> [snip]

> > Most people in rst seem to hold the view that a relative dearth of top
> > champions makes it easier for a good player to become dominant and pad
> > his slam totals. Borg, Connors, and Mac had to contend with each
> > other, goes this line of reasoning -- who is Federer's challenger?
> > However, viewing tennis as a complex system rather than as a series of
> > disconnected battles between pairs of players yields the opposite
> > conclusion: it is *more difficult*, not less difficult, for a standout
> > champion to emerge in an era of equilibrium. Parity tends to suppress
> > extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He
> > has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have
> > expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.

> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually
> been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it
> constantly henceforth I expect.

> David<<