Monday, January 30, 2017

nadal's serve in australian open 2017 is better than ever and played game of his life in 2017 australian open

sendnudesplz12316 hours ago
Guys... Nadal's serve is better than ever... just because it's not 200kph, doesn't mean its not good. Appreciate the fact that Federer's anticipatation skills off as super heavy slice serve off a now faster court and not to mention from a lefty are what you are calling weak honestly...
 
 

Rafael Nadal has been dominating in three of the four service categories.


Three serves.
You may not have noticed, but Rafael Nadal has been dominating with three serves at Australian Open 2017 instead of the regular two. Well, sort of.
Here’s the shakedown on the win percentage for Nadal for the four serves that are hit in a match to the quarterfinals in Melbourne this year.
First Serve Points Won = 73 per cent
Second Serve Points Won = 67 per cent
Second Serve Return Points Won = 55 per cent
First Serve Return Points Won = 34 per cent
Nadal has a winning percentage on three of the four serves that are hit in a match. You may as well hit three of the four serves if you own them statistically.
The spectacular number in these metrics is the 67 per cent points won on his own second serve. That leads the tournament this year. Nadal is actually career No.1 on the ATP Tour in second serve points won at 57 per cent. He is currently an astonishing 10 percentage points higher than that.
Stop and think about that for a second. Huge servers such as Ivo Karlovic, John Isner, Nick Kyrgios and his quarterfinal opponent, Milos Raonic, are not in the same ballpark on second serve points won. Raonic is winning a very respectable 57 per cent in Melbourne this year, but that’s still a significant 10 percentage points behind the Spaniard.
Nadal is serving like a man possessed, and also owning the baseline in a similar manner. He is third best for the tournament in baseline points won at 56 per cent (305 of 543). Nadal’s forehand is the engine room of his back court dominance, crushing 72 winners to only 15 off the backhand wing.
The tournament average between forehand and backhand winners so far is 69 per cent forehand winners / 31 per cent backhand winners, but Nadal’s forehand is currently running on high octane, hitting 83 per cent of his backcourt winners.
These are troubling numbers for Raonic.
How do you beat a guy with three serves, and a three-headed monster as a forehand?
Nadal is always looking to reinvent himself, change something slightly to get an improved result. In recent years we have seen him change his grip on his serve to hit it harder and flatter, and also stand much wider in the ad court to primarily take away being hurt by the cross court return.
Now we something else that’s new – the shotgun approach.
In the ad court, Nadal is serving here, there, and everywhere. We expect him to hit his nasty slider out wide almost exclusively, but that simply hasn’t been the case in Melbourne so far.
Nadal ad court first serve directionwide = 52 (34 per cent)
body = 43 (28 per cent)
middle = 58 (38 per cent)
Nadal’s number one ad court first serve location has been right down the middle, directing 38 per cent there. He has also hit 28 per cent at the body. Against Alexander Zverev in the third round, he hit 17 body serves in the ad court, and 20 out wide. Almost the same.
Raonic’s main counter to his opponent’s guile and subterfuge is to simply take the racquet out of Nadal’s hand. The less Nadal gets to hit the ball, the better for Raonic.
Leading up to the quarterfinals, Raonic has played 75 per cent of total points in the 0-4 shot range, 19 per cent in the 5-8 shot range, and just six per cent in the 9+ shot range.
That means that on three out of every four points, the maximum amount of shots in the rally are just two for each player. A serve, a return, and some loose change. If Raonic can keep close to that average against Nadal, then he is in with a real shot.
These two guys are in the quarters for a reason. They can both play ball. They definitely go about it in different ways, and whoever can make their opponent bend more to their own intentions will find themselves in the final four.

https://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2017-01-25/ao_expert_nadals_three_serves.html

Nadal's prime is in 2006-2007 not 2010

actually Nadal declined a little in 2010 with injury but He was just so lucky that he had no competition in the 2010 US open after federer declined with the illness since 2008 who is the real king of US open......just because he tried to serve harder because he knows his injury affecte his performance so he tried to compensate that with harder serve to win...He had more increased errors and got slower in running...his prime is in mid 2006-2007 and Federer dominated him...Nadal has no up and down in his game anyways, because his biggest strength is to maintain his consistency by playing extremely defensive moonballing game that tries to win a game from opponent's errors than making not from shot makings because of his lack of talent. so I would say that his whole career is his prime which makes him the longest longevity player....

Sunday, January 29, 2017

to those excuse king retard nadal fans

retard nad fan again 1.nad got extremely lucky that federer got ill from monocleusis virus since 2008, federer always dominated nadal when he was not ill before 2008 2.federer is 39 year old 3. federer had 4 of 5 sets matches in this tournament. 4. nadal officially caught dope last year, u can see the effect here. nad should have been banned from tennis already but instead corrupt tennis organization work together with nad 5. federer always make 4x more winners than nadal even in the matches he lost. even ill federer would never lose to drug induced nadal but federer lose to himself by playing poorly with too much errors because of nad's boring robotic extreme defensive game style. 6.Federer have hardest draw and Nad have easiest draw as always. this corrupt tennis organization fixing draws for Nadal again. 7.you retard nad fans trying to make it sound like nadal is a cheetah that can return unhitable winners when he is not tired every time he lose to federer lol...no humans can possibly return clean winners...stop being typical retard nad fan and say ridiculous things to annoy people trying to appear as if you are as delusional by your idol god nad  to believe those ridiculous things you guys say....


retard nad fan again making lame excuse...federer just got back from 6 month injury and has been ill from mononucleosis virus since 2008 and age 35 and have hardest draw and nad has the easiest draw and had 2 five setters game and nadal dopes in fact and roger still beat rafa...nadal never has half of winners of federer before meaning federer is a lot better player but when he lose it's because he doesn't perform like himself.....no excuse...

federer won most of his slams while having prime nadal....nadal won most of his slams while federer is ill from mononucleosis virus since 2008....federer would of course beat nadal and won 35 slams by now if he had not got ill suddenly...

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

일본은 대졸자취업률 역대최고급국가고 한국은 대졸실업자 역대최고급 국가다

클라즈 2017.01.25 10:38
네 일본 대졸자취업률 역대최대급 국가를 
Tpp가입조건으로 위안부협상한 대졸실업자 역대최대 국가가 걱정하는건  아니죠

http://www.etobang.com/plugin/mobile/board.php?bo_table=eboard&wr_id=6828458&page=

이단자 마르틴 루터는 수도사일때 세심증에 빠져 고백성사를 6시간동안하였다.

2.5. 여담[편집]

가톨릭 고해성사 중 매우 유명한 일화로, 바로 위에서 설명한 프로테스탄트의 창시자인 마르틴 루터의 고해성사 관련 에피소드가 있다.

마르틴 루터는 원래 어릴적부터 우울증을 앓고 있었고, 극심한 회의주의와 세심증(죄에 대한 강박증)에 빠졌는데, 수도자가 되고 나서도 시도 때도 없이 20년간 평생 지은 죄를 총고해 해서 4시간이고 6시간이고 고해신부를 잡아놓고 놓아주지 않았다.

그 중에서 가장 압권인 게 하루는 무려 장장 6시간 동안 쉬지 않고 고해해서, 듣고 있던 신부가 참지 못하고 루터에게 욕설을 퍼붓고 고해소 밖으로 뛰쳐나갔다고 한다.그 날 이후 루터가 고해성사를 하려 하면 신부들이 죄다 루터를 피해다녔다고... 그래서 본의 아니게 다른 신부들이 그의 고해신부가 되길 꺼려하자 결국 루터를 눈여겨 본 독일 아우구스티노 수도회에서 가장 높은 직위인 주교대리 신부 요한 폰 슈타우피츠가 루터의 고해신부를 맡을 수밖에 없었다.

고해성사의 비밀 유지에 관해 가장 유명한 이야기로 19세기 말 프랑스의 뒤믈린 신부에 관한 이야기가 있다. 성당의 문지기가 거액을 헌금하러 온 신자를 살해하고 그 사실을 사제에게 고해하였는데, 사제는 방에 돌아와서 신자가 죽어 있는 것을 보고 문지기의 소행이란 것을 바로 알았지만 고해성사의 비밀 엄수 조항 때문에 그 사실을 말할 수 없었고, 문지기가 흉기를 사제의 방에 숨겨두고, 거짓 증언까지 하는 바람에 사제가 대신 체포되어 종신형을 선고받고 지옥같은 교도소에서 중노동을 하게 되었다. 사제는 25년 후에야 문지기가 사실을 자백하여 돌아올 수 있었는데, 이 사건은 지금까지도 고해성사의 비밀 엄수 조항에 대해 강의할 때 꼭 나오는 이야기이다.

다만 실제로는 문지기는 거짓 증언을 했으므로 뉘우치지 않았다고 볼 수 있고 따라서 신부도 비밀 준수의 의무가 없었다. 참고하자.

easy way of memorizing values of sine, cosine, and tangent


Easy way of memorizing values of sine, cosine, and tangent

 
My math professor recently told us that she wanted us to be able to answer
in our head on the snap. I know I can simply memorize the table for the test by this Friday, but I may likely forget them after the test. So is there a trick or pattern you guys usually use to remember it? For example, SOHCAHTOA tells us what sine, cosine, and tangent really mean. enter image description here
If not, I will just memorize the table. But just wanted to know what memorization techniques you guys use. I feel this is the perfect place to ask, because I bet a bunch of people in the math stackexchange, also had to go through the same thing freshman year of college.
Oh here is a picture of the unit circle:
enter image description here


     
Note the pattern:







This is something of a mathematical coincidence as far as I know, so don't try to extend this to other angles; and it goes backwards for
. Once you have these, you can find the other angles you want by drawing them on the unit circle and figuring out whether the values should be positive or negative, whether they should be or , or otherwise whether they are "small" (), "medium" () or "large" ().

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1553990/easy-way-of-memorizing-values-of-sine-cosine-and-tangent

Monday, January 23, 2017

The Ten Commandments for the Scrupulous

The Ten Commandments
for the Scrupulous

In the end, scrupulosity is the condition of not trusting in the Mercy of Christ. It's a plaguing sense of being "bad" or "guilty" or "unforgiven." It's a sort of obssessive-compulsive disorder that causes people to doubt the efficacy of the Sacrament of Confession or think they didn't receive the Sacrament properly, perhaps that they forgot to tell the priest something and that this will damn them or some such. Suffering from a case of the scruples can be excruciating. And such suffering is so uneceesary.
 Below is a guide for folks who have this condition. It was written first by a Redemptorist priest, Father Don Miller, some thirty years ago, and has been amended by Father Thomas Santa. I hope it helps you if you're torturing yourself with thoughts rooted in scrupulosity.


1. You shall not repeat a sin in confession when it has been confessed in a previous confession, even when there is a doubt that it was confessed or a doubt that it was confessed in a sufficiently adequate and complete way.
 Almost every scrupulous person experiences anxiety and doubt about past sins. Older people have a natural tendency to reflect back on their younger years, and in doing so, often remember something that triggers a doubt. More often than not, such a doubt has to do with impure thoughts, desires, or actions. As a result of the combination of remembering and doubting, it is not unusual that the scrupulous person then experiences great anxiety and is robbed of a sense of peace. This is why this first commandment is so very important: Do not go back over past sins and do not repeat the confession of them! Such an exercise is not at all helpful and must be resisted.

2. You shall not confess doubtful sins in confession, but only sins that are clear and certain.
 Of all of the correspondence that I receive, I would say that this issue is the one that occurs most often. "What does a person do if they are not sure that they committed a sin?" For this reason, this is a very important commandment to remember because it clearly states the truth: Doubtful sins don't count! There is no need to confess something that does not clearly and certainly exist. In fact, it is harmful to one's self to confess that which is doubtful. Again, such a practice is not at all helpful and must be resisted.
 Now I can almost hear some of you saying, "I am not sure if I doubt that I sinned or if I am just trying to fool myself to believe that I am doubting that I sinned." This thought in itself demonstrates that you are in fact doubting and so, therefore, the commandment comes into play: You shall not confess doubtful sins.

3. You shall not repeat your penance after confession or any of the words of your penance because you feel or think that you had distractions or may not have said the words properly.
 The temptation to repeat prayers is a constant one for the scrupulous. You may feel that you need to repeat them, again and again, until you "get them right." Unfortunately, such perfectionism is never satisfied, and so you will remain in a constant state of anxiety and fear. This situation becomes all the more distressing because many times the scrupulous person will argue that, because they feel anxious or fearful, that must be a sign that they did not correctly perform their penance. "If I did it right I would be peaceful."
 This commandment is, therefore, very important because it is the only solution to the dilemma in which you find yourself. Father Miller is right: Do not repeat your penance.

4. You shall not worry about breaking your fast before receiving communion, unless you actually put food and drink in your mouth and swallow it in the same way that a person does when eating a meal.
 Much of the anxiety that is present in reference to breaking your fast before communion centers around extraneous matters. It is helpful to remember that lipstick is not food. Snowflakes are not food. You cannot break you fast unless you deliberately choose to eat in the same way that you would choose to eat a meal or a snack. The commandment clearly suggests that no hesitations are allowed regarding accidental swallowing of things that are not considered food.

5. You shall not hesitate to look at any crucifix or at any statue in church or at home or anywhere else because you may get bad thoughts in your mind and imagination. If such thoughts occur, they carry no sin whatever.
 Although this commandment deals with a situation that is not necessarily a problem for all scrupulous persons, it is nevertheless a real burden for some. If you try to avoid the problem by not looking, the problem will tend to become more severe. It is a much better choice to meet the problem head on. Thoughts and imaginations that occur in this situation are simply not sinful. One should try and confront fear, not give in to it.

6. You shall not consider yourself guilty of bad thoughts, desires, or feelings, unless you can honestly swear before the all-truthful God that you remember clearly and certainly consenting to them.
 This is a very important commandment. The whole area of impure thoughts and desires causes scrupulous people much anxiety. Unfortunately, scrupulous persons often believe that the very appearance of thoughts or desires in their thoughts or imagination means that they have committed a sin. This is most certainly not the case. In fact, it is humanly impossible for us to have absolute control over our interior faculties. Such thoughts and images are going to happen, whether we like them or not.
 Because we simply do not have absolute control over our interior faculties, the emphasis of the commandment is on clear and certain consent. Only a free consent, that is clear and certain, constitutes a sin. You can not accidentally or involuntarily be guilty of sin.

7. You shall not disobey your confessor when he tells you never to make another general confession of past sins already confessed.
 It is not unusual for the scrupulous person to desire to make "just one more general confession." The desire to do so is prompted by a wish for inner peace and calm. However, the exact opposite is more often than not a result. The anxiety generated by the process of examination and preparation, the actual confession, and then the review of the confession, produces no inner peace or calm. There always has to be "just one more."
 The wisdom of this commandment is found in two simple words: No more! If the scrupulous person will follow the advice of their confessor on this matter, they will have a chance of finding peace. Otherwise, there is only turmoil, anxiety, and stress.

8. You shall believe and act accordingly, so that whenever you are in doubt as to whether or not you are obliged to do or not to do something, you can take it for certain that you are not obligated.
 This commandment underlines the basic moral principle that doubtful laws or obligations do not bind the scrupulous conscience. The great saint, and our patron, Saint Alphonsus Liguori teaches: "When there exists in a scrupulous person the habitual will not to offend God, it is certain that he or she acts in doubt and there is no sin...."
 I find it very reassuring to read the words of Saint Alphonsus in reference to this matter. It is good to know that the teaching of our very wise patron and model, a saint whom you might recall also suffered greatly from scrupulosity, is so clear and straightforward. "There is no sin," are the words we need to hear and recall as often as necessary.

9. If, before you perform or omit an act, you are doubtful whether or not it is sinful for you, you shall assume as certain that it is not sinful and shall proceed to act without any dread of sin whatever.
 This commandment is also supported by Saint Alphonsus. In his advice to confessors he says, "Scrupulous persons tend to fear that everything they do is sinful. The confessor should command them to act without restraint and overcome their anxiety. He should tell them that their first obligation is to conquer their scruples. They should act against their groundless fears. The confessor may command the scrupulous to conquer their anxiety and disregard it by freely doing whatever it tells them not to do. The confessor may assure the penitent the he or she need never confess such a thing."

10. You shall put your total trust in Jesus Christ, knowing that he loves you as only God can love, and that he will never allow you to lose your soul.
 We often reflected in the pages of SA that the scrupulous person, for one reason or another, has a negative image of God. A negative image of God does not inspire trust but rather fear and dread. In Jesus Christ we are able to glimpse the true image of God: a God who loves and heals and saves. It is in that God, the God revealed to us by Jesus, that we can and should place all of our trust.
 It may very well be helpful to review some scripture passages which may help you change your image of God from a negative to a positive image. May I suggest that you spend some time reviewing the prophet Isaiah, chapter 43, verses 1-4. In this passage you will hear the words of the Lord speaking to you and reminding you "that you are precious in my eyes." You might follow up Isaiah with a reading from Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 8, verses 26-39. In this reading we are assured that the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. You might finally end your reflection by reading from the first letter of the Apostle John, chapter 4, verses 7-19. In this reading John reminds us that love consists in knowing, "not that we have loved God but that God has loved us."
 I hope that this familiar review of the Ten Commandments for the Scrupulous has proven helpful. I might suggest that you keep these commandments close by, especially as a point of reference when you feel anxious or distressed. It is very helpful at such moments to have the calm voice of reason speaking to us.


The Liguori Publications website whence this guide came: http://mission.liguori.org/index.htm



https://www.fisheaters.com/scruples.html

Sunday, January 22, 2017

tennis organizaation have been fixing draws for nadal


Facts and statistics indicate fixing at the very top of men’s tennis
by
Katarina Pijetlovic, LL.B, LL.M, LL.Lic. LL.D cand.
katarina.pijetlovic@ttu.ee
EU and sports law academic
Facts and statistics strongly indicate that draws at the Grand Slam tournaments 2008-2011 might have been fixed
at the very top of men's tennis. Namely, in 12 out of 12 Grand Slam tournaments played on hard and grass courts
between 2008-2011, Federer and Djokovic were always drawn to the same half of the draw, while Nadal and
Murray were drawn to the other half. In addition, in five of those 12 tournaments Murray was not among the first
four seeded players, so his draw was conducted separately five times. Thus, the statistics are as follows: to get the
same result 12 out of 12 times, probability is 1 in 4096. For the case of Murray's separate draws which produced
the same result 5 out of 5 times, it is 1 in 32. THEREFORE, THE PROBABILITY TO OBTAIN DRAW RESULTS AS
OBTAINED AT THE 12 GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENTS IS 131072 TO 1 (4096 x 32 = 131072). Combined with the
study conducted by ESPN on the draws of unseeded players at US Open it reaches 1 in many BILLIONS.
FACEBOOK PAGE ON THIS ISSUE WITH MORE DETAILS AVAILABLE AT http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tennisbiggest
public‐secret/284730451547505?sk=wall
DRAWING PROCEDURE
In general, at the Grand Slam tournaments players are entered in the draw sheet based on their current standing
on the ATP rank list. There are 128 players in the Grand Slams: 32 seeded players and 96 unseeded players. The
first seed is placed on line 1, while the second seed is placed on line 128 at the very bottom of the draw sheet.
This ensures that the two best players cannot meet before the finals. Thereafter, 3rd and 4th seeded player are
hand‐drawn from the cup: the first drawn is placed on the line 33 and the second drawn is placed on the line 96 in
the draw‐sheet. This way the best four players cannot meet each other before semi‐finals. The names of 5th, 6th,
7th and 8th seeded players are then placed into the cup and hand‐drawn to fill places on lines 32, 64, 65, and 97
in the draw. Similarly, 4 more groups of seeded players are drawn and placed on their predetermined line in the
draw‐sheet. Any seeded player has 50% of the chance to be drawn in first seeded player’s half of the draw, and
corresponding 50% to be drawn in part with second seeded player.
For unseeded players the computer programme randomly selects the names to fill in 96 remaining vacant places.
For details concerning the draws see p. 25 of the Grand Slam Rulebook 2011
http://beta.itftennis.com/media/64108/64108.pdf
BACKGROUND AND FACTS ABOUT 4 TOP PLAYERS
1. For many years, the first two spots on the ATP rank list shifted between Roger Federer known as a hard and
grass court specialist and Rafael Nadal known as clay court specialist. The two players held a virtual duopoly over
men’s tennis.
2. Both are sponsored by Nike, and are the most popular players on the planet with the massive fan base
unmatched by any other player.
Fan base on the Facebook:
Federer ‐ 9 million
Nadal ‐ 8.5 million
Djokovic ‐ 1.3 million
Murray ‐ 450.000
Majority of the tennis fans across the world, tournament organizers, and players' sponsors, each for different
reasons, wanted to see Federer and Nadal clash in finals.
3. In 2007 Novak Djokovic rose to No. 3 and a year later, in the end of 2008, Andy Murray rose to No. 4 to
threaten the dominant duo.
4. General results of all the tournaments:
● Nadal‐Murray: 13:4
● Federer‐Murray: 6:8
● Nadal‐Djokovic: 16:14
● Federer‐Djokovic: 14:10
5. Results of mutual clashes on hard and grass courts before 2008 season are as follows:
● Nadal‐Murray: 2:0
● Federer‐Murray: 1:1
● Nadal‐Djokovic: 3:2
● Federer‐Djokovic: 4:1
‐ In their first match in 2005 Federer won Murraybut back then Murray was not even among top 100 in the world.
In their second match, Murray ranked 31 won Federer in 2006, the best year of Federer’s career in which he lost
only to one other player: Nadal. In 2007 a fast progressing Murray had not had a chance to meet Federer on any
tournaments, but he beat him again on their next encounter one and a half year later in 2008. At the same time,
Murray lost to Nadal in first five encounters, two of which were before 2008 season.
‐ Djokovic was equal opponent to Nadal on hard and grass courts from the start, and today he is leading 11:7
against Nadal on those surfaces. But it is clear Djokovic was most likely to lose to Federer on that surface looking
at 4:1 result from before 2008. Today Federer is still in lead 11:9 – of these 20 matches, four last matches on hard
court were won by Djokovic in his run in 2011 which took everyone by surprise.
RESULTS OF THE DRAWS 2008‐2011
Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open
2011 1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
5th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed DJOKOVIC
3rd seed FEDERER
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN
NADAL’s HALF
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed DJOKOVIC
3rd seed FEDERER
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
1st seed DJOKOVIC
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed FEDERER
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN
FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
2010 1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
5th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
MURRAY IN FEDERER’s
HALF; DJOKOVIC IN
NADAL’s HALF
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN
FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
2009 1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
4th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed MURRAY
4th seed DJOKOVIC
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN
NADAL’s HALF
1st seed NADAL (withdrew)
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed MURRAY
4th seed DJOKOVIC
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF (Nadal withdrew due to
injury but this is irrelevant in this
context)
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed MURRAY
3rd seed NADAL
4th seed DJOKOVIC
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN
FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
2008 1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
9th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
10th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
BOTH DJOKOVIC AND
MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF (let’s not forget here
who is “king of clay”)
1st seed FEDERER
2nd seed NADAL
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
12th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN FEDERER’s
HALF; MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
1st seed NADAL
2nd seed FEDERER
3rd seed DJOKOVIC
6th seed MURRAY
Result of the draw:
DJOKOVIC IN
FEDERER’s HALF;
MURRAY IN NADAL’s
HALF
Very curiously, since the beginning of 2008 in each and every of 12 Grand Slams played on hard and grass courts
(i.e., four of each, Australian Open, US Open and Wimbledon), Djokovic was placed in Federer’s half on the draw,
and Murray in Nadal’s half of the draw! In US Open 2009 and 2011, and Wimbledon 2011 Federer and Murray did
not even have a chance to be in the same part of the draw as they were 1st and 2nd seeds (US Open 2009) or 3rd
and 4th seeds (US Open 2011 and Wimbledon 2011). But on those three occasions Nadal and Federer were
placed in the separate part of the draw sheet when each and every of those times there was 50% chance to
obtain that result. With Djokovic and Murray in less favorable parts of the draw the likelihood of the desired finals
between Nadal and Federer increases.
INCREDIBLE STATISTICS
Any seeded player has 50% of the chance to be drawn in first seeded player’s half of the draw, and corresponding
50% to be drawn in part with second seeded player. Under the laws of probability having the draw of 3rd and 4th
seeded players have identical outcome (i.e., Djokovic always in Federer’s half, and Nadal always in Murray’s half)
in 12 out of 12 times is 1 in 4096, or 0.02%. But Murray was not among 4 first seeded players at 5 of those 12
tournaments (Australian Open 2008, 2010, 2011, Wimbledon 2008, and US Open 2008). This means he was drawn
in the separate group with other seeded players ‐ in each and every of those 5 separate draws he was placed in
Nadal’s half! The same result in 5 out of 5 draws can happen is 1 in 32. 4096 multiplied with 32 is 131072. THE
PROBABILITY TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS AS WE SAW IN HARD AND GRASS COURT GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENTS
2008‐2011 IS 131072 TO 1. If you wanted to arrive at the result of draws achieved at the Grand Slams from 2008
to 2011, you would have to conduct 131072 draws to get the same result only once. It would take you conducting
17 draws every single day for 359 years!
A CASE OF ROLAND GARROS (the only clay court Slam)
Results on ALL clay tournaments are as follows: Murray never played Federer on any clay court tournament.
Nadal leads 4:0 against Murray on clay. Nadal was likely to win whomever he got on clay, Djokovic or Murray.
Djokovic played 11 matches on clay with Nadal of which he lost 9 first matches. Federer vs. Djokovic on clay ‐ 3:1.
Federer was likely to win on clay against Djokovic.
2. Results of Roland Garros draws 2008‐2011
As regards this surface is was less important where Djokovic is placed in the draw, whether with Nadal or Federer.
What was important is to keep Murray out of the way of Federer – and it happened in 3 out of 4 Roland Garros
tournaments.
● 2008 ‐ Murray was ranked 10th and was drawn in the part with Nadal. Djokovic was drawn separately and
was also drawn in Nadal’s part.
● 2010 ‐ might appear as the only odd year in the entire story. This is the only year where Murray was
placed in Federers half. Djokovic automatically was placed with Nadal as he and Murray were 3rd and 4th
seeds. However, if you look at the Murray’s opponents on the road to semi‐finals anybody knowing tennis
would be able to predict he was not going to make it that far. And he did not. Some even questioned his
ability to get passed Gasquet in the first round ‐ he barely made it coming back from two sets down.
NB! This tournament was not taken into account for the purposes of statistics due to the changed relative strength
of players and the need to take into account qualitative aspects, but it does not mean that it is excluded from the
possible fixing.
CONNECTION TO ESPN RESEARCH
Recent research conducted by ESPN’s “Outside The Lines” demonstrated that computer‐generated part of the
draw at US Open which supposed to randomly distribute the unseeded players in the draw sheet has likely been
rigged for the past ten years to ensure that the top 2 players face the easiest possible opponents in the first
round. “It is still possible though…in sport just like in life anomalies can happen” said Chris Widmaier of US Tennis
Association. But statistical analysis conducted by Dr. Andrew Swift produced as easy opponents in the first round
in only 4 out of million simulations! "By itself, the U.S. [Open] numbers are weird," he said. "And then they're
also weird in comparison to the other three Grand Slams. So you've got a double argument of weirdness here.
Something weird is going on."
Full story available here http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6854000/how‐espn‐lines‐analyzed‐us‐open‐tennistournament
draw
…and here http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6850893/espn‐analysis‐finds‐top‐seeds‐tennis‐us‐open‐had‐easier‐drawstatistically
likely ESPN’s short video illustration at http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6861149&categoryid=2378529
CONCLUSION
The probability that the two incredible coincidences (i.e., hand‐draws of seeded players at the three Grand Slams,
and the computer generated draws of unseeded players at the US Open) might happen simultaneously is 1 in ca.
32 BILLIONS. These figures are a strong indicator of fixing and merit detailed investigation.


http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/knowledgebank/Tennisdraws_Katarina_Pijetlovic.pdf

Saturday, January 21, 2017

2차대전때 독일이 미국보다 훨씬대단한이유

푸딩푸딩 답변
드립+0 2017-01-18 15:04 수정 삭제
응? 그럼 독일은 14%의 군수물자를 가지고 40%를 가진 유럽+40%를 가진 미국과 싸운거야?
미국보다 독일이 더 대단해보여 ㄷㄷ
 

Friday, January 20, 2017

ancestor from south Kyushu is similar to polynesian or samoa comment

高木正弘
I am Japanese and by only face picture, its very hard. I think Japanese are little bit different from those two countries. Okinawan people are very differ from our mainland Japanese. and north Hkkaido people are similar to buriyat or siberian, eskimo people. Mainland Japanese are similar to korean , Chinese. My ancestor from south Kyushu is similar to polynesian or samoa. but average Japanese are similar to altaic, mongol, kazakh,kirgis. I think.
 

ATP fixed easiest draw for nadal


How does Nadal always get the easiest draws, TIME AFTER TIME?
Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by ductrung3993, Oct 31, 2013.
.


Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
Next >
. .


ductrung3993

ductrung3993
Hall of Fame

Joined:Jun 18, 2010Messages:2,342Location:San Francisco, 94118


ductrung3993, Oct 31, 2013 

Someone please explain this for me.
 This happens way too often to be consider normal.
 Especially every time he "comes back". Not just easy draws, but all the other lucks too such as getting tired opponents. I though 2010 was enough of a fluke until this year happens.


#1
.


Chico

Chico
Banned

Joined:Jun 29, 2013Messages:9,171


Chico, Oct 31, 2013 

I don't understand it either. It is really ridiculous. Happens way too often to be a coincidence IMO.
 Not to mention huge amount of luck he had recently, on top of easy draws. The luck has to turn at some point.


#2
.


Clarky21

Clarky21
Banned

Joined:Apr 9, 2011Messages:12,656


Clarky21, Oct 31, 2013 

Explain to me how any of his recent draws have been easy? He had to play JJ in his second match in Paris, and got soaked by the draw in Shanghai and in Beijing. Cvac and Fed are the ones who routinely get cake draws, not Nadal.


#3
.


monfed

monfed
Guest



monfed, Oct 31, 2013 

Yea , you would've thought USO 10 draw was a rare gift but the cakedraws for Ralph don't seem to have an upper limit. It's just too obvious.


#4
.


MonkeyBoy

MonkeyBoy
Hall of Fame

Joined:Nov 18, 2012Messages:1,510


MonkeyBoy, Oct 31, 2013 

He had hard draws in RG/Wimb.


#5
.


marc45

marc45
Legend

Joined:May 29, 2008Messages:7,522Location:Ohio


marc45, Oct 31, 2013 

Toni is behind all of this..and the King of Spain..I can't believe the OP doesn't know this, it's been all over the news
 (Francisco Franco is still dead btw, if anybody is still wondering about that)
[​IMG]

Last edited: Oct 31, 2013

#6
.


cjs

cjs
Semi-Pro

Joined:Jul 24, 2013Messages:771


cjs, Oct 31, 2013 

Every draw looks easy when your No 1 and have a positive head-to-head record against all your opponents.
 This perception of "cake walk draws" (or more aptly hallucination) is simply a product of the paranoid minds of haters.


#7
.


RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon
Legend

Joined:May 2, 2011Messages:8,534Location:Houston, TX


RF20Lennon, Oct 31, 2013 

Toni is the Vito Corleone of the ATP. :cool:


#8
.


Timbo's hopeless slice

Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame

Joined:Feb 8, 2011Messages:4,134


Timbo's hopeless slice, Oct 31, 2013 

Sometimes, rarely, when I'm feeling down, I come to this part of the forum..
 Whilst tragic, it always cheers me up.
 Why, you ask? Because it reminds me that, no matter how low I may feel, I will never be as stupid as the denizens of this awful place...


#9
.


tennisbuck

tennisbuck
Professional

Joined:Aug 24, 2012Messages:1,136


tennisbuck, Oct 31, 2013 

Ya know there is a thread like the this for all of the "Big Four"... I think they have all gotten there share of streaks of good draws but I don't buy these conspiracy theories


#10
.


MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster

Joined:Jul 6, 2007Messages:39,593Location:Somewhere Epic


MichaelNadal, Oct 31, 2013 

[​IMG]


#11
.


spinovic

spinovic
Hall of Fame

Joined:Feb 19, 2013Messages:4,660


spinovic, Oct 31, 2013 



Timbo's hopeless slice said: ↑

Sometimes, rarely, when I'm feeling down, I come to this part of the forum..
 Whilst tragic, it always cheers me up.
 Why, you ask? Because it reminds me that, no matter how low I may feel, I will never be as stupid as the denizens of this awful place...

Good stuff Timbo...


#12
.


LazyNinja19

LazyNinja19
Hall of Fame

Joined:Oct 24, 2013Messages:4,062Location:Looking for a perma-ban.


LazyNinja19, Oct 31, 2013 

It's really funny how Nadal winning makes you haters soooo sad, that you have to come up with a new thread to cry, every time he wins!
 I can imagine people such as OP crying to their mommy "mommy, Rafa wins...he bad...he defeats my Lord Federer....he evil...me no like him, me want to cry". :lol: :lol:
 Haters gonna hate! 8)


#13
.


winstonplum

winstonplum
Hall of Fame

Joined:May 14, 2010Messages:2,348


winstonplum, Oct 31, 2013 



Timbo's hopeless slice said: ↑

Sometimes, rarely, when I'm feeling down, I come to this part of the forum..
 Whilst tragic, it always cheers me up.
 Why, you ask? Because it reminds me that, no matter how low I may feel, I will never be as stupid as the denizens of this awful place...

Frickin' classic.


#14
.


Backspin1183

Backspin1183
G.O.A.T.

Joined:Aug 15, 2013Messages:10,222Location:Auckland, New Zealand.


Backspin1183, Nov 1, 2013 

Nadal's "cup cake draws" usually have Federer or Djokovic. And we know how Nadal leads the H2H vs these two players.
 With the clay warrior having a positive H2H vs almost every player on the ATP Tour, every draw he gets can be easy.


#15
.


MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster

Joined:Jul 6, 2007Messages:39,593Location:Somewhere Epic


MichaelNadal, Nov 1, 2013 

What's a hard draw for Rafa?


#16
.


Warmaster

Warmaster
Hall of Fame

Joined:Jan 20, 2012Messages:3,960


Warmaster, Nov 1, 2013 



MichaelNadal said: ↑

What's a hard draw for Rafa?

The Tower of Tandil in his current form!


#17
.


Nathaniel_Near

Nathaniel_Near
Guest



Nathaniel_Near, Nov 1, 2013 



Warmaster said: ↑

The Tower of Tandil in his current form!

Oh man.

 Today is a great day of tennis.


#18
.


Magnus

Magnus
Legend

Joined:Jan 24, 2011Messages:5,210


Magnus, Nov 1, 2013 

Rafita always gets joke draws, but its old news now. Its been happening since his debut pretty much.


#19
.


Wim

Wim
Guest



Wim, Nov 1, 2013 

Dont understand what you mean?
 In Shanghai he had a harder one.
 USO a bit more difficult than Djoker.


#20
.


JoshT

JoshT
Semi-Pro

Joined:Oct 1, 2013Messages:678Location:Winston Salem, NC


JoshT, Nov 1, 2013 

"luck of the draw"???
 It's random, and there is no truth to any one player ALWAYS getting a better draw then the rest.
 The amount of times when Nadal was number 4 that he ended up on the same half as Djokovic should prove that.


#21
.


Backspin1183

Backspin1183
G.O.A.T.

Joined:Aug 15, 2013Messages:10,222Location:Auckland, New Zealand.


Backspin1183, Nov 1, 2013 



Magnus said: ↑

Rafita always gets joke draws, but its old news now. Its been happening since his debut pretty much.

almost all his draws included prime Djokovic or Roger Cabrito.


#22
.


monfed

monfed
Guest



monfed, Nov 1, 2013 



Magnus said: ↑

Rafita always gets joke draws, but its old news now. Its been happening since his debut pretty much.

Tio Toni seems to have major pull, disturbing trend.


#23
.


monfed

monfed
Guest



monfed, Nov 1, 2013 



RF20Lennon said: ↑

Toni is the Vito Corleone of the ATP. :cool:

You maybe onto something, slowdown of surfaces, cake draws. Hmm interesting.


#24
.


lunch

lunch
New User

Joined:Sep 5, 2013Messages:20


lunch, Nov 1, 2013 

on this forum, the below would be considered a "fair" draw for nadal:
 R1: Janowicz
 R2: Isner
 R3: Federer
 R4: Tsonga
 Qtrs: Del Potro
 Semis: Murray
 Final: Djokovic
 in all seriousness, there are only a handful of players on tour who have a realistic shot of taking rafa out. just because he can steamroll 5 out of 7 guys in any given tournament doesn't mean that the draw is rigged. it just means that he's that much better than the field (including #6-10 in the world).
 the paragraph above also applies to djokovic.


#25
.


veroniquem

veroniquem
Bionic Poster

Joined:Jan 27, 2008Messages:35,506Location:New York


veroniquem, Nov 1, 2013 

It's just because Murray is not playing. So of course whoever gets Delpo/Fed gets shafted, especially indoor. But there is another way to look at it: the Djoko side of the draw is getting a better prep for WTF than Rafa.


#26
.


Starfury

Starfury
Hall of Fame

Joined:Jul 3, 2009Messages:2,505


Starfury, Nov 1, 2013 



lunch said: ↑

in all seriousness, there are only a handful of players on tour who have a realistic shot of taking rafa out. just because he can steamroll 5 out of 7 guys in any given tournament doesn't mean that the draw is rigged. it just means that he's that much better than the field (including #6-10 in the world).

Strawman. It's simple to look at the draw and compare the other QF seeds.
 Djokovic half: Del Potro, Federer, Wawrinka
 Nadal half: Ferrer, Berdych, Gasquet
 Now who's going to argue that Nadal's didn't get the the weaker player for each of the three opponents?


#27
.


veroniquem

veroniquem
Bionic Poster

Joined:Jan 27, 2008Messages:35,506Location:New York


veroniquem, Nov 1, 2013 



Starfury said: ↑

Strawman. It's simple to look at the draw and compare the other QF seeds.
 Djokovic half: Del Potro, Federer, Wawrinka
 Nadal half: Ferrer, Berdych, Gasquet
 Now who's going to argue that Nadal's didn't get the the weaker player for each of the three opponents?

It happens. It's happened to other players in other draws. C'est la vie!


#28
.


chicagodude

chicagodude
Professional

Joined:Oct 4, 2013Messages:949


chicagodude, Nov 1, 2013 



ductrung3993 said: ↑

Someone please explain this for me.
 This happens way too often to be consider normal.
 Especially every time he "comes back". Not just easy draws, but all the other lucks too such as getting tired opponents. I though 2010 was enough of a fluke until this year happens.

*sigh* here's my explanation: your dislike for Nadal is clouding your objectivity and makes you think he always gets easy draws and always gets lucky. And how is getting tired opponents (which is subjective, btw) lucky anyway?
 There are threads like this for each of the top players, and frankly it's gotten stale long time ago. Any objective tennis fan will see that draws vary per tournament, with each top player sometimes getting relatively easy draws and sometimes relatively tough.


#29
.


helterskelter

helterskelter
Hall of Fame

Joined:Sep 19, 2013Messages:4,325


helterskelter, Nov 1, 2013 

Funny that this thread is up this year, when Nadal's draws haven't been as easy as usual. He did actually get a difficult draw at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, although he again got an easy draw at the US Open.
 In the past, it was definitely the case that Nadal consistently got easy draws, and Federer and Djokovic got hard ones. For several years, they were the top three players in the world by a distance, so the only thing that really mattered from the point of view of the draw was which ones had to play each other in the semi-finals.
 So, let's take a look:
 Wimbledon 2012 - Djokovic v Federer; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Roland Garros 2012 - Djokovic v Federer; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Australian Open 2012 - Djokovic v A. N. Other; Federer v Nadal
 US Open 2011 - Djokovic v Federer; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Wimbledon 2011 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Federer v Djokovic
 Roland Garros 2011 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Federer v Djokovic
 Australian Open 2011 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 US Open 2010 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Wimbledon 2010 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Roland Garros 2010 - Federer v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Nadal
 Australian Open 2010 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 US Open 2009 - Federer v Djokovic; Nadal v A. N. Other
 Wimbledon 2009 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Roland Garros 2009 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Australian Open 2009 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 US Open 2008 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Wimbledon 2008 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Roland Garros 2008 - Federer v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Nadal
 Australian Open 2008 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 In other words, in a 19-Slam stretch during which they were the top three players almost always (at the US Open 2009, Murray was seeded #2), Nadal only had to play one of the others in the semi-finals on three occasions, while Djokovic and Federer were drawn against each other on 16 occasions.
 Conclusion: Nadal has historically had a ridiculous number of easy draws in major championships.


#30
.


lunch

lunch
New User

Joined:Sep 5, 2013Messages:20


lunch, Nov 1, 2013 



Starfury said: ↑

Strawman. It's simple to look at the draw and compare the other QF seeds.
 Djokovic half: Del Potro, Federer, Wawrinka
 Nadal half: Ferrer, Berdych, Gasquet
 Now who's going to argue that Nadal's didn't get the the weaker player for each of the three opponents?

note the title of this thread: How does Nadal always get the easiest draws, TIME AFTER TIME?
 see: Shanghai Masters 2013.
 as a Nadal fan, i'm not going to cry over a difficult draw, as I know the pendulum has swung the other way many a time in the past. And vice versa.
 I hope the Djokovic and Federer fans on this forum would do the same.


#31
.


chicagodude

chicagodude
Professional

Joined:Oct 4, 2013Messages:949


chicagodude, Nov 1, 2013 



helterskelter said: ↑

Funny that this thread is up this year, when Nadal's draws haven't been as easy as usual. He did actually get a difficult draw at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, although he again got an easy draw at the US Open.
 In the past, it was definitely the case that Nadal consistently got easy draws, and Federer and Djokovic got hard ones. For several years, they were the top three players in the world by a distance, so the only thing that really mattered from the point of view of the draw was which ones had to play each other in the semi-finals.
 So, let's take a look:
 Wimbledon 2012 - Djokovic v Federer; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Roland Garros 2012 - Djokovic v Federer; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Australian Open 2012 - Djokovic v A. N. Other; Federer v Nadal
 US Open 2011 - Djokovic v Federer; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Wimbledon 2011 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Federer v Djokovic
 Roland Garros 2011 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Federer v Djokovic
 Australian Open 2011 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 US Open 2010 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Wimbledon 2010 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Roland Garros 2010 - Federer v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Nadal
 Australian Open 2010 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 US Open 2009 - Federer v Djokovic; Nadal v A. N. Other
 Wimbledon 2009 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Roland Garros 2009 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Australian Open 2009 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 US Open 2008 - Nadal v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Federer
 Wimbledon 2008 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 Roland Garros 2008 - Federer v A. N. Other; Djokovic v Nadal
 Australian Open 2008 - Federer v Djokovic; A. N. Other v Nadal
 In other words, in a 19-Slam stretch during which they were the top three players almost always (at the US Open 2009, Murray was seeded #2), Nadal only had to play one of the others in the semi-finals on three occasions, while Djokovic and Federer were drawn against each other on 16 occasions.
 Conclusion: Nadal has historically had a ridiculous number of easy draws in major championships.
Click to expand...
Conclusion: you've conveniently left Murray out as one of the top-4 players to make it look like Nadal had easy draws. Pretty much everybody talks about the big 4, but you only speak of a top 3, why is that?


#32
.


Wim

Wim
Guest



Wim, Nov 1, 2013 

Must be CIA.


#33
.


Wim

Wim
Guest



Wim, Nov 1, 2013 



chicagodude said: ↑

Conclusion: you've conveniently left Murray out as one of the top-4 players to make it look like Nadal had easy draws. Pretty much everybody talks about the big 4, but you only speak of a top 3, why is that?

You are so right.


#34
.


Backspin1183

Backspin1183
G.O.A.T.

Joined:Aug 15, 2013Messages:10,222Location:Auckland, New Zealand.


Backspin1183, Nov 1, 2013 

You whiny kids also need to whine 'bout why it's always Nadal who gets to beat Djokovic and Federer more than 20 times each. Why always Nadal why!


#35
.


Steve0904
 
Steve0904
G.O.A.T.

Joined:Oct 13, 2012Messages:16,630Location:The Shire


Steve0904, Nov 1, 2013 



Wim said: ↑

You are so right.

Eh.... Not really. There was no big 4 for most of those slams because Murray was easier to beat. However, Djokovic never turned the corner until 2011 so it's a bit of a fallacy that Federer got tougher draws than Nadal. When Federer played Djokovic in slams before 2011 I almost always expected Federer to win.


#36
.


chicagodude

chicagodude
Professional

Joined:Oct 4, 2013Messages:949


chicagodude, Nov 1, 2013 



Steve0904 said: ↑

Eh.... Not really. There was no big 4 for most of those slams because Murray was easier to beat. However, Djokovic never turned the corner until 2011 so it's a bit of a fallacy that Federer got tougher draws than Nadal. When Federer played Djokovic in slams before 2011 I almost always expected Federer to win.

Well, if you want to go that way: before 2011 there was Fed-Nadal, then just below that Murray-Djoko. In 2011 there was Djoko and Nadal, and right behind that Fed-Murray. In 2012 Murray turned a corner and you could pretty much speak of a top-4, finally. This year I would say it's top-3 Djoko/Nadal/Murray at AO and WM, and top-2 at the other 2.


#37
.


helterskelter

helterskelter
Hall of Fame

Joined:Sep 19, 2013Messages:4,325


helterskelter, Nov 1, 2013 

Even before 2011, Djokovic was a tougher opponent than Murray pretty much all of the time.


#38
.


helterskelter

helterskelter
Hall of Fame

Joined:Sep 19, 2013Messages:4,325


helterskelter, Nov 1, 2013 



Backspin1183 said: ↑

You whiny kids also need to whine 'bout why it's always Nadal who gets to beat Djokovic and Federer more than 20 times each. Why always Nadal why!

1. He plays them on surfaces that favor him
 2. He plays them when he's fresh and they're tired because they've just played each other for hours while he gets to play the likes of Youzhny


#39
.


TheF1Bob

TheF1Bob
Banned

Joined:Dec 4, 2011Messages:9,472Location:NON-Pigeon City


TheF1Bob, Nov 1, 2013 

Senior Toni would like a word with you.


#40
.


Steve0904
 
Steve0904
G.O.A.T.

Joined:Oct 13, 2012Messages:16,630Location:The Shire


Steve0904, Nov 1, 2013 



chicagodude said: ↑

Well, if you want to go that way: before 2011 there was Fed-Nadal, then just below that Murray-Djoko. In 2011 there was Djoko and Nadal, and right behind that Fed-Murray. In 2012 Murray turned a corner and you could pretty much speak of a top-4, finally. This year I would say it's top-3 Djoko/Nadal/Murray at AO and WM, and top-2 at the other 2.

That's basically what I'm saying. There have actually been very few times when there was a legit "big 4."


#41
.


chicagodude

chicagodude
Professional

Joined:Oct 4, 2013Messages:949


chicagodude, Nov 1, 2013 

Frankly, all these threads made by fans of one player to try to discount their opponents' achievements are getting very tiresome.
 Lucky draws all the time for one player? Total BS
 Weaker era for one player? Total BS
 And now some of you will probably respond with "You're wrong, if you look objectively, then....blablabla" and those responses are always from fans of one player or another.


#42
.


chicagodude

chicagodude
Professional

Joined:Oct 4, 2013Messages:949


chicagodude, Nov 1, 2013 



Steve0904 said: ↑

That's basically what I'm saying. There have actually been very few times when there was a legit "big 4."

Yes, you could say that, thing is, just listing a big 3 as if it was a constant big-3 is biased too. It's very hard to judge draws on being easy/difficult, since it all depends on what surface it is, the form of the moment for each player, etc.
 Sure, the current tournament in Paris seems to have a more difficult draw for Djokovic (mainly comparing Ferrer to Delpo. Berdych-Fed almost equivalent, Gassquet-Wawrinka almost equivalent), but Wawrinka didn't have much in the way of Djoko, while for all we know Gasquet might play the match of his life.


#43
.


helterskelter

helterskelter
Hall of Fame

Joined:Sep 19, 2013Messages:4,325


helterskelter, Nov 1, 2013 

Frankly, this refusal of Nadal fans to accept that he's been given more advantages than any top player in recent history and that he has as a result vastly overachieved are getting very tiresome.
 Now some of you will probably respond with "You're wrong, Nadal has changed his game, had difficult draws…blahblahblah" and accuse me of being a fan of either Federer or Djokovic. Neither is true.


#44
.


Kenshin

Kenshin
Semi-Pro

Joined:Sep 11, 2013Messages:747


Kenshin, Nov 1, 2013 



helterskelter said: ↑

Frankly, this refusal of Nadal fans to accept that he's been given more advantages than any top player in recent history and that he has as a result vastly overachieved are getting very tiresome.
 Now some of you will probably respond with "You're wrong, Nadal has changed his game, had difficult draws…blahblahblah" and accuse me of being a fan of either Federer or Djokovic. Neither is true.

Every player is playing on an even playing field. There is NOTHING such as given more advantages than any top player in recent history. If you are a real tennis fan, you don't creat a post like this.


#45
.


LazyNinja19

LazyNinja19
Hall of Fame

Joined:Oct 24, 2013Messages:4,062Location:Looking for a perma-ban.


LazyNinja19, Nov 1, 2013 

Wow! These Nole & Fed fans are such cry babies..
 "Boohooo my God got a tough draw...boo hoo :'( :'("
 Grow up guys! The draws are absolutely fair! Stop cribbing!
 Your idols don't cry over it, why do you?!


#46
.


helterskelter

helterskelter
Hall of Fame

Joined:Sep 19, 2013Messages:4,325


helterskelter, Nov 1, 2013 



Kenshin said: ↑

Every player is playing on an even playing field. There is NOTHING such as given more advantages than any top player in recent history. If you are a real tennis fan, you don't creat a post like this.

Why do you presume to say who is a "real tennis fan" or not? (I've seen you say that before to other people).
 Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have all benefitted from homogenized conditions and that has helped them wrack up more wins than top players of past generations. That much is pretty uncontroversial. It's my contention that Nadal has benefitted from this more than the other two. That's obviously more controversial, but I've been giving reasons for several posts now.


#47
.


ruerooo

ruerooo
Legend

Joined:Jul 15, 2008Messages:7,942Location:Right behind you


ruerooo, Nov 1, 2013 



helterskelter said: ↑

Frankly, this refusal of Nadal fans to accept that he's been given more advantages than any top player in recent history and that he has as a result vastly overachieved are getting very tiresome.

Roger won pretty much everything from 2004-2007. Novak won pretty much every tournament in 2011.
 Have you forgotten? Did you not watch tennis back then? Are you cursed with long- or short-term memory problems, or a really short attention span?


helterskelter said: ↑

Now some of you will probably respond with "You're wrong, Nadal has changed his game, had difficult draws…blahblahblah" and accuse me of being a fan of either Federer or Djokovic. Neither is true.

I wouldn't "accuse" you of any of that, personally.
 I might accuse you of being a little clueless, though, maybe. Or possibly of having ingested too many interesting substances. Because ... :shock:


#48
.


Kenshin

Kenshin
Semi-Pro

Joined:Sep 11, 2013Messages:747


Kenshin, Nov 1, 2013 



helterskelter said: ↑

Why do you presume to say who is a "real tennis fan" or not? (I've seen you say that before to other people).
 Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have all benefitted from homogenized conditions and that has helped them wrack up more wins than top players of past generations. That much is pretty uncontroversial. It's my contention that Nadal has benefitted from this more than the other two. That's obviously more controversial, but I've been giving reasons for several posts now.

Like I said before there is nothing as such thing like benefitted from the other two or whatever. All players have to deal with the same condition that they have been given. In that regard they are on an even playing feild. To think otherwise and whine about it is just you being bias.


#49
.


helterskelter

helterskelter
Hall of Fame

Joined:Sep 19, 2013Messages:4,325


helterskelter, Nov 1, 2013 



ruerooo said: ↑

Roger won pretty much everything from 2004-2007. Novak won pretty much every tournament in 2011.
 Have you forgotten? Did you not watch tennis back then? Are you cursed with long- or short-term memory problems, or a really short attention span?

 I wouldn't "accuse" you of any of that, personally.
 I might accuse you of being a little clueless, though, maybe. Or possibly of having ingested too many interesting substances. Because ... :shock:
Click to expand...
Ah, my memory is (almost) as good as ever it was, and I've followed tennis since 1986. I don't see how Federer and Djokovic's success is related to the question of whether Nadal has overachieved. It's certainly possible that Nadal's level of success is overachieving for his level of talent but wouldn't be overachieving for other players' level of talent. I personally believe that Nadal is the least talented 5+ Slam champion since Mats Wilander (by quite a distance). Feel free to disagree, of course.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/how-does-nadal-always-get-the-easiest-draws-time-after-time.481647/