Bad tennis habits i don't want to see at the AO

by Simple_Analyst Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:41 am

First topic message reminder :

With the AO days away, tennis will be back in full again and with that comes some great plays, bad plays and out right disgraceful plays. Players have bad habits they can't stop when playing. This actually is not what they do between breaks but when the ball is in motion.

Federer verbally attacked Djokovic at last years USO for hitting a winner off his serve using a bad play ground tennis habit of "hit hard and hope for the best". Well that may be true but i call it guts. Anyway, these are the bad tennis habits i don't want to see at the AO.

1. Ball Shanking - Main culprit - Roger Federer.

Shanking is a disgraceful habit cultivated at a young age. It's worse when you consider shanking is when a player throws racquet at a ball in hope just because he couldn't time the ball properly or lacks the skills to deal with certain types of balls. Thankfully for the good image of tennis, shanking often results in the ball ending in the net or in the crowd.

2. Hawkeye Abuse - Main Culprit - Federer

Hawkeye hypocrisy in the worse crime in tennis. For a player who was vocally against hawkeye when it was introduced leading to even challenging it's accuracy, Federer abuses the hawkeye system more than any other player. Using it to break opponents rythm ; poor gamesmanship.

3. Choking - Main Culprits - Roger Federer, Victor Triocki.

My advise - Get a sport psychologist.

Choking is an embarrasing habit that must be eradicated from the game. Hit an ace on match point. Don't hit the ball into the net on match point. No 5th set choking or mental crumbling.

Here is to a great AO free of the above.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:48 am

luciusmann wrote: If you don't understand what the word interruption means, look it up in a dictionary.

Yh I can do that for you.

Anyway, I must admit luciusmann is completely right here.

Firstly Fed does mis-hit his backhand from time to time. All Federer fans will admit that. However SA, saying, 'he shanks the ball numerous times and therefore he is the main culprit' makes no sense. You have to have evidence showing that the mis-hit ratio on the backhands of all the other 127 people in the AO draw- and I can guarantee there are people who make more backhand mishits than Federer.
Secondly Fed has played badly on a few occasions in terms of match points. Apart from Monfils, Djokovic (x2) I can't remember any other occasion. And to prove he is the main culprit of match-point-choking we must compare the ratios of all 128 players (in the AO 2012) and see who has the worst match point converted-not converted ratio. I can bet 100% Fed won't have the worst record.

Of course we must remember, innocent until proven guilty. It is up to you, not lucius, to provide the hardcore facts. Criticising Federer and then claiming that this makes him the 'worst culprit' is useless frankly.

by luciusmann Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:54 am

Just for you SA, here are some examples:

https://www.606v2.com/t7201p50-the-question-of-talent-in-tennis

https://www.606v2.com/t8161p50-djokovic-vs-nadal-final-who-will-win

My favourite insult is when I said if Djokovic wins Wimbledon (before he actually did) he would make a worthy champion and you said if he didn't win perhaps I should drink more bitter juice and cut my wrists....nice one there SA (to be fair, those are subtle digs, more often than not, you're not subtle), of you course you never insult anyone.....! Then after that comment you pretend you don't care about the result! Er....sure.

Funny how you also went on about how the Barcelona manager was dominating the Real Madrid manager back then and seemed to be alluding to that being similar to Nadal/Federer. Real Madrid tops the La Liga by 8 points over Barcelona right now. That domination is really going to bring Barcelona the La Liga trophy! I wouldn't go into predicting anything if I were you, you don't seem to be very good @ it!

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:58 am

Amritia with all due respect, don't you think Djokovix and Monfils last year is a bit limited? Monfils was actually 5 MPs choked. Djokovic was even in consecutive years 2010 and 2011 USO.

Converting a match point will not be choking. Even losing some and still winning the match is not choking. Having 5 MPs and losing the match is choking. No way around it.

by luciusmann Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:59 am

Dear, oh dear SA, has anyone agreed with you on here?

Why do you think that might be? Virtually no one.

Is everyone on this forum ignorant and you're some super genius high professor of tennis, here to enlighten us? Hmmmm.

I'm leaving this thread with that final thought.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:03 am

This is free comedy from Luciusmann. So you have come up with the above as insults? Barca manager dominating Real Madrid manager too an insult? Is this guy really an English man? Laugh

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:11 am

Luciusmann you see the problem here is, you come to the forum to seek acceptance and that probably makes you happy. I come to debate and educate. And if it comes to choking MPs, and losing, Federer is the most successful of all and certainly the main culprit.

by luciusmann Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:12 am

I didn't say that was an insult, I was pointing out how things are rather different now compared to back then (even though Barcelona are still beating Real Madrid). It's a bit like how you go on and on about Nadal dominating Federer, I don't think Fed would lose much sleep if the H2H is 40 - 10 to Nadal if Fed ends his career with 20 slams and Nadal on 12, everyone will call Fed the greatest, that's just the truth.

I stated clearly, they are some examples. Not all.

You haven't provided any hardcore facts SA (as usual). Even a Nadal fan can't bring himself to agree with you, debate lost SA, move on to your next thread trashing Federer (seems to be the main thing you do).

Don't make me laugh SA, you provide next to no evidence, as my professor said, your making nothing but a fraudulent case if you cant provide the evidence, now go back to university and discover how to properly debate with people. That or perhaps debate these subjects in church where they will take you on faith.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:13 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:Amritia with all due respect, don't you think Djokovix and Monfils last year is a bit limited? Monfils was actually 5 MPs choked. Djokovic was even in consecutive years 2010 and 2011 USO.

Converting a match point will not be choking. Even losing some and still winning the match is not choking. Having 5 MPs and losing the match is choking. No way around it.

That's all well and good but 3 matches isn't enough evidence to say that he is the number 1 choking culprit, I'm sorry.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:16 am

luciusmann wrote: Even a Nadal fan can't bring himself to agree with you, debate lost SA, move on to your next thread trashing Federer (seems to be the main thing you do).

Firstly I haven't 'brought myself' to do anything, it's just quite obvious that SA's allegations of him being the worst culprit is unfounded.
And as for your last point, I will really commend you if you have the b*lls to say the same thing to Tenez once he does another post/article trashing Nadal.

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:19 am

Choking is an opinon, not a fact. That is a fact by the way.

by luciusmann Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:23 am

I like reading tenez's posts (even if I don't agree with a number of them) but getting into a protracted debate with him is not worth the effort, I don't think Nadal is talentless like he does!

Anyway, tenez attempts to at least provide some level of evidence rather than SA who tries to get away with providing none and expecting us to take him on faith. I only take God on faith I'm afraid SA, and you're not God. Also, tenez rarely insults posters like SA does, you just need to read some of the threads from around Wimbledon to get a flavour of the nasty comments SA makes about members of this forum who disagree with him. When I joined the forum I did challenge tenez to his view that Nadal is talentless but as I discovered, tenez is immovable on the subject.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:29 am

Well Amritia, you might not have been up to date with the facts so we start fron 2005.

1. WTF Finals vs Nalby 2 MPs choked
2. AO 05 semi finals vs Safin 2 Match points choked
3. Rome 06 final vs Nadal, Match point choked.

Let me jump straight to recently.

4. Indian Wells 2010. vs Baghdatis, 3 Mps choked.
5. USO 2010 vs Djokovic MP choked
6. Paris 2010 vs Monfils 5 MPs choked Laugh

7. USO 2011 vs Djokovic , 2 MPs choked

Lol i could add more but that will do for now.

by luciusmann Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:37 am

Conveniently all the matches you've listed are in the article link you provided earlier ( http://tennisology101.com/2011/09/11/choker-federers-lost-his-winning-edge/ ) except for the 1st match you listed.

Jee, that was such hard work SA, can you actually be bothered to find more than one match off your own back (instead of someone else's)?

I won't bet on it. Ever heard of research? Methinks not.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:42 am

Silly me i should have added Berdych in Miami 2010 as well after having MPs. Lol this is funny. Make it number 8. Too many to count i'm tired Laugh

by luciusmann Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:49 am

You found two matches off your own back, is that it? The rest were found in the article, oh, well done SA, it's so hard finding two matches off your own back.

And you expect us to take you seriously when you get tired from finding two whole matches? Jeee

Let's not bother you or ourselves with this thread anymore, it's clearly too taxing for you (to back yourself up).

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:26 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:Luciusmann you see the problem here is, you come to the forum to seek acceptance and that probably makes you happy. I come to debate and educate. And if it comes to choking MPs, and losing, Federer is the most successful of all and certainly the main culprit.

'

People are bored to reply you doesn't mean they agree your meaningless point, are you a self obsessed one? seriously what can you educate on an online sport discussion forum? your comic levels are getting beyond shores laughing

, do you ever realize your making a joke out of yourself to entertain us? we certainly like your presence in the forum not coz of your knowledge but for your comical obsession of yourself.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:19 am

luciusmann wrote:Also, tenez rarely insults posters.

Is that a joke comment??

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:21 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well Amritia, you might not have been up to date with the facts so we start fron 2005.

1. WTF Finals vs Nalby 2 MPs choked
2. AO 05 semi finals vs Safin 2 Match points choked
3. Rome 06 final vs Nadal, Match point choked.

Let me jump straight to recently.

4. Indian Wells 2010. vs Baghdatis, 3 Mps choked.
5. USO 2010 vs Djokovic MP choked
6. Paris 2010 vs Monfils 5 MPs choked
7. USO 2011 vs Djokovic , 2 MPs choked

Lol i could add more but that will do for now.

Yes, but to prove he is the main culprit of choking you have to look at other factors, other players. This isn't sufficient evidence.

Look if you were saying: Federer is a choker; then although I would not necessarily agree with you, I would understand where you are coming from and I would respect your opinion on the matter.
But you're saying he is the worst choker out of 128 playing in the AO, you need more than evidence for 1 player for that. And remember as it is you who is charging Fed guilty, it is upto you to find out the evidence, you can't assume he is guilty.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:01 am

Luciusmann, infact you were not worthy of me providing evidence since as a Federer fan you should have known all that by now. The choke list was for Amritia. Then again Amritia, you will not find any current player in the top 1000 never mind just the 128 in the AO draw that haved choked that many match points in a losing effort. Infact certainly not even the past players choked that many MPs.
So Federer is the main choke culprit, no way around it. Lol which player has ever choked 2 match points in consecutive USO semi finals?

I'm even kind enough by limiting this to MPs choked. Add his mental crumblings in the 5th set and his fans will call me unfair again.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:04 am

Lol invisiblecooler, perhaps you can refute the choke facts i presented? Although i believe you know better than Luciusmann so just like Laverfan you might flee?

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:07 am

I agree with you to a degree, so how do you explain his success Wyse considering his opponents don't choke as much?

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:10 am

Perhaps we can contact Laverfan for the stats who is the guilty for match points squandered/ ratio of converted-non converted match points.

You make a good case for Federer, but I feel others have a worse problems with this.
And besides, his titles-finals ratio isn't bad either is it.
To say he is a choker you need to consider more things than match points.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:14 am

Well choking is never best exposed when you have weak era opponents. It's when the pressure is on like we saw in New York last year, when he had a great opponent who would't back down, not a weak one, did we see a choke and the mental crumbling yet again.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:18 am

Points well taken Amritia but i actually believe considering other factors actually make it more subjective. A break point converted or sqandered in the first set for example will have little in terms of exposing choking. Even set points in the 1st set for example will not. MPs makes it an objective analysis.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:30 am

To be frank the choking, if choking it was , was more on Djoko's side who failed to win all teh important points. In the five sets when there were crucial moments: Set 1 TB or set 2....it was Djoko who caved in first. Then in teh 5th set when it was crucially important, it's again Djoko who gets broken first and gives Federer 2 MPs.

If anything Federer is guilty of relaxing too soon, this is the opposite of choking in my book as choking is about getting tensed when delivering the big points when it matters. Federer do deliver on the big points as he reaches MPs. He almost made teh same mistake again at the WTF final.

Essentially teh reason for this excess of carelessness, not chocking, is that Federer is the coolest player in teh world. But I agree he needs to sort that problem but he knows it and was talking openly about it recently.

How do you explain though that Nadal, the great player of the great era gets bagelled by 30yo Federer? C'mon bagelled, that's unbeleivable. I understand WTF is a useless tournament and Nadal was tired, but frankly hasn't Nadal any pride? Didn't he try but could not simply score a game. It certainly looked like he tried very hard.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:34 am

Well unfortunately it has nothing to do with relaxing. As much as Federer fans will like not to believe it, it is choking.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:36 am

And how do you explain a "great player" like Djoko at his peak of his career gets lessoned by Federer in the FO and gets defeated in the USO and has to resort to a desperate shot kick start his hope of beating the old man?

Is teh weak era still going on? What does it say about Nadal being kicked 6 times by that peak player who can't quite beat the old man.

More questions than answers Wyse.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:37 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well unfortunately it has nothing to do with relaxing. As much as Federer fans will like not to believe it, it is choking.

C'mon wyse, you can do better.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:42 am

Imagine wyse if Federer had not learnt to play teh game with a stiff 85sqinch racquet and natural gut on extremely fast surfaces. Imagine if he had been given today's technology and "special diet" mixed with his talent....

Just look at how well he adapted to that new generation despite being 30.
We will see how Nadal and Djoko adapt to players in 2017! Laugh

Stay around! You might enjoy tennis by then as Federer would have probably retired.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:46 am

Losing an odd match cannot even be called choking. MPs is the bench mark laid down to best judge choking in an objective manner. For example look at the most humiliating slam final performance, the FO 08. That was not choking from Federer. It was just getting taught a good tennis lesson. To have been a choke, he must be even in a winning position and we know he had no chance. Again i did not see Federer mental collapse at last years FO finals 1st set as a particular choke as Nadal was just warming up for the match.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am

We must have a different definition of chocking then cause for me being tensed in important points is what choking is about. And teh important points are esentially to get you to SPs and MPs, even taking those game points. We see the nerves on all those points.

The great chokers like Gasquet, Coria, Blake don't even get to MP when they could. You see the arm being tensed as soon as they have a possibility to reach a milestone like a break, or a set.

Look at the greatest choke of the recent years: Coria v Gaudio. I don't remember Coria having MP.

Having MP means you have overcome your fears. There comes the problem of believing you have won when you have not completely won. A school boy error but clearly not choking.

The most choking experience I can think of Federer is that AO 09. There I agree he could or should have won that final in 3 or 4 sets but made a big mess of it. But again look at Nadal 2011...everytime he had to serve to stay in the set or close a set v Djoko he failed. Nadal is a very nervous player, almost always starting his matches nervously. Only when he sees his opponent tiring does he take heart and finds confidence.

You are a knowledgeable poster so I suggest you admit "wysely" your confusion on the choking definition and we will see this as a great courageous and honest move from you.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:09 am

Certainly there is a broader look into choking but it's more subjective. MPs choked is the objective bench mark. Under pressure is when choking is best exposed and no better way than having 2 MPs in a heated USO semi finals match and donating by choking.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:20 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:Certainly there is a broader look into choking but it's more subjective. MPs choked is the objective bench mark. Under pressure is when choking is best exposed and no better way than having 2 MPs in a heated USO semi finals match and donating by choking.

But there is less pressure into a MP than there is in serving to stay in the match...surely. You know on a MP you can rely on a bit of luck, an UE from your opponent, you can even deliver an ace if lucky. Serving to stay in the set or match is a real test.
It doesn't fit your purpose but you are clearly in denial there I am afraid. Shame cause there is a bit of substace in what you say but you seem blinded at times as exposed by some posters. But I guess that's why some of us like arguing with you...at homeopathic doses in my regard.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:28 am

Having MPs in a crucial match is a test of ability to choke, one Federer has passed in many cases with flying colours. Don't see the high emotions here with these facts. Federer has been a notorious choker on MPs in important matches. Worst of all is he does so against main rivals like Djokovic, Nadal. Those players will never lose to Federer after having MPs.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:38 am

Federer is probably the coolest player. He says his game is about remaining calm. Beating Agassi in a storm in NY semi when Agassi was still wining slams with the crowd against you is the ultimate test. Federer passed it. Borg, Lendl, and many others failed there.

He however has let a few matches slip through his hands as a result of over cofidence or being too relaxed.

Look at that serve at MP (USO11) ....it's a very relaxed serve, it's not a tensed one. It's not a double fault either.

by Tenez Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:51 am

That could be described as choking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2HEREMNpi0

watch from 50s:
1st point - Djoko plays too conservatively
2d point - easy FH in the net
3rd point - Gross double fault due to pressure of being 0-30 down
4rth - An easy FH hit long, again due to pressure.

Don't you see this as real chocking? Though I don't like to use the word choking when it comes to Djoko, a great player. It's clear that when faced against the big man...he tends to choke first, like he did a few months ago at the FO.

Why didn't Djoko pull the great winners there when needed? Why did he collapse when it really mattered? Why did he pull the great shots in the following game to be 15/40 up instead of 40/15 down?

Honest answers only please.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Look I think we can agree that Fed does suffer from mental weaknesses in certain important points in matches. Obviously for SA the definition of choking is any form of mental weakness and for Tenez it is more specific, so SA, to avoid a pointless discussion about the flexibility of the word 'choke' perhaps you should replace the word choke with 'mental weaknesses.'

But once again SA, proving Fed has mental weaknesses does not prove that he is the worst culprit. Perhaps you can edit your article also and do more in-depth analysis of the players who you think suffer from it, and then reach a conclusion who is the worst out of those- rather than just saying he IS the main culprit because he has mental weaknesses.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:11 pm

Tenez wrote:Federer is probably the coolest player. He says his game is about remaining calm. Beating Agassi in a storm in NY semi when Agassi was still wining slams with the crowd against you is the ultimate test. Federer passed it. Borg, Lendl, and many others failed there.

He however has let a few matches slip through his hands as a result of over cofidence or being too relaxed.

Look at that serve at MP (USO11) ....it's a very relaxed serve, it's not a tensed one. It's not a double fault either.

Laughable, yet he chokes harder than everybody. Remaining calm in Djokovic having the confidence to pull the most outrageous shot ever in the history of the game to stay in the USO semi finals match.

If beating a 35 year Old Agassi in a 5th set is an ultimate test, i suspect your ability to make a credible judgement on this choke topic.

The evidence of Federer's choking is objective.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:18 pm

Amritia, choking is direct result of mental weakness. People might not like the term choking but i did not create it and it's a widely known term. I understand the need to defend favourite players being labelled a choker but if they are, then they are. No ways around that fact that right now Federer is the worse culprit as a result of consistency to choke on MPs.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:25 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Amritia, choking is direct result of mental weakness. People might not like the term choking but i did not create it and it's a widely known term. I understand the need to defend favourite players being labelled a choker but if they are, then they are. No ways around that fact that right now Federer is the worse culprit as a result of consistency to choke on MPs.

Firstly whether someone chokes is your opinion as you could equally give all the credit just to the opposition for playing well on those points.
Secondly you have provided 7 examples of playing badly on MPs from 2005. That's not stonewall evidence to show he is the worst culprit for mental weaknesses (which go beyond just match points).

Let's look at considering other aspects of mental weaknesses/choking (other than MPs lost); records of many other players, some more hardcore facts/evidence and then, only then, we have a proper debate going.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:31 pm

But 8 example actually after the Berdych one is good enough evidence. No player at least not a high profile one has choked that many MP's in so many different games. It's conclusive. MPs give a fair and objective analysis. Going to other areas will be subjective. Failing to convert a break point in te first game of a match can hardy ever be classed choking. I presented my case. it's up to others to refute my those claims by providing solid evidence to the contrary. Like you said, Laverfan could help but she has since Fled the thread seeing she has to apologise for calling me bias.
A player does not have to choke a 100 times in 100 different matches to win the "Choke Culprit award".

by Guest Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:40 pm

I agree with the Simple Analyst. Federer is mentally weak and is a choker. If Federer had have been mentally stronger and had avoided the chokings, he would have been a very good player. A very good player indeed.

by carrieg4 Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:40 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:But 8 example actually after the Berdych one is good enough evidence.

No it isn't. Not even nearly. All you have made a case for is that he sometimes loses from a match point position.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:43 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:No player at least not a high profile one has choked that many MP's in so many different games.

Firstly it's not just high-profile player splaying the Aus Open, it's a field of 128.
Secondly, and most importantly, if you can prove that statement- then you have a point.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:50 pm

amritia, in a conversation with S_A, you have 2 choices. Raise valid counter-points which S_A will ignore, or agree with him. I suggest the latter - it's quicker and will make S_A feel better. Both of which are postive objectives.

by Simple_Analyst Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:54 pm

8 has proved so. Infact i shouldn't even attempt adding more. It's left upon others to prove other wise. A bit like the a Tenrez length per time taken thread which you debunked and i later made mockery of with my brilliant Conditions theories thread.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:58 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:amritia, in a conversation with S_A, you have 2 choices. Raise valid counter-points which S_A will ignore, or agree with him. I suggest the latter - it's quicker and will make S_A feel better. Both of which are postive objectives.

No I do believe SA has provided some good facts which suggest that Fed does suffer from some sort of weaknesses on some key points. Tenez's theory was that he gets too relaxed and over-confident when winning- this is an interesting point of view on the matter.
However, for this article, I do feel SA has jumped to the conclusion that he is the 'main culprit' too quickly. If he changed the article and did in-depth analysis we could have a very interesting debate on this I think.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:05 pm

amritia3ee wrote:If he changed the article and did in-depth analysis we could have a very interesting debate on this I think.

That's a very big 'if'!
Perhaps you could comment on my earlier post (as S_A didn't bother) - it's in there somewhere.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:05 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote: A bit like the a Tenrez length per time taken thread which you debunked and i later made mockery of with my brilliant Conditions theories thread.

Yes that 'Conditions theories' was a very valid one, and I don't believe Tenez or any of his peers had much to say against it.

by amritia3ee Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:06 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:If he changed the article and did in-depth analysis we could have a very interesting debate on this I think.

That's a very big 'if'!
Perhaps you could comment on my earlier post (as S_A didn't bother) - it's in there somewhere.

I'm terrible sorry Julius could you repost it, and I will happily answer it.
Edit: As I said this article has a lot of scope for debate, it's just that SA has jumped to conclusions, and hence this debate is not moving forward.
His points raised does mean one could argue that he might suffer from 'mental weaknesses (whether this is getting too relaxed like Tenez said or mere choking we don't know) but I don't see how we can assume he is the main culprit.

by Sponsored content