Make Up Your Mind Simon Reed!

First topic message reminder :

Hello all,
Have missed all the action on the boards the last 10 days due to PC problems and a dead hard drive amounting to 4 and a half years of photos and other stuff being totally lost. Anyway, just read these two articles by the 5* reporter Simon Reed whose opinion seems to be like the daily weather: very changeable!

After Paris he writes that no one should get excited about Fed's resurgence and that a lot of factors contributed to the win i.e injuries, long matches and absences. He also writes that Novak and Nadal have the better of Fed in the slams now but believes Fed has one more slam left in him at some point in his career.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8003/

Two weeks later after the WTF its a different story in the articles 'Federer and Murray will clean up in 2012' http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8181/. According to him the old Novak will return, Nadal is struggling and therefore Fed could possibly win a couple of slams next year and may even end up number one.

These two articles are to me in total contrast. The second article invalidates the first in my opinion. I can imagine if he sat on the fence but he seems to be jumping back and forth over that fence! Does he not read the comments under his works of literary genius?

laverfan wrote:

Fedex_the_best wrote:
None required
LF is the best

IMVHO, Fedal is the best.

Nole IS the best

laverfan wrote:Bagels are not the only measure of a player.

Now I understand why you won the most insightful poster of the year award !

JuliusHMarx wrote:
That may be true, but personally, overall, I rate achievement more than talent, when assessing a player's status in the game.

Sure and many do. I used to as well but not anymore. Nowadays we have seen that the spirit of sport can easily be broken as achieving is done at all cost. Including bending the rules. Some are even keen to bend the ranking system to stay at the top longer. Nowadays I value talent much more as I know fitness is something you can buy whereas you cannot buy talent. This is why most Rafa fans are desperate to have the world acknowledge that Nadal success is down to his talent. They see this is the ultimate reward...but priceless fortunately!

The way one wins is more important. And delivering talent under the most stressful situations is what sport is all about.
Federer in that regard is number uno!

Tenez

Its amazing how many here bow down to you as the ultimate judge of the quality and quantity of a players talent. This shows if you keep saying things loud and often enough some people will come to regard what you say as the truth... or get fed up arguing back. Well done!

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Bagels are not the only measure of a player.

Now I understand why you won the most insightful poster of the year award !

You also now understand why you did not.

Tenez wrote:The way one wins is more important.

To fans maybe, but I very much doubt it's more important to any of the players. It might be a secondary 'nice to have', but nothing more than that. I bet most (nearly all) players would rather have Rafa's career than Nalby's.

Tenez wrote:And delivering talent under the most stressful situations is what sport is all about.
Federer in that regard is number uno!

Well, Federer has the talent AND the achievement - number one in both!

I personally think Federer has to be selective. He cannot sustain the same level of tennis he used to do maybe 5 years ago. Therefore he has got to decide which events he has to give his all. I think the Olympics is high up on the agenda but would he be viewed any differently if he never wins a gold medal? Probably not. Its a nice thing to have achieved but as someone pointed out, it was never part of tennis history. If you look at some of the mens winners it throws up some pretty unusual names who you would not expect to see except Agassi and Nadal.

He cannot go through the year thinking he has to win everything.

Tenez wrote:delivering talent under the most stressful situations is what sport is all about.

No. Winning is what sport is actually all about. Its all about the W.
Think about where sport came from - it has origins with combat/fighting. Gladiators fought for their masters "sport".
In a life or death situation (the ultimate win or loss) do you think the talent was in thrusting a spear with graceful poise and style, or to be the one left literally standing at the end?
Fans may subjectively love the grace or style of one combatant over the other but for the competitors themselves its all about the W or L.
If you were to bet your life on a tennis player representing you who do you think most people would pick?

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:delivering talent under the most stressful situations is what sport is all about.

No. Winning is what sport is actually all about. Its all about the W.

You are wrong, not surprisingly. Marion Jones and Floyd Landis also thought that winning was everything. They found out later on that they were wrong.

In a war one could argue that winning is everything. Sport is a spectacle and the way you win is at least as important. This is why more than 2 out of 3 are no fan of Nadal. And again, this is why when Nadal was number one, Federer had still the bigger sponsors. You may also argue that for the professional players, money is everything in sport.

I know it's tough admit for a Nadal fan, but those are the facts.

Tenez, it's hard to tell which part you think are facts. Yes, Fed has the biggest sponsors, that's a fact. 'The way you win is at least as important' - that's your opinion, not a fact.

I'll stick with the view that it's only fans that really care more about 'the way you win' than winning, and even then it's not all fans.
I'm pretty sure Brad Gilbert would disagree with you as well

JuliusHMarx wrote: Yes, Fed has the biggest sponsors, that's a fact.

End of story then! If the win was the most important thing in sport, Nadal and now Djoko would have the biggest sponsors. Professional sport is for the fans to watch and sponsors care more than anything about the fans. This is actually why they are ready to wear blinkers when players cheat or dope.For instance, if sport was primarily about the Win, then the 20s rule would be applied very strictly. But because Sport is about generating maximum of followers, they allow the rules to be bent to generate max business.

Only delluded fans would believe that the Win is everthing. They don;t realise that everything is made for them to enjoy a business show.

I am sure Brad Gilbert woudl agree with those basic facts.

Tenez, you give Marion Jones and Floyd Landis as bizarre examples when there are 1000s of other sportspeople to pick who were driven to win. But in picking them you actually perfectly demonstrate that the underlying human desire is to win, to beat the competition. If it wasnt all about the winning for pros then why did they push the boundaries a little too far anyway - you have completed contradicted yourself unwittingly. I presume you're familiar with The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins?

Modern sport isnt about life and death (although Shankly thought different!) but it still taps into the primordial human instinct to win. Sponsorship does not drive players to win, it rewards winning - and we dont need to compare Fed/Nad/Djo - they're all relative winners. Do you think Federer drove himself to become a future #1 and win slams when he was hacking around on Basel clay courts as a teenager because of the fans or money involved? No, he was driven by a basic instinct to win - to become the best at his craft. Yes I'm sure he enjoyed the plaudits in winning but they are rewards of his basic ability and desire to win. And in his case he found a way to win pretty often through talent and hard work.

Then you talk about "deluded fans". Deluded because they dont agree with you? That's an arrogant assertion. Its a no-brainer that sport is all about winning. In the Olympics, do they reward the guy with a wonderful throwing or jumping style or the guy who threw the javelin the furthest or did the best high-jump? You've got it the wrong way around...sponsorship follows winners, it doesnt create them. But nonetheless it concerns winning all the same. Professional sport is about winning - it always was and always will be. And actually as you quote Brad Gilbert, I believe he wrote a book called "Winning Ugly". He knew it was all about the win and finding a way to do so.

Tenez, I notice that you haven't argued against the point that for the players winning is far more important than how you win.

I'm not sure which fans are arguing that the win is everything, just that it is the most important thing. That's why Nadal has more sponsors than Nalby. Isn't that the end of the story? Surely it's betting to win ugly than lose pretty?

Tennis is perhaps different than, say football, in that fan allegiances in tennis are forced to change as players retire, so it's fairly easy to become a fan of someone new, rather than support the same team all your life. But in sport in general, most fans would prefer a winning team to a stylish one (of course, they would prefer winning with style, if possible)

If you think that money, sponsorship etc has corrupted tennis, and other popular sports, then perhaps the true nature of sport only still exists in those sports which no-one really watches - archery or nordic skiiing perhaps?
You sound like you don't hold tennis in very high regard.

It is not bizarre that I give Jones and Landis as an example. It's to prove a point that winning is not everything. They did everthing to win but were unlucky to be caught. Once they got caught they realised that winning was not everything. Some have not been caught but a big doubt follow them wherever they go, such as Armstrong, this doubt sometimes follow them to the grave: flo-jo.

You have players like Federer and Djoko who have publicly expressed that they did not want to sacrify their ethics in order to win. Federer for instance doesn;t come up with MTOs at key times. He never did while other players have done it a few times. Maybe it would have helped Federer to throw an MTO at times but it probably did not even cross his mind.

I am not surprised now you support Nadal if you think that winning is everything in sport, cause that's certainly the way he plays teh game. Shamelessly moonballing, asking his opponents to wait at every single opportunity and coming up with teh most dubious MTOs. But don;t be surprised that despite his good look and charismatic persona, 2 out of 3 fans don;t support him.

Not my fault.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If you think that money, sponsorship etc has corrupted tennis, and other popular sports, then perhaps the true nature of sport only still exists in those sports which no-one really watches - archery or nordic skiiing perhaps?
You sound like you don't hold tennis in very high regard.

See above for your first point. Regarding this quoted bit, I love tennis but I know too well that there is a lot of money in it and that the sport, like all sports with lots of money is corrupted. We know too well that if a top player was caught doping, they would burry the story like they did for Agassi. So should I still regard professional tennis in high regard?

We have just been lucky to have a genius playing the game that simply made it a joy to watch the game.

Tenez. I wish you would stop throwing in this 2 out of 3 people don't support Nadal into the equation. I'm fully aware that this comes from Hawkeye's poll on another thread. That poll is not really representative because of the way the options were worded. The only real fact you can take from the poll is that appoximately 21% of people declared a definite dislike of Nadal. In that poll I voted for the second option as although I'm not a Nadal fan (according to the dictionary fan means 'ardent supporter') I do respect his achievements. I would have answered the same way to a similar question being asked on Federer (that is I'm not a fan but respect his achievements). Therefore going by your logic approximately 78% of people either support or respect Nadal for what he has done in tennis.

the amount of hysteria Tenez manages to squeeze into one post and somehow convinces himself over it is always a wonder to me. Using "sponsership" is one of the most illogical points i've seen written here. What has sponsperhsip got to do with anything? Or how well recieved a player is. Federer won 5 slams before Nadal won a slam. Do you know the number of fans he would have ammassed and brand/sponserhips he would have gathered before Nadal. Your logic in this case is comically torturing but that's the standard expected of you. Sponserhip is the last example to use in determining who fans like to watch player. In an individual sport like tennis, the win lays the foundation. If Federer was on 1 or 2 slams now, he certainly wouldn't even have a quarter of his current fans and neither will be be making that much mnoney through sponsership. Nadal and Djokovic do not have more sponserhip than Federer but that might be due to various reasons and also personal decision.

The problem is Tenez, you need you need to be educated on other sports besides tennis because i see you lack the basic understanding of how sport works as a whole. Take basketball for example. Lebron James in high school was signed to a multi-million contract to Nike- $80 million. Most players in the NBA at the time were not even remotely close to the sponsership of a high school kid. 8 years after joining the NBA and he still hasn't won an NBA championship yet he pulled in the highest sponsership last season despite a mass fall-out with the public over his move to Miami Heats and i guarantee he will make the most money from sponsers this season to. Is Lebron tlaented than Kobe, Wade and other superstars, not exactly. Some superstars have little to no interest in grabbing every sponsership deal that comes through. Kobe is a more popular player than Lebron, yet Lebron gets more sponsership, ask yourself why.

Using Federer's sponsership deals to make a point spells a lack of common sense. Not that i think you don't lack it though. Every 2 out of 3 tennis fan isn't Nadal fan but neither is every 2 out of 3 tennis fan a Federer fan no matter how hard you convince yourself either wise. If you basing it on the ground-braking 606v2 poll, i feel more sorry for you.

The whole idea of sport is a competition aimng to produce a winner. The win counts first. And for an individual sport, the win counts even more. Team sports like football, basketball etc in my view have an obligation to entertain fans but how that is achieved will be determined by the fans and according to their opinion. Some people find Barcelona boring to watch , sprisingly. And speaking about Barcelona, until their recent sponsership with Quatar, they were having little to no sponsership , i guess they were not as popular and why other teams had more sponsers than them, going by your logic. You can educate yourself and find out why they had no major sponsers.

Might come down as a shock to you but sport and the entertainment it brings is a subjective thing.

Tenez wrote:It is not bizarre that I give Jones and Landis as an example. It's to prove a point that winning is not everything. They did everthing to win but were unlucky to be caught. Once they got caught they realised that winning was not everything. Some have not been caught but a big doubt follow them wherever they go, such as Armstrong, this doubt sometimes follow them to the grave: flo-jo.

No. Your logic is very flawed here. Once they got caught, they realised that their innate desire to win had simply pushed them too far. This happens across all forms of life, people desperate to win and some will seek to gain unfair advantage in their desire to do so. This only supports the fact that people in sport just want to WIN, its the most important thing to them. Just because some people cross the line in their desire to win, it doesnt mean that the innate desire to win as the most important thing is invalidated. But....why oh why are you bringing PEDs into this discussion? Why bring in Landis and Jones...why even infer doubt for Armstrong and Flo-Jo? This is ridiculous, we're talking about the basic need to win, not the wrong side of it. Why did you have to besmirch this discussion in that way? I wonder why indeed. It strikes me as highly curious that you bring PEDs into this discussion (PEDs are a topic you have often raised over the years and many of us well remember the direction/intent of it on BBC 606) when you also go on to say....

Tenez wrote:You have players like Federer and Djoko who have publicly expressed that they did not want to sacrify their ethics in order to win. Federer for instance doesn;t come up with MTOs at key times.

But as Djokovic also has had MTOs, when you mention Federer and Djoko as not wanting to sacrifice their "ethics" you cannot mean MTOs for them both which therefore I presume means you are alluding that Nadal (given you omit his name in that sentence) is prepared to sacrifice his ethics in order to win in the same way Landis and Jones did. That much inference is obvious. But the discussion didnt need this inference, we are just discussing the basic need to win is what drives sportspeople and is more important to them than how they win in terms of style.

Tenez wrote:I am not surprised now you support Nadal if you think that winning is everything in sport, cause that's certainly the way he plays teh game.

Nadal plays to win - but his fans appreciate what he brings to tennis for many reasons, reasons for which I'm not here to justify to you. I dont think winning is EVERYTHING in sport but I appreciate for sportspeople its the most important thing for sure. Seems a no-brainer to me without the need to bring PEDs into it.

I would just like to point out that my poll gave an indication of how popular Nadal is here on 606v2 not generally. Given that this is not exactly a pro Nadal site personally I was surprised at the numbers that voted for option 1 and 2. Unfortunately anytime anyone trys to say something remotely positive about him there are a few posters that just won't let it pass...

This only supports the fact that people in sport just want to WIN, its the most important thing to them.

That's where you are wrong cause when you say people you actually mean athletes and players but no player is bigger than the sport and the sport exist because WE watch it. When I play my Dad at petanque in the south of France, I can also say that what "our sport" is about is the "win"....but for the rest of the planet no-one cares who wins, not even our wives. So Federer, Nadal and Stepanek all want to win, but we watch it not because they want to win - we simply expect that - but for the spectacle and the way they win it.

I am not sure what Djokovic taking MTOs has got to do here. I am just saying that he said he did not want to win at all cost. Whether he can stick to that or not is irrelevant here.

Nadal's fans are a weird species. As observed live a few times, many are women/young girls (the same who were cheering Borg ) and people who don;t like Federer, essentially for his arrogance, and that Nadal provides that pleasure to them to beat the one who was unbeatable (ie you, SA, Catalan Power). And finally another group on forums who want to be perceived as "sitting on the fence" when addressing Nadal and federer as this, for some reasons, represents the archetype of impartiality....! .

hawkeye wrote:I would just like to point out that my poll gave an indication of how popular Nadal is here on 606v2 not generally. Given that this is not exactly a pro Nadal site personally I was surprised at the numbers that voted for option 1 and 2. Unfortunately anytime anyone trys to say something remotely positive about him there are a few posters that just won't let it pass...

You may find that in all forums nowadays. Nadal fans are an endangered species cause his fans will get tired to see him scrap through matches hoping for the opponents to make a mistake. If you win scrapping through, it's fine...not great but the people who don't play the game don't see a problem in that. However losing scrapping balls in all corners is a terrible spectacle. It's fine when it's Federer beating him with style, but when it's done clinically and methodically it becomes a painfull spectacle, even for those who are not fan.

I have seen a crowd cheering Davydenko versus Nadal!. Woudl you believe it? A US crowd cheering a bald Russian versus charismatic Nadal. How bad his game must have been?

Hahahaha, a U.S crowd cheering Davydenko against Nadal. I suppose that's their match in miami 08 since that's the only US meeting. Well i've seen another Russian, Andreev cheered against Federer at USO 08, well the crowd cheered him against the 4 time defending champion. Must be a first. How bad is that for Nadal and Federer lol.
No wonder the Russian, Sharapova is so unpopular in America, the more likeable Swiss Federer has more American sponsership than her. Oops! After all, sponsership=popularity.

Educating you Tenez gets boring.

lydian wrote:If you were to bet your life on a tennis player representing you who do you think most people would pick?

I (and Bud Collins, both) would pick Pancho Gonzales.

Perhaps Federer and Nadal are too close to call.

On Clay, Nadal, on Grass/HC perhaps Federer.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:JM, that is hardly surprising considering Mallorcans have a catalan history!

Tenez, I dont see 606v2 as a great representation of the tennis viewing public out there. Its not that I attribute his 10 slams, etc, to pure talent - its that you dont ascribe any talent whatsoever to the guy and this is and always be frankly laughable.

Sure, I consider myself being talented too tennis wise and I am sure you and Nadal are too.

But you're not a WUM are you, my dear Tenez. You actually believe Nadal has no talent

This of course makes you incapable of commenting, with any balance, about Fed v Nadal articles

And attack those who do!!

hawkeye wrote:I would just like to point out that my poll gave an indication of how popular Nadal is here on 606v2 not generally. Given that this is not exactly a pro Nadal site personally I was surprised at the numbers that voted for option 1 and 2. Unfortunately anytime anyone trys to say something remotely positive about him there are a few posters that just won't let it pass...

Yh Nadal fans need to speaks up against clueless deluded fools like Tenez. Normally they are not as aggressive/obstinate compared to the hatahs such as Tenez; hence they leave to Nadal fansite forums rather than general tennis forums (660v2).

But any one with half a tennis brain can see Wilander's 3 slam year is better than any of Federer's combined. But since we are dealing with Federer fans here, there are exceptions as they fit into the above comment.

amritia3ee wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I would just like to point out that my poll gave an indication of how popular Nadal is here on 606v2 not generally. Given that this is not exactly a pro Nadal site personally I was surprised at the numbers that voted for option 1 and 2. Unfortunately anytime anyone trys to say something remotely positive about him there are a few posters that just won't let it pass...

Yh Nadal fans need to speaks up against clueless deluded fools like Tenez. Normally they are not as aggressive/obstinate compared to the hatahs such as Tenez; hence they leave to Nadal fansite forums rather than general tennis forums (660v2).

Hey come on!! Go easy on Tenez. It's not easy when a no talented ball basher beats your man 6 out of 8 times in Slam Finals

Do you think that's why Tenez has such an issue with Rafa?

Would therapy help? Have we to have a collection for Xmas

banbrotam wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I would just like to point out that my poll gave an indication of how popular Nadal is here on 606v2 not generally. Given that this is not exactly a pro Nadal site personally I was surprised at the numbers that voted for option 1 and 2. Unfortunately anytime anyone trys to say something remotely positive about him there are a few posters that just won't let it pass...

Yh Nadal fans need to speaks up against clueless deluded fools like Tenez. Normally they are not as aggressive/obstinate compared to the hatahs such as Tenez; hence they leave to Nadal fansite forums rather than general tennis forums (660v2).

Hey come on!! Go easy on Tenez. It's not easy when a no talented ball basher beats your man 6 out of 8 times in Slam Finals

Do you think that's why Tenez has such an issue with Rafa?

Would therapy help? Have we to have a collection for Xmas

It's funny cause when you post around here on V2, banbro, the forum who ususally keeps a pretty high level of tennis discussions suddenly falls back on wumming grounds so reminiscent of old 606.

Of course you are helped here by this new comer who has posted so far 18 posts of pure garbage with absolutely no insight of tennis matter but just 90% of it is targeted at me because I expose Nadal's physical game.

It's amazing how quickly a great forum can turn dull thanks to posters like you two.

Tenez wrote:It's funny cause when you post around here on V2, banbro, the forum who ususally keeps a pretty high level of tennis discussions suddenly falls back on wumming grounds so reminiscent of old 606.

Of course you are helped here by this new comer who has posted so far 18 posts of pure garbage with absolutely no insight of tennis matter but just 90% of it is targeted at me because I expose Nadal's physical game.

It's amazing how quickly a great forum can turn dull thanks to posters like you two.

Thing is Tenez actually believes that they are Christopher Hitchens (RIP) of the Tennis.

When you learn to respect Nadal's talent and realise that he will be actually seen as one of the most talent players of all time - simply because he is, we'll leave you alone

You see the problem is, even in your considered posts of which there are many, most of us are still busy laughing at the other ridiculous 90% of postings

Tenez wrote: because I expose Nadal's physical game.

Aww poor Tenez
You've been sent down from heaven to reveal the truth to us all.

Instead of having a go at eachother can we leave out all the guff and just stick to tennis. The section has been running smoothly recently so lets keep that going.

OK

I'm even prepared to say that Simon Reed is a good Tennis commentator

banbrotam wrote:OK

I'm even prepared to say that Simon Reed is a good Tennis commentator

Well you have made more jokes in 606 than this one, so I am not surprised.

I do read Eurosport for Simon Read, at the end of the day sense of humor is needed in hard mechanical life.

Anybody who read Reed's post regularly would understand Murray is the Greatest Tennis player of all time.

Poor Djoko could never become a great player coz Reed said so, that made him disappointed and hence the tail part of season.