In an epic with Roddick + Nadal wasnt there

In what cases? You mean specifically one player? Federer is still better than Murray, Del Potro, Djokovic, the only nearest challengers. Fed and Rafa haven't even met much recently.

That Nadal wasn't there does take away from it, but Roddick played brilliant and Fed still won. I think we have to wait to next year before we say anything about the downfall of Fed.

Man remember when they were writing off Fed the first time round when Rafa first beat him at Wimbledon? Then remember they wrote Nadal off when he was injured for a while? Fed isn't old enough to write off. Not with his style of play.

I'm not writing Fed off, i'm a massive fan of his and hope he will win 3 slams next year (I know its unrealistic . . . but he might)

Del Potro doesnt even come into the equation on grass. Murray has yet to meet Federer on grass, he always runs into Nadal. Hope they meet next year because it could be a classic. Djokovic is improving every year and would give Federer a game. Would be interesting to see Berdych play a healthy Federer.

Yeah I guess Nadal is the only one ahead of him as of now (I make it alot more than others do tbh) but those guys I mentioned above could easily dump him out. I dont see any of them beating Nadal however

By no means am I writing of Fed, I think its more of how good I think Nadal is at the moment

--

Also Federer has stated multiple times that one of his main goals left in Tennis is the Gold Medal @ London 2012

No he didn't. The reasons he gave aren't accurate in any sense. If you would like to discuss this more in depth, try having even a passing familiarity with the subject.



1) lol math
2) terrible data
3) wtf
4) "I don't see anything wrong with calling all four slams for either Rafa or Roger." = lolololololololololol

Did you just show you predicted something that by your own ******ed numbers happens less than a quarter of the time?

These are related events! Federer's big 2009 benefitted hugely from Nadal's injury, given that the majors he actually won were precisely the ones where Nadal was the biggest threat. And he barely won that 2009 Wimbledon against Roddick, who had been his whipping boy for years and is probably worse than he used to be. (If you think he isn't, I think that's effectively conceding that 2010 competition is better than 2005 competition.) Using 2009 as evidence of a big Federer comeback seems wrong to me.

In one of these threads a while ago I posted Federer's record since 2008 against the top 5 players. It's pretty mediocre. (EDIT: Okay, it's obviously kickass in the sense that being able to compete at that level at all is awesome. I mean mediocre compared to the godlike opinion people have of Federer, or compared to how things looked in the 2004-2007 period.)

Roddick probably played the best grandslam of his life in the 2009 wimbledon and still lost.

I'm pretty sure your evidence for this is "he took Federer to 16-14 in the 5th!!!!!" which is obviously kind of circular.

This was posted in Laugh or Links and i found it pretty funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94xyO...layer_embedded

This debate will be settled in Zurich on the 31st December)

That video is brilliant!

I am not exactly predicting that all four slams will be won by either Rafa or Roger. I am showing that thinking they will win all four is not that bad a proposition. I agree that saying 3 slams for Federer + Nadal and 1 for the field is a better prediction, however, we were trying to give names. Once you give a name, it becomes a less likely proposition since Djokovic and Murray are kind of even in hard courts. Murray and Berdych are kind of even on grass and there's no real chance of someone other than Nadal or Federer winning the French.

If you have to predict all four, and you mention Nadal-Nadal-Nadal-Nadal, it is actually the best prediction, because all other predictions are less likely given that Nadal is the favorite in all four.

Favorites for the Aussie: Nadal- Federer- Djokovic- Murray (small gaps between each place)
Favorites for the French: Nadal- Federer (big gap between Nadal and Federer, no chance for anyone else)
Favorites for Wimbledon: Nadal - Federer- Murray -Berdych? Again this one Nadal and Fed are heavy favorites, but I think Murray has an okay chance.
Favorites for the US Open: Nadal-Federer- Djokovic-Del Potro.

You insult numbers given (even the ones that come from a sports betting place), you insult arguments without giving any sort of prediction yourself.

The match is on the 21st.

Funny video.

I don't get how winning on more surfaces makes any difference. It's not like the top players back in the day couldn't have figured out how to win on hard courts if they had to play on them like players today. Obliteration of existing competition is the only thing that should matter, it's the only thing players can control no matter what era.

I'm not stupid/naive/arrogant enough to believe that I can use terrible numbers to arrive at reasonable conclusions without any pertinent experience in the area.

PS: You didn't even adjust the odds that Paddy gives for the overround. If you're gonna cite ****, atleast not make rudimentary errors in your analysis, such as neglecting to adjust for >100% markets.

I'm so stupid first i said 31st september, then i changed, how did i miss that?
thanks for correcting it

You can keep being a nit about the numbers. I gave plenty of reasons and explained my stance. You were arguing against something that I didn't argue.

Kind of pointless to argue against the numbers I "took" from Paddy, I just grabbed approximations. If I adjust the numbers with what you say, it won't change the fact that Federer/Nadal is way more likely than only Nadal on its own. I made that very clear in all of the numbers plugged in. They are to give an idea.

I love having "discussions" that involve rudimentary math errors and then someone hand waving them away due to Dunning-Kruger.

So... You took ****ty data, completed an inept analysis showing an inability to do rudimentary math, and are now defending it? Great.

I especially like the "if I adjust the numbers" bit, since you probably had no ****ing clue what I was discussing (and still may not). Anyway, you're sticking to completely ******ed defenses that are obvious to anyone with passing familiarity with the issue. If you want to discuss greatness in the context of froo froo ideas, cool. If you want to analyze probability, gain competence, then try again.

Of course I have a clue of what you are saying. I am aware that the odds don't sum to a probability of 1. As I pointed out in the analysis, the numbers weren't important, the point was that you couldn't extrapolate from "I think Nadal + Federer winning all four slams was not that unlikely (where not that unlikely meant > 30%) " that "Nadal winning all four slams is not that unlikely". The numbers meant to show that the difference in orders of magnitude are quite high. In the example were 7.5. The bigger the gap between Nadal and Federer, the smaller the magnitude, if the gap were cero, then the difference in order of magnitude would be 16 (by this I mean Nadal + Federer would be 16 times more likely than only Nadal).

You kept making irrelevant comments. For example, saying that my defense that Nadal was more likely to win 3 than Federer to win 2 being dumb. Your argument for that was that it is unlikely Nadal will win 3. This comment is irrelevant to the point. I know it is unlikely Nadal will win 3. However, "Nadal will win 3" is more likely than "Federer will win 2". You did not give any argument to refute that.

Your inability to notice these differences makes it really hard to take your comments seriously. You keep attacking things that weren't discussed.

I am surprised you say I showed an inability to do rudimentary math. You may claim my assumptions were wrong, but with the assumptions I have (which I stated clearly), the math is solid.

No. Its only 16 in your utter dickbag analysis. I already explained why it ****ing sucks. Quoting it only further heightens the fact you can't do basic math.

I wasn't even addressing you till you thought my post was some sort of rebuttal to yours. To which you posted extensive "analysis" that is comically absurd, and now I'm mostly just mocking the fact that you can't do math and you have the overbearing sense of self-worth. You're completely inept, yet seem to think you have actually made a credible case.

I'd bet any amount of money your math isn't "solid". You can't just use probabilities that sum to >1

You're like DS talking about sports betting. Maybe you guys could have coffee and keep denying the fact both of you guys are wrong.

Oh hai guys. I'd like you to know that Nadal + Federer + Gulbis is more likely to win than Nadal + Federer. To do this I will take a terrible dataset that is utterly useless, I will then couple that with my terrible math skills, and then repeatedly city my analysis like it is worth more than vomit.

Oh... Wait... Nadal/Federer/Gulbis are still more likely not to win all 4 than too win them all? Wow. Stunning.

Nadal chances of winning all 4 grand slams are about 1 in 50

If the probability of Nadal to win a slam is p and the probability of Federer winning the slam is also p. Then the probability of one of them winning is 2p (since Nadal winning and Federer winning are disjoint events).
Now if we say Nadal has probability p1,p2,p3,p4 to win AO,FO, W, UO respectively, his probability of winning all four is p1*p2*p3*p4. Assuming that the gap between Federer and Nadal is 0, means that he has the same probabilities, hence for him to win all four would be p1*p2*p3*p4. However for Federer+Nadal to win each tournament would be 2p1, 2p2, 2p3, 2p4, respectively. Therefore winning all four would be 16*p1*p2*p3*p4. Showing that it is 16 as I claimed.

Show me a section where my math is wrong. You can claim that the assumptions are wrong, I don't argue that. But show me a mathematical mistake.


I took approximations of the odds of Nadal winning the AO and Federer winning the AO. The sum is well below 1 for both of them. Again, the actual number DON'T MATTER as the point I was making was independent of the actual numbers.

You should learn how to read math. When attacking math, you should find if there are actually any math mistakes.

You should also actually attack the arguments I am making instead of just stating things that don't have any connection to what I said.

Yes I think Soderling will be sufficiently pissed off by the time US Open 2011 comes around that he will put together a slam performance. I'm sure he's not a happy camper right now and is training like a mad dog getting ready for the new year. Soderling is like a bigger and stronger version of Djoko when he's on his game.

Del Potro is going to take 1 year of playing before he gets back into the mix, don't expect anything big from him in 2011.