16 slams, an underachievement?

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 2:36 pm

I'm sure any player, including Roger himself, before embarking on their tennis career would say that reaching 16 slams would be more than they could even dream of. With hindsight however I think this can change as a player progresses and you see what they're made of. There's been talk on other articles about matches that could have been won and were so close, in many cases in involving Roger. Its possible for a player to have great success but still leave fans with a sense that they underachieved, for example many think 7 slams for mcenroe was less than what his talent deserved. I'm sure that a lot Federer fans probably feel like they've rarely seen such immense talent and while have enjoyed his success must have felt let down on many occasions not to see it prevail. My question is pretty much in the title, despite having the greatest slam record do you still feel that his talent deserved more? Should he be closer to 20 slams and will you be particularly disappointed if he doesn't win anymore? To answer the question myself: yes to the above.

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 2:46 pm

yes I agree too. I said it just 2 weeks ago I believe.

In my view Federer was a bit unfortunate to play in an era where medical and nutritional progresses along with slowing of overall court conditions have helped the physical side of the game so much that his talent has actually not provided the results expected.

by Guest Wed 26 Oct 2011, 2:59 pm

I think 16-18 slams would be about right for Federer, given his talent.

Most of his near misses have come in recent years; 2008 onwards. Prior to that he was ridiculously consistent in winning slams. The near misses are expected with advancing age.

However one should also remember the many occasions were he could have lost but didn't, the near wins if you like. Against Nadal W '07, Tipsy AUS 2009, Haas and Del Potro FO 2009, Agassi USO 2004, Davydenko AUS 2010, Roddick W 2009.

Overall I think it balances itself out.

by bogbrush Wed 26 Oct 2011, 3:00 pm

Probably an underachievement but I think many greats underachieve. McEnroe certainly did, and Borg stopped early too.

EDIT: Emancipator - Tipsy was AO '08, which he lost anyway.

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 3:15 pm

I think i remember you posting something along those lines tenez.

emancipator, the ridiculous consistency was a sign of where he was at compared to everyone else and the slams he won then were fully due in that sense. I agree with most of the matches you mentioned except for Tipsy in 2008 which made no difference in the long run and Davydenko in 2010 as it was more getting out of a tight spot than a really close match. Overall even taking these into account I think its still unbalanced. His advancing age would suggest losing due to not having enough rather than close calls which can happen at any time.

by sirfredperry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 3:26 pm

I think 16 is about right and a very fine acheivement, too. Obviously, Fed fans would have liked, and hoped, for more. But it would have been asking a lot to repeat the three-a-year, or even two-a-year GS wins of the golden years.
Anyway, if a guy approaching, or now past, 30 was winning everything in sight it would not have been that good for the men's game and we would not be talking about the strong, fab four. Any Fed GS win from now on would be, arguably, his greatest victory.

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 3:36 pm

Not necessarily expecting him to repeat his golden years fred, he produced some of the best tennis at the french open and us open this year and had a close 3 setter at the australian open. If he did somehow 'win everything in sight' it would have to depend on the tennis he produced to do this as age is just an arbitrary number. If he produced the best tennis ever seen and still only scraped through on close calls, that wouldn't reflect badly on the rest of the mens game.

If we're just talking about this year and the years to come then given he maintains this level and barring a dramatic improvement in anyone else I think at least one slam is reasonable like perhaps the french open would have been this year.

by Calder106 Wed 26 Oct 2011, 4:02 pm

No way it's an underachievement. Could and would have been more if Nadal had not appeared on the scene. Now Djokovic is also up there which will make it even harder for Federer to win more slams. Would like to see him do it. However I enjoy seeing good competition at the very top of the game rather than one player, no matter how good he is, dominating year after year.

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 4:08 pm

Fair enough Calder, everyone's domination comes to an end and Nadal and Djokovic both found their own ways to win. Winning one of the slams next year and a different result this year wouldn't suddenly make him dominant. By your argument it would have been good for him to win the French in order to interrupt Nadal's dominance.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 4:35 pm

This isn't football or boxing we're talking about where you could utterly control affairs but lose to a sucker punch. Tennis gives you a million chances to rectify any errors and stamp your authority on the game. You ALWAYS deserve any result you get in tennis.

Pretty much every great in the annals of the game can look back and feel they could have done better in some moments. Fed has done superbly for himself in standing up to Nadal's challenge which threatened to derail his ambitions after the '09 Aus Open.

He deserves nothing more or less than what he got.

by Calder106 Wed 26 Oct 2011, 4:36 pm

Would have had no complaints about that if it had happened. Due to Djokovic though Nadal was not as dominant on clay in 2011 as in 2010.

by newballs Wed 26 Oct 2011, 4:50 pm

Can't for the life of me see why 16 slams is an "underachievement".

If he never won another tennis match till his dying day that will still take some beating.

by dummy_half Wed 26 Oct 2011, 4:53 pm

Well, 16 titles is more than anyone else in history, so isn't a bad return. Add to this that he has the longest streak of SF appearances, being more than twice as long as the next best, the two longest sequences of consecutive slam final appearances and the longest streak at #1 and it's clearly been an extraordinary career.

The shocking thing is that he has been a handful of points away from it being 18 or perhaps even 19 slams - Nadal at Wimby in 08 and Del Potro at the USO in 09 he was a couple of points away from the title. As for the Djokovic SF at the USO this year, he held a match point, although it is not clear whether he'd have been able to beat Rafa in the final.

So even the possible GOAT will look back on his career and have a few regrets of opportunities that have slipped by (noting of course that there were other close matches he won from losing positiosn on his way to some of his victories).
I suspect in the long run though, Fed's biggest disappointment will be that he only took the one title at RG and that he so rarely found the formula to get the better of Nadal on clay. Not exactly an under-achievement, but something to ponder with regret.

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:02 pm

Matches he "coulda" or "shoulda" won that "woulda"given him additional slams:

1 - AO05 SF v Safin. lost despite MP. Sure he had Hewitt in final but can't see that as a problem.
2 - FO 07 - Wasted 10BPs in that first set and won the second set...
3 - Wimby 08 - wasn't far off was he?
4 - AO 09 - Same thing. He coudl have won that one in 3.
5 - US0 09 - again, should have won in 3
6 - FO 11 - also a possibilty.
7 - USO 11 - In the final....though I think Nadal would have won on that formwe never know. But he certainly "shoulda" been in the final.

Possible 23 slams? ended up with 16 ...That's underachieveing for me. The only slam you think he may have lost but got a bit of luck was teh FO09 with his match v Haas...otherwise, they were not that close. Wimby 09 he played terrible (windy) had bad luck on many shots and still won.

If we look at Pete's slams and his close matches for instance, we will find a hard giving slams that he shoudl have won....more the other way around.

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:05 pm

I'm not sure just saying 16 slams is the most ever is a valid argument for why its not an underachievement. By the same token you could say winning one slam is a great achievement but if Murray finished on just one I would perhaps think he'd underachieved.

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:07 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote: By the same token you could say winning one slam is a great achievement but if Murray finished on just one I would perhaps think he'd underachieved.

More so if he finished with 0!

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:12 pm

Also unlike what you're saying tenez I don't think it should exactly be a case of giving him all the close matches he lost. For me its the difference between the close matches he won and the close matches he lost that more truly reflects where I think he should be. So for me 18 or 19 is where I as a fan feel he should be. Though saying that, it's difficult to ignore mthierry's assessment that the results are kind of always justified but that's where the underachieving comes in; I didn't say it wasn't his fault, in each case its him that coulda, woulda, shoulda.

by bogbrush Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:16 pm

Perhaps another way to look at it is to say that Federer has won a very solid 16 Slams; there's no sense that on balance he got a bit lucky or could easily have been lower. Quite the contrary in all probability.

So where Sampras maxed out, Federer has 16 easy.

On top of that his credentials as the all-court genius are bolstered by the 4 French Open losses. If he'd got the one win and barely made another quarter it would have looked a bit jammy but he's actually ended up with more French open final appearances than most great clay courters - and we're talking about the man who won 5 USO and Wimbledons on the trot.

Overall then, his losses are part of the legendary achievements. It really is 16 that could have been >20, it really is a run of 10 successive finals followed by another of 8, with a semi in between - yes, 18 finals and a semi in 19 Slams. Madness. So getting 16 seems almost an incidental part of that staggering accomplishment.

And people talk about questions over whether he is the greatest player ever! Now that really is foolishness.

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:20 pm

23 is the number I consider "possible" winning a few points there and then could have given him that number. I am not saying he deserves 23, just that he "coulda" won 23 without stretching it too much.

Now as I said, there are other factors such as medical, diet, training advances and conditins slowing which in my view clearly favoured his main opponents style than his tennis, so in that respect I think he coudl even had done better.

Your thread is about speculating, so we might as well do so.

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:22 pm

Fair enough tenez, apologies if i read into implications that weren't there.

by Guest Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:25 pm

It's a conumdrum.

On one hand there are those that say it is an overachievement and just a reflection of a "weak era" in which he played and that he would have won about 6 slams at most in any other era.

On the other hand there are those that say it is an underachievement and if it hadn't been for cheating talentless "moonballing" retrievers who break the time between points regulations, then he would have won about 26 slams at least.

Then there are others that say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc

by dummy_half Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:30 pm

break
The point is that 16 slams is an unprecedented achievement, so it is very difficult to put into context compared with the career records of other players. By comparison, if Murray did end his career with 1 slam title, it is relatively easy to compare him with the other single slam winners and say that based on the rest of his career (number of slam finals and sfs, number of Masters Series titles), his slam haul is a bit disappointing.

In fact, my summary of Federer's career would be that he was hugely dominant but for a shorter period of time compared with others of the historic greats - his slams all came within a 7 year period between Wimbledon 03 and Aus 10, while I believe Sampras's slams came over a 12 year spell.

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:30 pm

Nore Staat wrote:It's a conumdrum.

....

Then there are others that say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc

You got the wrong thread there NS! I am sure you were meant to post that in the News section about the meeting on the future of Europe going on right now. Wink

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:36 pm

dummy_half wrote:break
The point is that 16 slams is an unprecedented achievement, so it is very difficult to put into context compared with the career records of other players. By comparison, if Murray did end his career with 1 slam title, it is relatively easy to compare him with the other single slam winners and say that based on the rest of his career (number of slam finals and sfs, number of Masters Series titles), his slam haul is a bit disappointing.

I don't agree with that. We can compare 14 and 16 for instance and we can also compare Federer and Pete's respective talent and strength and suggest that 16 might not be as representative as the 14 of Pete.

Likewise, I think Nalbandian was very close to Federer talent wise and some some years was physically as string...yet one won 16 slams and the other none.

Nalby is certainly the biggest underachiever I can think off.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 5:58 pm

If "we may as well speculate", how about me saying if Fed was a perfect contemporary (turning pro around the same time) of Nadal and Djokovic and Murray, he'd be nowhere near 16 slams.

Arguments can be made both for overachievement AND underachievement.

by Guest Wed 26 Oct 2011, 6:07 pm

mthierry wrote:If "we may as well speculate", how about me saying if Fed was a perfect contemporary (turning pro around the same time) of Nadal and Djokovic and Murray, he'd be nowhere near 16 slams.

Arguments can be made both for overachievement AND underachievement.

I think Tenez is referring to speculation within the realms of what was/is possible, hence 'coulda, shoulda, woulda' based on actual events. Your example doesn't fit into this category, otherwise we could start speculating on how things would be if all of the greats were perfect contemporaries. Obviously a fantasy scenario.

ghost

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 6:09 pm

mthierry wrote:If "we may as well speculate", how about me saying if Fed was a perfect contemporary (turning pro around the same time) of Nadal and Djokovic and Murray, he'd be nowhere near 16 slams.

Arguments can be made both for overachievement AND underachievement.

He coudl be easily argued that the player who learnt to play on fast surfaces and dominated all his generation, woudl have also learnt to beat the new physical players of his generation.

I have seen much more progress from federer over his career, adapting to Djoko and Nadal than I have seen of Nadal for instance adapting to Djoko's game.

Federer is the player able to beat Sampras on fast grass in 2001 and give Nadal on his favourite surface, 10 years later, a good run for his money.

I am curious to see how Nadal fare with the new generation when he is 30.

by legendkillar Wed 26 Oct 2011, 6:27 pm

I think more than anything Federer is worth more than 16 Slams. I say that on the strength of Slam events he has lost by where he has overall played the 'better quality' of tennis FO 2010, Wim 2008. I think when you look at things in general for example in Wim 2008, despite Nadal winning it, I think most fans were more of 'how did Federer not win' or 'how did Nadal win that'

It is not a bad reflection on players in his generation and their accomplishments, not at all. Nadal and Djokovic and Murray (hopefully) still have time on their side to add to titles to their careers.

I think Federer even at 30 is not to be written off, if you get a Slam where in the last 4 he his the highest ranked player or experienced winner, he could still win Slams.

I think also what should be noted is Federer's attitude in the press around his accomplishments or when acheiving them. I think he has been gracious and also down to earth with how he is held by his peers and fellow pro's.

by Guest Wed 26 Oct 2011, 6:32 pm

Maybe ten is the most anyone will get from now on, seeing as we may just be witnessing the limit to which the human body can be pressed and the talent that can be expressed.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 7:33 pm

Tenez wrote:
He coudl be easily argued that the player who learnt to play on fast surfaces and dominated all his generation, woudl have also learnt to beat the new physical players of his generation.

I have seen much more progress from federer over his career, adapting to Djoko and Nadal than I have seen of Nadal for instance adapting to Djoko's game.

Federer is the player able to beat Sampras on fast grass in 2001 and give Nadal on his favourite surface, 10 years later, a good run for his money.

I am curious to see how Nadal fare with the new generation when he is 30.

No such argument can be made intelligently without coming across looking fanboyish. If I'm not mistaken, Federer close to the prime of his career started off with a 6-1 h2h deficit against a teenage, maturing Nadal. Saying were he the same age as Nadal, he'd be beating him is pure, wishful fallacy. You make it sound like Nadal and Djokovic first met Fed at his current age and at their own peak rather than as maturing players meeting Fed in some of his peak years. You submission that Fed has made more progress over his career than Nadal is YOUR opinion which I certainly don't share.

Fed dominating Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Ljubicic etc is no indication of how he'd fare against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

This is the thing about speculation and conjecturing: we can all twist it the way we want it to be, making it up as we go along.

by Tenez Wed 26 Oct 2011, 7:44 pm

Do you fancy another fedal debate? not me. And certainly not with you.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 7:58 pm

Tenez wrote:Do you fancy another fedal debate? not me. And certainly not with you.

Well that would certainly be a first! Good for you. Thought I'd never see the day.

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 8:12 pm

mthierry wrote:
Tenez wrote:Do you fancy another fedal debate? not me. And certainly not with you.
Well that would certainly be a first! Good for you. Thought I'd never see the day.

well done mthierry - first you try and bait with your last, and then here, when Tenez doesn't bite, you try once more and feebly attempt to patronise to boot. Please don't ever, ever accuse anyone else of having an agenda on here will you? But of course you will!

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 8:31 pm

time please wrote:
well done mthierry - first you try and bait with your last, and then here, when Tenez doesn't bite, you try once more and feebly attempt to patronise to boot. Please don't ever, ever accuse anyone else of having an agenda on here will you? But of course you will!

Is repeating 'ever' twice meant to make me take you seriously. So replying a post with a contrary opinion amounts to baiting in your twisted logic. In the previous thread, you claimed you only wanted to discuss the tennis so don't "ever, ever" (see what I did there) reply to me if it doesn't concern the tennis. But of course you will.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 8:31 pm

time please wrote:
well done mthierry - first you try and bait with your last, and then here, when Tenez doesn't bite, you try once more and feebly attempt to patronise to boot. Please don't ever, ever accuse anyone else of having an agenda on here will you? But of course you will!

Is repeating 'ever' twice meant to make me take you seriously. So replying a post with a contrary opinion amounts to baiting in your twisted logic. In the previous thread, you claimed you only wanted to discuss the tennis so don't "ever, ever" (see what I did there) reply to me if it doesn't concern the tennis. But of course you will.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 8:32 pm

time please wrote:
mthierry wrote:
Tenez wrote:Do you fancy another fedal debate? not me. And certainly not with you.
Well that would certainly be a first! Good for you. Thought I'd never see the day.

well done mthierry - first you try and bait with your last, and then here, when Tenez doesn't bite, you try once more and feebly attempt to patronise to boot. Please don't ever, ever accuse anyone else of having an agenda on here will you? But of course you will!

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 8:40 pm

mthierry wrote:
time please wrote:
well done mthierry - first you try and bait with your last, and then here, when Tenez doesn't bite, you try once more and feebly attempt to patronise to boot. Please don't ever, ever accuse anyone else of having an agenda on here will you? But of course you will!
Is repeating 'ever' twice meant to make me take you seriously. So replying a post with a contrary opinion amounts to baiting in your twisted logic. In the previous thread, you claimed you only wanted to discuss the tennis so don't "ever, ever" (see what I did there) reply to me if it doesn't concern the tennis. But of course you will.

Yes I see what you did there - am I supposed to be flattered or outraged that you satirise my sentence construction, and yes I do reiterate I am interested solely in the tennis. However you and your self appointed would be morally superior peers have irated me into responding because I can't stand to see bullying in any shape or form, and you mthierry are attempting to bully imo and on several threads, and I don't want to pass by and not challenge that kind of unpleasantness - call me quixotic or just plain weird, but that's the way I feel

I really couldn't care less whether you take me seriously or not, as I have no opinion about you whatsoever - and I am using the last a la Beatrix Potter's Mrs Tabitha Twitchett!

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 26 Oct 2011, 8:52 pm

Jubbahey wrote:Maybe ten is the most anyone will get from now on, seeing as we may just be witnessing the limit to which the human body can be pressed and the talent that can be expressed.

Interesting take, maybe if the game stays as physical as it is now 10 will be the limit. Its difficult to see Djokovic getting more than that and who can you see up and coming thats better than him?

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 8:59 pm

time please wrote:
Yes I see what you did there - am I supposed to be flattered or outraged that you satirise my sentence construction, and yes I do reiterate I am interested solely in the tennis. However you and your self appointed would be morally superior peers have irated me into responding because I can't stand to see bullying in any shape or form, and you mthierry are attempting to bully imo and on several threads, and I don't want to pass by and not challenge that kind of unpleasantness - call me quixotic or just plain weird, but that's the way I feel

I really couldn't care less whether you take me seriously or not, as I have no opinion about you whatsoever - and I am using the last a la Beatrix Potter's Mrs Tabitha Twitchett!

I certainly don't take you seriously and couldn't care less if you couldn't care less that I don't take you seriously (see what I did again). I despise contradictions like yours cos when you threw your toys out of the pram on a previous thread in replying my post, you claimed you were only interested in the tennis so never discuss anything else here but tennis, especially with me.

And bullying? I'm sure Tenez himself would be chuckling at that one. You seriously need to get a grip. You've just shown why I don't take you seriously. It's funny how you're portraying me as sanctimonious while pontificating on your high horse. You really have no grasp of the word "irony" do you?

Quit being a big joke and a suck-up. It's cringeworthy

by **laverfan** Wed 26 Oct 2011, 9:10 pm

Between 1964-67 Laver won 7 Pro 'slams' (yes, in a draw of 16) and had 11 slams (Amateur and Open Era). Speculation in his case can lead to a potential to 18 (more than Federer's 16), also very similar in vein to the 7 'missed' Federer ones listed by Tenez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Performance_Timeline

Tenez wrote:
1 - AO05 SF v Safin. lost despite MP. Sure he had Hewitt in final but can't see that as a problem.
2 - FO 07 - Wasted 10BPs in that first set and won the second set...
3 - Wimby 08 - wasn't far off was he?
4 - AO 09 - Same thing. He coudl have won that one in 3.
5 - US0 09 - again, should have won in 3
6 - FO 11 - also a possibilty.
7 - USO 11 - In the final....though I think Nadal would have won on that formwe never know. But he certainly "shoulda" been in the final.

In the end, the number actually won is what counts in this time line of the universe (parallel alternative universes not included. Wink

)

by **laverfan** Wed 26 Oct 2011, 9:14 pm

MThierry and TP... take it easy. Tennis (without vitriol) is a much better drink.

You can mark each other as 'foes', if that makes you both feel any better. Wink

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 9:27 pm

mthierry wrote:
time please wrote:
Yes I see what you did there - am I supposed to be flattered or outraged that you satirise my sentence construction, and yes I do reiterate I am interested solely in the tennis. However you and your self appointed would be morally superior peers have irated me into responding because I can't stand to see bullying in any shape or form, and you mthierry are attempting to bully imo and on several threads, and I don't want to pass by and not challenge that kind of unpleasantness - call me quixotic or just plain weird, but that's the way I feel

I really couldn't care less whether you take me seriously or not, as I have no opinion about you whatsoever - and I am using the last a la Beatrix Potter's Mrs Tabitha Twitchett!
I certainly don't take you seriously and couldn't care less if you couldn't care less that I don't take you seriously (see what I did again). I despise contradictions like yours cos when you threw your toys out of the pram on a previous thread in replying my post, you claimed you were only interested in the tennis so never discuss anything else here but tennis, especially with me.

And bullying? I'm sure Tenez himself would be chuckling at that one. You seriously need to get a grip. You've just shown why I don't take you seriously. It's funny how you're portraying me as sanctimonious while pontificating on your high horse. You really have no grasp of the word "irony" do you?

Quit being a big joke and a suck-up. It's cringeworthy

Actually I do have a very good understanding of the word 'irony' in all its connatations - I appreciate that you are concerned I don't because you have brought it up rather a lot. I must confess that I am having trouble sorting out your mixed metaphors and your cliches - I can assure you I do have a 'grip' on my 'high horse' but I am not pontificating up here - I thought I was being much too direct, but obviously not! I am pretty sure that I have never said 'I never discuss anything but tennis especially not with you', in fact I am certain I haven't - I think I said I was here to discuss tennis and I have explained why I have moved away slightly from that objective for the present in my previous post.

I am, as you would expect, crushed that you consider me a 'big joke' and 'cringeworthy' but I expect to recover by the end of my really rather good bottle of chardonay and chocolate brownies. zen

by wow Wed 26 Oct 2011, 9:28 pm

Are injuries the only reason for Nalby's failure to win a slam. Cause as per many anti fed posters during the weak era he was the only win putting up some kind of fight against fed.

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 9:31 pm

laverfan wrote:MThierry and TP... take it easy. Tennis (without vitriol) is a much better drink.

You can mark each other as 'foes', if that makes you both feel any better.

Dear laver Hug

I do appreciate your good thoughts and your intervention and you're quite right that it is better not to get involved I guess. All I will say is we all have something that makes us react and I have just seen a little too much of one poster being accused continually of various things which I feel are unjust.

For my part, I certainly wouldn't mark anyone as a foe - I don't do it in reality and don't intend to do so in a virtual world. I will feel as right as rain in the morning Wink

Once again Hug

by **laverfan** Wed 26 Oct 2011, 9:48 pm

time please wrote:
laverfan wrote:MThierry and TP... take it easy. Tennis (without vitriol) is a much better drink.

You can mark each other as 'foes', if that makes you both feel any better.

Dear laver I do appreciate your good thoughts and your intervention and you're quite right that it is better not to get involved I guess. All I will say is we all have something that makes us react and I have just seen a little too much of one poster being accused continually of various things which I feel are unjust.

For my part, I certainly wouldn't mark anyone as a foe - I don't do it in reality and don't intend to do so in a virtual world. I will feel as right as rain in the morning

Once again

Enjoy your bottle of Chardonnay and Chocolate Brownies (and perhaps an Ice bath) and goodluck with your recovery after a 'tough' match. thumbsup

Perhaps send one Chardonnay bottle to MThierry, who probably appreciates a gift as well and would help dilute the vitriol a bit or just wash it away. Wink

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 9:57 pm

laverfan wrote:
time please wrote:
laverfan wrote:MThierry and TP... take it easy. Tennis (without vitriol) is a much better drink.

You can mark each other as 'foes', if that makes you both feel any better.

Dear laver I do appreciate your good thoughts and your intervention and you're quite right that it is better not to get involved I guess. All I will say is we all have something that makes us react and I have just seen a little too much of one poster being accused continually of various things which I feel are unjust.

For my part, I certainly wouldn't mark anyone as a foe - I don't do it in reality and don't intend to do so in a virtual world. I will feel as right as rain in the morning

Once again

Enjoy your bottle of Chardonnay and Chocolate Brownies (and perhaps an Ice bath) and goodluck with your recovery after a 'tough' match.

Perhaps send one Chardonnay bottle to MThierry, who probably appreciates a gift as well and would help dilute the vitriol a bit or just wash it away.

Oh laver - you are making me feel dreadful, I wasn't that awful that I need an Ice bath, was I??? Perhaps don't answer that just now Wink

Actually I was contemplating something much, much warmer. Would maybe consider sending chardonnay to mthierry, but have unfortunately drunk - oooopps! Wink

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm

time please wrote:
Actually I do have a very good understanding of the word 'irony' in all its connatations - I appreciate that you are concerned I don't because you have brought it up rather a lot. I must confess that I am having trouble sorting out your mixed metaphors and your cliches - I can assure you I do have a 'grip' on my 'high horse' but I am not pontificating up here - I thought I was being much too direct, but obviously not! I am pretty sure that I have never said 'I never discuss anything but tennis especially not with you', in fact I am certain I haven't - I think I said I was here to discuss tennis and I have explained why I have moved away slightly from that objective for the present in my previous post.

I am, as you would expect, crushed that you consider me a 'big joke' and 'cringeworthy' but I expect to recover by the end of my really rather good bottle of chardonay and chocolate brownies.

Funny thing is that I was complaining of Tenez but this has been my most bitter exchange with anyone cos you became the self-appointed, anti-moralist, moralist.

Hope you enjoy the bottle and brownies: would momentarily rid you of your messianic complex and stop you whining over trifles.

Bullying......... literally still stunned about that one.

by time please Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:13 pm

Firstly -

laver, but I am just not big enough!

Hello again mthierry!
Actually you are quite argumentative but perhaps that is because you choose to respond to a certain poster that you vehemently disagree with a lot of the time. I haven't ever commented on you, before this thread, responding to Tenez - I just flew, I admit, at you on 606 thread because you caught all the back lash from me after seeing a lot of posts accusing a fantastic contributor (and that is based on what he brings to the forum, not all his opinions) of driving other posters away which a lot of people leapt on and which I think is unfair and I wanted to say that.

I was actually about to apologise to you tomorrow for my part in the vitriol in our disagreement, but perhaps that would reinforce your opinion that I have a 'messianic complex'?

If we are back to semantics, 'whining over trifles' is a reasonable attempt at a pun when hoping I am enjoying my wine and brownies, but not up to your usual literary acrobatics.

by mthierry Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:15 pm

Okay, that last one was petty. Can I wave the white flag while cautiously clutching tight to my helmet 'just in case'?

by **laverfan** Wed 26 Oct 2011, 10:15 pm

time please wrote: Oh laver - you are making me feel dreadful, I wasn't that awful that I need an Ice bath, was I??? Perhaps don't answer that just now Actually I was contemplating something much, much warmer. Would maybe consider sending chardonnay to mthierry, but have unfortunately drunk - oooopps!

My abject apologies (or as a favourite TV show has it Ranjeet from Mind Your Language - a 'thousand' apologies).

mthierry wrote:Funny thing is that I was complaining of Tenez but this has been my most bitter exchange with anyone cos you became the self-appointed, anti-moralist, moralist.

Do you have a crystal ball or Tarot cards to predict future encounters? Wink

your messianic complex... - Love this therapy session. TP in a warm bath and you asking about complex 'complexes'. thumbsup

by Sponsored content