Nadal broken 6 times against lowly opponent

First topic message reminder :

I had to turn in at 3-3 1st set but even at that stage I could see Nadal was going to have trouble. Golubev was playing flat, attacking tennis and had a chance. As it turned out he just failed to take a set, but broke 6 times. A low 1st serve % looked to have hurt a bit, as he himslef dropped serve 8 times.

Nadal served very big, just as big as last year, but from open play what little I saw was not impressive. His opponent didn't seem at all overwhelmed in the rally. It most closely reminded me of the type of match Nadal used to have with Youzhny, where it was he who looked to be dictated against. How many times was Nadal broken in the USO last year? I seem to recall him protecting the serve very effectively.

Close examination shows how precarious Nadals positions was;

Golubev served at 40-0, 5-3 2nd set,
Had 5-2 double break lead in 3rd.
Golubev is no star; he lost 17 straight matches earlier this year.

1st round and all that, but not a great start for the defending champion. Still, a wins a win they say.

Completely agree with ROTLA. But in theory, I have nothing against a player trying to break down his opponent skills. I liked Coria a lot as he was a real master of it with beautiful technique and skills. Rafa's game is simply based on his physics. What makes him exceptional is that he has power AND stamina. Typically a player has either. It's a bit like if Karlo had also stamina and mouvement. Or a Heavyweight able to hit in the 15th round like in the first. Simply unseen before.

What was your pseudo on 606?

Mine isn't legend.

bogbrush wrote:Mine isn't legend.

I was referring to ROTLA BB

Tenez wrote:
What was your pseudo on 606?

I was raiders_of_the_lost_ark even on old 606 and was there since 2008, though I very rarely posted any comments. Hence most people here don't remember me. Even here on 606v2 I passively followed what everyone was discussing, only recently started to post a few comments

Good! Welcome here!

I only read good posts from you thus far.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Extreme self discipline can also be seen as lack of creativity, imagination or courage to be able to go out of the usual path. You stick to any level of self discipline which is fine for winning. But if winning is all that matters to viewers in tennis then certainly we all don't watch the same game. Personally I like to see creativity, the courage to be able to dictate play with shot-making, and ability of shrug off the unforced error that may come by, ability to win on one's own game-skill rather than continuously trying to take advantage of the opponent's weakness. In an interview Federer was asked about the large % of unforced errors he was getting in 2008-early 2009, he answered that he never worries about the errors, its all fine as long as it was the right shot.

Hi raiders,

Great username by the way. Agree with elements of that, but I think the key distinction is that we are fans watching and Nadal is the guy playing. In the heat of battle is any tennis player thinking of the most crowd-pleasing shot to play, or concentrating on doing what is necessary to win the point? I think the latter.

Also, for some fans the aesthetic is all-important, others will find enjoyment in seeing someone find a way to win. Federer is the most talented player I've ever seen, but I enjoyed seeing Nadal ask a different question of him when he came along. Also, it could be argued that being willing to stick to your plan, even when the opponent may hit lots of winners, is courageous in itself.

Winning should not be all that matters, but I would not want it to be the case that the nicer-looking, or riskier game always triumphed either. Contrasts make the best matches, but this would not be the case if we knew a priori that the shot-maker would definitely win.

It's a myth that some players play for aesthetic purpose. No-one does bar the one and odd shot every now and then played by all players, including Nadal.

Players do their best to have the most effecient game given their natural skills. And this is what some may find beautiful or "aethetic", not the other way around.

I'd agree with your last paragraph in general. This is why though I don;t like Nadal's game, I think he has been a good addition to the sport. After all he was Federer's only challneger for 4 or 5 years, essentially on clay. But today, the retrievers have got it too easy with the slow conditions, technology and amazing physical training often bording on the legal.

If it wasn,t for Federer, We woudl have had retrievers with double handed BH dominating the game since 2000!

What Federer achieved is even more impressive that he achived it in the most physical era...thus far.

I think given playing styles, winning can be beautiful or ugly. For example Jimmy Connors made a career out of winning ugly and yet I never see his success discredited for that style. It is admired that altough he didn't have the range of shots other players did, he is a mutliple Slam winner. Sometimes using your opponents weakness and using endurance to outlast the opponent can be the only way to win for some players. That for speaks more of the individuals drive and sheer will more than anything else.

In the case of such players as Federer, McEnroe, Edberg who are great shot makers will put less emphasis on endurance. They make sure physically they have enough stamina to play their game and outlasting an opponent is not such a massive consideration. So they are looking to do the work of 1 player whereas other players like Nadal, Borg had the lungs to do the work of the 2 players as retrieval was and is such a big part of their game.

Federer will always hit a flatter stroke. His FH to a players BH side is such a massive weapon that always gives him an advantage in any rally whereas other players it takes more shots to achieve the desired effect. It makes it difficult for him to achieve spin, though I have always felt he could've adopted a change in speed to his BH.

Some tennis pureists prefer the flatter stoke that ends rallies a lot quicker, where as others prefer a drawn out rally. It is a case of pick your poison.

Either way there is no right or wrong way of playing the game.

time please wrote:Gosh, lot of posts since last visited this thread!

Positively 4th Street wrote:Hi tp,

I don't like to rehash an old debate, but, whilst I agree that the MTO at Wimbledon in 2009 looked decidedly tactical, I still don't get the fuss around the one this year against Del Potro. Nadal had just hit the shot of the match (in my view) and had a good chance of landing the set. No one has convinced me yet why he would throw a tactical MTO at that juncture

Hi Positively - you may well be right, I probably am slightly quick to judge because of 2010 (he didn't compete in 2009). To me, I think it could have waited for one more game and the end of the set, and Rafa went on to play not gingerly, but sublimely after effectively disrupting Delpos' rhythm before serving. If he had fought valiantly and won, but looked as if the ankle/foot was giving him a bit of grief in his movement after that, I wouldn't comment.

Hi tp,

Of course, my mistake. I struggle to remember what year we're in sometimes. I can appreciate that you may not give Nadal the benefit of the doubt after the Petschner MTO. On the timing, it was a bit complicated by the fact it was right before a tie-breaker. If you're in pain and worried what will happen if you carry on, then I feel it's fair enough to seek medical advice, the alternative would have been to go through the motions and lose the set. Seeking an unfair advantage is wrong, but giving up a set as a courtesy to the opponent is going too far the other way for me.

Tenez wrote:It's a myth that some players play for aesthetic purpose. No-one does bar the one and odd shot every now and then played by all players, including Nadal.

Players do their best to have the most effecient game given their natural skills. And this is what some may find beautiful or "aethetic", not the other way around.

I'd agree with your last paragraph in general. This is why though I don;t like Nadal's game, I think he has been a good addition to the sport. After all he was Federer's only challneger for 4 or 5 years, essentially on clay. But today, the retrievers have got it too easy with the slow conditions, technology and amazing physical training often bording on the legal.

If it wasn,t for Federer, We woudl have had retrievers with double handed BH dominating the game since 2000!

What Federer achieved is even more impressive that he achived it in the most physical era...thus far.

It is undoubtedly to the detriment of the sport if all the surfaces become too similar. I certainly don't want to see a top 100 of identikit players and that is the risk being run. Federer is a special talent and it would be a shame if attcking players in the future have no chance and hover around the top 20 without ever threatening to win the biggest prizes. Perhaps some parameters should be put in place to ensure certain tournaments are quick, slow, etc. By all means allow some variation, but currently there is too much scope to make them all overlap.

Of course, all players should play to their strengths. That, to me, is intelligent. Not being aware of your own weaknesses shows ignorance and an unwillingness to learn. I would not hold someone in high regard if they rolled over and lost because they thought the other guy had a game the purists might drool over more.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's a myth that some players play for aesthetic purpose. No-one does bar the one and odd shot every now and then played by all players, including Nadal.

Players do their best to have the most effecient game given their natural skills. And this is what some may find beautiful or "aethetic", not the other way around.

I'd agree with your last paragraph in general. This is why though I don;t like Nadal's game, I think he has been a good addition to the sport. After all he was Federer's only challneger for 4 or 5 years, essentially on clay. But today, the retrievers have got it too easy with the slow conditions, technology and amazing physical training often bording on the legal.

If it wasn,t for Federer, We woudl have had retrievers with double handed BH dominating the game since 2000!

What Federer achieved is even more impressive that he achived it in the most physical era...thus far.

It is undoubtedly to the detriment of the sport if all the surfaces become too similar. I certainly don't want to see a top 100 of identikit players and that is the risk being run. Federer is a special talent and it would be a shame if attcking players in the future have no chance and hover around the top 20 without ever threatening to win the biggest prizes. Perhaps some parameters should be put in place to ensure certain tournaments are quick, slow, etc. By all means allow some variation, but currently there is too much scope to make them all overlap.

Of course, all players should play to their strengths. That, to me, is intelligent. Not being aware of your own weaknesses shows ignorance and an unwillingness to learn. I would not hold someone in high regard if they rolled over and lost because they thought the other guy had a game the purists might drool over more.

you better hope Dolgopolov gets the success for years to come then!
no more Ferrer's please

Positively 4th Street wrote:

time please wrote:Gosh, lot of posts since last visited this thread!

Positively 4th Street wrote:Hi tp,

I don't like to rehash an old debate, but, whilst I agree that the MTO at Wimbledon in 2009 looked decidedly tactical, I still don't get the fuss around the one this year against Del Potro. Nadal had just hit the shot of the match (in my view) and had a good chance of landing the set. No one has convinced me yet why he would throw a tactical MTO at that juncture

Hi Positively - you may well be right, I probably am slightly quick to judge because of 2010 (he didn't compete in 2009). To me, I think it could have waited for one more game and the end of the set, and Rafa went on to play not gingerly, but sublimely after effectively disrupting Delpos' rhythm before serving. If he had fought valiantly and won, but looked as if the ankle/foot was giving him a bit of grief in his movement after that, I wouldn't comment.

Hi tp,

Of course, my mistake. I struggle to remember what year we're in sometimes. I can appreciate that you may not give Nadal the benefit of the doubt after the Petschner MTO. On the timing, it was a bit complicated by the fact it was right before a tie-breaker. If you're in pain and worried what will happen if you carry on, then I feel it's fair enough to seek medical advice, the alternative would have been to go through the motions and lose the set. Seeking an unfair advantage is wrong, but giving up a set as a courtesy to the opponent is going too far the other way for me.

Nadal's career has a history of MTO and how after the MTO the course of the match changes all together. Most players even after the MTO struggle to compete and either lose the match or retire. Even on some occasions if they do win, then again struggle in the subsequent match and lose. But not Nadal. Before the MTO is taken he will be really in massive pain, unable to continue play and would need medical attention. After the MTO he comes out blazing and running with not one iota of sign of the injury he was so much struggling just minutes back. I don't know what great can be done within 3 minutes that after that a player comes out so fit that he can show absolute no sign of injury or pain. And after the match, he can tell in press conference about all the pain, and MRI scans etc. and in the end will be cleared off everything.

A benefit of doubt can be given on some occasions but does it not look odd when we see Nadal take MTO so often and everytime after the MTO he comes out blazing and running as if nothing had ever happened to him. How can one believe him with that regularity with which he does it.

In regards to the wimbledon 2011 match against Delpotro:

"Del Potro was not convinced, though, when Nadal asked for a medical timeout before the tiebreaker. The Argentine, according to reports, told umpire Carlos Ramos that he was being hoodwinked. A subsequent MRI scan revealed "nothing serious" and Rafa was cleared for Wednesday's quarterfinal action."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon11/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=6716465

He recently tried it against Fish in Cincinnati where even the commentators were saying the physio looks to be doing nothing out there and the MTO looks more strategic than anything else.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:

time please wrote:Gosh, lot of posts since last visited this thread!

Positively 4th Street wrote:Hi tp,

I don't like to rehash an old debate, but, whilst I agree that the MTO at Wimbledon in 2009 looked decidedly tactical, I still don't get the fuss around the one this year against Del Potro. Nadal had just hit the shot of the match (in my view) and had a good chance of landing the set. No one has convinced me yet why he would throw a tactical MTO at that juncture

Hi Positively - you may well be right, I probably am slightly quick to judge because of 2010 (he didn't compete in 2009). To me, I think it could have waited for one more game and the end of the set, and Rafa went on to play not gingerly, but sublimely after effectively disrupting Delpos' rhythm before serving. If he had fought valiantly and won, but looked as if the ankle/foot was giving him a bit of grief in his movement after that, I wouldn't comment.

Hi tp,

Of course, my mistake. I struggle to remember what year we're in sometimes. I can appreciate that you may not give Nadal the benefit of the doubt after the Petschner MTO. On the timing, it was a bit complicated by the fact it was right before a tie-breaker. If you're in pain and worried what will happen if you carry on, then I feel it's fair enough to seek medical advice, the alternative would have been to go through the motions and lose the set. Seeking an unfair advantage is wrong, but giving up a set as a courtesy to the opponent is going too far the other way for me.

Nadal's career has a history of MTO and how after the MTO the course of the match changes all together. Most players even after the MTO struggle to compete and either lose the match or retire. Even on some occasions if they do win, then again struggle in the subsequent match and lose. But not Nadal. Before the MTO is taken he will be really in massive pain, unable to continue play and would need medical attention. After the MTO he comes out blazing and running with not one iota of sign of the injury he was so much struggling just minutes back. I don't know what great can be done within 3 minutes that after that a player comes out so fit that he can show absolute no sign of injury or pain. And after the match, he can tell in press conference about all the pain, and MRI scans etc. and in the end will be cleared off everything.

A benefit of doubt can be given on some occasions but does it not look odd when we see Nadal take MTO so often and everytime after the MTO he comes out blazing and running as if nothing had ever happened to him. How can one believe him with that regularity with which he does it.

In regards to the wimbledon 2011 match against Delpotro:

"Del Potro was not convinced, though, when Nadal asked for a medical timeout before the tiebreaker. The Argentine, according to reports, told umpire Carlos Ramos that he was being hoodwinked. A subsequent MRI scan revealed "nothing serious" and Rafa was cleared for Wednesday's quarterfinal action."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon11/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=6716465

He recently tried it against Fish in Cincinnati where even the commentators were saying the physio looks to be doing nothing out there and the MTO looks more strategic than anything else.

Look how many footballers 'fake' injuries!!!!

A certain Gasquet used to 'retire' from matches when he was down in the match, yet I see nothing said of this.

Infact ablolish the MTO's and it will be a level playing field for everyone.

legendkillar wrote: A certain Gasquet used to 'retire' from matches when he was down in the match, yet I see nothing said of this.

Nothing is said about it because retiring when losing doesn't it affect the result of the match. The player was losing it anyway and I do agree it is morally wrong to deny him the joy of winning the match completely. But it anyways was a win for the guy who played better.

But can this be seen in the same way when one uses MTO to change the pace of play, break the opponent's rhythm and himself bide time to gain composure? And the result could be totally different from what was going on few minutes back?

Of course there could be people will start arguing that this is "smart" play and they enjoy watching it.

Hi guys,

Can you please do me a favour and post a question each on this.
Thanks so much
https://www.606v2.com/t12499-qa-with-ken-skupski

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote: A certain Gasquet used to 'retire' from matches when he was down in the match, yet I see nothing said of this.

Nothing is said about it because retiring when losing doesn't it affect the result of the match. The player was losing it anyway and I do agree it is morally wrong to deny him the joy of winning the match completely. But it anyways was a win for the guy who played better.

But can this be seen in the same way when one uses MTO to change the pace of play, break the opponent's rhythm and himself bide time to gain composure? And the result could be totally different from what was going on few minutes back?

Of course there could be people will start arguing that this is "smart" play and they enjoy watching it.

I am sure if you mention a certain Fognini a poster on here will say otherwise.

MTO's for me, if the opposing player cannot hold his/her compsure for such a 'delay' then that is down to them too not being mentally able enough to sit through a delay and not deviate away from their focus. Unrelated but Rain Delay and Tim Henman have never managed to get on.

For me they should either abolish the MTO rule or the trainer can report any injury that they feel is 'suspicious' that essentially would see a decline in MTO's. Jankovic used to call an MTO on the advice of her mother!!

The rule in general needs tightening up to avoid it being exploited.

Well said footballers are widely recognised as cheats, so I'm not sure that's the precedent you meant.

Yes, I'd abolish MTO's. If a player isn't fit enough to play tennis there and then, then scratch. I'm fed up with this stunt which is obviously tactical in many cases. Same with cramp or tiredness, the player just has to get on with it. They don't allow coaching (ho! ho!) so why allow medical treatment.

I would permit self-medication (headache pills or whatever) so long as the player knows the other risks. That's no external help.

MTO's for me, if the opposing player cannot hold his/her compsure for such a 'delay' then that is down to them too not being mentally able enough to sit through a delay and not deviate away from their focus.

Disagree once again. Being in the zone is something fragile for all players. Why should we, the spectators, be deprived of a great display of tennis cause the opponent has no other choice than disrupting the opponent's rhythm? The referee is there to make sure the game is played smoothly with minimum disruption. It's in the rules.

Tennis is a sport not a circus.

Players should buy MTOs with games. Nothing less. That is the only way to gauge the seriousness of a physical issue.

3mn physio for one game!

Tenez - that would certainly stop people who unfairly use it to their advantage... But what about those who are genuinely injured?

What if there is a great match which is 2 sets all and 4-5 and the guy who is serving next to stay in it has a shoulder problem. He should surely have the right to get a bit of treatment, without having to sacrifice the match?

Extreme example, but you see what I'm getting at. You would be giving the penalty not just to those who take advantage of the system, but to those who play fair.

It would definitely stop those who take advantage of it as they simply wouldn't do it any more, but the only ones who would actually suffer would be those who actually are injured, and I'm not sure if that's the right way to go.

Danny_1982 wrote:Extreme example, but you see what I'm getting at. You would be giving the penalty not just to those who take advantage of the system, but to those who play fair.

One has to lose regardless. WHat about a terrible net call in a 5th set TB? That's worse cause, at least, a shoulder injury (or any other) is actually always related to technique, or exhaustion (inflicted by opponent).

By far the fairest system, imo.

Typically in Nadal's numerous MTOs, it woudl have sorted the serious ones from the possible fake ones.

Danny_1982 wrote:Tenez - that would certainly stop people who unfairly use it to their advantage... But what about those who are genuinely injured?

What if there is a great match which is 2 sets all and 4-5 and the guy who is serving next to stay in it has a shoulder problem. He should surely have the right to get a bit of treatment, without having to sacrifice the match?

Extreme example, but you see what I'm getting at. You would be giving the penalty not just to those who take advantage of the system, but to those who play fair.

It would definitely stop those who take advantage of it as they simply wouldn't do it any more, but the only ones who would actually suffer would be those who actually are injured, and I'm not sure if that's the right way to go.

If you can't continue then you've lost.

We both know the vast majority of these MTOs are sham, or at best self-indulgent or unnecessary. If the players condition doesn't allow him to continue then he should sit out. Like Tenez says, if they allocated a time for a notional game (say 3 mins) then he can have his 3mins at the cost of a game, rather than defaulting.
It's tough but he's the guy with the problem - why disadvantage in any shape or form the guy who is ready to play?

time please wrote:

PS to Craig and SA - enough with the jacket ok - the same year Nike had a building size poster of a shirtless Nadal with a deep tan, wearing nothing but a sultry expression and a huge Nike tick on his chest which dominated Paris (bit unfortunate as it turned out!). Of course Fed didn't have a lackey stitching the jacket - it was handed to him before the trophy ceremony. Nike has an image for its three big stars, all of whom have either their name, nickname or initials on their shoes - RF, Rafa, and Delpo and they absolutely will have a '17' jacket waiting in the wings if Rafa is ever on 16 slams and contesting a slam final for his 17th!

All very well but Federer knows what they have up their sleeve and could have refused saying I'll leave it to a more appropriate time rather than make it look like he was overly-confident about winning. Besides he did not have to put it on and before you say about sponsorship deals I can't see Nike calling the shots on whatever Fed does or doesn't do as he holds all the power and has his own clothing range. The Nadal thing was different as it never had a number tattooed on him like 11 for example before he won the event.

The point I am making here is nobody is perfect.....and yes that includes Federer AND Murray.

I really cannot fathom out all those belittling Nadal for his tactics and low-intelligence accusations. All uncalled for and all a bit pathetic after all he is doing something right to win ten slams. Perhaps we should question Fed's intellifence for being unable to come up with a tactic to counter Nadals tactics against him?

If we have to have MTO's my rules would be as follows:

a. They can only take place during the changeover, so the starting point for whoever wants an MTO is that he/she has either to struggle through to the next change of ends or forfeit the games leading to the next changeover to 'buy' his or her MTO.

b. In addition, an MTO should never result in the uninjured player having to serve first after an MTO, so the 'price' for an MTO would always include the first game after the changeover if the player who takes the MTO is not due to serve first after the MTO at a changeover.

The person who is ready to play has satisfied the basic requirement and should be entitled to the advantage because of that - at worst the injury is not their fault, at best they have drawn the injury by forcing the opponent to over-stretch to combat their play. I see every reason why an "injured" player should have to make a calculation as to whether they want to play through any 'injury' for a bit or forfeit some games.

What if there is a great match which is 2 sets all and 4-5 and the guy who is serving next to stay in it has a shoulder problem. He should surely have the right to get a bit of treatment, without having to sacrifice the match?

In my system the above player can take an MTO at the changeover without having to forfeit a game - either he had to make a decision to stick it out during the two previous games or the injury is well-timed. If he were set to receive the next game he'd have to soldier on or forfeit. I do not think anyone should have an MTO before his/her opponent serves without paying a price, whether the service is for the match or the set or at all.

This respects the basic rule that the server dictates the pace of play, not the receiver, as well as reducing the chance of abuse and ensuring that injuries receive treatment.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

time please wrote:

PS to Craig and SA - enough with the jacket ok - the same year Nike had a building size poster of a shirtless Nadal with a deep tan, wearing nothing but a sultry expression and a huge Nike tick on his chest which dominated Paris (bit unfortunate as it turned out!). Of course Fed didn't have a lackey stitching the jacket - it was handed to him before the trophy ceremony. Nike has an image for its three big stars, all of whom have either their name, nickname or initials on their shoes - RF, Rafa, and Delpo and they absolutely will have a '17' jacket waiting in the wings if Rafa is ever on 16 slams and contesting a slam final for his 17th!

All very well but Federer knows what they have up their sleeve and could have refused saying I'll leave it to a more appropriate time rather than make it look like he was overly-confident about winning. Besides he did not have to put it on and before you say about sponsorship deals I can't see Nike calling the shots on whatever Fed does or doesn't do as he holds all the power and has his own clothing range. The Nadal thing was different as it never had a number tattooed on him like 11 for example before he won the event.

The point I am making here is nobody is perfect.....and yes that includes Federer AND Murray.

I really cannot fathom out all those belittling Nadal for his tactics and low-intelligence accusations. All uncalled for and all a bit pathetic after all he is doing something right to win ten slams. Perhaps we should question Fed's intellifence for being unable to come up with a tactic to counter Nadals tactics against him?

What a moronic thing to say. I mean of all the things people want to critisize Fed over, this has got to be the most ridiculous of all.

Fed had just won the longest Wimbledon finals match ever. He was probably elated, exhausted and just relieved to have gotten over the winning line.
Someone then hands him a jacket from his sponsor and most likely he put it on without even thinking about it and people want to bash him for arrogance and self-indulgence? If this had been a pre-concieved idea on his part, then sure, have a go. But to critisize him for wearing a jacket that was handed to him immediately after one of his greatest triumphs, and to have expected him in that moment to weigh up all the possible negative sequalae that may proceed from this one action, and then to refuse, is asking for far too much. At the very least he should be given the benefit of the doubt.. most likey no-one would have noticed it had Sue Barker not announced it to the whole world.

Craig, you're the guy who gets upset when Andy gets critisized for far more sinister personal defects, like his on court swearing, and yet you're quite happy to join in and critisize Roger for this. Pot..kettle..black springs to mind.

Nobody says he isn't doing what's right to win 10 Slams. Some of us are simply saying that considering WHAT HE WROTE IN HIS BOOK, that it probably correlates with a limited imagination, or with low intellectual impatience that he's prepared to do the same thing endlessly.

It doesn't mean it wasn't the most effective thing to do and it wasn't prompted by anything other than his own words.

I've often thought that given what we hear about how Uncle Toni dominates him that he's probably highly programmable.

All very well but Federer knows what they have up their sleeve and could have refused saying I'll leave it to a more appropriate time rather than make it look like he was overly-confident about winning. Besides he did not have to put it on and before you say about sponsorship deals I can't see Nike calling the shots on whatever Fed does or doesn't do as he holds all the power and has his own clothing range.

yet it's okay for Murray to get his COME ON in when his opponent has missed an easy ball, you can't have it both ways Craig

I wouldn't be surprised if Roddick knew beforehand that they had a jacket in waiting for Fed should he manage to get the 15th major, I can see why you don't like him though, being able to make Murray cry without touching him obviously struck a chord with ya

emancipator wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

time please wrote:

PS to Craig and SA - enough with the jacket ok - the same year Nike had a building size poster of a shirtless Nadal with a deep tan, wearing nothing but a sultry expression and a huge Nike tick on his chest which dominated Paris (bit unfortunate as it turned out!). Of course Fed didn't have a lackey stitching the jacket - it was handed to him before the trophy ceremony. Nike has an image for its three big stars, all of whom have either their name, nickname or initials on their shoes - RF, Rafa, and Delpo and they absolutely will have a '17' jacket waiting in the wings if Rafa is ever on 16 slams and contesting a slam final for his 17th!

All very well but Federer knows what they have up their sleeve and could have refused saying I'll leave it to a more appropriate time rather than make it look like he was overly-confident about winning. Besides he did not have to put it on and before you say about sponsorship deals I can't see Nike calling the shots on whatever Fed does or doesn't do as he holds all the power and has his own clothing range. The Nadal thing was different as it never had a number tattooed on him like 11 for example before he won the event.

The point I am making here is nobody is perfect.....and yes that includes Federer AND Murray.

I really cannot fathom out all those belittling Nadal for his tactics and low-intelligence accusations. All uncalled for and all a bit pathetic after all he is doing something right to win ten slams. Perhaps we should question Fed's intellifence for being unable to come up with a tactic to counter Nadals tactics against him?

What a moronic thing to say. I mean of all the things people want to critisize Fed over, this has got to be the most ridiculous of all.

Fed had just won the longest Wimbledon finals match ever. He was probably elated, exhausted and just relieved to have gotten over the winning line.
Someone then hands him a jacket from his sponsor and most likely he put it on without even thinking about it and people want to bash him for arrogance and self-indulgence? If this had been a pre-concieved idea on his part, then sure, have a go. But to critisize him for wearing a jacket that was handed to him immediately after one of his greatest triumphs, and to have expected him in that moment to weigh up all the possible negative sequalae that may proceed from this one action, and then to refuse, is asking for far too much. At the very least he should be given the benefit of the doubt.. most likey no-one would have noticed it had Sue Barker not announced it to the whole world.

Craig, you're the guy who gets upset when Andy gets critisized for far more sinister personal defects, like his on court swearing, and yet you're quite happy to join in and critisize Roger for this. Pot..kettle..black springs to mind.

emancipator all I am doing is pointing out the fact that nobody is perfect in this world and yes that includes Federer.

The words you put in bold bogbrush kind of blows the low-intelligence theory out of the water. It does take a modicum of brains to write a book you know.

Is it just me or has this forum become the Roger Federer Fan Club? Seems that it is fine to character assasinate Murray, Nadal or Djokovic but say a word against Federer and people are up in arms. I'll say again no one is perfect - every player has faults and yes that includes Roger Federer. Difference is I give credit where credit is due as have said countless times he is GOAT in my book but seems it is impossible for others here to talk about other players without snidey comments and digs.

CaledonianCraig wrote:emancipator all I am doing is pointing out the fact that nobody is perfect in this world and yes that includes Federer.

The words you put in bold bogbrush kind of blows the low-intelligence theory out of the water. It does take a modicum of brains to write a book you know.

Is it just me or has this forum become the Roger Federer Fan Club? Seems that it is fine to character assasinate Murray, Nadal or Djokovic but say a word against Federer and people are up in arms. I'll say again no one is perfect - every player has faults and yes that includes Roger Federer. Difference is I give credit where credit is due as have said countless times he is GOAT in my book but seems it is impossible for others here to talk about other players without snidey comments and digs.

Are you seriously suggesting he wrote this book himself? While on tour, on a laptop?

PS To make you feel better, I think Federer went through a hideous period of stupid clothing at Wimbledon. The cardie was fine, the long trousers a bit too much but the whole thing was awful. The "15" jacket was crass and I think even in the heat of the moment he shouldn't have.

Don't get me wrong folks no doubting his standing in the game and his greatness but just pointing out nobody is whiter than white. Every player has their faults etc. Just like there is no denying Nadal's immense contribution to the sport. It would be nice if it could just be left at that.

I wouldn't mind a jacket like that though. Go for suave look myself

CaledonianCraig wrote:Don't get me wrong folks no doubting his standing in the game and his greatness but just pointing out nobody is whiter than white. Every player has their faults etc. Just like there is no denying Nadal's immense contribution to the sport. It would be nice if it could just be left at that.

Craig - I know your heart is probably in the right place, but you can't be prescriptive about what people want to talk about. This is a justifiably topical debate because of the autobiography (which incidentally I think you will find a ghost writer - named on the frontspiece - will have wrtten from recorded interviews)

In my opinion, there have been very different views and most have been debated very civilly and for my part Positively has really made me think about my view that Rafa's MTO at Wimbledon was tactical, and s/he has done so by putting her case very well and also by absolutely accepting that I have a right to a view about a current player's on court behaviour and a right to express that view on a forum intended for posters to discuss tennis and issues surrounding the game. I am not saying that I totally agree with her point, but it has made me question my own, and I am perhaps a little more inclined to give a benefit of the doubt (unless it happens again -just joking!). Surely that is a positive thing about debate?

I don't understand why some posters spend all their energy trying to shut other people up. Either argue a good cogent point, or start a different thread. If this is such an awful one, then why aren't you supporting the other new threads in this forum.

Start a thread on Fed's ridiculous Wimbledon outfits - that's perfectly acceptable too - why on earth shouldn't people talk about them, or poke fun at the questionable taste of the 'waiter' ensemble.



Lastly, if it would be nice if everything we all had to say about a player was 'what an immense contribution s/he has made to the sport', I think this forum would haemorage to death very, very quickly indeed. There are literally hundreds of pure fan sites out there - this is a forum that is catering for a lot of people with different allegiances and different views, and hopefully with something to say. Why do you want us all to be one homogenous PC lump? You've come over specifically to this thread because you engaged with one argument or the other in some way, and the very best way to show your disapproval for topics is to simply - vote with your feet and ignore this thread imho!

The reason so many threads go off the topic is because of comparison. Which in turn cause another topic within a topic.

In an ideal world yes it would be nice for people to note other peoples contribution to the sport. Some posters have despite being labelled players bashers. I did see Tenez in an earlier post actually credit Nadal's prescence in the game as it has helped a monopoly become a duopoly. That being an example of sometimes comments that go un-noticed by posters who may just 'label' a poster and not read in detail some of his/her posts that are not always negative.

Just saying..

legendkillar wrote:The reason so many threads go off the topic is because of comparison. Which in turn cause another topic within a topic.

In an ideal world yes it would be nice for people to note other peoples contribution to the sport. Some posters have despite being labelled players bashers. I did see Tenez in an earlier post actually credit Nadal's prescence in the game as it has helped a monopoly become a duopoly. That being an example of sometimes comments that go un-noticed by posters who may just 'label' a poster and not read in detail some of his/her posts that are not always negative.

Just saying..

I totally agree legend, and I noticed Tenez's comment about the contrast in styles and the duopoly as being a positive thing - it can get kind of tribal on here sometimes and people don't always read every post carefully and treat each post as individual. Certainly sometimes I have held a strong view one way, and a good post has made me see things differently.

I just think that it is in all our interests for this forum to be a success, and that will be achieved by tolerance of opinion - I am not saying not to argue your ground passionately, but to accept that the other guy has an absolute right to a different view.

I think, by and large, this forum does this pretty well and there are lots of great posters

time please wrote:...there are lots of great posters

Yeah, this was my favourite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Girl

You sad, sad man - or maybe not!

time please wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The reason so many threads go off the topic is because of comparison. Which in turn cause another topic within a topic.

In an ideal world yes it would be nice for people to note other peoples contribution to the sport. Some posters have despite being labelled players bashers. I did see Tenez in an earlier post actually credit Nadal's prescence in the game as it has helped a monopoly become a duopoly. That being an example of sometimes comments that go un-noticed by posters who may just 'label' a poster and not read in detail some of his/her posts that are not always negative.

Just saying..

I totally agree legend, and I noticed Tenez's comment about the contrast in styles and the duopoly as being a positive thing - it can get kind of tribal on here sometimes and people don't always read every post carefully and treat each post as individual. Certainly sometimes I have held a strong view one way, and a good post has made me see things differently.

I just think that it is in all our interests for this forum to be a success, and that will be achieved by tolerance of opinion - I am not saying not to argue your ground passionately, but to accept that the other guy has an absolute right to a different view.

I think, by and large, this forum does this pretty well and there are lots of great posters

I think there is a great balance to this forum in general that prevents it from going down the old 606 route. There is a far greater respect here than there was in the 'old place'

I would hate the old lets agree on everything and not offer 'constructive' criticism. Some posters can accept criticism of their favourite players and others can't.

I admit I am a big Murray fan. He is far from the perfect article. I can accept the good in his game like I can the bad. When he loses it feels you lose. I am an avid tennis fan and can watch all the players. I can't count the amount of times I have shouted FFS at the TV when watching Murray. I would imagine many posters have done the same thing when watching a favourite player.

Also tennis being an individual sport one against one you find it is far easier to criticise your favourite for not playing well much than credit the opposing player.

legendkillar wrote:I can't count the amount of times I have shouted FFS at the TV when watching Murray.

I blame the education system. Oh, you mean you've lost count.
Sorry, I'm just in one of those moods today

Also tennis being an individual sport one against one you find it is far easier to criticise your favourite for not playing well much than credit the opposing player.

nah not me, I often criticise the guy who beats my preferred players, eg:

1) you won't go any further than next round you donkey
2) just a one off fella, not concerned anyways
3) jesus wept Ferrer, legendary luckbox

I find this better for the soul

time please wrote:In my opinion, there have been very different views and most have been debated very civilly and for my part Positively has really made me think about my view that Rafa's MTO at Wimbledon was tactical, and s/he has done so by putting her case very well and also by absolutely accepting that I have a right to a view about a current player's on court behaviour and a right to express that view on a forum intended for posters to discuss tennis and issues surrounding the game. I am not saying that I totally agree with her point, but it has made me question my own, and I am perhaps a little more inclined to give a benefit of the doubt (unless it happens again -just joking!). Surely that is a positive thing about debate?

I don't understand why some posters spend all their energy trying to shut other people up. Either argue a good cogent point, or start a different thread. If this is such an awful one, then why aren't you supporting the other new threads in this forum.

Hi tp,

It's to your credit that you're at least willing to think about your views, I try to do the same. For the record, Positively is a he, but I'm now concerned that my prose must have a real feminine undercurrent to it, or perhaps I should be flattered...

I find that I learn a lot coming on here, often from posters who hold quite different views from me. The biggest mistake someone can make is to be unwilling to even entertain the idea that an alternative view may have some merit. I think some threads descend in to slanging matches as posters fight fire with fire, one barb leads to another and so on.

Your last paragraph is spot on.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

time please wrote:In my opinion, there have been very different views and most have been debated very civilly and for my part Positively has really made me think about my view that Rafa's MTO at Wimbledon was tactical, and s/he has done so by putting her case very well and also by absolutely accepting that I have a right to a view about a current player's on court behaviour and a right to express that view on a forum intended for posters to discuss tennis and issues surrounding the game. I am not saying that I totally agree with her point, but it has made me question my own, and I am perhaps a little more inclined to give a benefit of the doubt (unless it happens again -just joking!). Surely that is a positive thing about debate?

I don't understand why some posters spend all their energy trying to shut other people up. Either argue a good cogent point, or start a different thread. If this is such an awful one, then why aren't you supporting the other new threads in this forum.

Hi tp,

It's to your credit that you're at least willing to think about your views, I try to do the same. For the record, Positively is a he, but I'm now concerned that my prose must have a real feminine undercurrent to it, or perhaps I should be flattered...

I find that I learn a lot coming on here, often from posters who hold quite different views from me. The biggest mistake someone can make is to be unwilling to even entertain the idea that an alternative view may have some merit. I think some threads descend in to slanging matches as posters fight fire with fire, one barb leads to another and so on.

Your last paragraph is spot on.

Re your first para - you certainly shouldn't be concerned - I'm guessing you're the type of guy that is willing to consult when deciding which route to take, rather than needing to find a shorter cut than your partner/map/sat nav suggests?

It's great talking to posters like you who accept that everyone has a different point of view, and that fact doesn't immediately send them into forum rage!

I have the flexibility and reasonableness to accept that forum members have different points of view.

It's just that mine are the right ones.

Cmon Muller !

JM - I thought I read on another thread that you were banking on Nadal to beat Murray in the semi-final? Which is it to be? I'm starting to think that you just take the opposing view for kicks, a kind of agent provocateur...

BB - I agree. I'm right 99% of the time, and the remaining 1% the other guy is wrong.

That may be true Positively however when I think about it, Murray has beaten Naddy twice in HC slam, and those 2 seem to meet in every slam anyway, let's have a bit of variety shall we eh?

True, true. I think Muller might give Nadal a decent match, he served like a demon at Wimbledon (for 2 sets anyway) and still got beaten in straight sets but he might pinch a set or two this time. Quite like Muller, thought he was decent ever since seeing him in Davis Cup action against GB back in 2004 I think it was.