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

by Simple_Analyst Wed 11 Jan 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 **laverfan** Fri 13 Jan 2012, 6:34 pm

sportslover wrote:
laverfan wrote:
amritia3ee wrote:
laverfan wrote:This business of 'my-dad-is-bigger-than-yours' is tedious. Do you want get a room and hash it out, so some other discussions take place? or
Who are you talking to, oh DofE.

Who do you love?

Like the new title laverfan.

I hope he pays you well

Director of Education or Doofus, take your pick. Laugh

Regarding payments, the less said, the better, I am thinking of forming a union and picket for better wages.

by luciusmann Fri 13 Jan 2012, 7:06 pm

And saying Federer is the most guilty of all of the above questions you posed isn't proof you're a Federer hater? Hmmm.

If you're not providing the necessary links for the abuse of hawkeye, then, as my Philosophy professor said, you should be suspicious of the person being a charlatan or a fraud. As for being a Federer worshiper? I always been clear that I am a fan, you can even call me Mirka if you like, it still doesn't change what you're doing: player bashing.

Let's start with basics, if you were serious about being objective, you would have posed the question and not suggested any players before asking the questions. (As in opinion polls and surveys, you never suggest a potential answer before the question, otherwise you are leading the question to give a particular answer [as you are] without allowing the person to think for themselves and decide their own answer or choose one particular one from a list).When asking the questions you could have suggested a number of players and then given specific examples of when they had been guilty and then perhaps included a summary and/or analysis @ the end too.

I know the above is too thorough an approach for you, but I can only put down the dreadful OP above down to either a) sheer laziness b) just interested in stirring up dislike you know is based in no real facts hoping no one will notice your complete lack of objectivity! As I said, nice try but epic fail.

by Simple_Analyst Fri 13 Jan 2012, 7:24 pm

Liciusmann but google can confirm all this. I asked a simple question. Is Federer a choker? Let us start with that.

by invisiblecoolers Fri 13 Jan 2012, 7:28 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Liciusmann but google can confirm all this. I asked a simple question. Is Federer a choker? Let us start with that.

Lets put the same question was Sampras a choker? coz he has choked matches against Leander Paes, Hewitt and Safin in GS finals. Laugh

by Simple_Analyst Fri 13 Jan 2012, 7:39 pm

I can't remember Sampras choking match points and certainly not in grand slam semi finals with such consistency as Federer has shown.

by invisiblecoolers Fri 13 Jan 2012, 7:45 pm

You silly simple, your hatred on a player is going beyond advisable limits, thats certainly not good , i would advice you to write positive article abt your player [which is Sampras] rather than repeated boring articles on the player you hate.

by amritia3ee Fri 13 Jan 2012, 7:46 pm

laverfan wrote:
Director of Education or Doofus, take your pick. Regarding payments, the less said, the better, I am thinking of forming a union and picket for better wages.

I'm sorry but I am now having to consider firing you from the esteemed 'Director of Education' post. After setting you up as mod and giving you the role of DofE, you appear to have double crossed me I now have very reliable evidence that you're just a Yes-man/ defence lawyer of Tenez and his *all the Grand Slams Federer didn't win between 2005-2011 were because Toni Nadal and his evil companions tampered with the surface so talentless plebs like Nadal and Djokovic could win etc.* theories.

by amritia3ee Fri 13 Jan 2012, 7:57 pm

luciusmann wrote:

Luciusmann, good to have you on here.
Don't worry after the AO Open I will be writing my *Roger Federer: The Final Verdict* article and hopefully you will like that.

For now I can just give you my reaction to the points SA has raised:

1. SA: Federer=number one shanker
Official Verdict: False
I recognise that Federer's backhand can make a concerning amount of errors at times. However I have seen players who have a far worse problem with this. Therefore he is not the 'main culprit' as you put it.

2. SA: Hawkeye Abuse:
Official Verdict: True
Federer's negative stance against Hawkeye has been slightly weird. Like the BCCI in cricket, he should accept that Hawkeye has been good for the game and reduces errors in line-calls.

3. SA: Choker
Official Verdict: False
Yes, in quite a few situations he has not played well on match points, and his BP conversion rate isn't great, but to call him a choker is unfair. He might not be the most strong mentally, but he certainly isn't the weakest.

Final Verdict: SA: I am terrible sorry but having read the article and analysing it I have found evidence that you may be slightly biased against Federer in your judgements. The root cause of this is still unknown but you can be rest assured that me and the rest of my MI7 team will be on the case to find out.

by luciusmann Fri 13 Jan 2012, 8:02 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Liciusmann but google can confirm all this. I asked a simple question. Is Federer a choker? Let us start with that.

Let's start with this: if it's so easy to find objective evidence and clips on google, why haven't you done the simple thing and provided it? Is it out of sheer laziness? That's the only real explanation, in which case, why are you wasting our time with an ill thought out thread which not even you can be bothered to do the research for (in which case, why should we even bother to debate or engage with you on it)?

You've asked leading questions, not simple questions, read my above post if you find it difficult to understand why your post is biased and totally lacking in objectivity. If your going to say your post is impartial, you're going to have to try to more subtle with your blatant bias.

by Simple_Analyst Fri 13 Jan 2012, 8:08 pm

Invisible Cooler but you are accusing me of bias and having agreed the "choke" tag is well deserved, perhaps you should rather be commending my fair analysis?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 13 Jan 2012, 8:10 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Invisible Cooler but you are accusing me of bias and having agreed the "choke" tag is well deserved, perhaps you should rather be commending my fair analysis?

If I could find your fair analysis, I'd commend it. You must have done one somewhere at some point.

by **laverfan** Fri 13 Jan 2012, 8:25 pm

I would give Brian Gottfried the 'choker' tag. 10 finals in 1977 lost.

I do not want to see MTOs, injuries, heat retirements, player heckling, umpire abuse, coaching fines, rain delays, bad lines calls, ....

by **laverfan** Fri 13 Jan 2012, 8:33 pm

Interesting that the whole of AO is now synonymous with Federer. Heaven forbid, if Federer wins AO, SA would still call him a shanker, hawkeye-abuser, etc.

by invisiblecoolers Fri 13 Jan 2012, 9:02 pm

@ SA, well everybody here knows the bias,
@ JM ,do you think he can ever provide one?
@LF, well for SA the world revolves around Federer, for others its around tennis.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 13 Jan 2012, 9:03 pm

laverfan wrote:I would give Brian Gottfried the 'choker' tag. 10 finals in 1977 lost.

I do not want to see MTOs, injuries, heat retirements, player heckling, umpire abuse, coaching fines, rain delays, bad lines calls, ....

Odd, because I want see all of those!

by Guest Fri 13 Jan 2012, 9:17 pm

I have to say the Simple Analyst presents a fairly persuasive case of Roger Federer's crimes against Tennis. As an unbiased layperson I would have to say I find Roger Federer guilty as charged. Now that Roger Federer's crimes have been established can we now move on to the punishment. I suggest we confiscate Mr Federer's white suit.

by Tenez Fri 13 Jan 2012, 10:44 pm

Nore Staat wrote:I have to say the Simple Analyst presents a fairly persuasive case of Roger Federer's crimes against Tennis. As an unbiased layperson I would have to say I find Roger Federer guilty as charged. Now that Roger Federer's crimes have been established can we now move on to the punishment. I suggest we confiscate Mr Federer's white suit.

That's too kind. All his trophies must be taken back and given to Pete and Rafa. My sources however say that Pete will not accept any silver from Federer but Nadal won't mind taking it. Nadal is also keen to change the ranking system to guarantee him a longer stay at the top.

Some have no qualms!

by **laverfan** Fri 13 Jan 2012, 11:44 pm

Nore Staat wrote: I suggest we confiscate Mr Federer's white suit.

Are you referring to one with '18' in Gold and White that he will wear at W 2012? Laugh

I keep hearing chants of Take Him to The Wall. Crying or Very sad

by invisiblecoolers Sat 14 Jan 2012, 12:09 am

@LF, 18? it could be even 19 Very Happy

by **laverfan** Sat 14 Jan 2012, 4:27 am

invisiblecoolers wrote:@LF, 18? it could be even 19

SA will definitely make a case for Nadal @FO 2012. Wink

by Simple_Analyst Sat 14 Jan 2012, 10:52 am

Luciusmann, you are the one looking for objective evidence so the onus is on you to find it because i have seen enough Federer choking. Infact everyone else has seen enough Federer choking. So this analysis is objective.

As for shanking, Darren Cahill was the first to call Federer's shanking going back to his early play days. Is he biased as well?

by **laverfan** Sat 14 Jan 2012, 1:06 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:As for shanking, Darren Cahill was the first to call Federer's shanking going back to his early play days. Is he biased as well?

Federer is shanker with many achievements. Imagine if he never 'shanked', the other players would have had no chance at any silverware, so you should be grateful that he shanks. Laugh

Some of the other shankers have not managed to come even close. Just ask David Ferrer who won Auckland yesterday. Wink

by Simple_Analyst Sat 14 Jan 2012, 1:11 pm

Good to know Laverfan. So we agreed he is:

1. A choker
2. A shanker.

We just have to be objective and agree on the hawkeye abuse and i'll expect apologies for claiming i'm bias despite the 100% objectivity of the thread.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 14 Jan 2012, 1:17 pm

@ SA , if the above could make you happy in sorrowful life, I agree to YOUR OBJECTIVES rather than reality. Very Happy

by Simple_Analyst Sat 14 Jan 2012, 1:23 pm

So Federer choking and shanking isn't a reality? What next? A forehand shot isn't reality?

by **laverfan** Sat 14 Jan 2012, 3:29 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Good to know Laverfan. So we agreed he is:

1. A choker
2. A shanker.

We just have to be objective and agree on the hawkeye abuse and i'll expect apologies for claiming i'm bias despite the 100% objectivity of the thread.

My suggestion is that you provide all the labels for Federer in an article on 606v2 so you do not have to repeat it again for this community.

It will also save you time and energy and allow your incisive skills to focus on Tennis as a sport rather than one measly shanker, choker and HE abuser. I will discuss with the Moderators and Admins their willingness to provide a permanent 'sticky', so the community can read such articles at the analytical zenith of tennis and be fortunate to be regaled at the simplicity. Wink

Your keen intellect would be appreciated in the wider world of Tennis, and perhaps you can rival Bud Collins, Lance Tingay, Bodo, Reed, Harman, et al., in the pantheon of tennis historians.

The 606v2 community wants you to expand your horizons to broader vistas like your Conditions article, coaching and mentoring, how GB can win DC, is Rusedski a good captain (or coach - take your pick), is Lendl the right ingredient for Murray's slam success, and so many other more erudite pursuits.

by luciusmann Sat 14 Jan 2012, 8:31 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Luciusmann, you are the one looking for objective evidence so the onus is on you to find it because i have seen enough Federer choking. Infact everyone else has seen enough Federer choking. So this analysis is objective.

As for shanking, Darren Cahill was the first to call Federer's shanking going back to his early play days. Is he biased as well?

Nope, I'm not asserting anything as fact, you are and therefore the burden of proof is on you to provide the objective evidence not me(any evidence will do, I'll make it easy for you, Nadal fan pages don't count for obvious reasons). Until you provide evidence all you're giving everyone on this thread is waffle and opinionated non-sense, harsh but true. After all, it's so simple to find it on google. So why haven't you? You said it's simple, not me.

Can you explain to me if Darren Cahill is the sole authority on tennis? And again, nice try but that wasn't the question you posed in this thread, it was who most guilty (of each question you posed), not if Federer was a shanker. Do you even understand what questions you asked? It doesn't appear you do because all of your replies have sought to say Federer is this or that but that's not relevant (unless you are saying he's the worst, in which case respond to the other players other posters have suggested instead of conveniently ignoring them [something my professor also warned me about people with flawed arguments, far more likely to selectively answer points]).

I'm still waiting for answers as to why you have asked leading questions too, you say your objective but before even ask the questions you trash Federer, very blatantly attempting to persuade people it's Federer who's most guilty. No one is going to be stupid enough to think your anything except highly biased against Federer. Why is that difficult for you to accept?

by invisiblecoolers Sat 14 Jan 2012, 9:15 pm

luciusmann wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Luciusmann, you are the one looking for objective evidence so the onus is on you to find it because i have seen enough Federer choking. Infact everyone else has seen enough Federer choking. So this analysis is objective.

As for shanking, Darren Cahill was the first to call Federer's shanking going back to his early play days. Is he biased as well?

Nope, I'm not asserting anything as fact, you are and therefore the burden of proof is on you to provide the objective evidence not me(any evidence will do, I'll make it easy for you, Nadal fan pages don't count for obvious reasons). Until you provide evidence all you're giving everyone on this thread is waffle and opinionated non-sense, harsh but true. After all, it's so simple to find it on google. So why haven't you? You said it's simple, not me.

,so you mean to say SA is just an opinionated NS Laugh

luciusmann wrote:
I'm still waiting for answers as to why you have asked leading questions too, you say your objective but before even ask the questions you trash Federer, very blatantly attempting to persuade people it's Federer who's most guilty. No one is going to be stupid enough to think your anything except highly biased against Federer. Why is that difficult for you to accept?

by Simple_Analyst Sat 14 Jan 2012, 10:53 pm

Luciusmann yet again you've written long without any noticable points. You want videos of Federer's choking? How about we start from 2 match points USO 11 semi finals and get to 5 MPs choked against Monfils Paris 2010. Don't get me started on others. You need a video link for those? How is Federer consistently choking match points an opinion? It actually happened. As Federer fan shouldn't you have watched those matches? Or you missed them?

Darren Cahill is not the sole representative of tennis but a very credible coach, commentator and a welll respectes analyst. And haven't you heard any commentator said Federer shanks a ball after a shanked shot? You need video link too? Why should i give you links when you don't watch the matches at the first place?

So the fact is :

1. Federer is a choker

2. Federer is a ball shanker

So where is the bias or Federer bashing here?

by Tenez Sat 14 Jan 2012, 10:56 pm

Are you Wyse Analyst SA? What happened to you?

by Simple_Analyst Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:02 pm

Luciusmann and Invinsible Cooler, i'll be expecting an apology for you questioning my impartiality and calling me bias when the article is factual.

by carrieg4 Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:09 pm

Hmm isn't choking always an opinion. Some see a match choked, others see it lost. Aren't you taking away all credit from the opponent by asserting this?

by luciusmann Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:10 pm

I've asked you very specific questions, why haven't you answered most of them? Laziness? Or maybe unable to find much evidence? The questions you posed arn't about whether Federer is a shanker (again, nice try but don't try side stepping the real point), it's about who's most guilty of it. You're pretending to say I said Federer isn't a shanker, I didn't state an opinion on it (I believe, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that), you did and I asked you to supply the evidence and you provide two examples and that's conclusive? Pure laziness.

The length of my post is immaterial, you're original post is even longer and very much a rambling attack on Federer, as most of your posts are. Yawn. My posts at least address the substance of your posts, yours rarely do.

It's because I watch the match and don't agree. The video link/evidence is required if you're going to assert your opinion as fact, I haven't asserted that in any categorical way as you have. Don't get into a hissy fit about being asked to provide evidence for your opinions and be honest, that's exactly what they are, opinions. Tennis is not a science, therefore many things which we discuss are going to be highly subjective. The fact you come onto the forum and insult many posters and pontificate as if tennis is a science and you're somehow the high doctor or high professor of the sports might explain why you assert so much to be fact when to everyone else it's a rambling diatribe of bile (masquerading as pseudo-science). Nor do you fool anyone with your pretenses to objectivity, I'm glad you've abandoned that line at least.

by Tenez Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:29 pm

Tenez wrote:Are you Wyse Analyst SA? What happened to you?

Why did it take me so long to identify you?

by Simple_Analyst Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:36 pm

Lol what are you on about Luciusmann? I provided you just two evidence as warm up. If you are a match watching Federer fan you'll know. Perhaps a trip down memory lane? WTF 05 finals perhaps? Laugh

You said who is the main culprit? Of course Federer. Can't think of any recent player that choked that many match points on consistent basis.

Yet again you are saying i insult posters, your athem without any proof. So saying Federer is a choker is an insult to posters? Laugh

And Federer is most guilty of shanking to. Who do you think is? Perhaps you can call names? There are not that many SBH players in the game today.

You are the one looking for evidence. Find it yourself and come back with the verdict.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:38 pm

@ Tenez , coz u not a wise analyst to analysis tat Very Happy

by Simple_Analyst Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:42 pm

Invisible, i await apologies from you. Laverfan has fled because she doesn't want to apologise.

by Tenez Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:44 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ Tenez , coz u not a wise analyst to analysis tat

WA used to be fun but, I can only guess, the new version has badly survived the years of Federer's domination.

I am shocked!

by carrieg4 Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:45 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:Invisible, i await apologies from you. Laverfan has fled because she doesn't want to apologise.

No-one can say you are not determined! You could be waiting a while though..................

by luciusmann Sat 14 Jan 2012, 11:49 pm

If you read my posts, I've not asserted my opinion as fact, you have. Stop moaning about being asked to provide evidence for your point of view. If you're not adult enough to provide such links to objective evidence (or cite them) then don't come onto forums to debate. Saying this is an example of choking (as you have) is not evidence. That's your interruption of that match. As has been seen on this thread, no one has agreed with you Federer is more prone to choking than others. Providing examples of when you say it's happened is not evidence, mainly because what you call choking, is your interruption and that, sadly to reveal, is not a fact. I'm sorry if you've been taught that at school or university, but any good university would have taught you that subtle but important distinction.

As pointed out, if you're not willing to provide evidence, that is, as any academic will tell you, someone who's most likely to be a fraud. If you want us to believe you, maybe you should go to church? They take things on faith there. Here? We don't. Some evidence please. Get over it.

I've not said you've personally insulted posters today or in the last week but was drawing attention to asking why you have in the past felt the need to. That is what I was referring to, sorry if something got lost in translation for you, hopefully this is clear now. If you're denying you have, then I'll happily provide the links/threads for that.

by Jubbahey Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:01 am

FGS shut up !!

Both of you.

Now go to your room and don't come down until you've thought about the things you've said.

(I've confiscated the mags!, you wont be seeing them for a while!)

by Simple_Analyst Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:03 am

Lol i have insulted posters in the past yet still no evidence of that? Once again you have resorted to unsubstantial allegations due to coming 2nd best in the debate yet again. Havent you learnt your lessons?

Well i've tried to take it easy and not hurt your emotions but let us start from the MP chokes. Infact an article from a Federer fan gives us a nice summary. He even left out some.

www.tennisology101.com/2011/09/11/choker-federers-lost-his-winning-edge/

So Federer then is a choker. Don't see any bashing here.

by luciusmann Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:10 am

Nice try @ deflecting the substance of my posts. My emotions are fine, try answering the questions put for a change.

Will you actually answer the questions posed instead of waffling? People are bored of your waffling and so am I.

There is evidence you have insulted posters and you been warned in the past. I was one of those insulted (so I would know), and Fedexisthebest and some others I can dig out if needed.

That isn't evidence, that's one person's article and perspective. Cite all the matches in the last two years you considered to have been choked instead of lazily providing just 2 and telling us that's conclusive (then giving some lame article by a disheartened Federer fan after the USO '11). You consider that objective or conclusive evidence? Oh dear...no wonder you think you're objective and fair minded!

by carrieg4 Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:14 am

Jubbahey wrote:FGS shut up !!

Both of you.

Now go to your room and don't come down until you've thought about the things you've said.

(I've confiscated the mags!, you wont be seeing them for a while!)

by Simple_Analyst Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:17 am

Funny so any evidence of the insults? All talk no action as usual from you. Is it that hard to find my insults here?

And yet again you claim the article is one person's opinion despite that person providing many evidence which you now claim is 2 . You said i'm waffling yet you are the one bricking every evidence thrown at you Laugh

by Simple_Analyst Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:20 am

And of course it's conclusive. Federer alone should be the culprit there. It's an insult to Triocki that he shares the podium. Havent seen him choked the many match points.

by luciusmann Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:30 am

Are you seriously denying you haven't insulted other posters personally? So when you said (because I remember) that I was lying I had seen any of the match between Federer and Tsonga during their Wimby '11 match (when all I said was I missed most the first set) that's a lie? Effectively calling me a liar? That was made up? Pretending you don't abuse posters is like saying the Pope isn't a Catholic. laughing

You provided the link to one article and one person's interruption of those particular matches. If you don't understand what the word interruption means, look it up in a dictionary. You've lost the debate, just accept it. btw, again, nice try @ deflecting from your original article. It's not about Federer (you're clearly obsessed with him), it was about who was the most guilty. Can you address the other players posters regard as bigger chokers? Of course you won't, either too lazy or it blows your interruption to pieces. No one here thinks you're objective and I'm glad you given up pretending that you are. At least there is something we've agreed on for a change! Very Happy

by carrieg4 Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:31 am

luciusmann wrote:Are you seriously denying you haven't insulted other posters personally? So when you said (because I remember) that I was lying I had seen any of the match between Federer and Tsonga during their Wimby '11 match (when all I said was I missed most the first set) that's a lie? Effectively calling me a liar? That was made up? Pretending you don't abuse posters is like saying the Pope isn't a Catholic.

You provided the link to one article and one person's interruption of those particular matches. If you don't understand what the word interruption means, look it up in a dictionary. You've lost the debate, just accept it. btw, again, nice try @ deflecting from your original article. It's not about Federer (you're clearly obsessed with him), it was about who was the most guilty. Can you address the other players posters regard as bigger chokers? Of course you won't, either too lazy or it blows your interruption to pieces. No one here thinks you're objective and I'm glad you given up pretending that you are. At least there is something we've agreed on for a change!

Do you mean interpretation or am I misreading??

by luciusmann Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:34 am

Yup, sorry, it's late and a malapropism from me!

by Simple_Analyst Sun 15 Jan 2012, 12:44 am

This gets funnier with every post. I said you did not watch the first set ofa match so you concluded i said you are a liar and insulting you by that? Laugh

The Pope isn't catholic was also an insult? I really need to improve my insulting skills, i'm doing a poor job. Laugh

I have lost the debate? How exactly? Like bombarding you with factual proof of Federer's well deserved 'choke' tag?

Who is the most guilty? Federer of course. Have any candidates in mind that chokes MPs with such consistency?

by Sponsored content