General Chat

First topic message reminder :

Calder106 wrote: it is perceived he is not good enough when he loses to Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer but when he beats any of them its because they are not really trying or injured.

That is bang on the money, the main problem in this section and why members are leaving.
To those who are doing this, is it your aim to drive members away from this site?

sportslover wrote:

YI Man is concerned why people are leaving this forum, look at the recent article by CaledonianCraig "Well done Andy" and that might give you a clue!

Yeah, sure....it happens to be the busiest article around!...

sportslover wrote:Tenez - OK you are obviously a fan, but his articles have the same repetative themes, Physique, Size of balls, Speed of courts, throw in the use of using illegal substances, and lets link them all and have a "bash at Rafa Nadal".

Rich from you. That's many more subjects that you have ever come up with. I wish I could say that you only post about Murray but I 'd even have to be more more specific. You only post when there is a bit of a fight out there. Just look at 606...all you posts were about responding to all the anti-Murrays. hardly anything else. And you accuse me of repeating the same things again and again? Have you heard about the beam/straw tale?

[/quote]

Tenez - OK you are obviously a fan, but his articles have the same repetative themes, Physique, Size of balls, Speed of courts, throw in the use of using illegal substances, and lets link them all and have a "bash at Rafa Nadal". Have you ever wondered why he was banned from other forums and does anyone know why? I am not even a Nadal fan but he does deserve respect.

[/quote]

I think the thing is SL things like Ball Size, Court Speeds, Racquet Strings and Heads, Diets and Nutrition, Fitness have all changed in the game. They are facts that cannot be denied. Some will argue that this favours a player like Nadal, it has also benefited someone like Federer and Djokovic too. These factors are and will always be a subject of debate.

Tenez likes to debate. His debates with lydian have always been thought provoking, though heated sometimes it has always been debated in the spirit of the game.

To get people to change beliefs is more than difficult and is often seen as a contradiction and immoral.

Brilliant post legend

TP, you're talking so much twaddle.

You mention my last article, it was so interesting it got 3 posters, yeah, brilliant!

You keep mentioning the fact that all I do is moan on here, you keep focusing on the things that I say are bad about this section. Let me point out something obvious to you, don't you think it is a serious matter, the bile and hatred that spews out from some posters keyboards, that it has taken the intervention of all 3 top admins to come on here and highlight the problem to you. If they thought it was fine they'd get on with more important things like running a forum for their thousands of members, not taking part in what you term a minority of bickering whiners pestering the boards with their thin skinned reactions to weak, anti-Murray posts.

They don't agree with you TP, they don't like what they see on a day to day basis being written on a section that is attracting the wrong kinds of posts.

I have never said the whole forum is like this, I dont know anyone who has, there are great articles out there and some great posting and conversations. Where you get the idea that all I have done is constantly moan about V2 is beyond me. Out of 817 posts I have committed to this forum about 10 are moans on the subject we are discussing.

https://www.606v2.com/spa/Jubbahey

On this page alone, out of 50 posts, 3 are concerning derogatory posting and hate threads. All the rest are about tennis.

Again, either you have got it in for me or you're bordering on the hysterical and have the ridiculous impression you are some kind of champion for free speech. At least get your facts right before you begin a crusade to write me into the Whiner Encyclopedia.

Jubbahey - I admit I was too quick off the mark with you - please accept my apologies. I am totally frustrated with Boo (Sportslover) and Yummy's negativity to this forum and all on it the whole time, and I had been irritated by your 'clean slate/leopards don't change their spots' posts because I had seen them a few times. Because I suppose the former often come in to echo you, I just lost it with you all.

However, although I certainly don't regret anything I said to Yummy or Sportslover because I think they have been wumming - ie coming over here purposefully to get a reaction. Yummy even posted some months ago a negative post lambasting everyone for not creating a thread about a tournament and how no-one cared about tennis only MTL which she was going back to pronto - everyone was patient and duly contributed to her thread (about the tournament) but yummy had disappeared. Neither Yummy nor boo have any interest in any of us or the forum - the latter has just a score to settle with someone here and his raison d'etre is to get that poster banned - I am afraid that is why I reacted so badly to your 'clean slates/leopards don't change their spots' posts.

I don't like to single out posters like I have done - but I am getting very tired of seeing the same poster under attack.

Re your points about respect between posters - I agree with you. Where I think I differ is that I believe the vast majority of posters here are brilliant, articulate, funny on occasions and respectful. Perhaps we just start from a different perspective - my glass is half full and yours half empty.

Re your post - it was a great post and I wasn't being sarcastic - it perhaps wasn't a concept that had mass appeal and that is why it didn't become a long thread, but you had considered and lengthy responses which means that posters found it interesting.

I'm sorry but I do believe in free speech, and I did point out that the responses to contentious posts (which I didn't find that bad until posters started trading insults with each other) were roundly dismissed by some great posts from Murray supporters that outlined his achievements. Now if you were passing trade, you had just developed an interest in tennis but without the back knowledge of a lot of guys here, those kind of threads are very informative and you would learn a lot about AM and how much he has achieved, plus why so many of us have high hopes for him because of stellar performances at the big ones in the past.

I should know - I learned so much from the 606 boards about periods where I didn't watch so much, or when I hadn't followed the tour all year around. We learn from debate.

Don't lets all break into cliques - and can't posters just have their post suspended if it crosses a line, and be invited to rewrite it

Finally, I totally accept and apologise for inferring that negative posts are all I seem to see you write, because I did check afterwards and that is patently not so and I have actually enjoyed so much of what you do post. Will you also accept that it is not fair for Boo to comment that all Tenez does is to debate one issue? There is a horrible irony that we are irritated with each other over much the same offence.

Jubbahey wrote:

I have never said the whole forum is like this, I dont know anyone who has, there are great articles out there and some great posting and conversations. Where you get the idea that all I have done is constantly moan about V2 is beyond me. Out of 817 posts I have committed to this forum about 10 are moans on the subject we are discussing.

Jub: I don't spend my life on this forum, but honestly I'd be surprised the articles you wrote moaning about the site were less than 50. Don't want to say you write only about that though, like Yummy and Boo. The problem is: this is annoying the people who like as it is on here, and find themself continuosly challenged by outsiders who come here to complain for no special reasons.

I have no gripes with debating with constructive criticism made an honest and factual way. However, I do object to character assassination as has happened here as Andy Murray has been painted as a strike leader since proven to be nonsense yet those making those claims never retracted them, also being labelled as greedy and opportunistic and poor excuse for a sportsman all because he dared to set a goal to become No. 3 and to cap it all his achievements being belittled by those that feel they only came about as other players weren't trying as hard. Is that the sort of guff we want newcomers to be fed? Is it fair to make totally unfounded such remarks? No especially when they can't be backed up.

Now if posters want to be constructive and say why they feel Andy struggles to win slams or think where his game could be improved in a polite non-confrontational manner then I am all for it but sadly that is all too rare.

I actually LK, if I'm honest I respect the fact that Tenez brings a variety of views to this forum even though he knows I dont agree with a fair number of them He knows I've got a little cheesed off when he keeps bringing up the same topic which if he's honest he'll admit to doing. But in reality I'd rather that than nothing at all.

In terms of my contributions I havent been able to post much of late as my job has precluded much time (posting this from Holland currently) so mainly replied to threads rather than post new ones, but we do need injections of views and debate otherwise it would just be plain boring in here. Besides, I'm sure Tenez quite enjoys our little tete-a-tete's if he's honest

I like Jubbha's posts and enjoy them immensly. I think the reason it doesn't get much response is due to his command of the English language which I think bamboozles people and actually frightens them from commenting in case they don't understand the subject at hand

I agree with CC. It is exhaustive to list the accomplishments of Murray and I think sometimes people will just look past that make a constructive opinion. It is all to easy for even the most un-formed fan of tennis to say Djokovic/Nadal/Federer have won Slams. Again unfortunately that is a cold fact. Murray hasn't. On the other hand it is all too easy and lazy to keep alluding to that one fact all the time. For me if and when Murray wins a Slam, I will be more relieved than joyus to be honest.

lydian wrote:I actually LK, if I'm honest I respect the fact that Tenez brings a variety of views to this forum even though he knows I dont agree with a fair number of them He knows I've got a little cheesed off when he keeps bringing up the same topic which if he's honest he'll admit to doing. But in reality I'd rather that than nothing at all.

In terms of my contributions I havent been able to post much of late as my job has precluded much time (posting this from Holland currently) so mainly replied to threads rather than post new ones, but we do need injections of views and debate otherwise it would just be plain boring in here. Besides, I'm sure Tenez quite enjoys our little tete-a-tete's if he's honest

It is enjoyable to read. Because it is constructive. I think anyone who is anyone will point to the post you made regarding Federer's fitness and conditioning and the commitment and time he put into it.

I am sure posters enjoy your comments on threads and Tenez's comments too. I was surprised to see he was a Borg fan given the comparisons made with him and Nadal but it goes to show the diversity of posters

lydian wrote:I actually LK, if I'm honest I respect the fact that Tenez brings a variety of views to this forum even though he knows I dont agree with a fair number of them He knows I've got a little cheesed off when he keeps bringing up the same topic which if he's honest he'll admit to doing. But in reality I'd rather that than nothing at all.

In terms of my contributions I havent been able to post much of late as my job has precluded much time (posting this from Holland currently) so mainly replied to threads rather than post new ones, but we do need injections of views and debate otherwise it would just be plain boring in here. Besides, I'm sure Tenez quite enjoys our little tete-a-tete's if he's honest

Lydian - I am sure that I speak for more posters than just myself when I say that a lot of us really enjoy your's and Tenez's 'tete-a-tetes'. They are brilliant, informative and most of all and best - lively.


Legend - just seen your post. Your point or CC's about it being exhaustive to list AM's achievements is one of the reasons I am for letting debate take its course. I don't think anyone wants to read an essay about a player, but seeing different points of views in a debate is a much more rewarding learning process and stimulates conversation. The point you make about the foe button on another thread is just right - and for people like you and I who occasionally will get hot under the collar rather than press one - that's a different option

There are many articulate posters on here besides Jubb - Lydian and you and CC being three of them right here. I think excessive use of words like 'bile' put people off responding to Jubb because I am not sure where his line of constructive criticism and player bashing is - I know where yours is, and where Lydian's is - I know that CC is more sensitive than either of you and I tread more carefully responding to him and less robustly than I might to others, but I don't honestly know where Jubb's line in the sand is and I wonder if others have that problem? I don't like the harping on about old grudges and it is honestly off putting to those of us who are not aware of all the history. Other than that, of course I love Jubb's posts - that's why it is rather disappointing when he seems so disappointed himself with the rest of us.

Thanks TP, apology accepted.

And yes I was a bit hot under the collar in my responses and I apologise for that too.

What I see on here is not a general disease affecting the whole forum, but small pockets of posts by certain posters which are primarily aimed at disrupting members or articles.

I have seen it often, a good thread opens, debate follows, then a single poster enters the fray and manages to hijack the thread and create animosity between normal, level headed posters. Look what happened between you and Thierry the other day, the thread was split into two halves and in the end the guy who started it all was not to be seen taking part in any of it.

That is what I mean by some posters deliberately posting statements that they know will ruffle feathers and cause people to respond. Its a known tactic that went on, on the old 606, its called wumming but its a lot cleverer than that. I have been a victim of it in the past so I can spot it a mile away, which is why I bring it up now and again.

My overall feeling of V2 is that something had to be done to curb the enthusiasm to post disrespectful comments, either about players or posters, with the aim to disrupt the boards. To be fair, there are not many of those types on here, but they are prolific. I'm not going to mention any names, as you are prob aware now that can be a huge mistake, but they know who they are and they know that they are being watched. All this thread has done is highlight the problem and allowed posters like us to air our views, which is good for the forum as a whole.

I'm not a regular poster now, as you know I have been busy with my own place of refuge, and the sole reason for me doing that was the constant Murray bashing that began to permeate a lot of the threads. When YIMan said there were members being "driven" away from V2 you should read that as "pushed" or in some cases "shoved", but the premise is the same, they are gone or are contributing more on other forums. The result is that a large proportion of posts on here are Federer based which does not attract new members with such gusto as in the past, couple this with members either leaving or not posting has got the admin worried and rightly so.

If anyone should want any advice, I'll say it again, please have "respect" in mind when you commit yourself to writing a comment or producing an article, all that does is foster good conversation, and intelligent and interesting threads.

CC's article is an example of a thread being hijacked by someone who just wanted to be a pain in the backside of those who follow Murray. I have read and discussed threads with CC and he is not a fanboy or anything that resembles one, with some posters making that assumption. When you look at the constructive criticism Murray has received from posters on here, he gladly accepts them and debates them.

There is a Sitgma that Murray fans are 'defensive' or easy to say 'Wum' but when you look at the amount of garbage not just aimed at Murray, but Federer, Nadal, Djokovic too, it frustrates the soul.

When you see things such as 'Federer overachieved' or 'Nadal is one dimensional' or 'Djokovic is only winning because Federer and Nadal have declined' or 'Murray is a choker' you wonder if anyone who makes such comments have ever watched tennis or picked up a racquet for that matter.

Tennis isn't as black and white as the perception for posters with minimal or limited knowledge come on and make throw away comments on this section.

That would be like me going to the Boxing and saying he who punches the hardest wins!

Hi Jubb - good to talk to you, and I agree that the airing of views is no bad thing especially if it helps us all reach a middle ground that the majority is happy with

I like constructive criticism, it is a useful tool to explain ones point of view and put your opinion across without seeming hateful.

I loathe player bashing, its not constructive to anything apart from antagonising people/fans.

Read between the lines and you can have amusing and sometimes hilarious comments about a player, a little rib tickling never did anyone any harm, but I think we all know the distinction between funny and unpleasant, both extremes of the ridiculous.

GTG, back to work, chat later.

legendkillar wrote:CC's article is an example of a thread being hijacked by someone who just wanted to be a pain in the backside of those who follow Murray. I have read and discussed threads with CC and he is not a fanboy or anything that resembles one, with some posters making that assumption. When you look at the constructive criticism Murray has received from posters on here, he gladly accepts them and debates them.

There is a Sitgma that Murray fans are 'defensive' or easy to say 'Wum' but when you look at the amount of garbage not just aimed at Murray, but Federer, Nadal, Djokovic too, it frustrates the soul.

When you see things such as 'Federer overachieved' or 'Nadal is one dimensional' or 'Djokovic is only winning because Federer and Nadal have declined' or 'Murray is a choker' you wonder if anyone who makes such comments have ever watched tennis or picked up a racquet for that matter.

Tennis isn't as black and white as the perception for posters with minimal or limited knowledge come on and make throw away comments on this section.

That would be like me going to the Boxing and saying he who punches the hardest wins!

Legend - I don't disagree with you - my point is that the intelligent debate amongst other posters that follows usually hijacks the thread for a good purpose when people can be bothered.

I am against legislation with 'rogue' posts, and all for the collective intelligence and wit of the majority in this forum setting out to refute such posts - don't let's make it all about the 'wum'!

time please wrote:

legendkillar wrote:CC's article is an example of a thread being hijacked by someone who just wanted to be a pain in the backside of those who follow Murray. I have read and discussed threads with CC and he is not a fanboy or anything that resembles one, with some posters making that assumption. When you look at the constructive criticism Murray has received from posters on here, he gladly accepts them and debates them.

There is a Sitgma that Murray fans are 'defensive' or easy to say 'Wum' but when you look at the amount of garbage not just aimed at Murray, but Federer, Nadal, Djokovic too, it frustrates the soul.

When you see things such as 'Federer overachieved' or 'Nadal is one dimensional' or 'Djokovic is only winning because Federer and Nadal have declined' or 'Murray is a choker' you wonder if anyone who makes such comments have ever watched tennis or picked up a racquet for that matter.

Tennis isn't as black and white as the perception for posters with minimal or limited knowledge come on and make throw away comments on this section.

That would be like me going to the Boxing and saying he who punches the hardest wins!

Legend - I don't disagree with you - my point is that the intelligent debate amongst other posters that follows usually hijacks the thread for a good purpose when people can be bothered.

I am against legislation with 'rogue' posts, and all for the collective intelligence and wit of the majority in this forum setting out to refute such posts - don't let's make it all about the 'wum'!

Don't blame it on sunshine, don't blame on it moonlight, don't blame on good times, blame it on the wumming

legendkillar wrote:
When you see things such as 'Federer overachieved' or 'Nadal is one dimensional' or 'Djokovic is only winning because Federer and Nadal have declined' or 'Murray is a choker' you wonder if anyone who makes such comments have ever watched tennis or picked up a racquet for that matter.

LK thanks for your support in general. Much appreciated. But here I think teh above is not quite true. Those views might be right ....or certainly arguable in a forum. Where else woudl you argue with those points? The views might be expressed in a baiting way but the problem comes also from those who bite the bait. But I actually think that those who bite...actually want those debates. What they don't like however is losing it or not having it clear cut. I have seen this in other forums, when everybody thinks alike, or without spice, the forum dies. Look at how our tennis section gets animated cause we have different views.

Is federer a wum who never picked up a racquet? cause I remember he said Nadal was 1D. He said it again recently in a "nicer way" though. That some might think Federer overachieved is fine by me. I disagree but it doesn't raise my blood pressure to read other views. I am of teh view, that Djoko has improved more than the others dropped but many very "reasonable" posters think otherwise.

Let's just accept the different views and move on. The tyranny comes from those wanting to block the variety of views, even if there might be seen as extreme views.

Even if someone were to come and say Federer is 1D, Nadal is a shrimp physcally or Murray is the most agressive player out there, I would want to know why that person thinks so. If he keeps repeating this without any constructive points, then there might be a case for pushing on the foe button. But we have had no poster as bad as that...not even SA.

So let's be glad of what we have here. It's lively, varied, humorous and even instructive at times. My only 2 points woudl be

1 - Some having too thin a skin
2 - The founders giving them too much hearing time.

I see Tenez so people being allowed to label Murray a strike leader, call him greedy and opportunistic, a rubbish excuse for a sportsman, a player who wins when other players aren't try hard is all acceptable? Definitely not as it is just stuff posted to wind people up and utter nonsense. I know Fed fans don't see this as a problem as it doesn't affect them as their alliances lie elsewhere. The posts made about Murray here is the same Tosh and lies posted on the old 606 but such posts about Fed are not prevailent here as the Fed detractors are scattered elsewhere, those posts slating Rafael continue here unhighlighted as most of his fans post elsewhere and Djokovic has never really been a prime target for severe criticism so we are left with anti-Murray posts. Constructive criticism I am sure any of his fans can and do take but the lies and falsehoods mentioned earlier are neither constructive or criticism.

I agree with your post Tenez.

The only thing I would have issue with, and only in a slight way in the current climate is your no 1 point about thin skins. I do, on the whole, find myself on your side of the debate because I am not a hyper sensitive person myself, but I think we all have to be aware that others are made differently and respect that. Having said that, responsibility has to be exercised both ways to have a lively forum, and that is in some of you more sensitive posters accepting that posters like BB have a robust and acerbic humour sometimes, and that in itself can add greatly to the enjoyment of all on the forum.

Yours and Lydians debates are a good example of splits in what most here seem to want out of this forum - providing lively debate between two great posters who hold different opinions. However, some don't seem to enjoy that kind of posting and get very sensitive over one of the sides of the argument - to those of you who feel that way, I would just ask that you ignore such threads if they are causing you discomfort and leave the rest of us to enjoy them!

CaledonianCraig wrote:I see Tenez so people being allowed to label Murray a strike leader, call him greedy and opportunistic, a rubbish excuse for a sportsman, a player who wins when other players aren't try hard is all acceptable? Definitely not as it is just stuff posted to wind people up and utter nonsense. I know Fed fans don't see this as a problem as it doesn't affect them as their alliances lie elsewhere. The posts made about Murray here is the same Tosh and lies posted on the old 606 but such posts about Fed are not prevailent here as the Fed detractors are scattered elsewhere, those posts slating Rafael continue here unhighlighted as most of his fans post elsewhere and Djokovic has never really been a prime target for severe criticism so we are left with anti-Murray posts. Constructive criticism I am sure any of his fans can and do take but the lies and falsehoods mentioned earlier are neither constructive or criticism.

Craig - there is also a lot of fantastic stuff posted about Murray, and a lot of support for him on here - please don't forget that!

I think the strike debate should have happened because it was topical and everyone was reading both sides of the debate in the press - why shouldn't those two opposing opinions be reflected here?

If the forum is not topical, then what is its point?

The only thing, and I have just speed read that post so may have missed, that was wrong was the 'Dunblane' thing being brought into it - what a dreadful thing for Andy and Jamie Murray, as well as the whole community to have experienced, and what a testament to life and resilience and courage to see the Murray boys doing so well and having made such a good life for themselves.

Read the thread again and the initial report that stemmed the topic. Murray asked if there could be strike action by a reporter and he said there could be - an honest remark as there could. The rabid posters were soon here using that remark to portray him as a strike leader. A week or so later he was clearly saying he didn't want to strike (sorry but strike leaders do not speak like that) yet did any of those retract their strike leader comment or apologise for slanderous stuff. Of course not.

If it was written it was libellous, not slanderous.

And I think there have been more posts on that subject from your good self than from the rest of the forum combined.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Read the thread again and the initial report that stemmed the topic. Murray asked if there could be strike action by a reporter and he said there could be - an honest remark as there could. The rabid posters were soon here using that remark to portray him as a strike leader. A week or so later he was clearly saying he didn't want to strike (dotty but strike leaders do not speak like that) yet did any of those retract their strike leader comment or apologise for slanderous stuff. Of course not.

But Craig there were also people like me who had a different point of view to you - will you include me in the above?

I think this is a case where we are rehashing a past argument instead of moving forward to probably little real gain. And I do think you have to exercise some responsibility not to be offended by all opinions on there. I actually think Rafa was wrong in the intemperate way he went about setting out his grievances and I think Andy was misguided in coming out in support before he had totally thought it through - I think I have a right to say that, wouldn't you agree?

That his different from painting him as a strike leader so can accept that. Others didn't put it like that and freely and happily made allegations and yet when the bigger picture came out did they have the common decency to come on here and apologise? No of course not.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I see Tenez so people being allowed to label Murray a strike leader, call him greedy and opportunistic, a rubbish excuse for a sportsman, a player who wins when other players aren't try hard is all acceptable?

Yes, of course It is acceptable to say such things in a forum...right or wrong, there are views or they are there to tease some posters. Why do you bite to it if for you think those posters are only trying to wum then?

There are things much more worse in life, in the news out there, daily, that I find it almost absurd and out touch with reality that one can be upset because Murray or Federer's images might be tarnished by an anymous blogger. I wonder how you go through the day when you read that 100k lose their job or life everyday.

TP - I think one of the purpose of this life is too make our skins thicker while keeping a gentle and open mind to our neighbours.

CaledonianCraig wrote:That his different from painting him as a strike leader so can accept that. Others didn't put it like that and freely and happily made allegations and yet when the bigger picture came out did they have the common decency to come on here and apologise? No of course not.

Craig - I think you have to let this one go . It was in my view inaccurate to portray him as a strike leader, but if someone else holds a strong view and thinks that maybe it was a 'climb down' by Murray afterwards due to criticism in the press, then I think sometimes you just have to accept that other people hold different views - they may be wrong in your opinion, they may be unpalatable to you, but you are just not going to win them all and it is unrealistic to expect people to 'apologise' when they may feel their view point is a valid one.

Go on posting your own articulate and enthusiastic posts to which you get plenty of consenting views.

CaledonianCraig wrote:That his different from painting him as a strike leader so can accept that. Others didn't put it like that and freely and happily made allegations and yet when the bigger picture came out did they have the common decency to come on here and apologise? No of course not.

Who did you want them to apologise to? I'm fairly sure Andy doesn't read this and if he didn't he couldn't care less - he strikes me as a chap with healthily thick skin. Nobody else was made allegations against.

Are you suggesting there should have been an apology to supporters of Andy? If so that implies a level of conflation of sportsman and supporter that is unhealthy.

See, if we substitute Federer for Murray what I would have done is proved that the person making the statement was wrong and then mercilessly pulled their leg - like I did with socal over his Fognini delusion. An apology would to me be irrelevant.

sticks and stones eh?

Cheers for the comments about my good self everyone. I think there are a number of articulate and well informed posters on this forum, with many of them present on this thread right here. We need to recognise that there will always be some intellectual jousting when debates take place, thats the nature of things and the fact we're sports fan on here means we all probably have a strong competitive spirit to boot.

LK, I think Tenez actually had a different forum name on 606 for a time linked to Borg but I could be wrong
I would second that his liking of Lendl (who I like also) is interesting as well given he was the guy who more than any other before him brought a rigorous precision to diet, fitness, strength, preparation, etc - rather Nadal like!

Anyway, thats all by the by - and its fine to like different types of players! I do. Overall, its good to see a common understanding emerging of the respectful differences to be had in debating. We shouldnt be afraid to express opinions, nor prevent others from doing so unless they contravene house rules.

At this rate we'll be having a group hug - no way! Come on guys, we need a good debate on tennis!

lydian wrote:
LK, I think Tenez actually had a different forum name on 606 for a time linked to Borg but I could be wrong
I would second that his liking of Lendl (who I like also) is interesting as well given he was the guy who more than any other before him brought a rigorous precision to diet, fitness, strength, preparation, etc - rather Nadal like!

Borgisback was my last pseudo on 606.

Lendl understood that he had to be fit to play his sharp tennis over 5 sets (he was constantly flirting with lines and net). Nadal doesn;t have a "sharp" game as he has bigger margins. Very different players as I see Federer much closer to Lendl than Nadal...but Federer more talented than Lendl....I admit.

No...I'm not going to bite! hard cheese!

I will say though, that I think Federer is closer to Sampras than Lendl, in so much that he was clinical and boring.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:
LK, I think Tenez actually had a different forum name on 606 for a time linked to Borg but I could be wrong
I would second that his liking of Lendl (who I like also) is interesting as well given he was the guy who more than any other before him brought a rigorous precision to diet, fitness, strength, preparation, etc - rather Nadal like!

Borgisback was my last pseudo on 606.

Lendl understood that he had to be fit to play his sharp tennis over 5 sets (he was constantly flirting with lines and net). Nadal doesn;t have a "sharp" game as he has bigger margins. Very different players as I see Federer much closer to Lendl than Nadal...but Federer more talented than Lendl....I admit.

My memory of Lendl was that I watched him trying to catch him smile. He was ruthless. And such a character on the court. It wasn't easy for him in those days.

It might be something to with the Czech. Look at Berdych, not a happy chappy, is he?

Jubbahey wrote:No...I'm not going to bite! hard cheese!

I will say though, that I think Federer is closer to Sampras than Lendl, in so much that he was clinical and boring.

aaah wash thy mouth out - TMF boring and clinical - quelle horreur (or something like that!)! Actually Jubb, as a fan I think I would quite like a bit more clinical, even if it was boring to the point of being soporific, to soothe my battered nerves over the last couple of years

Oh, don't mind me TP, it was just a pathetic attempt at a Fed Bash.

I must try harder, since this is now an acceptable way to post on V2 according to the masses.

Yeah I was aware that you were 'testing the waters' Jubb - and we had a laugh about it, didn't we?

BTW, your view anyway even if made in earnest is perfectly acceptable - it's one my sister holds too, and it is certainly not something I would fall out with another person for holding. I my sister!

There should be room on here for expressing preference for a player and their game and reasons for imvho.

PS - really, really gotta go now - v late indeed!

To be honest, I think Fed had (and may always have) the best action of all tennis players. His play was graceful and flowing and when he was on song, unbeatable. That was about the only time I could say that Roger was boring, in so much that his passing shots were so good, they became monotonous the more I got used to them..."Oh, there it goes, another down the line backhand...yawn"

I think most of the time we saw him play exciting tennis and on the occasions he played someone like Murray or Henman, we naturally wanted him to fail, but of course he didn't and I for one relegated those matches to the mundane pile. They weren't, but it was the same for Sampras too, when he played his best tennis, it was so clinical at times it was almost not worth watching the slaughter when you knew the outcome.

I suppose that's what gets the spectators cheering, seeing an underdog put up a fight, a Christian bravely face a lion etc, and in some cases come through and cause an upset.

Oh absolutely - I think we all love to see a really valiant underdog facing down a great player and winning through - it's sort of the essence of sport.

I think we perhaps all watch our favourite players differently and want them to come through with the minimum messiness it's other peoples' favourites I want to see in a battle

I don't appreciate my name being bandied about by certain

posters when I'm not here to *defend* myself!



I am NOT NEGATIVE tp just totally browned off with the Murray

haters on this forum.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but I suppose I should apologise if I have upset you yummy. However, I am afraid I can't really regret anything I have said - we have all heard a lot about what you feel about this forum, the posters and the moderators, and generally you have been given more goodwill than most and posters have tried really hard to be positive towards you. A perfect example below:

https://www.606v2.com/t11675-cincinnatti

I am sorry if I don't see the positivity in your nature in this post.

Ok - so I didn't pick the best example there - it contains THE argument again, but the point is that a lot of posters tried to pick up a thread which you started with the wrong spirit - imo you weren't trying to talk to anyone, you were just being provocative - and I've become fed up with posters doing that.

If I went out to supper tonight and someone expressed an opinion about a player which I thought was wrong, I wouldn't dream of launching over the table, grabbing them by the throat and barking 'say that again pal!'

That kind of thing is hopefully what most of us would like to avoid here.