Can't See The Wood For The Trees - Can You Overcome Personal Bias?

I contribute on many tennis forums and even take time out to read through some of the posts and threads. Majority of posters and followers of tennis will always have you believe more than anything that they are a fan of the sport. Whether their views reflect is more so based on opinion. Strangely enough in the 90's, there wasn't much for fans to grasp on and that was demonstrated by the lack personal alliance many fans felt towards the top players of that generation. Sampras the winning machine. Looking back and during his time, I am sure he wasn't given the respect and support I felt he deserved. The respect in the smaller dose of course. Many sided with Agassi. Not sure though it was for pure tennis reasons alone. Now Agassi's triumph at Wimbledon in 1992 in time has grown with respect and a disbelief. Maybe because the current state of the game has made people realise when they witnessed the triumph of Agassi in 1992 was special. Conditions. By and large because there is something to compare them with has heightened much reflection and due respect to the achievements. Borg's 6 and 5 at Wimbledon now on reflection seems just un-real and un-achievable. But it happened and found new attention and respect. To those not fortunate to witness these feats first time round have the joy of media which allows them to enjoy such moments in time. Wilander, Becker and Lendl all have had their time and achievements re-visited and have in some ways attracted new praise, but also new criticism. Connors and McEnroe was always held in high esteem because of the tennis and more importantly the personal touch in their rivalry. Poor Laver seemed forgotten in all of this.

Personal bias. Now I have always been partisan. It is in my make up. Buy British and support British whether it be the economy and companies and farms and the people, but also the sport and the athletes. I sat by and followed Henman. Did I believe he could've won Wimbledon? From a skill perspective yes he could've. Mentally he just seemed that bit weaker and that instead of the final push over the finish line with passion and determination, it seemed he was more content to try and flop over the finish line. It was long running joke at the Slams. After 5 days of Wimbledon you could more or less guarantee that only Henman and Rusedski would be left standing. Followng Tim was a torment if you wanted to wish him Slam success. If you wanted to just enjoy the euphoria of following 'Tiger Tim' failure was always something that would come with Tim and was part of the package of supporting him. However, despite his performances I never heard of people trying to position Tim alongside the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Rafter and Kafelnikov in ability or accomplishment.

Times have changed. The new millenium has brought with it change. New conditions and technology has changed the face of tennis. Whilst we have seen new heroes and greats of the game, it has brought with it a new breed of supporter. Take the most successful male player of them all. Roger Federer. Highlighted by many not just from a casual fan perspective, but ex-pro's and others associated in the game acknowledge just what a talent this guy is. So many purred in this man's greatness. He plays the game in a way and style un-matched by those past, present and in the future.

However in this time frame we have witnessed other players reach for the same dizzy heights. Nadal has 11 to his name, Djokovic has 5. Safin and Hewitt won 2 Slams. Roddick, Ferrero, Del Potro and Murray have endured some Slam success. Now this warrants a whole new debate. Based on styles of play. Those who enjoy the Federer magic will often been very highly critical of the other brand of tennis. Lungs and Moonballing are just now tennis is about to some. The thing is however it is difficult for anyone to replicate the style of tennis that a Federer plays. If it was so simple, they would all play like it. There are some however who question the brand that is Nadal. On court shenanigans, questionable off court techniques that maintain his levels of performances, the innuendo's of PR that is Toni Nadal. There are those who think Djokovic is on the same plato as a Federer and is further away from Nadal and is a hybrid talent. I for one don't buy this at all. To me it is clear that Djokovic is cut more from the Nadal cloth than the Federer one. 2 Semi-final victories over Federer does not buy that luxury of comparison with the great man.

Back to Nadal and Federer. The question is who is it more easier to play like? For me if it is easier to play like a Nadal than a Federer, why is it then much more difficult to maintain the standards of the Nadal style compared with the Federer style? There are some things logic can't explain and justification through other sport comparisons warrant no validity to this argument. Those who like and follow Nadal seem to find an extra duty not to just defend him, but also at times to heighten his profile to match or even eclipse Federer. Yes there are stats that can detract slightly from Federer's greatness, but also there are some that do the same for Nadal. Both players are great in their own way.

Murray. The natural successor to Henman. A talent that now had something different that Henman didn't. Talent. This was now a genuine player who could win a Slam. It became a question of not if he can, but when he can. However, we were treated to a new kind of heartbreak. No longer was it a question of so near so far from a Slam final, but now the pain of falling short at the final hurdle. Just like Henman was never going to reach a final, Murray was not going to win that elusive Slam. Many are not fans of the wooden and rather miserable persona that is Andy. Strange given 'Tiger' Tim was every bit toothless and un-charming as a Murray. With his so near yet so far, debates turned to "Is this the guy the best ever not to win a Slam?" in a bid to highlight that Andy was not like the other 90+ in the top 100 who hadn't won a Slam. Arguments pointed to H2H records, ATP titles, Grand Slam peformances. Andy for some reason rightfully deserved to be on the same level as a Federer, as a Nadal, as a Djokovic. Because his ranking determind that. Followers started to adopt the soft and less competitive view on Andy like we did with Tim. He is the best British player. The bigger picture became smaller. Now he is a Slam winner, change in the air has overcome many followers. 1 Slam is nice, but 3 or 4 more is even nicer. The competitive view came back to life and the achievement in itself to win a Slam after 1,000 years was put right back to the back of the queue as there are many more goals to chase.

Do I believe Murray is every bit as good as Federer? No. Is he better than Nadal? No. Is he on par with Djokovic? No. In time these questions and perceptions can change, but it is not a certainty. I don't have the desire to elevate Andy's status despite my personal bias towards him. It is unthinkable and illogical. I think that when some do it with Djokovic. Nowhere near that just yet.

So where to Federer and Nadal stand? One has more titles than the other and one has more H2H victories than the other. If Agassi had a better H2H record against Sampras, how much more difficult would it have been to separate the 2? My personal view is that Federer is still streets ahead of Nadal. However, the competitive view is that 2nd place is not fit for either Federer or Nadal. Logic would say 17 Slams to 11 is no comparison. However the 18-10 H2H record in favour of the player with less Slams is bizarre and must mean that Nadal is better than Federer. It is a debate that will rage on. Their careers almost mirror each other, but for fine and small detail that seperates them.

There is a factor that can change the whole perception. Time. Sampras was just perceived as a one shot wonder. Agassi was the best not to have won 10+ Slams. Borg was that guy who got out before he faded away. Laver was that guy who did the calendar Slam when tennis was still wooden. However time has them reflected in a different light. Sampras, was a fine player to have won the 14 Slams he did. Agassi was so talented to be able to have a game that could challenge serve dominating players and conditions. How Borg managed 6 FO's and Wimbledon's back to back is mindbending given the huge difference in conditions and styles required for the surfaces. How on earth did Laver win 4 Slams in a row. Maybe in time we can find a new respect for today's players who are setting the standards despite our personal bias. Maybe the wood will become more visible in time.

Can You Overcome Personal Bias? -- Yes thank you, can you?

I can and my posts on my favourite player very much determine that

There's no real debate about Federer & Nadal; the h2h is basically all about playing on clay. Rafa is a clay+ supremo; the change in the game has allowed those incredible clay skills to transfer onto other surfaces; if he played on 1990's grass with that equipment he'd struggle to make the quarters, to be honest.

I don't want to denigrate Nadal. Clay hasn't changed in his favour, he'd be doing this ridiculously dominant thing on that surface in any era, my only beef is that it's only the change in the sport that's permitted the career Slam to happen. Borg's achievements, as you say, are more impressive than people think.

Brilliant post legend - wish I had the time and imagination to do justice to it in my response.

A few points - I do think that because singles is one to one combat, the contest means that it actually promotes very partisan support.

Having said that, it is no secret that I am a TMF fan first and foremost, partly because of his lightening fast and different style, and partly because I'm half Swiss and so I divide my patriotic allegiance. While I think, at this point in time, it is true that he is the most successful player ever, and may well be the most gifted, I don't have a problem with acknowledging that Rafa's victory over him at Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 and in the semis in 2012 means that it is difficult to call him the 'greatest of all time'. I am not including the RG victories because Nadal is now, indisputedly, the greatest clay court player in history - it is Nadal trouncing Fed on Fed's turf that tarnishes the latter's legacy a little. Nor will I have any problem, apart from partisan disappointment, if Nadal wins more slams than Fed - I've long thought that was inevitable - for me the latter will still be the greater champion because of the way he has played the game, and I'm talking conduct on court here.

In short, I think Nadal is brilliant - I just don't care for some aspects of his match behaviour or the way Team Nadal conduct themselves - but it doesn't mean that I want to play down his achievements which are immense.

Time does change perception, you're right. It is a shame that the general public was not enamoured of one the greatest players, and certainly the most brilliant and convincing grass court player of them all - Sampras. I always rooted for Agassi, and really it was his perceived personality I guess that I found more engaging.

I suppose the way Agassi played tennis - the bravery in defence and attack from the back of the court is how I interpreted that personality and I was less keen on the clinical despatching of his opponents by Sampras - though I can see that it was almost classical, copybook tennis.

I guess for me I salute the bravery, the derring-do of Fed and Djokovic and I reflect that bit of their game onto their on court personas.

Personal bias is behind everyone's arguments on this board as you get very well legend - and why not, which you also get? It is a discussion forum and a virtual way of talking to fellow enthusiasts as you would in a pub.

When this board becomes very tedious, and in my opinion drives others to boredom and away, is when people start talking about analysis and proving points - it would be much livelier and more fun if we could all accept a bit of rousing debate and very different biases.

You only have to trawl the history of this forum to see that.

bogbrush wrote:There's no real debate about Federer & Nadal; the h2h is basically all about playing on clay. Rafa is a clay+ supremo; the change in the game has allowed those incredible clay skills to transfer onto other surfaces; if he played on 1990's grass with that equipment he'd struggle to make the quarters, to be honest.

I don't want to denigrate Nadal. Clay hasn't changed in his favour, he'd be doing this ridiculously dominant thing on that surface in any era, my only beef is that it's only the change in the sport that's permitted the career Slam to happen. Borg's achievements, as you say, are more impressive than people think.

Unfortunately there is a debate with Federer and Nadal. That is my humble opinion. I think there are things that can be compared, the finer details, though it is down to what statistic holds more value. For me it is the Slam count, though others may choose a different stat to warrant their view. Yes I agree Nadal would struggle on 1990's Grass, though I think the element of that debate has can of worms written all over it.

I agree that surface tinkering has led to greater opportunities of players achieving a calendar Slam and even the Career Grand Slam. I agree that Borg's achievement goes un-noticed. I think if many fans had the luxury of witnessing conditions in the 70's/80's would for sure find a new respect for Borg being able to transfer the necessary skill and style in a short space of time to win back to back FO's/Wimbledon.

I do believe the Nadal/Federer debate will rage on. It would certainly gain more momentum is Nadal wins more Slams off clay, though at this moment it is looking less likely to happen.

This is a very good article LK
I think you are quite unbiased when talking Murray, I have seen you both very critical and in praise of him.

bogbrush wrote: the h2h is basically all about playing on clay.

Nadal leads the H2H two-fold on outdoor hard.

bogbrush wrote:
Rafa is a clay+ supremo; the change in the game has allowed those incredible clay skills to transfer onto other surfaces; if he played on 1990's grass with that equipment he'd struggle to make the quarters, to be honest.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' surface speed. Different people have different tastes over which surfaces they like. Would Sampras have won on this grass? Probably not.
Does that make his wins on grass invalid? No.
Would Nadal have even won a slam if the racket technology was of 1950s and 1960s? Would Rod Laver have won a slam if in his era the racket technology was the one used today? Probably not.
However I do accept that it is easier to win a Career Grand Slam in this era as the surfaces are more similar, I even mentioned this in my homogenisation article a few months ago.

I agree legend that there has to be a debate about Federer and Nadal. I think it is a shame that they both didn't meet earlier on a fast hard court at a slam because the clay victories boosted Rafa's confidence and put questions in Fed's mind - a dynamic that is apparent whenever they play.

Would Nadal eventually have found a way to win over Fed at a fast hard court slam? Yes, I believe he would because it was obvious from Wimbledon 2007 that he was going to take it to Fed on other surfaces than clay - acknowleged by Fed himself when he declared himself very glad to win 07 before 'Rafa wins them all'. However, the confidence from accumulating a few more wins would be there in the muscle memory of Fed when they met, just as they are when he meets Novak.

Imo, of course

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Unfortunately there is a debate with Federer and Nadal. That is my humble opinion.

LK, this is breakdown of Federer's slam final opponents (I posted it earlier, so apologies if you have already noticed it):
A breakdown of the players Federer has had to face in Grand Slam Finals:

41%- Players not even ranked in the top 4 at the time.
-Of the 10 wins against top 4 players, 40% were against players 21 and under (very young to be playing a Grand Slam Final!)

Altogether:
-Only 35% of his Grand Slam Final opponents were above the age of 21 and in the top 4 at the time.
-Without Andy Roddick (who relied largely on his serve), only 17.5% of Grand Slam Finals Federer played were against top 4 players above the age of 21.

time please wrote:I agree legend that there has to be a debate about Federer and Nadal. I think it is a shame that they both didn't meet earlier on a fast hard court at a slam because the clay victories boosted Rafa's confidence and put questions in Fed's mind - a dynamic that is apparent whenever they play.

Well luckily, their first matches was on a fast outdoor hard surface

Thanks TP and IMBL

Or amritia......

Both Federer and Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Uncle Tom Cobley and All met the other most successful player of the tournament in 100% of Grand Slam finals.

You can't describe sporting brilliance or an inspired performance by just quoting statistics - that is not what sporting contest is meant to be about. In fact it is against the very spirit of competition in my opinion. A match between No 1 and No 26 might very well be a more exciting and nail biting event than one between No 3 and No 4. Statistics don't show how various match ups can produce upsets and spills, or inspiring audacious shots or how two elite performers games might actually not match up well to produce a good performance from either.

If it is all about a numbers game - what is the point of watching, and where is the thrill?

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote: the h2h is basically all about playing on clay.

Nadal leads the H2H two-fold on outdoor hard.

bogbrush wrote:
Rafa is a clay+ supremo; the change in the game has allowed those incredible clay skills to transfer onto other surfaces; if he played on 1990's grass with that equipment he'd struggle to make the quarters, to be honest.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' surface speed. Different people have different tastes over which surfaces they like. Would Sampras have won on this grass? Probably not.
Does that make his wins on grass invalid? No.
Would Nadal have even won a slam if the racket technology was of 1950s and 1960s? Would Rod Laver have won a slam if in his era the racket technology was the one used today? Probably not.
However I do accept that it is easier to win a Career Grand Slam in this era as the surfaces are more similar, I even mentioned this in my homogenisation article a few months ago.

I think BB's point about Nadal and other surfaces and generations is based on the transfer of skill and talent. The question that could be raised would be how many FO titles could Federer have won in any generation? The Sampras v Federer 2001 Wimbledon encounter held so many feathers for the Federer cap. He defeated Pete who was regarded as the best player on Grass with his own racquet and strings. The debate does rage however how past his pomp was Pete even though he was 29 and still had a Slam left in him before he walked away. However, could've Federer won on Grass with the same tools as the field at the time? A one time win over Pete does not mean that Federer could conquer all as there were faster servers than Pete, but also some more accomplished volleyers too.

Nadal unfortunately never had the luxury of playing the greatest clay courter in Borg before his run of success. The closest may have been Kuerten, though again many would argue whether he would've been at his peak. This is unfortunate and had Borg and Nadal had the opportunity to meet in their pomp may have altered the view on Nadal and his ability and talent. Also the fact that Clay is the one surface out the 3 that hasn't massively changed over the years will hold the view it is the easier surface to play say compared with Grass. Nadal was fed a diet of Clay in his development like Federer was, yet Federer has been able to transfer his talent to other surfaces and has a very consitent Clay record. Look at Murray. Trained on Clay and can't win a title on it for taffy!!

Nadal has won Wimbledon and also won the USO and AO. No-one will despute that or take it away from him. The question is on quicker surfaces, could he achieve Slam success, but also the consistency too? It would take a brave person to rule out the conception entirely.

It Must Be Love wrote:

time please wrote:I agree legend that there has to be a debate about Federer and Nadal. I think it is a shame that they both didn't meet earlier on a fast hard court at a slam because the clay victories boosted Rafa's confidence and put questions in Fed's mind - a dynamic that is apparent whenever they play.

Well luckily, their first matches was on a fast outdoor hard surface

Yes I know - but I was talking about slams which present a different challenge in many ways.

I was musing about might have beens and might not have beens (conversation), but I see personal bias and pin point analysis (yawn) and sticking rigidly to the only point you want to make is alive and well in you. I am in awe of your single mindedness sometimes

How interesting that you ignore my second paragraph which says that I believe Rafa would have found a way to beat Fed on a fast hard court in time at a major - how silly to pounce on the opening paragraph to make a completely redundant point

legendkillarV2 wrote: The question is on quicker surfaces, could he achieve Slam success, but also the consistency too? It would take a brave person to rule out the conception entirely.

If the surfaces were faster I would not be surprised if Nadal adapted to it very well, with the help of Uncle Toni.
If you look @ the matches Miami 2004 (bt Federer), Miami 2005 (lost to Federer in 5 sets), Dubai 2006 (bt Federer); you can see Nadal playing fantastic attacking tennis on fast hard court surface.
As for consistency, even as a Nadal fan I must say: NO.
I don't it's possible for any top player to have the same consistency in terms of results on fast surfaces, as big servers could blow you away and leave you with a little window to do anything. Roger actually made this point at the FO this year, in an interview with Wilander he said consistency on faster surfaces is very hard if you come across a huge server.

Time Please, you read too much into everything
I wasn't pouncing on you at all

Poor old Laver indeed.

Imagine though if you stripped the modern players of their major weapon and asked them to play the maestro in his prime with a wooden racket. For all their athleticism and power most, with the possible exception of Federer, would be clueless. Yes, of course, you can argue that role reversal would equally show Laver to be too slow and easily overpowered by the modern giants but he was indisputedly the very best of his generation.

The fact that tennis has moved on doesn't dilute or diminish his achievements in any way as far as I'm concerned. A genius remains a genius whatever advancements the game has made. Any beliefs to the contrary indeed would be a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Newballs

good read LK.

What was the point of the article btw?

C'mon boys and girls, Nadal is at risk of being surpassed by Djokovic so are we going to say that Djokovic > Nadal > Federer?

It's the Slams, the weeks @ #1, and followed by masters titles (and let's just call a TMC a "big Masters" if it's not a Slam) that sorts this out. It's Federer all the way. I go along with newballs on laver, people forget him giving Borg and Connors good matches when he was approaching 40.

It Must Be Love wrote:Time Please, you read too much into everything
I wasn't pouncing on you at all

It's possible that I do - but actually I didn't think you were pouncing on me, but you 'pounced' on the first sentence because you felt it posed a question about Nadal's prominence over Federer, when in actual fact my second said something else altogether.

To get back to legend's OP,I am perhaps demonstrating that in certain cases, I find it impossible to put aside personal bias

newballs wrote:Poor old Laver indeed.

Imagine though if you stripped the modern players of their major weapon and asked them to play the maestro in his prime with a wooden racket. For all their athleticism and power most, with the possible exception of Federer, would be clueless. Yes, of course, you can argue that role reversal would equally show Laver to be too slow and easily overpowered by the modern giants but he was indisputedly the very best of his generation.

The fact that tennis has moved on doesn't dilute or diminish his achievements in any way as far as I'm concerned. A genius remains a genius whatever advancements the game has made. Any beliefs to the contrary indeed would be a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

I think the fact that Laver is often overlooked, or more correctly not given his full due, on tennis forums is actually more about the average age span of posters participating in discussion. I don't remember ever seeing Laver play because I would have been much too small and therefore I can't fully appreciate the excitement of watching him play whereas I have vivid memories of Borg and an epic semi with Geraulitis and two nail biting finals with McEnroe.

I do think that since Sampras won 14 slams, which felt extraordinary when the great Borg retired on 11, that undue significance was placed on the statistics game, especially when Federer took off after AO 2004 and posed a real challenge to that record, and when Nadal began to amass titles and to look to threaten Fed's record in turn. As Federer recently said, and I'm paraphrasing here ' those earlier guys looked just to win the tournament not to beat the record books all the time' I think it is a press obsession - but in reality Sampras's 14 slams had many snoozing through them because of his clinical play, and because he was not the most pre possessing character on court - how much more people talk about John McEnroe's (was it 7) titles, half the number of Pete's - which really demonstrates that statistics and numbers are only a small part of sporting immortality.

bogbrush wrote:C'mon boys and girls, Nadal is at risk of being surpassed by Djokovic so are we going to say that Djokovic > Nadal > Federer?

It's the Slams, the weeks @ #1, and followed by masters titles (and let's just call a TMC a "big Masters" if it's not a Slam) that sorts this out. It's Federer all the way. I go along with newballs on laver, people forget him giving Borg and Connors good matches when he was approaching 40.

Interesting though 6 Slams seperate Djokovic and Nadal and equally Nadal and Djokovic. Questions are who in the equations are most likely to close the gap and also who is more likely to increase the daylight between their nearest rival

Laver is so under-rated. I recall the the gushing interview Big Mac gave on the Rocket and it seems that even past greats pay homage to the man who really set the standards for the modern game and the pro era.

What a thoughtful piece legendkillarV2.

I'm always interested in why we should care so much about millionaires hitting a ball over a net. But maybe the interest is sometimes tied up with what you describe as "personal bias" making it difficult to have one without the other. When watching any sporting event it's always more fun if you mentally take sides and even more fun if the side you have chosen wins. For you choosing sides is clear cut as you describe how you always choose "British". This is as good a reason as any for choosing who to empathise with but not the only reason especially in an individual sport such as tennis.

What makes the Federer Nadal rivalry a topic for such heated "debate" is that they attract so many fans not for nationalistic reasons but for their sheer talent and playing styles. Because their styles and to a certain extent their personalities are so different they are particularly divisive in terms of who will choose to support them. Two highly talented players with differing playing styles and divided fan bases is the recipe for an exceptional rivalry. Playing a few good matches also helpps. Both have credentials that could be used to argue who is the best. Who is the best? Well that's what fuels the endless speculation.

I always feel I'm a little less biased than most when assessing the two players (Ha ha! Doesn't everyone) because I love watching both play and from this distance they both appear to be "nice" people (whatever that means). I can remember seeing Federer for the first time and thinking "wow" but until Nadal came along it wasn't really that interesting although it was very pretty... Federer was clearly the best and it was only when he was challenged by Nadal that there was a contest.

I do think that since Sampras won 14 slams, which felt extraordinary when the great Borg retired on 11, that undue significance was placed on the statistics game, especially when Federer took off after AO 2004 and posed a real challenge to that record, and when Nadal began to amass titles and to look to threaten Fed's record in turn. As Federer recently said, and I'm paraphrasing here ' those earlier guys looked just to win the tournament not to beat the record books all the time' I think it is a press obsession - but in reality Sampras's 14 slams had many snoozing through them because of his clinical play, and because he was not the most pre possessing character on court - how much more people talk about John McEnroe's (was it 7) titles, half the number of Pete's - which really demonstrates that statistics and numbers are only a small part of sporting immortality.

I still think prior to the Fed Express domination of the game made it quite difficult to call between Sampras on 14 and Borg on 11. Neither achieved a Career Grand Slam and thus made a very good and less intense debate. New fans never saw much of Borg and it was almost a gimmie that Pete was the greatest to an extent. I remember when he had that retirement speech at the US Open 2003 and McEnroe feeling that Sampras was much more the player than Borg. I think Pete kicking a past it McEnroe's arss was a much more different comparison to say a pomp McEnroe taking Borg to the absolute limit in their matches.

Borg was very much the benchmark until Pete came along and threw the debate out even further.

Now we have Federer and Nadal and right now the books and criteria for the greatest has truly been re-written and the standards so high that it will take a superhuman effort for someone to get near their respective achievements and standards. Can the books be re-written after Federer and Nadal? Possibly not. Even as Murray fan like me, it is annoying that sometimes the whole "any other era he would have more Slams to his name" be-littling of past greats. There is nothing that would suggest he could beat past multi-slam winning greats on the big stage. My position is that Andy is a fine player and for his achievements it is good he has had a share in some of the spoils. The only thing he needs to do is win more of those Slams and then maybe he can position himself on a top 20 list of the greats in the mens game.

What makes the Federer Nadal rivalry a topic for such heated "debate" is that they attract so many fans not for nationalistic reasons but for their sheer talent and playing styles. Because their styles and to a certain extent their personalities are so different they are particularly divisive in terms of who will choose to support them. Two highly talented players with differing playing styles and divided fan bases is the recipe for an exceptional rivalry. Playing a few good matches also helpps. Both have credentials that could be used to argue who is the best. Who is the best? Well that's what fuels the endless speculation.

I have to say HE when I read this I thought "I could forgive all the anti-andy threads and Slams are becoming less important threads" and for a few seconds I thought you turned the corner.

Then I read........

I always feel I'm a little less biased than most when assessing the two players

And now we are back at square one

thanks for an interesting thread legend - this place has been very morgue like recently with fewer posters around and no-one introducing a meaty topic for discussion - for my part, I had no inspiration or imagination to start one!

It was a good to have a great read before Xmas. See you all in 2013 - very Merry Christmas to all forum members, and a Happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to one and all!

Nice thread LK. Yes, I feel as though I can account for personal bias when posting. Or, at least, I hope so! I do my best to appreciate the skills and records set by all players. Who honestly cares that I enjoy watching ___ more than ___, or think that ___ is the greater player? It's my own personal enjoyment of the game, something unique to me; whilst it informs my opinions, I'd feel bad if I started denigrating the achievements of these fantastic players just to further some sort of agenda. I do think a lot of people deliberately try and stoke things up forums in general, and whilst debate is good, there's a whole lot of needless mud-slinging that goes on. Someone preferring a different player to your favourite doesn't mean it's a personal affront!

That said, it's not too bad on this forum, we've got a good bunch of people who all seem pretty passionate about the sport itself. On that note, Merry Christmas to everyone if I don't post again due to considerable quaffing of champagne

You can slice the stats any which way, in the end you like what you like,
thats why you have idols like jimmy white in the snooker... who despite the stats saying it should have all been about hendry, and maybe a bit more relevant, guys like marat safin. Personal bias is not a bad thing, were not robots, being passionate about one team or sportsman is what makes it exciting, there's no need to overcome it.
Ok if you anna decide whos the GOAT (in a proper manner, using analysis and statistics) then fair enough, but then does the GOAT really matter? you like who you like and you need give NO explanation to justify yourself.

Personal bias only becomes a problem when your bias causes you to hate or have a go at another player. Being passionate towards a player is fine, but when that makes you actively dislike their rival or those who support their rival is where loads of people go wrong, myself included.

I used to dislike Federer, i was all Nadal. It was only as i got older that I realised what had gone wrong, now I can sit down and watch Fed and appreciate his match without venomously wanting him to lose, sure I might be supporting his opponent sometimes, but I can enjoy the match, and ive enjoyed tennis far more since.

Falzy, interesting and well written post

Personally Im not sure I've had a big problem with this as I consider myself relatively unbiased.

Some people say Im a bit of a Federer fan, but I think these allegations are quite unfair as my motto has always been to be as impartial as possible.

please tell me you are kidding

Sorry I forgot, to answer the question who is it easier to teach to play like, Nadal or Fed?
It partly depends on which Nadal you're talking about, the 05 and 06 almost completely defensive dirt rat (no offensive intended in that name)? Or the all rounded player hes developed himself into? Assuming the latter they're both extremely hard.
Federers poise and balance, along with his attacking, accuracy based game aiming to get to net, could be taught with enough practice of course, Dimitrov's a good example of a sort of watered down Fed. What you couldn't teach is Federers concentration or his instinct, that comes down to whether youve got the talent, along with his dedication to the job.

You could prolly get balls back and hit with high topspin like nadal if you put the physical work in. Though hitting a ball with that much revs on it that hard and staying almost totally consistent is no easy feat despite what people say about his forehand, and that's before you even think about using it offensively with the acute angles.
Plus i dont know how you could ever teach the mental fortitude and the patience you'd need.

Tennis lends itself more to bias than almost any other individual sport you care to think of. It is one of the most gladiatorial sports I can think of, and we have plenty of time to watch the faces of the players between points. I try to be fair, but I'm not going to kid myself that I am objective.

I have always preferred attacking players who are looking to shorten rallies and come into the net over others. I can appreciate that Nadal is a very fine player, but I don't like him as a player and I'm not afraid to admit that an element of that is the fact that he has pee'd on the bonfire of my favourite player so many times. Having said that, I well appreciate that Nadal's presence has added hugely to the drama of Fed's career, and even introduced a bit of pathos, so he has added immeasurably to the rich tapestry and all that.

Where I draw the line is speculating about what these guys are like as people - we don't know and I don't care. I am only interested in their conduct on the court and, to a lesser extent, their conduct in and around tennis whilst off the court.

I think that sums up how I feel too barry, very well. We impart on sorts of emotions and character traits on to the players when we get drawn into which one we support in a match - it's part of giving our allegiance even if it is only for the duration of that one contest.

As far as what any of the players is really like as a person - we 'know' what their very well oiled publicity machines would like us to think. (Exception of course being Murray, who was left to his own mistakes - sometimes very unfortunately for him!)