"Federer should do More" - Nadal

First topic message reminder :

It will be interesting to see how Fed responds to this:-

http://www.sportinglife.com/tennis/australianopen2012/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=tennis/12/01/15/TENNIS_Australian_Nadal.html&BID=23811

http://www.cbssports.com/tennis/story/16877372/rafa-roger-rift-emerges-at-australian-open

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10778931

This is laughable reaching.

Nadal is whining because he can't maintain his game in the face of Djokovic. Simple as. No need to get any more compicated than that.

Don't see why Federer needs to speak publicly, there are others on the Council (like Nadal, for instance) who perhaps should be using their persuasive skills in the right forum rather than just whining all the time to the media. As you say Julius, the players are clearly not even united, so what on Earth is this consensus that posters here are trying to pretend exists?

Even so, we don't know what gets said on Cuncil, and Feders job there is to speak on the issues as he sees fit. He gets a job there because others have decided he's the right guy for judgement, authority and wisdom. That means they want him to form his ideas and promote them on the Council, and like all people who work on such a body he should keep public whining to a minimum. Rafa take note.

Nadal is so transparent; "I want a protected ranking, I want two year points, I want more time off". Just suck it up.

No Federer got a job there because he the most popular player on tour. Nadal is vice president because he is the second most player on tour. That is very basic to see but i wouldn't expect Boggo to. Whether the players agree is irrelevant to the fact Federer is playing a Swiss gentleman.

Simple_Analyst wrote:No Federer got a job there because he the most popular player on tour. Nadal is vice president because he is the second most player on tour. That is very basic to see but i wouldn't expect Boggo to. Whether the players agree is irrelevant to the fact Federer is playing a Swiss gentleman.

So now you're a mind reader who knows what players think. Cool.

Simple_Analyst wrote:No Federer got a job there because he the most popular player on tour. Nadal is vice president because he is the second most player on tour.

This is a company where two top executives cannot seem to resolve their problems, if any, privately, but must have media mediate to resolve it for them.

So the two chefs of a restaurant come to the customer tables and argue in front of the customers how a dish needs to be cooked, and I as a customer, must watch this debate via the lens of paparazzi.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Whether the players agree is irrelevant to the fact Federer is playing a Swiss gentleman.

It clearly shows when Davydenko makes public statements without knowing half the facts, because he was not involved in some of the meetings.

Well it's just common sense. Tennis is a popularity sport with an individual the focal point. Look at the NBA for starters where the players council has Derek Fisher as president.

If you want to believe Federer and Nadal are President and vice president because of their wisdom and good judgement, i feel sorry for your understanding.

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps Nadal said it because he is busy protecting his legacy and image rather than seeing the game benefit in the long run and for future generations.

Fact is, we don't know what the majority think. And if they do think that, then they've got 9 other players on the council to say it for them and Fed can easily be pushed to the side.

So it's OK for Fed to want to get involved in numerous projects outside Tennis - certainly more than any player I can remember, but he doesn't have a duty to use this influence for the industry that gave him his status?

Don't you find it a bit strange, how mute he is - except when it suits him? If it's a case of he's astutely aware that the game in it's current form, favours him - then fair play. But then let's not hear him moaning about court surfaces, as he sometimes does and then disappear. Either use your status on a consistent level for the good of the game or say nowt.

This is nonsense. He speaks when he believes there is something to say. I'm sorry if you want to proscribe a rule where he has to come out and speak about everything or nothing, but there you are.

You assume that the good of the game is served by reducing events so players can prepare themselves even more intensively to make tennis an even more physically destroying sport than it is now.

Maybe, just maybe, Federer has a bit more intelligence than that and is able to figure three or more steps ahead and realise that the last thing the game needs is to encourage the balance yet further in the favour of the runners.

Re, your last line - I did say that it's likely that he is "astutely" aware that the current format favours him over his near rivals. However, you're missing the point. I'm not on about the schedule and apart from the ludicrous US Open, don't think there is much wrong with it

Roger though, could be far more vocal when it comes to the thorny subject of court surfaces / or the balls. This is something that is harder to get altered, given that it's a construction issue or even sponsorship (the balls). However, someone of his standing could at least be listened to seriously in a way that the likes of Murray and even Nadal don't. Given Roger's very careful construction of his public image (no problem with that, just in case you think you think I have one) I'd be amazed if he is raising this with any great passion, behind closed doors

So I think it is entirely fair to ask why not

So let's agree to disagree!!

Empty vessels make the most noise. Sometimes the most effective people are those that you don't even know are doing much, and I can see Federers quiet, polite stance carrying greater weight. Diplomacy is rarely best executed via the media and braying like a demented ass is no way to win support for contentious change.

As for asking why he isn't doing something which you only speculate on his actions, well that's not really sound.
You also assume his actions are driven by what's in his own self interest, as Nadals always are. Well the two year protection on ranking would have been good for him wouldn't it, but he opposed it because he felt it was unfair to the up and coming players. I think you're off beam making that allegation.

There you go...

Q. Specifically are you willing to talk about the point that possibly you sometimes stand outside the process, maybe not getting behind some of the top 100 players, or does that come back to the differences in points of view, for example, pushing for changes to prize money, things like that?

ROGER FEDERER: I was in the meeting, you know. I completely understand and support the players' opinions. I just have a different way of going at it. I'm not discussing it with you guys in the press room. It creates unfortunately sometimes negative stories.

I think we've done really well over the years now since me and Rafa in particular have joined the council, and also Novak in the past. And when Adam led the ATP, I think we had a really calm relationship about politics and about, you know, dealing with you guys.

So I choose not to talk about those issues with you guys. That doesn't mean I don't support the players. I think of the players first. Usually when I take decisions, I think of the lowerranked players first. I hope they know that.
Otherwise I wouldn't be sitting on the council, just trying to do what's best for the top guys. I mean, I've been around for too long to just say, Okay, we need more stuff for the top guys. I'm very happy if the lowerranked players are doing better, too.

Tenez wrote:There you go...

I'm sure Nadal was thinking about the lower ranked players when he stood out for protected rankings and fewer events.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well it's just common sense. Tennis is a popularity sport with an individual the focal point. Look at the NBA for starters where the players council has Derek Fisher as president.

If you want to believe Federer and Nadal are President and vice president because of their wisdom and good judgement, i feel sorry for your understanding.

... and how many lockouts has NBA had vs. ATP? ... and NBA has individual team owners?

Here is how the wonderful NBA functions... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NBA_lockout

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:There you go...

I'm sure Nadal was thinking about the lower ranked players when he stood out for protected rankings and fewer events.

Yep, like he is thinking of his opponent and the referee at the net waiting for him when he carefully screws the tops of his bottles in his chair.

Me, me, me!

Hmmm, so Fed chooses not to talk about the issues to the press because it can create negative stories (that are bad for tennis). Luckily Rafa and Davy's recent press statements haven't created any negative stories. Er, no, hang on....

Fed's pushed most of the right buttons - he's not blind to the issues but he's going to be drawn too far, equally he's made it pretty clear that as a council member his priorities lie with the lower-ranked players, something he said last year over the 2-year protected ranking.

Actions always speak louder than words and if players do feel that he's not doing enough they can chuck him out - so far I prefer his public utterances on this issue to Nadal's.

I continue to be amazed that some people believe anything Fed says without any conditions and mistrust Nadal's motives every time

Roger, the games greatest self-publicist, won't go public about matters where he could be seen in a 'leadership / ambassadorial role? Please!!!

I'd have more respect if he said "look if Rafa has a problem with keeping fit for the tour, that's his problem - maybe he should reduce his time between points" rather than make out he's some kind of subtle, non publicity seeking quiet diplomat!!

So Federer is also supporting lower ranked players by ignoring calls regarding prize money? Anyway, why when he will take a ride on the back of a camel to play lucrative exhibitions at Abu Dhabi, come back pocket full and play a Swiss gentleman in front of the cameras?

Laverfan do you know what brings about Lock outs? The NBA meets for collective agreement on various issues with how money and how revenue is distributed a major factor. This deal is signed to cover some year spans until the next bargain so of course the will be lockouts during the bargaining period due to the greedy owners backed by an equally greedy David Stern.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So Federer is also supporting lower ranked players by ignoring calls regarding prize money. Anyway, why when he will take a ride on the back of a camel to play lucrative exhibitions at Abu Dhabi, come back pocket full and play a Swiss gentleman in front of the camera's?

Some may find SA as a glib WUM (I don't SA ) but this is the central point. I'm all for Roger not being very vocal if he was a Ferrer type personality - but he cannot choose when he wants to be shy

banbrotam wrote:I continue to be amazed that some people believe anything Fed says without any conditions and mistrust Nadal's motives every time

Roger, the games greatest self-publicist, won't go public about matters where he could be seen in a 'leadership / ambassadorial role? Please!!!

I'd have more respect if he said "look if Rafa has a problem with keeping fit for the tour, that's his problem - maybe he should reduce his time between points" rather than make out he's some kind of subtle, non publicity seeking quiet diplomat!!

Like I said, actions speak louder than words and the jury remains out - players can vote Fed off if they think he's posturing and not helping.

I can't believe you really think it would be better for Fed to up the ad hominem anti in that fashion. Assuming you've ever operated in a work environment of any sophistication you will have appreciated by now that how ever gratifying it may be to get such matters off your chest publicly it does not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term.

Nobody is saying that players cannot act in their own interests when acting personally - the issue is whether Federer is acting appropriatetly to support the various constituencies he represents in his capacity as Council member. Two voices have publicly doubted that - thus far Federer has maintained he looks after the lower-ranked players, which stance I would agree with. If he purports to do so by doing nothing and avoiding necessary confrontation to look good I'd disagree with that. There's no way of knowing the truth from recent utterances, in fact if we are to base our judgments on what Nadal, Davydenko, and Federer have said in recent press conferences alone I'd say Federer comes out best, but we'll need to wait and see.

The issue with Federer which in a way is the underlying issue is that being the 'last' of anything, in this term the last talented player to be at the top of the game is who will agree with him? Once he hangs his racquet up, will the sport be in better hands? How much of an influence will Nadal have once Federer retires?

banbrotam wrote:I'd have more respect if he said "look if Rafa has a problem with keeping fit for the tour, that's his problem - maybe he should reduce his time between points"

Youd have more respect if he publicly attacked another player and implied he was cheating? I have to differ on that one!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I'd have more respect if he said "look if Rafa has a problem with keeping fit for the tour, that's his problem - maybe he should reduce his time between points"

Youd have more respect if he publicly attacked another player and implied he was cheating? I have to differ on that one!

As Harry Hill would say.......FIGHT!!!

banbrotam wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:So Federer is also supporting lower ranked players by ignoring calls regarding prize money. Anyway, why when he will take a ride on the back of a camel to play lucrative exhibitions at Abu Dhabi, come back pocket full and play a Swiss gentleman in front of the camera's?

Some may find SA as a glib WUM (I don't SA ) but this is the central point. I'm all for Roger not being very vocal if he was a Ferrer type personality - but he cannot choose when he wants to be shy

Sadly typical of a current culture where you're not doing anything unless you're shouting it from the rooftops and pandering to consumer desires to be told all.

The most effective people make things happen, and whining publicly is a very bad way to do that. Two-year rankings is hopefully dead and we may well have Federer to thank for that. Your noisy man wanted to screw the little guy to preserve the length of his ranking.

Frankly, based on that issue alone, he is no longer worth listening to.

bogbrush wrote:Your noisy man wanted to screw the little guy to preserve the length of his ranking.

Frankly, based on that issue alone, he is no longer worth listening to.

I thought that was an incredibly self-interested suggestion of Nadal's, which is why I am far more interested in what DD says than what Nadal says as, like BB, I feel the need to aim off from Nadal's utterances.

barrystar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I continue to be amazed that some people believe anything Fed says without any conditions and mistrust Nadal's motives every time

Roger, the games greatest self-publicist, won't go public about matters where he could be seen in a 'leadership / ambassadorial role? Please!!!

I'd have more respect if he said "look if Rafa has a problem with keeping fit for the tour, that's his problem - maybe he should reduce his time between points" rather than make out he's some kind of subtle, non publicity seeking quiet diplomat!!

Like I said, actions speak louder than words and the jury remains out - players can vote Fed off if they think he's posturing and not helping.

I can't believe you really think it would be better for Fed to up the ad hominem anti in that fashion. Assuming you've ever operated in a work environment of any sophistication you will have appreciated by now that how ever gratifying it may be to get such matters off your chest publicly it does not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term.

Nobody is saying that players cannot act in their own interests when acting personally - the issue is whether Federer is acting appropriately to support the various constituencies he represents in his capacity as Council member. Two voices have publicly doubted that - thus far Federer has maintained he looks after the lower-ranked players, which stance I would agree with. If he purports to do so by doing nothing and avoiding necessary confrontation to look good I'd disagree with that. There's no way of knowing the truth from recent utterances, in fact if we are to base our judgements on what Nadal, Davydenko, and Federer have said in recent press conferences alone I'd say Federer comes out best, but we'll need to wait and see.

I do work in a "sophisticated work environment" Managing a Sales Team and all their egotistical issues, but have no hesitation in ratcheting up an issue, to my Senior Manager / Directors for the good of the company (as I see it). Usually it's appreciated if not always agreed with

I fail to see Fed 'publically' declaring that the game needs to change for the good and stating why, would "not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term". We're dealing with probably the most publicly respected sports person since Ali - those at the top, would have to 'consider' his views, assuming those views are expressed in a firm manner

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Your noisy man wanted to screw the little guy to preserve the length of his ranking.

Frankly, based on that issue alone, he is no longer worth listening to.

I thought that was an incredibly self-interested suggestion of Nadal's, which is why I am far more interested in what DD says than what Nadal says as, like BB, I feel the need to aim off from Nadal's utterances.

I too agree that Nadal was talking from a brazen narcissistic viewpoint. But it does bring up an interesting debate about how influential Roger could or couldn't be.

banbrotam wrote:I fail to see Fed 'publically' declaring that the game needs to change for the good and stating why, would "not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term". We're dealing with probably the most publicly respected sports person since Ali - those at the top, would have to 'consider' his views, assuming those views are expressed in a firm manner

A simplistic view I am afraid. Federer seems to have a broader view of the problems. He is not only talking about the ATP, its players (lower and up) but also for the tournament organisers, teh sponsors and the fans.

As a manager of a sales team, you would not expose the problems and strategies of your team to your managers, suppliers, customers and prospects, would you?

Of course Nadal asking for a protected 2 year ranking is a silly idea and certainly one i don't agree with but we don't know which other players agreed with him. However that's not the point here. Many issues have been raised which Federer is doing nothing about. This is exactly the kind of reaction he hopes for. To play the quiet diplomat and have his fans defend him no end for it but is it really in the interest of the game? Most articles reporting this seems to agree with Nadal and Davydenko calling Federer out.

Federer is an infuential part of tennis and certainly the most infleuntial amongst the players hence he is the president. Speaking on the issues now and then publicly will not harm his "perfect image". It seems to be he is not much behind close doors either. Worst of all, he wants others to keep their opinions to themselves.

banbrotam wrote:
I do work in a "sophisticated work environment" Managing a Sales Team and all their egotistical issues, but have no hesitation in ratcheting up an issue, to my Senior Manager / Directors for the good of the company (as I see it). Usually it's appreciated if not always agreed with

I fail to see Fed 'publically' declaring that the game needs to change for the good and stating why, would "not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term". We're dealing with probably the most publicly respected sports person since Ali - those at the top, would have to 'consider' his views, assuming those views are expressed in a firm manner

You are not talking about going public - and I don't really believe you can be saying that an ad hominem attack is an appropriate way to ratchet up an issue. I would agree that sometimes there's nothing for it but to ratchet up an issue, but Fed telling Nadal to take less time between points in a presser is hardly that!

Your other point is a fair one - my response is that pretty much any clear statement of how the game needs to change is likely to involve preferring one set of players' agendas over another set. DD doesn't want a shorter season, Nadal does. DD wants more paid to early round losers - we don't know what others want. There are so many other issues on which many different people may have different views - Davis Cup participation, Olympic Tournament, Mandatory TMS, overall no. of tournaments, surfaces and balls, structure of the season, appearance money, pensions (no doubt), Geography - do you follow the money with plenty of US TMS or do you try to spread the game about, ranking systems, players returning from injuries, coaching during a tournament, how do you get big players to play relatively smaller events or do you even try, TMO's, time spent between points, how you deal with established tournaments or those wishing to establish new tournaments, how you maixmise sponsorship without selling out. Fed's main job is to play, he's not a professional politician, and on all these issues someone in his position should be allowed the luxury of changing his mind if someone else makes a point he had not thought of - and there's always the likelihood is that there will be two side with similarly valid points between whom a tricky balance needs striking.

Fed's job must first and foremost be to listen, then to try and see how he can move forward pressing as best he can what he sees as the factors that benefit the game the most but taking into account that those with whom he disagrees may need to be accommodated for the wider good. Clear statements of position in such a minefield may well not be the best way ahead. Criticisms from players pushing one or two points are not a good guide.

Ultimately it's down to the players to decide whether they like the job he's doing.

banbrotam wrote:

barrystar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I continue to be amazed that some people believe anything Fed says without any conditions and mistrust Nadal's motives every time

Roger, the games greatest self-publicist, won't go public about matters where he could be seen in a 'leadership / ambassadorial role? Please!!!

I'd have more respect if he said "look if Rafa has a problem with keeping fit for the tour, that's his problem - maybe he should reduce his time between points" rather than make out he's some kind of subtle, non publicity seeking quiet diplomat!!

Like I said, actions speak louder than words and the jury remains out - players can vote Fed off if they think he's posturing and not helping.

I can't believe you really think it would be better for Fed to up the ad hominem anti in that fashion. Assuming you've ever operated in a work environment of any sophistication you will have appreciated by now that how ever gratifying it may be to get such matters off your chest publicly it does not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term.

Nobody is saying that players cannot act in their own interests when acting personally - the issue is whether Federer is acting appropriately to support the various constituencies he represents in his capacity as Council member. Two voices have publicly doubted that - thus far Federer has maintained he looks after the lower-ranked players, which stance I would agree with. If he purports to do so by doing nothing and avoiding necessary confrontation to look good I'd disagree with that. There's no way of knowing the truth from recent utterances, in fact if we are to base our judgements on what Nadal, Davydenko, and Federer have said in recent press conferences alone I'd say Federer comes out best, but we'll need to wait and see.

I do work in a "sophisticated work environment" Managing a Sales Team and all their egotistical issues, but have no hesitation in ratcheting up an issue, to my Senior Manager / Directors for the good of the company (as I see it). Usually it's appreciated if not always agreed with

I fail to see Fed 'publically' declaring that the game needs to change for the good and stating why, would "not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term". We're dealing with probably the most publicly respected sports person since Ali - those at the top, would have to 'consider' his views, assuming those views are expressed in a firm manner

Do you escalate this by standing on a table in the canteen and telling everyone, or perhaps in a room with the relevant people?

barrystar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
I do work in a "sophisticated work environment" Managing a Sales Team and all their egotistical issues, but have no hesitation in ratcheting up an issue, to my Senior Manager / Directors for the good of the company (as I see it). Usually it's appreciated if not always agreed with

I fail to see Fed 'publically' declaring that the game needs to change for the good and stating why, would "not help achieve what really needs to be done in the long term". We're dealing with probably the most publicly respected sports person since Ali - those at the top, would have to 'consider' his views, assuming those views are expressed in a firm manner

You are not talking about going public - and I don't really believe you can be saying that an ad hominem attack is an appropriate way to ratchet up an issue. I would agree that sometimes there's nothing for it but to ratchet up an issue, but Fed telling Nadal to take less time between points in a presser is hardly that!

Your other point is a fair one - my response is that pretty much any clear statement of how the game needs to change is likely to involve preferring one set of players' agendas over another set. DD doesn't want a shorter season, Nadal does. DD wants more paid to early round losers - we don't know what others want. There are so many other issues on which many different people may have different views - Davis Cup participation, Olympic Tournament, Mandatory TMS, overall no. of tournaments, surfaces and balls, structure of the season, appearance money, pensions (no doubt), Geography - do you follow the money with plenty of US TMS or do you try to spread the game about, ranking systems, players returning from injuries, coaching during a tournament, how do you get big players to play relatively smaller events or do you even try, TMO's, time spent between points, how you deal with established tournaments or those wishing to establish new tournaments, how you maixmise sponsorship without selling out. Fed's main job is to play, he's not a professional politician, and on all these issues someone in his position should be allowed the luxury of changing his mind if someone else makes a point he had not thought of - and there's always the likelihood is that there will be two side with similarly valid points between whom a tricky balance needs striking.

Fed's job must first and foremost be to listen, then to try and see how he can move forward pressing as best he can what he sees as the factors that benefit the game the most but taking into account that those with whom he disagrees may need to be accommodated for the wider good. Clear statements of position in such a minefield may well not be the best way ahead. Criticisms from players pushing one or two points are not a good guide.

Ultimately it's down to the players to decide whether they like the job he's doing.

Cleary he is not doing that very well.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

barrystar wrote:
Fed's job must first and foremost be to listen,

Cleary he is not doing that very well.

He'll lose his place on the Council if that's what players think - curiously listening is exactly what DD has accused him of doing.

barrystar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

barrystar wrote:
Fed's job must first and foremost be to listen,

Cleary he is not doing that very well.

He'll lose his place on the Council if that's what players think - curiously listening is exactly what DD has accused him of doing.

I don't think it will benefit the players should Federer or Nadal lose their place on the Council, they are the more popular than all players. Well publish the DD interview for us to see.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Cleary he is not doing that very well.

"Clearly" because Nadal is whining and Davydenko on another issue but he disagrees with Nadal?

"Clearly" because he's head and shoulders ahead of all the other players in terms of esteem and respect (God knows how many of their sportsmanship awards he has)?

"Clearly" because he scuppered the absurd two year ranking obscenity?

Or "clearly" because you have a problem with him?

Ohh I dunno which to pick.

Now Nadal is regretting having aired the dirty laundary. Ho hum - let's follow the tennis.

For S_A:

Federer did sit with the players and listen at Saturday’s meeting, according to Davydenko, who also said the top four players were supposed to meet on Sunday.

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Cleary he is not doing that very well.

"Clearly" because Nadal is whining and Davydenko on another issue but he disagrees with Nadal?

"Clearly" because he's head and shoulders ahead of all the other players in terms of esteem and respect (God knows how many of their sportsmanship awards he has)?

"Clearly" because he scuppered the absurd two year ranking obscenity?

Or "clearly" because you have a problem with him?

Ohh I dunno which to pick.

Exactly that comes from winning slams and becoming popular. If he was just another top 50-100 ranked player with no slams, he wouldn't even be invited to a public march against these issues yet alone alone sitting in a board meeting.

"For sure Federer doesn't want to do anything because he doesn't want to make any strike or something. Nadal, Djokovic is with the other players, the top 100 players," Davydenko said.


So who the the lower ranked players Federer claims to be protecting? Sure we know not players ranked 50-100 either from what Davydenko said. Is Federer lying about this?

Top 10 in 2011...

Rank	Name	Tournaments	Total Matches	Avg Matches/Tournament
1	Djokovic	19	79	4.2
2	Nadal	20	85	4.3
3	Federer	19	73	3.8
4	Murray	20	67	3.4
5	Ferrer	23	78	3.4
6	Tsonga	25	81	3.2
7	Berdych	23	76	3.3
8	Fish	23	67	2.9
9	Tipsarevic	28	79	2.8
10	Almagro	28	70	2.5

Players with most tournaments played in 2011 ...

Rank	Name	Tournaments	Total Matches	Avg Matches/Tournament
84	Paire	36	87	2.4
45	Andujar	33	60	1.8
72	Volandri	33	71	2.2
98	Kamke	33	70	2.1
34	Bogomolov	32	91	2.8
47	Fognini	32	60	1.9
61	Berlocq	32	74	2.3
67	Ramos	32	90	2.8
88	Riba	32	74	2.3

This indicates....

1. For the lower-ranked players, having more tournaments provides more opportunities to make a living.

2. For top ranked, having fewer tournies, requires less exertion and pays more.

3. Rankings for a year or two, implies consistent good performances every year vs. tenure based on seniority. Both have merits and demerits. . My inclination is to avoid the Golf ranking vagaries and just leave it at 12 months.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Cleary he is not doing that very well.

"Clearly" because Nadal is whining and Davydenko on another issue but he disagrees with Nadal?

"Clearly" because he's head and shoulders ahead of all the other players in terms of esteem and respect (God knows how many of their sportsmanship awards he has)?

"Clearly" because he scuppered the absurd two year ranking obscenity?

Or "clearly" because you have a problem with him?

Ohh I dunno which to pick.

Exactly that comes from winning slams and becoming popular. If he was just another top 50-100 ranked player with no slams, he wouldn't even be invited to a public march against these issues yet alone alone sitting in a board meeting.

I agree that where he a journeyman he would not be on the panel etc, but there's little dispute surely that he has enormous goodwill from the players, and now has elder statesman status in addition.

Simple_Analyst wrote:"For sure Federer doesn't want to do anything because he doesn't want to make any strike or something. Nadal, Djokovic is with the other players, the top 100 players," Davydenko said.


So who the the lower ranked players Federer claims to be protecting? Sure we know not players ranked 50-100 either from what Davydenko said. Is Federer lying about this?

Try "anyone whose ranking is hoped to increase who would be diddled out of rises through a two year system (as against a Federer who would benefit from a two year points system)".

Simple_Analyst wrote:Exactly that comes from winning slams and becoming popular. If he was just another top 50-100 ranked player with no slams, he wouldn't even be invited to a public march against these issues yet alone alone sitting in a board meeting.

Do you know how long have Federer and Nadal been President and Vice President of Players Council?

Not according to what Davydenko is saying which is Nadal and Djokovic are agreeing to the demands for changes by the rest of the top 100 and Federer clearly in this case is not. So he is taking is own interest ahead of everyone.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Not according to what Davydenko is saying which is Nadal and Djokovic are agreeing to the demands for changes by the rest of the top 100 and Federer clearly in this case is not. So he is taking is own interest ahead of everyone.

Yes, of course Nadal is just picking this up for the little guy. How could I have missed that?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Not according to what Davydenko is saying which is Nadal and Djokovic are agreeing to the demands for changes by the rest of the top 100 and Federer clearly in this case is not. So he is taking is own interest ahead of everyone.

Can you list what is in Federer's interest?

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Not according to what Davydenko is saying which is Nadal and Djokovic are agreeing to the demands for changes by the rest of the top 100 and Federer clearly in this case is not. So he is taking is own interest ahead of everyone.

Can you list what is in Federer's interest?

1. Only calling for changes when he sees it might help him win and stay on tour longer.
2. Making good money on tour by playing lucrative exhibitions and getting good appearance fees whiles not promoting the interest of lower ranked players
3. Refusing to help in the case to have better prize money because with his ability to go deeper in tournaments, he will make enough millions
4. Don't want players to give out their opinions on current issues
5. Interested in protecting his "Swiss Gentleman" image.


Other things to add:

6. Not representing the players well leading to unrest
7. Not performing his duties as President of the council effectively.

I am even sure you don't believe what you write wyse!

However I am not sure what's your purpose. Trying to convince yourself?

I am sure he doesn't, and I'm equally sure he isn't even trying to convince himself.

Still, "Swiss Gentle" man!!!! You have to laugh

He probably should have added "denying low ranked players prize money by beating them"

Well those are actually summaries made from the recent unrest from the players lead by Nadal and Davydenko

What, that he's Swiss and Gentle? Outrageous!!

Can we get Nadal and Davy to agree on the season issue and then launch a meaningful attack

Yes, his "Swiss Gentleman" image. Like i said, he is also a thinner Sepp Blatter

And i was not the one who said this:

"Because he don't want ... any
problems. He's nice guy. He's winning
Grand Slams. He's from Switzerland.
He's perfect.

That's Davydenko there for you

I wonder why Nadal and Davydenko have to put in the Swiss reference.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yes, his "Swiss Gentleman" image. Like i said, he is also a thinner Sepp Blatter

And i was not the one who said this:

"Because he don't want ... any
problems. He's nice guy. He's winning
Grand Slams. He's from Switzerland.
He's perfect.

That's Davydenko there for you

I wonder why Nadal and Davydenko have to put in the Swiss reference.

It was "Swiss Gentle" you wrote before, but credit to you for taking the correction.

Yeah, lets slag Federer off because in the words of his "critic" he's a nice guy. I think that pretty well sums up where your convoluted logical contortions have led you.