Because we’re on the web (can’t deny my blog is on the internet, unfortunately), we get more or less tossed-in to this bath-house of points-of-view, some of which fail on several levels. However, the positives of the internet, I’m afraid, outweigh the negatives, which, granted, is a vague generalization, but you and I know I’m right about this. We have so much ease and insight at our fingertips via the internet: the smartest of us, then, will be those who can discern the legitimate from the bullshit.
I work hard on this blog and know, in fact, that I need to step-up my game even more. The blog as a genre has grown and has become a more and more credible platform for additional perspectives on a variety of topics. This development advances social, intellectual and democratic agendas and is, therefore, valuable, among other things.
But there are still and always will be much less constructive blogs, discussion boards and articles, etc., that litter the interwebs and potentially our thought processes. Again, I don’t think this is necessarily a doomed condition.
This just means that you have to develop the ability to read and understand what is decent from indecent, honest from delusional, etc.
The Djokofans are upside-down right now (I mean the crazed, belligerent types, about which you can read at that infamous dump emanating out of S. Africa and his sibling-hysteric apparently coming-out of Britain, among, I am sure, many more).
I address this bullshit from time to time. I did so around the time of Indian Wells, here and here.
Here’s what everyone’s favorite tennis blogger wrote recently (you probably saw he called WB rigged, Djokovic persecuted, etc.). His lunacy is better represented in pretty colors.
“I’ve posted tables before which showed that Djokovic gets the toughest draws and face the stiffest competition and the above confirms this fact. It also shows that Federer had the weakest competition of the big four throughout his career.
So not surprisingly, Federer has won the most slams. Some of the most striking facts are that Djokovic won only one of his slams without facing a big 4 member in the final while Federer won 12 slams without facing a big 4 member in the final. Federer has also won 11 slams without facing any big 4 member at all while Djokovic had to beat at least one big 4 member in all the slams he won.”
I have addressed this in so many ways, this being one of the more recent articles.
There are two major problems with this ridiculous point about facing the “Big 4.” One is the inability to acknowledge that Federer played virtually in a different era; as my linked article points-out, by 2008, Federer had 13 majors, Nadal had 5 and Djokovic had 1. That’s not a typo, nor do you have to be an authoritative tennis historian to see a problem with this “Big4” criterion. Wipe the bullshit from your chin.
This “Big 4” point used to criticize Federer’s opponents is rife with fallacy; you pick which specific fallacy applies: Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison. False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
The second problem is putting so much ill-advised stock in the composition and development of a draw. No one can control a draw other than the players contesting those matches. I have heard people talk about the anti-climactic 2017 Wimbledon final, how this might affect Roger, the quality of the win, etc.
Please note: this has no bearing on the quality of that major. Federer’s draw was tough, he played well enough to win, Cilic couldn’t muster the goods in the final, so Federer wins his 19th. That’s what happened and even more so: that’s what the records show and will show in the future.
Remember the Mcshow Tennis Nadal v Federer argument (a series of posts I wrote over a year ago)? One of the flaws with that H2H is Nadal often was no where to be found late in the draw in tournaments that didn’t take place on the red dirt of RG. Is that Federer’s fault? That he didn’t get to play the #2 seed, who went out in the 3R? Shit happens, folks. You can not blame a player because other players shit their pants earlier in the tournament. Djokovic, Nadal and Murray bowed-out early in this last Wimbledon, so we should discount Federer’s win? Ha ha.
In fact, what will become clearer to you novice thinkers is that the very fact of one’s survival becomes a big part of legacy. If you can’t stay healthy, that’s a flaw and once that can of worms is opened, we can go all sorts of places. Staying healthy is part of the program. If you can’t, you won’t and no one cries for you other than your sad, diapered little fans who are really just sport hooligans who could care less about tennis.
The idea that Federer’s 19th is blemished because he couldn’t play Djokovic in the semi-final, or Nadal/Murray in the final is so weak. Those three players lost prior to playing Federer. Can you wrap your brain around that fact? They didn’t play well enough to advance. Do you understand that?
I have to keep this somewhat focused since so many extensions arise – health and consistency are HUGE factors folks and like I have been arguing for almost a year now, the Djkollapse has been tragic. That’s part of that story, part of the 12 majors, his BH, etc.. Just like Nadal’s injuries are inseparable from his clay success and his non-clay inconsistency.
Please read more closely, with more discernment and breadth of knowledge. Please.
“Federer is the talented one who currently has the most slam titles. Nadal is the great fighter and clay court GOAT. Djokovic is the most complete if you include the mental aspect and has the highest peak level. They are all incredible players and it is unlikely that any of them will ever be officially crowned the GOAT.”
Someone explain how Djokovic is the most complete player. He’s a baseline grinder with superb flexibility, has a great ROS and a decent serve. This “most complete” claim is a vague statement that lacks any sort of definition/delineation. He has been described as having a very natural stroke, from his early days, his timing superbly natural, his turn through the ball exquisite. But there’s a lot more to tennis than FH and BH from the BL.
This will get played-out, historically. We will get to why Federer’s 2017 is not that surprising, but why Djokovic excelling at the age of 35-36 might be. Read that last sentence again (I have posed it a million times): how, do you gather, will Djokovic play at 33, 34 or 35? That has to do with one’s game, style and related health which play massive roles in one’s legacy. Sorry if this seems so obvious.
Lastly and most ridiculously:
“There are many more variables than what I touched on in this post. For instance the biased scheduling we saw at Wimbledon but far more importantly the influence of the mainstream media. By always promoting Federer as the embodiment of all that is good and noble and victimizing Djokovic as the villain they influence the way Federer and Djokovic are perceived and treated as a result.
The media has enormous power and in politics, the powerful use it for instance to win elections and to make people vote against their own interests. It is the ultimate brainwashing tool and very easy to fall for if you are not inclined to think for yourself and hold a certain skepticism for everything you hear in the mainstream media.
Anyway, the media is just one other factor that I wanted to include because it is part of a rigged system whether in sport, politics, or whatever the case may be. I never talked about it before but I saw how enormously influential it is in American politics and thought it is an underrated and overlooked influence in tennis.
But I will leave it at that. [. . .]”
Ha ha ha ha ha aha. The media affects the results of matches? That’s the argument. Are you talking about the popularity of a player and how that affects the fans and therefore the playing environment? Right: I just articulated your argument more effectively than you.
If a player is beaten by the crowd, what’s that player’s prospects on tour? This is a joke, right? The media controls tennis matches. The popularity affects scheduling, etc. Does the media affect the draw? Was Djokovic’s victimization the reason he got such a soft draw at 2017 WB? Help us out here.
I know: part of the conspiracy is Roger gets a tougher draw, therefore his matches are against higher quality opponents, which encourages the organizers to put such a quality match-up on CC whereas Djokovic gets the shitty-easy draw so his matches can be moved to Court 1.
Is that what you fangirls are arguing? The softer draw was part of the conspiracy?
This sophomoric blogger completely loses his ass when he gets into world politics here, or American politics in particular and the role of the media. One can see he’s trying to add this political association to strengthen his argument that the media affects tennis matches. The media is big in politics; therefore, it’s big in tennis. Another weak logical fallacy, I’m afraid.
The latest chapter in the media’s influence on politics is that the media, as a whole, failed the American people in the last Presidential election. Literally, there was one poll out of the University of Southern California that appears, in hindsight, to have seen a much tighter election. On the whole, the media failed, did not affect the election other than one could argue that the American people rebelled against the mainstream media narrative: that Hillary Clinton would be the next US President.
In other words, don’t give the media that much credit.
And we’re talking about tennis, so to the point here, you’re in way-over-your-head.
To come full circle: we bloggers are here to keep the mainstream media, hopefully, more honest and perhaps more and more unsure of their own significance.
At the same time, a blogger off-the-rails doesn’t give this new genre much advance. Maybe ease-up on your fanboy antics, enjoy and analyze the sport more objectively, so you don’t make such a fool of yourself.
I have a lot more to say folks about more things tennis and this blog (a lot of thinking going-on here about the direction of the season and this blog). I will post another article tonight (by writing that down, such goals more often come to pass). 🙂
4 thoughts on “Timeout: Let’s Burn Some Bullshit”
Looked at the post, what a preposterous stat. One of the stats averaged the rank of the GS finals opponent of each player. I mean…you only need a brain cell to deduce that if even just 1 of the players is ranked above 240, the average rank will be no less than 20. Face just 1 lucky challenger ranked 1000, then your average opponent rank will be no less than 80. So, how to bring the average rank down? Lose the final to a lowly ranked player, so that the data will not be included in the stats? You have to be one biased dumbskull to base your arguments on these flawed stats.
For those who are interested in the matter, I looked a bit better at the stats as well as at the claims of those bloggers Matt is referring to.
You can find my findings here below.
First of all those bloggers should check the accuracy of the stats which they base their argumentation on. Apparently they don’ t do this since in the first table of Ruans post the average ranking of Federer’s opponents in Wimbledon 2003, AO 2004 and AO 2006 are not presented in a correct way ( those average numbers should be 41, 76 and 60 instead of 48, 86 and 54 as an example). You can check it for yourself by looking at the data in the archives on the ATP website.
Second of all taking the average of all the opponents in every round of a slam as a measure to compare the strength of the opponents of the big 4 in a slam, doesn’t make much sense. I agree with Jason Brown on this point.
It is much better to look at the average ranking of the three highest ranked players they beat in those slams, or simply at the rank of the highest ranked player they faced.
Third of all on the surface the number of grand slams seems ‘almost directly proportional to the stiffness of competition faced’ (citing formentioned blogger), but this view is not to be trusted without having a closer look at the matter.
As a matter of fact, pure proportionality is hard to defend ; it would mean that the player facing – on average – opponents ranked 4 should / could win in theory double as many slams as the player facing – on average – opponents ranked 2 in the rankings.
The numbers of my example are not far away from the ‘real’ averages : for intance the average ranking of the highest ranked opponent for Federer and for Djokovic in each of the slams they won are respectively 4,11 and 2,25 (see table here below).
To adapt Djokovic’s real number of slams by applying ‘proportionality’ based on the ‘average ranking of the opponent’ as a criterium, would bring Djokovic’s theoretical number of slams to a total of approximately 22 slams (21,92) instead of 12 slams (which is higher than Federer’s 19 slams), as shown below in detail.
However, taking the average ranking points that go with that ‘average ranking’ into account as well, and using these points as a criterium for adaptation, would lead to a very different result since these average ranking points increase not in a linear but in an exponentional way with every rise in ranking. Applying the average ranking points that go with a ranking as a criterium to adapt Djokovic’s tally, would bring Djokovic’s theoretical number of slams to a total of approximately 17 slams (16,8), which is lower than Federer’s 19 slams.
All this to show that one has to be very cautious with interpreting stats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Mcshow Response to Drucker, Wertheim, and Other Change Agents. | Mcshow Blog