It's time to resurrect an old feature of Slant Pattern, and that is the mailbag. As before, we don't actually get letters, e-mail, or Twitter queries looking for me to answer burning questions, so instead, I'll once again I'll swipe the questions asked to other popular sportswriters who can sustain a mailbag feature.
The first question (originally asked to L. Jon Wertheim at Sports Illustrated), comes from AM in San Diego, who asks:
Which season was better: Novak Djokovic 2015 or Roger Federer 2006? Federer had a better match record (92-5 vs. 82-6) and more tournament wins (12 vs. 11). But I would give the edge to Djokovic because Federer's extra wins came at smaller tournaments and Djokovic had more Masters titles (six vs. four). Your thoughts? If you agree, where would Djokovic's 2015 rank among the all-time great ATP seasons in the Open Era?
I'm not sure Djokovic deserves credit for playing so few events that are not either Masters or Grand Slam events. He tends to play the absolute bare minimum of events of each level required by the ATP, and to me, that's kind of not cool.
Djokovic is unquestionably the greatest in the game today by a good margin and likely will remain so for the next few years, but not playing the smaller events should not lead one to assume he would automatically dominate every last one of them if he played them. He probably would, but he also lost to Ivo Karlovic early last year, and that's just the type of smaller-tournament player Federer more readily exposes himself to.
Getting off of that bit of data though, I still think 2006 Federer was the better season. More wins, fewer losses, same grand slam result: 3 slams and a loss in the final of the fourth.
However, I think the best season of anyone in the Open Era belongs to John McEnroe in 1984. While he won 2 out of 3 Grand Slams (and made the Final in the third), even if we debit him the Australian Open which he missed, that year he set the still-standing record of win percentage in a year (82-3), set the still-standing Wimbledon record of game win percentage in the tournament (68%), the still-standing record for win percentage of sets won across all grand slam tournaments (89.9%) and he won the Wimbledon Men's Doubles title, too (with Peter Fleming). The stars of the men's game today hardly even play doubles, let alone excel at it.
Next, a soccer question, originally posed to Grant Wahl at Sports Illustrated:
If the USMNT doesn't get the needed results in first WCQs, how hot of water could [Jurgen] Klinsmann be in?
@DRock_18
Well, the only "needed" result is to get into the final stage of qualifying, better known as "The hex," and the notion that the USNMT would bow out before that - meaning finishing third in the group where the other squads are Trinidad & Tobago, Guatemala, and St. Vincent & The Grenadines, is practically an impossibility.
But if they are unconvincing in their performances (like their draw in Trinidad), then yes, he might be in pretty scalding hot water. A lot of people are very disappointed with the way the limped out in fourth at the Gold Cup, failed to beat Mexico for the last slot in the FIFA Confederations Cup, and have just 2 wins in their last 8 matches. More and more people are * already* calling for Klinsmann to get the gate.
Those people are all wrong. If I was Sunil Gupta (president of U.S. Soccer), I would offer him a lifetime contract. Here are the reasons why:
* The losing streak seems pretty meaningless when you consider that earlier this year they had a 9-game unbeaten streak, including wins over the Netherlands and Germany in those countries.
* He guided the U.S. out of the Group Of Death and into the knockout rounds of the 2014 World Cup.
* He guided the U.S. to their first win over Mexico in Mexico ever.
* He brought Germany to a World Cup semifinal as their manager.
* He is always unfailingly honest to the press about the state of US soccer and what it will take to succeed. He clearly understands soccer from an organizational and culture standpoint, far beyond just X's and O's. I can already hear in the BS optimism of being able to compete for world titles under the current status quo of whomever his successor is. It will be a shame.
Finally, we close it out with a pair of college football questions intended for FOX Sports' Steward Mandel:
The committee makes a big deal about scheduling cupcakes (see: UNC), but it seems that Stanford going to the other extreme has ultimately hurt the two-loss Cardinal. If they had scheduled a cupcake instead of Northwestern, they would potentially be 12-1 Pac-12 champions with an out-of-conference win over Notre Dame and a lone two-point loss to 9-3 Oregon. Doesn't that get them in the playoff?
- Mike, New York City
Probably, especially considering the extent the committee seems to value Notre Dame more so than the rest of the world.
But that doesn't mean they're wrong to exclude Stanford. We still have seven teams with one loss or fewer; to leave any of them out for any 2-loss team seems borderline criminal. Two-loss teams should only be in the playoff if there are a lack of undefeated major conference teams and the 1-loss teams are self-evidently shitty. Additionally, scheduling Northwestern (especially since it likely occurred a few years ago), while not a cupcake on the level of scheduling Sacramento State, is also not exactly a fearless move either. Not too long ago, scheduling Miami would have seemed like a very bold choice. Thus is the unpredictable nature of years-in-advance college football scheduling.
Had Arkansas not been successful on their last-ditch, backward lateral against Ole Miss, Alabama would be at home this week while the Rebels faced Florida in Atlanta. The Tide's resume would still be stronger, as their only loss would be to a 10-2 Ole Miss team. But since they would no longer have a shot at the SEC title (in a weaker-than-normal SEC), would they still be No. 2 and a lock for the playoff?
- Brian W., Massachusetts
Yes. This is the flip-side of the loud argument last year that you need a conference championship to get into the College Football Playoff.
Oklahoma is in. They are the only school that can say that with certainty. Clemson could choke against North Carolina, or Alabama against Florida (both highly unlikely, but possible). Oklahoma does not have to worry about that. If they do choke (especially Alabama; Clemson may not fall out of the top four even with a loss), No. 6 Ohio State will be waiting in the wings, because No. 4 Iowa is playing No. 5 Michigan State, and one of them will lose. Like Oklahoma, Ohio State does not need to worry about choking away a conference championship game.
Also, most team's resumes would look a lot stronger or a lot weaker if not for one or two plays. That's the glory of college football.
Leave a Comment