Talk About Tennis 2.0

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:16 pm I will add something else. Why do we then take "the field"? What does "the field" mean.
With @JazzNu. Sampras was the 12th seed at his 1990 USO (he was also the 12th seed at his last. A pretty coincidence). Yes, he was promising and people were talking about him. But nobody really expected him to beat Mac AND Lendl at the time. So, indeed, a major "other".
Or field

I would classify that as 'field' - some great player can always emerge and take everyone by (pleasant) surprise.. it doesnt mean 'anyone can win', 'parity' etc.

this has been an elightening discussion, for me, at least! so thanks, folks..

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:16 am this has been an elightening discussion, for me, at least! so thanks, folks..

Hey, you started it

'Other' obviously means a player who COULD win the tournament - hell EVERY player in the draw has a chance to win it - but who would be a surprise winner. It has absolutely nothing to do with how successful - or not - they are AFTER they win their maiden Major!

And so Kuerten, Becker, Sharapova, Sampras, even Kenin and Swiatek, and the others mentioned, all qualified as 'other' when they won their first Major.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:21 pm Well, in the end, Sabalenka was everyone's #1 or #2 pick. I rest my case

Having finally watched the final (for some reason I checked this thread earlier today having not watched final yet... very smart of me) - Sabalenka barely won. Rybakina very nearly won this one, and she wasn't in anyone's "top 6" that I saw in the thread. Don't know how you can rest your case when it very nearly didn't even come true this time

She was my #2 pick.
Some of this discussion took place on the general AO thread .you may have missed that.

One week in she was your #4 pick... this was your first % probabilty I could find

viewtopic.php?p=74844#p74844

It's humorous how, as time goes on in a tournament and players are eliminated, the percentage of probability for the remaining players to win keeps rising ...
Then, at the end, after the winner is decided, some congratulate themselves and say "I picked him/her to win!"
Yes... when there were only 2 or 4 players remaining!
But if one looks back to the beginning of the tournament, you see that the person who is proud of picking the winner had given a better chance for the win to about 5 other players.

And then when someone unexpected wins a big tournament, these people completely ignore that, and continue insisting that the winner always comes from a very small and select group.

The goalposts keep moving - sometimes daily - in order to make the person appear to be 'right'.
I can't take this kind stuff seriously - it's just humorous to me...

The funniest "stat" I heard was on the semifinal when they made a big deal about the oldest and youngest players in the draw left playing each other.
(You know when it was down to four and there was a 1/3 chance of it happening.)