Whoa is me, the Raodal effect goes prime time on the pages of the NY times and Guardian

We have heard much derisive laughter resembling the inane giggling of school girls about my proposition that a nearly 5 day gap in Novak's french open may have impacted his preparation and performance in the FO 2011. The legendary Fogninni effect. Well what is this I see, many critics and sports writers are making a Raodal effect argument. Now it seems that a lot of people are thinking that "too much rest" in the middle of a tournament can disrupt a player's timing. Not to mention the massive additional streak related pressure faced by Novak during the french, which if Foggy shows up he ties the record against him and doesn't have the added pressure in the Roger match.

From the pages of the whitelady the NY Times:

Murray might have battled some rust early on because he had three matches and two walkovers to get to the final. His semifinal opponent, Rafael Nadal, withdrew from their match Friday with a knee injury.

Murray, playing his first match since Wednesday, finally found his groove in the second set and forced some long rallies.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/sports/tennis/djokovic-beats-murray-in-sony-ericsson-tennis-final.html

Or from the pages of the guardian:

Murray had also enjoyed a comfortable week in the Miami sun after he was handed two byes en route to the final, most notably when Rafael Nadal pulled out of their semi-final before they walked on to court. That may have left Murray slight rusty, however, as Djokovic took control in a dominant opening set.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/01/andy-murray-novak-djokovic-miami?newsfeed=true

Are you justifying your Fognini theory based on these?

You do realise that Slams have alternate day breaks in the early rounds.

In the first set Djokovic saved 1 BP, while Andy did not even create one in the second set. Was Andy really rusty in the first set?

"I didn't return well today, which is normally one of the best parts of my game. That was the difference, in my opinion," said Murray. "[I was] not getting into enough of his service games because I missed too many returns. If I was able to get into more longer rallies on his service games, then maybe it would have been a different result in the second set."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/03/13/Djokovic-Wins-Third-Miami-Crown.aspx

No Laverfan I am just wondering why well respected media organizations are making the same arguments that produced the ire of a certain faction on this site. I thought it was a crime against man and nature to claim that too much rest in the middle of tournament could hurt someone's performance, it doesn't seem like that concept is as odd as some have made it.

Ha ha! This could become a new tactic. Players will be giving walkovers all the time. That will beat them!

A walkover is a gift. Murray was in the final having played only 3 matches. He was given an opportunity that he may not have had (if his opponants hadn't given him walkovers) to win the whole thing. He also has 600 ranking points in the bank.

600 ranking points gained so easily is a gift. This is more points than you get for winning Rotterdam or Doha. More than twice as many points as you get for winning Doha, Queens or Halle. 600 ranking points puts you at number 95 in the world! Well known players only have around 600 ranking points (Mahut 604, Gulbis 660, Garcia Lopez.. who beat Murray last week 661)

socal1976 wrote:No Laverfan I am just wondering why well respected media organizations are making the same arguments that produced the ire of a certain faction on this site. I thought it was a crime against man and nature to claim that too much rest in the middle of tournament could hurt someone's performance, it doesn't seem like that concept is as odd as some have made it.

I afraid it was idiocy when you posted it a year ago and it's still idiocy now. Just because some useful idiots have arrived to join the club doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Thanks BB I can always rely on you for a good unsupported and opinionated post. I just wonder are you going to be attacking the murray fans who made the same argument about Murray's rustiness in Miami? Considering what was going on with the streak in FO 2011 my argument is looking stronger and stronger.

socal1976 wrote:Thanks BB I can always rely on you for a good unsupported and opinionated post. I just wonder are you going to be attacking the murray fans who made the same argument about Murray's rustiness in Miami? Considering what was going on with the streak in FO 2011 my argument is looking stronger and stronger.

Any Murray fan saying that will be joining you in the idiots box. I suspect you may not be so supported as you hope, they have a bit more sense on the whole.

By the way, I see you've switched back to taking it seriously. Every now and then you try to claim it was an elaborate joke, which while not being honest has at least the advantage of good jdgement. I see you've relapsed.

Actually on this very site Dany and Reckoner made the same argument, I even pointed it out and was waiting for you to warm up the torches, sharpen the pitch forks, for the impending assault of your sophmoric wit. Novak has a much stronger case especially in light of the streak issue that was taking place at the time.

PS Fogninniiii give me back my 4th slam.

socal1976 wrote:Actually on this very site Dany and Reckoner made the same argument, I even pointed it out and was waiting for you to warm up the torches, sharpen the pitch forks, for the impending assault of your sophmoric wit. Novak has a much stronger case especially in light of the streak issue that was taking place at the time.

PS Fogninniiii give me back my 4th slam.

Then they were acting as fools.

Murray had a couple of warm up matches, plenty of rest and the opportunity to prepare thoroughly. To pretend that a professional is somehow impeded by missing a match or two is to say that the man is incompetent, which for the #4 would be a big thing.

It's more about fanboys trying to explain away their hero's defeat rather than taking it on the chin because, on the day, he wasn't good enough. I'm sure when they wake up today they'll accept that.

why well respected media organizations

NY Times well respected?

Sarcasm at its peak. He lost because he was playing a different Djokovic to the one that turned up in Dubai and its unlikely he will ever beat a Djokovic who serves and returns like he can on his good days.

JM, won't get an argument out of me if Novak hits 70 percent on his 1st serve percentage there aren't too many people that can hang with him. Novak is clearly the better player. My point is not that Murray would have won if he had more match play, he would have lost to Novak serving that well regardless. My point is that people use the same logic that I used, but when I used that logic a certain segment of individuals took it to be ridiculous and turn it into their moronic battle cry. By the way Novak's situation was much worse as if Foggy showed up he would have tied the all time win record against Foggy and not had that added pressure in the fed match. Of course Novak is better than Andy and the rustiness if there was any wasn't determinative, but it can possibly effect your performance. The "too much" rest in the middle of tournament argument isn't as crazy as some would like to believe that is my point.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

why well respected media organizations

NY Times well respected?

Sarcasm at its peak. He lost because he was playing a different Djokovic to the one that turned up in Dubai and its unlikely he will ever beat a Djokovic who serves and returns like he can on his good days.

Exactly. It's quite funny that people who have been watching tennis for long, can't still see that tennis is a game of 2 players.

Lets face facts, its the preserve of desperate fanboys.

Murray lost fair and square. Djokovic was beaten fair and square. Both men appeared able to handle that maturely without need to resort to absurd theories.

bogbrush wrote:Lets face facts, its the preserve of desperate fanboys.

Murray lost fair and square. Djokovic was beaten fair and square. Both men appeared able to handle that maturely without need to resort to absurd theories.

That is right any time Roger wins he wins fair square when he loses it is because of a vast global conspiracy to slow down courts which allow his mule like contemporaries to out last the thoroughbred. Welcome to the desperate fanboy club.

No doubt Murray lost fair and square and in this particular case the walkovers did not figure in the result, I was just pointing out the fact that my logic seems not to be as radical as you claim.

So let me get this right..... you think the people argueing Murray was impeded are wrong, but you think this validates your similar opinion over Djokovic.

This seems to be the "safety in numbers" argument applied to stupid excuses for defeats.

As for Federer - and you do seem to like him being in every thread don't you? - I think the evidence of his superiority on faster courts is now pretty much conclusive even as he approaches 31. That the courts have slowed is also fairly broadly agreed. It seems logical to put the two together and conclude that tennis history changed as the courts were slowed. Nothing controversial there.

No BB, what I am arguing is that in this case it was not match determinative. Although it is possible in certain scenarios for someone to get too much rest, tennis is a timing game and little breaks in the pattern can result in a loss of sharpness. Nothing controversial about saying that even a murray with no rustiness would lose to the world number 1 hitting 70 percent of his first serves.

socal1976 wrote:No BB, what I am arguing is that in this case it was not match determinative. Although it is possible in certain scenarios for someone to get too much rest, tennis is a timing game and little breaks in the pattern can result in a loss of sharpness. Nothing controversial about saying that even a murray with no rustiness would lose to the world number 1 hitting 70 percent of his first serves.

Ah, so when it would undermine a Djokovic victory it's rubbish, but if it explains a Djokovic defeat it's fine.

Yes, I fully understand your argument.

Wrong again BB, I have stated numerous times that Novak could have played well and still lost the match to fed because of how well he played, but I know that the layoff and the streak impacted him in the first two sets in which he didn't play well. So it is debatable even in FO Semi of 2011 that the rustiness was determinative. But it is a stronger case than in this match. Novak played great in sets 3 and 4 and still lost to fed but the match really tighetened later on and i think it had a lot to do with Novak working off some rustiness and pressure. It can be a factor, however in both cases I actually don't know and couldn't tell you how big a factor or that if it was or wasn't determinative of the result.

And you talk about "Fedophile extremists".....

The terms pot, kettle and black come to mind for me.

socal1976 wrote:Wrong again BB, I have stated numerous times that Novak could have played well and still lost the match to fed because of how well he played, but I know that the layoff and the streak impacted him in the first two sets in which he didn't play well. So it is debatable even in FO Semi of 2011 that the rustiness was determinative. But it is a stronger case than in this match. Novak played great in sets 3 and 4 and still lost to fed but the match really tighetened later on and i think it had a lot to do with Novak working off some rustiness and pressure. It can be a factor, however in both cases I actually don't know and couldn't tell you how big a factor or that if it was or wasn't determinative of the result.

So, in summary, yes, it does work the way I indicated.

Exactly as anticipated.

Hang on a minute. I said that Murray was not in good form and not getting enough opportunities to play himself into form because of these walkovers. I did not say having a walkover in a tournament is a disadvantage. Stop misquoting me socal.

And Bogbrush, calling people fools based on such flimsy second hand info is pretty foolish in itself.

reckoner wrote:Hang on a minute. I said that Murray was not in good form and not getting enough opportunities to play himself into form because of these walkovers. I did not say having a walkover in a tournament is a disadvantage. Stop misquoting me socal.

And Bogbrush, calling people fools based on such flimsy second hand info is pretty foolish in itself.

Check out my exact quotes;

I say that "any" fan using this argument is a fool, not these fans are foola. My statement is phrased conditionally on socals statement that some Murray fans were saying the same as him.

By distancing yourself from it you automatically are separated from that judgement, much as I said I suspected most Murray fans would (see post at 9.09).

bogbrush wrote:

reckoner wrote:Hang on a minute. I said that Murray was not in good form and not getting enough opportunities to play himself into form because of these walkovers. I did not say having a walkover in a tournament is a disadvantage. Stop misquoting me socal.

And Bogbrush, calling people fools based on such flimsy second hand info is pretty foolish in itself.

Check out my exact quotes;

I say that "any" fan using this argument is a fool, not these fans are foola. My statement is phrased conditionally on socals statement that some Murray fans were saying the same as him.

By distancing yourself from it you automatically are separated from that judgement, much as I said I suspected most Murray fans would (see post at 9.09).

Ok fair enough BB.

Reckoner there is nothing wrong with your argument, the problem here is BB's desire to consider himself the paragon of tennis knowledge and to pass judgements on people.

BB's critique of my points is that Novak quote got "too much rest", which an honest reading of your other post seemed to be suggesting the same thing.

Now BB, of course wants to smooth over his hypocrisy. Many critics after the RG semi said the same thing about the layoff effecting Novak, as many are stating it about Murray. So I don't have any problem with your logic. As we can see it is not as controversial of a position as BB presumes.

socal1976 wrote:Reckoner there is nothing wrong with your argument, the problem here is BB's desire to consider himself the paragon of tennis knowledge and to pass judgements on people.

BB's critique of my points is that Novak quote got "too much rest", which an honest reading of your other post seemed to be suggesting the same thing.

Now BB, of course wants to smooth over his hypocrisy. Many critics after the RG semi said the same thing about the layoff effecting Novak, as many are stating it about Murray. So I don't have any problem with your logic. As we can see it is not as controversial of a position as BB presumes.

Well, I don't want to get involved in your feud, but the way you wind each other up is quite funny. "Paragon" lol

No problem Reckoner. BB is a legendary wind up merchant and unfortunately I feel the need to return the favor to him on occassion. Damn my posts are filled with so many typos, I should really slow down the typing and increase the editting.

if Novak hits 70 percent on his 1st serve percentage there aren't too many people that can hang with him.

high percentage first serve does not make you a good server, he served at 45-50% vs Monaco and still won first set with a bagel.

Didn't Fed have a walkover at Wimbledon one year and then go on to win it????

I didn't see people wringing their hands on the old board when that happened!

Again completely different situation timeplease. You are trying to get a promotion in the ranks of the FAS up from a lowly private I see. Novak had the added pressure of the streak at that time. If Foggy plays he ties Mac's record against him. Instead he had the extra lay off and had to play federer in a match that was for the all time wins record, the #1 ranking, and a final berth at a slam. It upped the pressure and compounded it with a layoff. By the way after Fed's layoff did he play a match against the Goat or did have to beat Nalbandian or something? just curious I really don't know who he played after the layoff match, but wimbeldon wasn't very competitive back then. A couple of years early on Fed could have won the thing playing left handed.

socal1976 wrote:Again completely different situation timeplease. You are trying to get a promotion in the ranks of the FAS up from a lowly private I see

There's no fooling you! psst, how did I do?

I think you do Djokovic a bit of a disservice actually with pursuing this conspiracy theory - he's a lot better and tougher than that.

Socal... If Djokovic was so messed up due to the Fognini walkover, why did he not invite Troicki and Vemic for a practice on his 'walkover' day and get his time on the court?

Are you aware if Djokovic 'practiced' on the w/o day, or just eat gluten-free pizza and lounge in his hotel room?

Fognini withdrew due to injury, so did Nadal in his match against Murray. Federer withdrew in Doha and Tsonga still went on to win Doha. Does it mean Tsonga is a 'better' player than the ATP #1 Djokovic?

I also find it interesting that you use Federer in your arguments to get 'back' against 'extremist' Federer fans.

Touch(A)Parabola wrote:
Fabio Fognini also pulled out. But that should not be the reason what made Federer to beat Nole. In fact, in those situations usually the one who rested more has the advantage. Not the opposite. Federer was better, I have to admit. The sooner you accept it and move on, the better it is.

Socal... I will post this on your thread as well. From a new Djokovic fan.

socal1976 wrote:Again completely different situation timeplease. You are trying to get a promotion in the ranks of the FAS up from a lowly private I see. Novak had the added pressure of the streak at that time. If Foggy plays he ties Mac's record against him. Instead he had the extra lay off and had to play federer in a match that was for the all time wins record, the #1 ranking, and a final berth at a slam. It upped the pressure and compounded it with a layoff. By the way after Fed's layoff did he play a match against the Goat or did have to beat Nalbandian or something? just curious I really don't know who he played after the layoff match, but wimbeldon wasn't very competitive back then. A couple of years early on Fed could have won the thing playing left handed.

Come on time please, haven't you got it yet?

* Murray gets two walkovers, it doesn't matter
* Federer gets walkovers, it's irrelevant
* Djokovic gets them, it's sabotage

It's all so obvious if only you can become totally obsessed with Djokovic.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Again completely different situation timeplease. You are trying to get a promotion in the ranks of the FAS up from a lowly private I see. Novak had the added pressure of the streak at that time. If Foggy plays he ties Mac's record against him. Instead he had the extra lay off and had to play federer in a match that was for the all time wins record, the #1 ranking, and a final berth at a slam. It upped the pressure and compounded it with a layoff. By the way after Fed's layoff did he play a match against the Goat or did have to beat Nalbandian or something? just curious I really don't know who he played after the layoff match, but wimbeldon wasn't very competitive back then. A couple of years early on Fed could have won the thing playing left handed.

Come on time please, haven't you got it yet?

* Murray gets two walkovers, it doesn't matter
* Federer gets walkovers, it's irrelevant
* Djokovic gets them, it's sabotage

It's all so obvious if only you can become totally obsessed with Djokovic.

I understood socal was saying that Murray did not benefit from his walkovers, quite the contrary, so "it doesn't matter" is an inaccurate representation.

And as Federer is a little older, perhaps the extra time would actually help him recover so perhaps one could make the case that it would benefit Fed more than the others?

Yes.. Socal does advocate some bizarre theories.

The draw-rigging thing is another one that springs to mind. Last year he complained that the draws were rigged to put Novak in Fed's half so that the organisers could get a Fedal final.

At the start of this year he modified the theory when Fedal ended up in the same half in AUS. According to that version, a Fedal final has become quite unlikely so they must now be put in the same half to ensure that they meet in a slam.

Then in Dubai he continued with this theme (even though Nadal wasn't actually playing) but added that now Murray is Novak's biggest threat so the draw is being rigged to ensure that Novak is facing Murray in the semis. This will of course make it easier for one of Fedal to eventually win the title (providing Murray can dispatch Novak).

I noticed that he became a little quiet in Miami..



emancipator

ps - apart from the above (and of course the annoying Fed fan extremist references - is Socal now an anti-Fed fan extremist extremist?) he is a very good poster.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Again completely different situation timeplease. You are trying to get a promotion in the ranks of the FAS up from a lowly private I see. Novak had the added pressure of the streak at that time. If Foggy plays he ties Mac's record against him. Instead he had the extra lay off and had to play federer in a match that was for the all time wins record, the #1 ranking, and a final berth at a slam. It upped the pressure and compounded it with a layoff. By the way after Fed's layoff did he play a match against the Goat or did have to beat Nalbandian or something? just curious I really don't know who he played after the layoff match, but wimbeldon wasn't very competitive back then. A couple of years early on Fed could have won the thing playing left handed.

Come on time please, haven't you got it yet?

* Murray gets two walkovers, it doesn't matter
* Federer gets walkovers, it's irrelevant
* Djokovic gets them, it's sabotage

It's all so obvious if only you can become totally obsessed with Djokovic.

I must keep up!

emancipator wrote:

ps - apart from the above (and of course the annoying Fed fan extremist references - is Socal now an anti-Fed fan extremist extremist?) he is a very good poster.

emancipator wrote:Yes.. Socal does advocate some bizarre theories.


ps - apart from the above (and of course the annoying Fed fan extremist references - is Socal now an anti-Fed fan extremist extremist?) he is a very good poster.

That's way I like him too, if I feel a little moody, reading through his theories always manages to cheer me up and bring a smile on my face. Long life to Socal then!

Thank you jeremy a man of impeccable taste. My bizarre theories were all meticulously argued and often statistical and journalistic sources were used to boost my case. My theory sounded bizarre until 2 different statisticians working for ESPN analyzed the USO draw and determined that over the last few years the draw wasn't random and therefore rigged. Are you telling me the manufactured the first couple of rounds but then found religion come the semifinals. Now the reason you keep seeing Fed getting Nadal is because they have realized it is too much of a long shot to play for a fedal final but they can maximize by getting a lot of fedal semis.

socal1976 wrote:Thank you jeremy a man of impeccable taste. My bizarre theories were all meticulously argued and often statistical and journalistic sources were used to boost my case. My theory sounded bizarre until 2 different statisticians working for ESPN analyzed the USO draw and determined that over the last few years the draw wasn't random and therefore rigged. Are you telling me the manufactured the first couple of rounds but then found religion come the semifinals. Now the reason you keep seeing Fed getting Nadal is because they have realized it is too much of a long shot to play for a fedal final but they can maximize by getting a lot of fedal semis.

No, they really didn't. They found probability quirks, I imagine. They are all around us. They're normal.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Again completely different situation timeplease. You are trying to get a promotion in the ranks of the FAS up from a lowly private I see. Novak had the added pressure of the streak at that time. If Foggy plays he ties Mac's record against him. Instead he had the extra lay off and had to play federer in a match that was for the all time wins record, the #1 ranking, and a final berth at a slam. It upped the pressure and compounded it with a layoff. By the way after Fed's layoff did he play a match against the Goat or did have to beat Nalbandian or something? just curious I really don't know who he played after the layoff match, but wimbeldon wasn't very competitive back then. A couple of years early on Fed could have won the thing playing left handed.

Come on time please, haven't you got it yet?

* Murray gets two walkovers, it doesn't matter
* Federer gets walkovers, it's irrelevant
* Djokovic gets them, it's sabotage

It's all so obvious if only you can become totally obsessed with Djokovic.

I could swear BB that you work for the company that writes all the fortunes in fortune cookies. First off you misrepresent my position, I did not say the lack of match time was irrelevant it may have affected murray's performance in a real way. What I said was that even if Murray had played better and had more match time he would have a hard time competing with a Djoko serving 70 percent first serves. Is there something hard for your binary logic mind to understand in that argument? But the foggy incident due to the other things going on at the time, Novak playing for the #1 ranking and the streak was magnified by a specific set of circumstances that did impact Novak's play early in the fed match. I understand that you are white and black thinker and have a great deal of difficulty wrapping your limited neural capabilities around concepts that involve degrees or a case by case analysis of numerous factors. You like your answer provided for you in 2 plus 2 =4 manner so that you can memorize it and look smart. Many things can impact a players performance. Too much match time, too little match time, jet lag, indigestion, a cold bug etc. The 5 day Novak layover in the french compounded with the pressure of playing fed for #1, the streak, and the final all played a role and Novak was way off his form from earlier in the streak especially in sets 1 and 2.


There I have said my piece on the issue.

Fantasy.

socal1976 wrote:Thank you jeremy a man of impeccable taste. My bizarre theories were all meticulously argued and often statistical and journalistic sources were used to boost my case. My theory sounded bizarre until 2 different statisticians working for ESPN analyzed the USO draw and determined that over the last few years the draw wasn't random and therefore rigged. Are you telling me the manufactured the first couple of rounds but then found religion come the semifinals. Now the reason you keep seeing Fed getting Nadal is because they have realized it is too much of a long shot to play for a fedal final but they can maximize by getting a lot of fedal semis.

Soc: sometimes I feel you have a grudge against Fed fans and me in particular, who am the least argumental poster ever......did you have a trauma in your life involving Swiss people or SHBH players??

Don't. Mention. The. Gruyere.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Thank you jeremy a man of impeccable taste. My bizarre theories were all meticulously argued and often statistical and journalistic sources were used to boost my case. My theory sounded bizarre until 2 different statisticians working for ESPN analyzed the USO draw and determined that over the last few years the draw wasn't random and therefore rigged. Are you telling me the manufactured the first couple of rounds but then found religion come the semifinals. Now the reason you keep seeing Fed getting Nadal is because they have realized it is too much of a long shot to play for a fedal final but they can maximize by getting a lot of fedal semis.

Soc: sometimes I feel you have a grudge against Fed fans and me in particular, who am the least argumental poster ever......did you have a trauma in your life involving Swiss people or SHBH players??

No Jeremy, I don't have any animosity against you. I think you make good posts and points. i don't consider you an extreme fan in the least, you are one of the many reasonable fed fans that populate this and other sites. i think when I discuss the extremist faction we pretty much know who I am talking about. No trauma, i spent exactly two days in switzerland and what I saw I really liked. Except it is expensive.