|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: "David White" <n...@email.provided>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:32:44 +1000
Local: Fri 31 Mar 2006 05:32
Subject: Re: De-lurk: Observations on era strength
[snip]
> Most people in rst seem to hold the view that a relative dearth of top Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually > 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. been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect. David You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||