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

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.

Got to admire the tenacity and courage of conviction

Here's to a great AO

Oh carrieg4 so you'll agree Federers 70 events won is a comparison to the rest of the tour to judge his talent? So if the rest of the tours average is 5 titles surely that suggest's Federer must be talented to win that many? Now if Federer choked MPs losing in 8 different matches and the rest of the tour average is a possible 2, surely that also means he is a choker?
Perhaps you recommend me to your company as i'm taking you back to law school here.

carrieg4 wrote:
By the way, I am a she. The clue is in the name

You need a bigger bread crumb trail than that for SA, CarrieG4.

laverfan wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:
By the way, I am a she. The clue is in the name

You need a bigger bread crumb trail than that for SA, CarrieG4.

So it would appear.

carrieg4 wrote:By the way, I am a she. The clue is in the name

Ah, I thought you were a collection of nations on the UN Security Council.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:By the way, I am a she. The clue is in the name

Ah, I thought you were a collection of nations on the UN Security Council.

Laverfan, after fleeing last night, i've noticed your less than spectaculat return. Could't you come up with any stats?

LF you fled? For shame!

You havent replied to me yet SA.

Like I said, choking is a comparison with all other players, its an adjective describing how one player puts pressure on another at MP for or against. It might even be the event that pressurises the moment, but it happens to all players at some point.

You have to provide the proof that Federer is the "worst" choker based on your assumptions compared to all other players. Which falls flat on its face when you consider his record of wins, from MP's.

If we agree to your attempts to destroy Federer achievements by describing him as a bottler, then as one of the most successful players in the history of the game, what does that say about players like Borg, McEnroe etc?

Thats where your thesis disintegrates, when you hold it up against the light of reason.

You can't provide any proof, because there isnt any.

But you are painting this as an attempt to discredit Federer which isn't so but a fair analysis. It happens to some players, not all using strictly my assumptions based on MPs which i think is objective than other factors. Federer simply is in a league of his own in that choking category. If you knew of any instances of a player choking match points in 8 matches, wouldn't you bring it to my notice? There simply isn't none.

This thread has just won an award for the most posts ever that add nothing new to the debate! Well done everyone!

Henman Bill wrote:This thread has just won an award for the most posts ever that add nothing new to the debate! Well done everyone!

Don't remind me, it was like Groundhog Day.

Not really i got to realise i don't need to study law to be better at it than Carrieg4.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Not really i got to realise i don't need to study law to be better at it than Carrieg4.

In your dreams

Still waiting for any evidence of how a loss from MP up can only be the result of a choke but won't hold my breath. You are clearly happy in your fantasy world and who am I to take that away from you.

The sad thing is you may be right but we'll never know because you didn't bother to research it properly and look at all the evidence. Sloppy, very sloppy

Enjoy the tennis.

Henman Bill wrote:This thread has just won an award for the most posts ever that add nothing new to the debate! Well done everyone!

Don't remind me, it was like Groundhog Day.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:This thread has just won an award for the most posts ever that add nothing new to the debate! Well done everyone!

Don't remind me, it was like Groundhog Day.

Oh i am going to enjoy the tennis. I say Federer chokes MPs and lose again.

Amazing how not a single poster (apart from NS, who might be trying to be comic) has agreed with the thread position but many, many posters have disagreed and provided plenty of evidence (most of it ignored). Of course you know better than everyone SA and everyone else is just unable to match your superior ability to reason. Right.......

Clearly it didn't sink in again but perhaps needs worth repeating because SA seems to think providing evidence is enough. Nope read again 'evidence in itself does not suggest anything'. It's your analysis and evaluation of that evidence which does. Until you understand that SA, any debate with you is flawed because you're simply asserting your evidence is convincing and carrieg4 has kindly pointed out your evidence can easily be used in a different way by others who have a different interpretation but this thorough way of debating is clearly too taxing for someone who can't even be bothered to find his own evidence and relied on a article to find most of his so called 'choking' evidence.

Yes, as you said 'I say Federer chokes MPs and lose again' 'I' being the operative word that much of what you've said is opinion not fact. If you tried studying law SA, I'm pretty certain you'd come out with a third class honours (if you're lucky) and your personal tutor would be having a stern word with you to drop the course (you're clearly not able to present a case without relying on assumptions and far too much personal opinion, which isn't enough).

Simple_Analyst wrote:Laverfan, after fleeing last night, i've noticed your less than spectaculat return. Could't you come up with any stats?

Poor NS, summarily ignored.

luciusmann wrote: If you tried studying law SA, I'm pretty certain you'd come out with a third class honours (if you're lucky) and your personal tutor would be having a stern word with you to drop the course (you're clearly not able to present a case without relying on assumptions and far too much personal opinion, which isn't enough).

He wouldn't make it through the first year of the course. A lot of actual research and objective analysis is required for law....................

Luciusmann ranting again coming up with little.
I did Business Law, Labour law, Applied contract law etc in university and thought they were too boring so wouldn't bother doing a law degree, Yawn. May be i'll do Latin and get 3rd class.

Back to this, i'm the only one to have provided evidence here for the case which confirms Federer is a choker. All i saw was he has a tie break record and nothing else. So who is making loose assumptions here?

So i relied on an article to find evidence? You a Federer fan didn't even know he choked MPs on 8 different matches. I know you hardly watch matches so was just reeling you in until some one more credible comes and asks for evidence which i easily listed.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Luciusmann ranting again coming up with little.
I did Business Law, Labour law, Applied contract law etc in university and thought they were too boring so wouldn't bother doing a law degree, Yawn. May be i'll do Latin and get 3rd class.

Back to this, i'm the only one to have provided evidence here for the case which confirms Federer is a choker. All i saw was he has a tie break record and nothing else. So who is making loose assumptions here?

So i relied on an article to find evidence? You a Federer fan didn't even know he choked MPs on 8 different matches. I know you hardly watch matches so was just reeling you in until some one more credible comes and asks for evidence which i easily listed.

Ah bless, you really think you have produced evidence don't you?? Your naivety is quite sweet. If you think Federer is a choker then fine but you have produced nothing solid to support your assertion that this is a fact. At the moment it is merely an opinion with some information that is anecdotal at best (if I am feeling generous). Enjoy your opinion, accept it for what it is.

Carrieg4, i hope you are not one of those who studied and law never stepped foot into a court room before. Video evidence and result.8 different of them .The same evidence you attempted to use a case for Federer being talented. Which law did you study again?

Agreed carrie. If S_A think Fed is a choker, then fair enough, he can think that. That's all he wants to say, and he's said it.
If he wants to address the issue in detail and analyse it further, we can do that (in fact, we've tried to do that) but it's like when one of my kids picks me up on something I've said, which they've got technically correct but grossly simplified, and they think it's great because they've got one over on their dad.
Any player who has choked on a single point in the career can technically be called a choker, but it would be childish to call each and every one of them a choker - even if it is technically true.
"Let's discuss further issues"
"No, he's a choker"
"Here's another interesting point"
"Choker!"
"How about this analysis?"
"Choker, nyah nah nah nah nah"

Like I said before, it's just boring.

So much talk about Law. One point. "Video Evidence"

How many of the 8 video's were points won much rather than points lost?

Define that, then I think this discussion might go forward.

I will even provide the formula given the laziness displayed. Of the 8 points how many were a UE?

No no guys, SA has provided evidence to his claim:
'Federer is a choker (has mental wekanesses).'
His evidence is that Federer has relinquished match points on 8 separate occasions and hence believes he must have serious mental weaknesses.

Whether this is sufficient evidence to back up the claim, God knows. To add to this Federer is not very good in the deciding set, especially in Grand Slams. However he does do well in tiebreaks which can also be very pressurised.
Of course your interpretation of the evidence depends on you, but my fair verdict would be he is not a 'choker' but does admittedly have a problem, albeit not as big as SA is making out to be.

But SA, none of this evidence backs up the point in your article that Federer is the main culprit. It is upto you to go through the remaining 127 in the draw and find out whether they have squandered match points in 8+ matches. You understand? You can't prove him guilty of being the main culprit based on assumptions mate.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Carrieg4, i hope you are not one of those who studied and law never stepped foot into a court room before. Video evidence and result.8 different of them .The same evidence you attempted to use a case for Federer being talented. Which law did you study again?

Already answered this at least twice and explained how your "evidence" is not actual evidence of what you are saying. I didn't actually claim conclusive proof of Federers talent - I just stated that the reasonable person would be very likely to interpret his numerous wins as requiring talent. A fundamental difference that you are clearly unable to grasp.

Don't bother responding unless you can come up with anything new. JHM is right, it is like debating with a small child.

So clearly a jury can also see the evidence and be reasonable and interpret that Federer choked MPs more than perhaps the tours average so he is a choker?

Which is which? Is evidence useful or not?

Simple_Analyst wrote:So clearly a jury can also see the evidence and be reasonable and interpret that Federer choked MPs more than perhaps the tours average so he is a choker?

Which is which? Is evidence useful or not?

Evidence has to be thoroughly and objectively analysed in order to be useful. Several posters have already made this point but you keep ignoring it. Your sample size is too small as a proportion of his total matches and you have provided no reason to link losing from MP to choking. These points have also already been made. Did the opponents level suddenly improve? Where there any physical issues? There are simply too many variables that you have failed to account for. You have blithely ignored his superb record at tie-breaks and given no reason why. If you are going to claim facts based on such a small sample size, your information needs to be airtight. Yours simply isn't.

As I said, an opinion does not require evidence. A claim of fact does.

amritia3ee wrote:No no guys, SA has provided evidence to his claim:
'Federer is a choker (has mental wekanesses).'
His evidence is that Federer has relinquished match points on 8 separate occasions and hence believes he must have serious mental weaknesses.

....
Of course your interpretation of the evidence depends on you, but my fair verdict would be he is not a 'choker' but does admittedly have a problem, albeit not as big as SA is making out to be.

Priceless stuff.

Federer has played 998 matches winning 812: 100 were finals of which he has won 70; 23 were slam finals of which he has won 16. SA's 8 occasions when Fed has relinquished a match point is hardly evidence that Federer is a choker set against his overall career - particularly given that many of them occurred in his twilight years. It merely means that had he taken them he would now have won 820 odd matches and probably a few more titles. Nobody seriously thinks that Federer "does admittedly have a problem" unless it involves accepting that he is human or that he has a bad match-up with Nadal, hence the bad H2H. Hardly 'problems'.

It is a slight problem Barrystar, his mental aspect. Sometimes he has concentration lapses and as shown in the stats above doesn't have a great deciding set record, especially in the important slams. Of course whether the 8 matches has much significance we don't know.
However labelling him the 'worst choker' is ridiculous considering how many finals he has won.

Does anyone want to answer the point I made earlier?

This that way might help clear things up on the debate.

@ SA, we not fleeing away, its just getting bored to debate with you, shouting the point louder doesnt mean its right, you have to remember the great Sampras choked the wimbledon match against the 19 year old choker in 5th set. , I know you dont like to remember that and would just safely skip that.

legendkillar wrote:So much talk about Law. One point. "Video Evidence"

How many of the 8 video's were points won much rather than points lost?

Define that, then I think this discussion might go forward.

I will even provide the formula given the laziness displayed. Of the 8 points how many were a UE?

An excellent example of the variables not accounted for in SA's argument.

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:So much talk about Law. One point. "Video Evidence"

How many of the 8 video's were points won much rather than points lost?

Define that, then I think this discussion might go forward.

I will even provide the formula given the laziness displayed. Of the 8 points how many were a UE?

An excellent example of the variables not accounted for in SA's argument.

If we say 6 were UE and 2 weren't, then yes a case for mental fragility in pressure situations in a match could be made.

Again if it was 6 were winners off the opponents racquet and 2 UE's, it could be said it takes the incentive of his opponent much rather than choking

legendkillar wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:So much talk about Law. One point. "Video Evidence"

How many of the 8 video's were points won much rather than points lost?

Define that, then I think this discussion might go forward.

I will even provide the formula given the laziness displayed. Of the 8 points how many were a UE?

An excellent example of the variables not accounted for in SA's argument.

If we say 6 were UE and 2 weren't, then yes a case for mental fragility in pressure situations in a match could be made.

Again if it was 6 were winners off the opponents racquet and 2 UE's, it could be said it takes the incentive of his opponent much rather than choking

Fair enough. However it still wouldn't progress SA's argument that Federer is the worst choker for a fact. In order to do this he would need to peform exactly the same exercise for a statistically significant sample of the other players and show that Federer has a worse record. The results would have to be proportional to total matches played for each player to be fair.

Having said that, he may be able to use the stand alone evidence to indicate an element of mental fragility which is more than he has been able to do so far.

The UE part raises and interesting question but hard carries any credible weight. Different shots can be played in that pressured situation which will be as bad as an UE. For example attempting a panicked drop shot which an opponent runs down and hits a simple winner off.
Too many variables to consider when attempting to analyse what happened on those match points so he loses those points, choke confirmed.

Simple_Analyst wrote:The UE part raises and interesting question but hard carries any credible weight. Different shots can be played in that pressured situation which will be as bad as an UE. For example attempting a panicked drop shot which an opponent runs down and hits a simple winner off.
Too many variables to consider when attempting to analyse what happened on those match points so he loses those points, choke confirmed.

That is the essence of the evidence you are presenting. You have to show how it is relevant, if you can't then it is pointless. SA Fail confirmed.

Federer is the opposite of the choker. He is too relax. He has another MP, number 900th or something and he gets bored to death by now. Lots of things goes through his mind when MPs come along: "Should I win or should I lose? Why? all this is so futile.It's just another tennis match for me. Semi final nber 30, Slam final number 30? I don't know, I don;t care. Look poor Djoko is desperate to make a name for himself while I have earned millions, am loved by all including God who gave me too much talent. I see Nadal sweating and complaining that life is tough. Nothing comes easy to him. He even says it openly nowadays. It's so unfair for him. It's even tougher for his fans who simply try to see wrong in everything I do. Right Djoko, I'll give you a chance. I am gonna make an easy serve on your FH on that first MP, and you'll just have to close your eyes, swing your racquet and pray. But don;t worry, I'll make it easy by goving you nice serve. And I 'll take care of the other points. It's all yours....Oh and send my regards to S_A. It's my little present for him too.!"

That's the only way I can explain it S_A. Isn't Fed a nice guy?

What is that one above me ranting on about?

Carrieg4, how successful is video evidence in even the court of law? 8 different matches with MPs choked should be enough evidence.

Simple_Analyst wrote:What is that one above me ranting on about?

What? we have all been trying to make sense of your posts on Fed's choking and you dare questioning the meaning of my last post?

C'est l'hopital qui se moque de la charite!

Simple_Analyst wrote:What is that one above me ranting on about?

Carrieg4, how successful is video evidence in even the court of law? 8 different matches with MPs choked should be enough evidence.

As I've already said the point is you can't show that they are choked rather than merely lost. At the momentyou don't have evidence of what you are trying to prove.

I don't think Federer is a choker per se, but perhaps he gets a bit tense toward the end of his matches because he knows that once the match is finished he has to go off and do 5000 star jumps (because this sort of thing is necessary to be a top class sports person these days).

Dunno, just a theory.

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:What is that one above me ranting on about?

What? we have all been trying to make sense of your posts on Fed's choking and you dare questioning the meaning of my last post?

C'est l'hopital qui se moque de la charite!

Ciò che è ancora lui a parlare?

Simple_Analyst wrote:The UE part raises and interesting question but hard carries any credible weight. Different shots can be played in that pressured situation which will be as bad as an UE. For example attempting a panicked drop shot which an opponent runs down and hits a simple winner off.
Too many variables to consider when attempting to analyse what happened on those match points so he loses those points, choke confirmed.

The 8 points are 8 situations. Like I said the cold fact would be either a winner by the player or a UE. It carries more credible weight than interpretation. Why? Because it is a statistic in match or the 8 points you have displayed. Players may go 'tentative' but that isn't choking, I mean if that is what you interpret as choking then any player who has won a Slam would have been a choker!

If you analyse the 8 points a determine what was a UE and what was the opponent hitting a winner, then yes that adds weight to the argument. Providing evidence and not 'analysing' it does not make it 'credible' evidence.

So you are ignoring the evidence carrieg4?

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you are ignoring the evidence carrieg4?

Show me actual evidence and I will pay attention.

Simple_Analyst wrote:But you are painting this as an attempt to discredit Federer which isn't so but a fair analysis. It happens to some players, not all using strictly my assumptions based on MPs which i think is objective than other factors. Federer simply is in a league of his own in that choking category. If you knew of any instances of a player choking match points in 8 matches, wouldn't you bring it to my notice? There simply isn't none.

That is completely your own assumption and opinion of what Federer was thinking at those particular times and as one can see from all the replies on this thread, you alone think so.

How you can try to force us to believe that you know what is going on inside Rogers head is astounding, there may be a handful of people on this earth that think in the same way, that they have carte blanche access to Federer's inner thoughts. You have no conception of what a mind like Federer is conceiving let alone whether he is bottling a shot because of the perceived pressure you are imagining.

Lost MP's are not always the product of choking, there are many, almost an infinite number of reasons a player loses a MP, and yes, sometimes that may be down to pressures beyond the players capabilities and he loses focus and bottles it.

But for a player like Federer, you can not, without any proof (which would have to come from clinical tests on his brain) ascertain that he choked on any of those MP's, indeed, you'd have to be his twin brother to have even the smallest idea of what was going on in his head.

Unless you can provide a Psychiatric report on Federer and not videos which show nothing more than a physical aspect of a match, then all you are doing is arguing an opinion of someones thought process during a certain phase of a tennis match.

Its a lost cause SA, you may as well bite the bullet and end this facade.

The 8 different matches. The videos that are on the web? Or in your field of law, video evidence is pointless?

Jubbahey perhaps you answer the question i asked earlier that Carrieg4 failed miserably to answer. Is Federer talented? How do you prove it?