever the finals result. Anyway I'm very happy with the finals result, as I would like to see Goffin, PCB, Querrey, del Potro or Anderson get the last places in the World Tour Finals...would mean so much to JMDP after all the injuries....and to any of the others as it would be their first.

-- Edited by Spectator on Monday 30th of October 2017 05:10:28 AM

-- Edited by Spectator on Monday 30th of October 2017 05:15:31 AM

Oakland2002 · All-time great

At a very basic level for example coin tossing, each event (coin toss) and outcome (head/tail or win/loss) is independent and unrelated. We are not talking about coin tossing and a preceding event can impact a subsequent event significantly, indeed such that the odds change.

My issue is that the analogie is poor in terms of the events that are being linked ie. there is no comparison between Caratti, Pouille and Edmund. Indeed I struggle a bit with that of Goran and Tsonga

Tsonga is remarkably consistent when you look at his grand slam record from 2008 to 16 given the quality of the field, the big four and Stan are a serious road block for players seeded 5-8 to get beyond the QFs. Goran played in different much less professional times a great natural athlete but without such depth of superstar talent against which to compete. Arguably Tsonga would have been a dominant force in a different decade.

But none are comparable to Caratti who was a lower eschelon journeyman on the ATP tour who had a CH of 24 and didnt win an ATP tittle. He is a bit of a paradox being Italian 510 and he never won anything on clay.

Tsonga has had a top career as an ATP touring pro and Pouille and Edmund are in the first couple of years of theirs.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Monday 30th of October 2017 12:55:10 PM

Jeff Stelling · Club Coach

Shhh wrote:
Jeff Stelling wrote:
This is always the time of the season that you get freak results, withdrawals etc and bang average players like Kyle have a serious shot at going deep in well remunerated tournaments (in £ and points)

Would be good if he can be the one to benefit this year, there are usually a pair of vile semi-finalists in Paris for example. If it goes well enough he could just about attain an ill-deserved seeding for the Australian Open.
The point that you want to make that Kyle is nothing special comes over loud and clearbut if a player wins enough ranking points over his best 18 tournaments to be seeded at Aussie Open why is it ill-deserved? Obviously a player with less ranking points would not deserve it more so what point were you making here? That we should revert to 16 seeds? That the season is too long or that ranking so be gained over less tournaments?

I was happy to not rise to your heavy-duty trolling at the time, in the spirit of contributing to the harmony around here. Willfully missing the point is fairly basic behaviour. If two players are both ranked in, say, the low 30s - one of whom has an even points distribution from a range of tournaments and the other who has been a jobbing lower tier tour player who strikes it lucky by happening upon a laughably weak Masters draw, then who is the more genuinely ranked player?

By and large the ranking system is fit for purpose (compared to many other major sports) but you do yourself no favours by dutifully trotting out corporate drivel from the ATP Public Relations manual.

Let me refer you to the case of Mr Krajinovic, who now proudly sits on a 625 point haul for the week for beating the following players in an indoor tournament:

Pella (lol)

Djere

Sugita

Querrey

Mahut

n/a (walkover)

And finally, a bottling John Isner who crumbles under pressure, as per usual

It is really rather poetic that Mr Krajinovic now has more than half a chance of acquiring an ill-deserved Australian Open seeding. If we all lived our lives in hock to your foreboding corporate spiel we'd be wandering around labouring under delusion that Mr Krajinovic has had a better year than, say, Andrey Rublev, Feliciano Lopez or Pablo Cuevas.

I hereby invite you to issue a public apology.

-- Edited by Jeff Stelling on Saturday 4th of November 2017 04:37:59 PM

Shhh · Challenger level

Duly refused Mr Stelling. Your comments I questioned were in relation to Kyle having the possibility of "an ill deserved seeding" Should he have gained a seeding I would have considered it merited. I mean no offence. I disagreed with your point and asked what you'd prefer in its place.

You did not answer that question but to quote "Willfully missing the point is fairly basic behaviour" would be Troll-like behaviour on my part?