Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing

by Tennisanorak Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:57 am

First topic message reminder :

Given that one of Federer/ Nadal/ Djokovic have to lose before the finals and two have to lose before the tournament ends, it is a strong era. Those are 3 potential all time greats playing together. They could end up with more than 40 grand slams between them.

However, given that the top 4 have made it to the semis in 3 of the 4 slams (with Federer narrowly missing out at Wimbledon), it is a weak era.

Which is it? Or is it neither?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:56 am

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, I actually agree with what you say. if you look at my goat list I don't have Novak close to the top.

The point on Nadal's drug testing is this, it has nothing to do with whether he is rated number 2 or 222. If you came out and said Michael Russell was doping without producing any evidence other than your opinion of his physique on TV I would defend said player. You fail to recognize my point because maybe you want to ignore it. Are their players that are doping yes, am I going to accuse one particular player (ie Nadal) when I have no specific evidence, no I am not, and I believe it is distasteful and beneath you Veejay to do that.

I agree with socal on this. I'm certain some of the people living in my town must have gotten away with criminal offences. But I have no idea who they are, as I have no evidence, so I can't accuse specific people.

by socal1976 Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:03 am

Exactly, Julius just because we know doping is most likely going on we can't go the next step and say without direct evidence that nadal or whoever is doping. I mean we can and many federer fans do it, but I don't think it is classy behavior.

by Tenez Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:11 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
I agree with socal on this. I'm certain some of the people living in my town must have gotten away with criminal offences. But I have no idea who they are, as I have no evidence, so I can't accuse specific people.

Life is not that simple unfortunately. You might always say that Bush and Blair really thought that Sadam had WMDs despite their Intelligence showing otherwise. OJ Simpsons has indeed not killed his former wife and so on.

Comes a time where though there is no proof, there is enough evidence to make up our minds....especially knowing that like in teh Agassi case, shoudl there be actual proof, the proof woudl be hidden from us anyway.

I use my eyes and judgement to make up my mind. And that is enough for me. I am not going to rely on a system which interest is to preserve teh status quo and make more money.

Unlike others I am no fan of players and have no inyterest in suspecting or unsuspecting players for no reasons!

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:12 am

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:And agassi was what 134 years old at the time, oh just 34 years old.

Interesting that a 34 year old Agassi at Number 8 in the world is evidence of a 'weak era', but a 35 year old Connors at No 4 in the world in 1988 is in a 'strong era'.

I never said Agassi at 34 was not a capable player, but way passed his best. What I said was your top ten wasn't as impressive as you made it out to be because Gaudio and Moya would have no chance of winning a grandslam today or in the last few years, and you know that yourself. Interesting that many Roger fans have claimed that this era is weak because a 31 year old father of 2 is the best hope to beat Novak and is still quote putting bagels on people. If this era is weaker because Roger at 31 is ranked number 3 in the world what about 33 year old agassi reaching #1 in the world in 2003. I just love the internal contradictions of the fed extremists. This is funny on one thread they state that Nadal losing to Ivan Dodig or Murray losing back to back matches to players out of the top 100 is clear evidence of the weakness of the era. Then they turn around and say that this era isn't strong because the top 4 reach every semi nobody beats them. In one thread they say how an old washed 31 year father of 2 puts bagels on the world #2 and therefore this era isn't that strong. And then what about 33 year old Andre reaching #1 in the world in 2003, the year of Roger's first grandslam by the way.

I have yet to see anyone say this is weak era, yet you keep putting those words into people's mouths.
Connors was way past his best in 1988, but still number 4 - yet you say the mid/late 80s is one of the stroingest eras.
My argument has always been that there is very little to choose between eras, as they all have different strengths and weaknesses and different skills are required. Also, people choose arbitrary start and end dates for eras that no-one can agree on (take S_A for example saying 2003-2007 is weak, full stop - how lame is that?). Also people take very little account of how the game naturally progresses. The Moya of 2004 might not be able to win a slam now, but he had been younger and was playing now, he would be far fitter and would have learnt his game in more relevant conditions and, whilst he maybe not be up there with Nadal, would certainly be capable of FO finals.
Certainly a much better player than Ferrer.

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:13 am

252 posts later I am still scratching me head as to how this has dragged out. Longevity which is detrimental to the argument is often an overlooked factor. So when Federer hits 34 and is still in the top 4 and Nadal has fallen by the wayside, would that be deemed as the new 'weaker'?

by bogbrush Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:27 am

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:And agassi was what 134 years old at the time, oh just 34 years old.

Interesting that a 34 year old Agassi at Number 8 in the world is evidence of a 'weak era', but a 35 year old Connors at No 4 in the world in 1988 is in a 'strong era'.

I never said Agassi at 34 was not a capable player, but way passed his best. What I said was your top ten wasn't as impressive as you made it out to be because Gaudio and Moya would have no chance of winning a grandslam today or in the last few years, and you know that yourself. Interesting that many Roger fans have claimed that this era is weak because a 31 year old father of 2 is the best hope to beat Novak and is still quote putting bagels on people. If this era is weaker because Roger at 31 is ranked number 3 in the world what about 33 year old agassi reaching #1 in the world in 2003. I just love the internal contradictions of the fed extremists. This is funny on one thread they state that Nadal losing to Ivan Dodig or Murray losing back to back matches to players out of the top 100 is clear evidence of the weakness of the era. Then they turn around and say that this era isn't strong because the top 4 reach every semi nobody beats them. In one thread they say how an old washed 31 year father of 2 puts bagels on the world #2 and therefore this era isn't that strong. And then what about 33 year old Andre reaching #1 in the world in 2003, the year of Roger's first grandslam by the way.

Another example of a point flying waaaaaay over socals head.

So does this mean Connors achievement proves a weak era back then, or an extrordinary Connors, and does it refelect on other eras, or does none of this matter? These are the questions you were being challenged with, instead you just revert predictably to defending the interests of Djokovic (through Nadal as a Djokovic proxy).

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:34 am

Julius so when exactly did Nadal started taking drugs? Just before at 17 he thrashed Federer in Miami or after he lost the second time to him in 8 matches before turning 19? Laugh

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:38 am

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius so when exactly did Nadal started taking drugs? Just before at 17 he thrashed Federer in Miami or after he lost the second time to him in 8 matches before turning 19?

Why do you keeping asking me questions about things I've never said?

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:49 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius so when exactly did Nadal started taking drugs? Just before at 17 he thrashed Federer in Miami or after he lost the second time to him in 8 matches before turning 19?

Why do you keeping asking me questions about things I've never said?

He accuses everyone of Fed-fanboying.. Laugh

by socal1976 Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:05 pm

BB, that is pretty funny because when i was talking about fed extremists claiming that this era is weak because 31 year old Fed was bagelling the world #2 I was talking specifically of you and Tenez. When I was talking about fed extremist who claims both simultaneously that there isn't any competition and the top players win too much and then pointing to Nadal losing to Ivan Dodig I was pointing to tenez.

To a certain extent I agree with you Julius in that it is never easy to dominate the men's tour. Even in a period where in my opinion we had a somewhat down level of talent from lets say the late 90s till the mid 2000s. I was not referring to you specifically with all my accussations just in pointing out that your list of top teners is not that impressive. For certain Moya and Gaudio would not have beaten nadal in during his run at the french and I think you know that for sure. And it isn't like science has changed the game that much between 2004 and 2005, the only difference is that Nadal came up and 2004 was the last chance french open for quite some time. See tougher competition putting an end to the one slam wonders exactly what I was talking about.

by socal1976 Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:09 pm

As for Connors, Jimmy didn't win another grandslam since 1983. Weekly rankings here and there don't really prove very much. The fact is that connors was no longer a real threat at the grandslams from the mid 80s on. Still he was an alltime great and warrior for sticking it out. But I think Lendl beat him like 13 times in a row during the period in question so despite what one blip in the rankings say he was no where near grandslam level at that time.

My point in even bringing up Agassi is not show that early 2000s was weak there is plenty direct evidence of that. My point is in a rebuttal to the federer extremists who claim that the fact that Roger winning matches against the other top 4 or "quote putting bagels" on people shows that this era is not strong. Things like when they say a 31 year old, passed his prime federer is Novak's only challenge. That is my main point in bringing up Agassi. To expose their hypocrisy.

by Tenez Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:12 pm

socal1976 wrote:BB, that is pretty funny because when i was talking about fed extremists claiming that this era is weak because 31 year old Fed was bagelling the world #2 I was talking specifically of you and Tenez. When I was talking about fed extremist who claims both simultaneously that there isn't any competition and the top players win too much and then pointing to Nadal losing to Ivan Dodig I was pointing to tenez.

I am not sure what's your point once again. Mine is very clear. There is slam Nadal and normal Nadal. The one who will never lose 60 to Murray, Federer, Lacko, or simply lose to Mayer, Dodig and a few more....and the one we see with amazing consistency, never tiring and getting consistently to the end of slams....only beaten by a more efficient physical player.

Enough of that joke.

by bogbrush Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:14 pm

socal1976 wrote:As for Connors, Jimmy didn't win another grandslam since 1983. Weekly rankings here and there don't really prove very much. The fact is that connors was no longer a real threat at the grandslams from the mid 80s on. Still he was an alltime great and warrior for sticking it out. But I think Lendl beat him like 13 times in a row during the period in question so despite what one blip in the rankings say he was no where near grandslam level at that time.

My point in even bringing up Agassi is not show that early 2000s was weak there is plenty direct evidence of that. My point is in a rebuttal to the federer extremists who claim that the fact that Roger winning matches against the other top 4 or "quote putting bagels" on people shows that this era is not strong. Things like when they say a 31 year old, passed his prime federer is Novak's only challenge. That is my main point in bringing up Agassi. To expose their hypocrisy.

There is no weekly ranking, there's a ranking that reflects the previous 12 months. And Jimmy was riding high at an old age.

What does it prove? These are the questions you should be easily able to answer as you apparantly believe you have logical methods to divine era strength.

by socal1976 Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:17 pm

I don't know what your point is most of the games greats Fed included bring their A game to the slams. Pete Sampras was a different player at the USO and wimby than he was lets say at some random Masters event. Same thing with Roger. So what does these two different Rafa's tell us Tenez? I'd be interested to know. By the way Nadal probably puts in more effort and in the second tier Masters events than Roger and most other great champions ever did.

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:19 pm

No idea why longevity is not being factored in here. Melzer as a 30 year old broke the top 10 last year. Fish at 30 is in the top 10. This must be a sign of fragility in this era.

by Tenez Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:22 pm

socal1976 wrote: By the way Nadal probably puts in more effort and in the second tier Masters events than Roger and most other great champions ever did.

Yes right..." I made the effort to reach the Tokyo's final, I lead a set up but ...oh no...I feel tired suddenly.....I'll give the last 9 games to Murray" or "I could win the Masters but I'd rather have a bagel instead served by the Swiss Master".

Pete won 5 Masters!

by socal1976 Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:22 pm

BB, I think I explained the Connors phenomenon. Besides, Agassi isn't the main thrust of my argument as to why the weaker era was weak. I only use that story to rebutt people like you and Tenez who keep mentioning how way passed his prime Roger is still #3 or winning at a high level to discredit the current era. If anything, Connors being good till his late 30s makes my point that a great legend can still be effective into his thirties and that this isn't a reflection of the current crop being weak, it makes my point even stronger.

The reason that the weaker era guys were weaker isn't because Andre was still around, Rosewall, Connors and Sampras all had success into their 30s. The reason the weaker era guys are weaker is they never consistently attained grandslam success. Not to the level of guys that came before them or after them. Even before the rise of big bad Roger.

by socal1976 Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:25 pm

legendkillar wrote:No idea why longevity is not being factored in here. Melzer as a 30 year old broke the top 10 last year. Fish at 30 is in the top 10. This must be a sign of fragility in this era.

See my posts on Connors, Agassi etc. And how many grandslams have been decided on the racquets of Mardy fish and juergen melzer. Fish by the way was always the more talented of the two players between himself and Roddick. But in the early part of his career he was overweight, didn't have good movement and had difficulty even finishing an entire season. He lost 30 pounds and what do you know had the best year of his career. All Fish proves is that if you lose 30 pounds when you are a tall and heavy framed guy well that might help your tennis game.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:32 pm

The era may be strong again should Dolgo, Haase and Bellucci get their act together and force out minnows like Fish and Berdych... Smile

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:33 pm

socal1976 wrote:
legendkillar wrote:No idea why longevity is not being factored in here. Melzer as a 30 year old broke the top 10 last year. Fish at 30 is in the top 10. This must be a sign of fragility in this era.

See my posts on Connors, Agassi etc. And how many grandslams have been decided on the racquets of Mardy fish and juergen melzer. Fish by the way was always the more talented of the two players between himself and Roddick. But in the early part of his career he was overweight, didn't have good movement and had difficulty even finishing an entire season. He lost 30 pounds and what do you know had the best year of his career. All Fish proves is that if you lose 30 pounds when you are a tall and heavy framed guy well that might help your tennis game.

That has to be the most robotic answer ever!

Maybe I should drop 30lbs and break the top 10.

Fish is not as talented as Roddick. 1 Slam and 10 years in the top 10 will suggest that.

Mardy has improved his serve and certainly looks stronger on the BH side. Nothing majorly a weight shift changes completely.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:34 pm

socal1976 wrote:
legendkillar wrote:No idea why longevity is not being factored in here. Melzer as a 30 year old broke the top 10 last year. Fish at 30 is in the top 10. This must be a sign of fragility in this era.

See my posts on Connors, Agassi etc. And how many grandslams have been decided on the racquets of Mardy fish and juergen melzer. Fish by the way was always the more talented of the two players between himself and Roddick. But in the early part of his career he was overweight, didn't have good movement and had difficulty even finishing an entire season. He lost 30 pounds and what do you know had the best year of his career. All Fish proves is that if you lose 30 pounds when you are a tall and heavy framed guy well that might help your tennis game.

Not necessarily...chubby dude like JW Tsonga is still enjoying 6th place in the rankings..

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:35 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
legendkillar wrote:No idea why longevity is not being factored in here. Melzer as a 30 year old broke the top 10 last year. Fish at 30 is in the top 10. This must be a sign of fragility in this era.

See my posts on Connors, Agassi etc. And how many grandslams have been decided on the racquets of Mardy fish and juergen melzer. Fish by the way was always the more talented of the two players between himself and Roddick. But in the early part of his career he was overweight, didn't have good movement and had difficulty even finishing an entire season. He lost 30 pounds and what do you know had the best year of his career. All Fish proves is that if you lose 30 pounds when you are a tall and heavy framed guy well that might help your tennis game.
Not necessarily...chubby dude like JW Tsonga is still enjoying 6th place in the rankings..

Murray gained weight and where is he? Whistle

by socal1976 Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:36 pm

Legend, that is my answer can't say that I am satisfied by the answers I get from people on this website, or the last one you just provided. Like I said please tell me how many grandslams have come down to Melzer's racquet?

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:37 pm

socal1976 wrote:Legend, that is my answer can't say that I am satisfied by the answers I get from people on this website, or the last one you just provided. Like I said please tell me how many grandslams have come down to Melzer's racquet?

Are we to include doubles? Because you know what the answer will be....

by amritia3ee Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:00 pm

I think Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are all on drugs. In fact every player to have ever played tennis is on drugs apart from the great Federer.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:15 pm

amritia3ee wrote:I think Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are all on drugs. In fact every player to have ever played tennis is on drugs apart from the great Federer.

Alas, sarcasm in the written word cannot be proven, so technically that's a libellous post against 3 named players.

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:40 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius so when exactly did Nadal started taking drugs? Just before at 17 he thrashed Federer in Miami or after he lost the second time to him in 8 matches before turning 19?

Why do you keeping asking me questions about things I've never said?

Not at all Julius. Since you are a fair minded "Murray fan" who seems level headed about the suspicions Nadal uses drugs, i think perhaps you can be the best judge to tell us in the hypothetical case of the Spaniard using drugs, when exactly he might have started it? I'm guessing on the eve of the Miami meeting against Fed in 2004? Or you have other periods in mind? I await your impartial opinion on this as a "Murray fan"

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:47 pm

Why are Nadall fans always talking about Federer?? Laugh

Sort your head out beginning to sound as bitter as Verdasco.. Very Happy

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:15 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius so when exactly did Nadal started taking drugs? Just before at 17 he thrashed Federer in Miami or after he lost the second time to him in 8 matches before turning 19?

Why do you keeping asking me questions about things I've never said?

Not at all Julius. Since you are a fair minded "Murray fan" who seems level headed about the suspicions Nadal uses drugs, i think perhaps you can be the best judge to tell us in the hypothetical case of the Spaniard using drugs, when exactly he might have started it? I'm guessing on the eve of the Miami meeting against Fed in 2004? Or you have other periods in mind? I await your impartial opinion on this as a "Murray fan"

I have no idea if/when any player uses drugs. Maybe ask someone who has paid more attention to those sorts of things.

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:46 pm

So what are you saying Julius? That you have no idea but open to the thought a player could be using drugs? So then in a hypothetical way, can you enlighten us with your fair minded "Murray fan" opinion how such player will be using drugs. I mean when the player started etc.

Because you wrote this:

"I'm certain some of the people living in my town must have gotten away with criminal offences. But I have no idea who they are, as I have no evidence, so I can't accuse specific people..
JuliusHMarx

So that means you suspect there are offenders so in this case you suspect Nadal could be an offender to but since you have no evidence you cannot accuse him. So now lets say you are allowed to accuse him, can you enlighten us on when he might have started using the drugs?

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:49 pm

How the f*ck have we got from a statement by where Julius says 'he could' suspect people of offences without proof, but 'doesn't' for then for him to have to answer a question whether he suspects Nadal of drug offences?

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:54 pm

No i'm actually asking Julius's fair minded "Murray fans" opinion on this and that is hypothetically assuming Nadal uses drugs. Remember it is "hypothetically".

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:57 pm

Nadal does not do drugs.

There is more proof in the fact he doesn't compared to 'hyperthetical' scenario's he does.

I never understand why people will always look for such an unfounded claim without any evidence to back it up, i.e known urine or blood samples or even hair folical samples.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:01 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:So what are you saying Julius? That you have no idea but open to the thought a player could be using drugs? So then in a hypothetical way, can you enlighten us with your fair minded "Murray fan" opinion how such player will be using drugs. I mean when the player started etc.

Because you wrote this:

"I'm certain some of the people living in my town must have gotten away with criminal offences. But I have no idea who they are, as I have no evidence, so I can't accuse specific people..
JuliusHMarx

So that means you suspect there are offenders so in this case you suspect Nadal could be an offender to but since you have no evidence you cannot accuse him. So now lets say you are allowed to accuse him, can you enlighten us on when he might have started using the drugs?

What on earth are you on about? It stands to reason that the huge rewards involved in being a tennis pro will lead to some players using illegal methods to gain an advantage. It happens in most, if not all sports. It's happened in tennis before. But I have no idea of which players might be involved at the moment and no evidence against any individual player. Nor have I ever suggested any particular player is involved. I don't suspect any player any more than other player. Other posters do have suspicions - ask them about it. Or ask socal - all I did was to agree with what socal had already written before me.
I'm starting to think your Fed obsession in turning on me!

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:07 pm

But Julius,other posters are not as fair minded as you, a "Murray fan". Remember i said hypothetical, if you'll be allowed to accuse any top 10 player for example, who will you accuse? Remember who also has more muscles on his body. Then when exactly would the accuse have started using drugs?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:10 pm

S_A, I'll accuse you of taking drugs, sometime in the last couple of hours!

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:12 pm

That is fine with me. You see it's very easy to accuse someone so you are hypothetically allowed to accuse for example a top 10 player as well. Who will it be? Perhaps muscles and fitness will be a factor?

by legendkillar Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:17 pm

Why do we need to accuse and run the risk of libel? Headscratch

by bogbrush Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:18 pm

socal1976 wrote:BB, I think I explained the Connors phenomenon. Besides, Agassi isn't the main thrust of my argument as to why the weaker era was weak. I only use that story to rebutt people like you and Tenez who keep mentioning how way passed his prime Roger is still #3 or winning at a high level to discredit the current era. If anything, Connors being good till his late 30s makes my point that a great legend can still be effective into his thirties and that this isn't a reflection of the current crop being weak, it makes my point even stronger.

The reason that the weaker era guys were weaker isn't because Andre was still around, Rosewall, Connors and Sampras all had success into their 30s. The reason the weaker era guys are weaker is they never consistently attained grandslam success. Not to the level of guys that came before them or after them. Even before the rise of big bad Roger.

But the guys from #4 downwards today aren't weak because they have a great Slam record?

Er...............

Erm

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:19 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:That is fine with me. You see it's very easy to accuse someone so you are hypothetically allowed to accuse for example a top 10 player as well. Who will it be? Perhaps muscles and fitness will be a factor?

Is this some sort of playground game? If you have something to say, could you do it in an adult manner? It's transparently obvious what you're suggesting, but you're like a puppy hanging on to a trouser leg begging his master to throw a ball.

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:22 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:That is fine with me. You see it's very easy to accuse someone so you are hypothetically allowed to accuse for example a top 10 player as well. Who will it be? Perhaps muscles and fitness will be a factor?

Is this some sort of playground game? If you have something to say, could you do it in an adult manner? It's transparently obvious what you're suggesting, but you're like a puppy hanging on to a trouser leg begging his master to throw a ball.

Of course Julius and the puppy is also seeking answers from the master, a fair minded "Murray fan" on the hypothetical drug users in the top 10 of mens tennis. Is that not adult enough Julius?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:26 pm

Why would I venture a hypothetical answer on something I know very little about? How adult and fair-minded would that be? Perhaps I also should go out and make a citizen's arrest on people I don't like the look of?

You're unbiased and educated - what's your view?

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:30 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would I venture a hypothetical answer on something I know very little about? How adult and fair-minded would that be? Perhaps I also should go out and make a citizen's arrest on people I don't like the look of?

You're unbiased and educated - what's your view?

So Julius you are saying you could arrest people you don't like the look off? What about those look you like? Perhaps shouldn't you be able to hypothetically also point out possible drug offenders in the top 10 based on looks?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:32 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:So Julius you are saying you could arrest people you don't like the look off?

No, I'm saying the exact opposite, obviously.

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:35 pm

I hope he doesn't breed..

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:37 pm

No Julius but you said " Perhaps I also should go out and make a citizen's arrest on people I don't like the look of?" So perhaps given a hypothetical power to arrest, you mind will be made up to arrest people's look you don't like.

So then given such luxury to accuse a top 10 player, how will you go about it? How they look, their fitness or something else? Remember the evidence on TV is how muscular they are and how much running they can do. Surely that is guilty as the word "Guilty" in hypothetical sense?

by bogbrush Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:39 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I hope he doesn't breed..

I wish his parents hadn't..........

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:41 pm

Simple_Analyst wrote:No Julius but you said " Perhaps I also should go out and make a citizen's arrest on people I don't like the look of?" So perhaps given a hypothetical power to arrest, you mind will be made up to arrest people's look you don't like.

So then given such luxury to accuse a top 10 player, how will you go about it?

I'd choose whoever's at Number 7 on the first of every other month.
Or I'd spend a few months researching PED's and their effects, then take blood and urine samples and have them analysed by an independent body.
Seriously, we could go on like this all day. At the moment I'm in a patient and reasonably good mood.

How would you go about it?

by Josiah Maiestas Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:43 pm

So perhaps given a hypothetical power to arrest, you mind will be made up to arrest people's look you don't like.

Would make a change from the soft judiciary system in the west...

by Simple_Analyst Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:45 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Simple_Analyst wrote:No Julius but you said " Perhaps I also should go out and make a citizen's arrest on people I don't like the look of?" So perhaps given a hypothetical power to arrest, you mind will be made up to arrest people's look you don't like.

So then given such luxury to accuse a top 10 player, how will you go about it?

I'd choose whoever's at Number 7 on the first of every other month.
Or I'd spend a few months researching PED's and their effects, then take blood and urine samples and have them analysed by an independent body.Seriously, we could go on like this all day. At the moment I'm in a patient and reasonably good mood.

How would you go about it?

Julius, some "matured" Federer fans have joined us above but they are best left ignore. Back to you.
So don't you think those test are carried out in tennis recently? Since that's what you think you would do, does that imply those are not currently done? Good suggestion though. Perhaps we can put those ina formal letter and send it to the relevant authorities?

But also why will you accuse the Number 7? Will he be muscular, fit and run alot for hours? The perfect profile of a drug offender in tennis?

Oh and how i will go on about it? Waste of time doing all that. Television evidence is conclusive enough. I'll arrest players with the most muscles and those that run alot. Couldn't have been a better evidence than that.

by Sponsored content