Virginia Wade Calls An Asterisk An Asterisk

First topic message reminder :

Draws opening up, unique opportunities, late development, breaths of fresh air and dawning of new era's. Lots of talk about what Nadal's absence from this years Australian Open means to the tournament. Federer hinted at a word that so far everyone has shied away from when he said that Rafa's absence would create opportunities for other lower ranked players. Davydenko did too when he said Rafa would be missed by the fans but not the players (Ha ha!). But it takes a brave women to actually say the word. Virginia Wade calls an asterisk an asterisk.

You’re perfectly happy to win no matter who the opposition is but it’s more satisfying when everybody is there. It leaves a bit of an asterisk if someone like Nadal isn’t there or he’s lost early. You want to win beating the best players.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2258895/Virginia-Wade-previews-tennis-2013-saying-Andy-Murray-carry-winning.html

Shame there isn't a turd smiley

legendkillarV2 wrote:Shame there isn't a turd smiley

You mean a turd smelly!!

Ha ha! Some of the comments here just prove why not everyone is brave enough to use the * word. I don't think even a (cough) "turd smiley" can make an * disappear completely though. Once there they have a tendency to stick around even if only a few are brave enough to say their name out loud.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! Some of the comments here just prove why not everyone is brave enough to use the * word. I don't think even a (cough) "turd smiley" can make an * disappear completely though. Once there they have a tendency to stick around even if only a few are brave enough to say their name out loud.

Bravery isn't the word I would use................

Luckily I am far too polite to post the actual term I would use.

So are you going to stick your neck out an call any Slam not involving a fit Nadal an *?

Does that include all slams before 2005?

Of course then any without all of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray being fully fit would be * too. Does that leave any slams not *??

carrieg4 wrote:Does that include all slams before 2005?

Of course then any without all of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray being fully fit would be * too. Does that leave any slams not *??

About one. When Novak beat Rafa last year

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! Some of the comments here just prove why not everyone is brave enough to use the * word. I don't think even a (cough) "turd smiley" can make an * disappear completely though. Once there they have a tendency to stick around even if only a few are brave enough to say their name out loud.

Bravery isn't the word I would use................

Luckily I am far too polite to post the actual term I would use.

carrieg4. You are one of the most civil posters and it does make for more interesting discussion. What some fail to understand when they direct criticism at me personally is that even if I vowed to never use the * word it would make little difference. It has escaped and will keep springing up invited or not...

And some people still insist the Earth is flat. Virginia Wade is probably one of them.

I've been wound up to the point where I feel compelled to comment!

If I'm reading this thread correctly therefore:

Any slam not involving Nadal is an *?
Any slam involving a non-fit Nadal (which he doesn't win) is an *?

'It leaves a bit of an asterisk if someone like Nadal isn’t there or he’s lost early'

Any slam involving a fit Nadal where he gets knocked 'early' is an *?

I put 'early' in apostrophes because 'early' is surely defined as not winning the slam? Surely no one wants their slam to finish earlier than this? I'm sure Rafa would consider losing in the semi's 'early'. So to give the benefit of doubt we shall assume 'early' means beating Nadal in the final.

So whoever didn't play and beat Nadal in the final will also have an * placed next to their slam. Unless they have won the slam by defeating him en-route in their half of the draw - not sure if this has happened?

In summary the only slams it would appear are not * are the ones where Rafa has been defeated in the final or the winner beat Nadal en-route. I don't know how many these are off the top of my head - three or four maybe five?

Can we re-write tennis history now according to these rules?

Of course none of Rafa's are *. Ergo he is the most successful of all time.

Thank god that has been sorted.

Johnyjeep wrote:I've been wound up to the point where I feel compelled to comment!

If I'm reading this thread correctly therefore:

Any slam not involving Nadal is an *?
Any slam involving a non-fit Nadal (which he doesn't win) is an *?

'It leaves a bit of an asterisk if someone like Nadal isn’t there or he’s lost early'

Any slam involving a fit Nadal where he gets knocked 'early' is an *?

I put 'early' in apostrophes because 'early' is surely defined as not winning the slam? Surely no one wants their slam to finish earlier than this? I'm sure Rafa would consider losing in the semi's 'early'. So to give the benefit of doubt we shall assume 'early' means beating Nadal in the final.

So whoever didn't play and beat Nadal in the final will also have an * placed next to their slam. Unless they have won the slam by defeating him en-route in their half of the draw - not sure if this has happened?

In summary the only slams it would appear are not * are the ones where Rafa has been defeated in the final or the winner beat Nadal en-route. I don't know how many these are off the top of my head - three or four maybe five?

Can we re-write tennis history now according to these rules?

Of course none of Rafa's are *. Ergo he is the most successful of all time.

Thank god that has been sorted.

All very true, I thought after all the intolerable sycophancy that used to surround the most ghastly man in sport Nine Chins Woods was pretty bad, but the baseless, one eyed fawning/worshipping that surrounds El Capybara is childish to the point of mental illness and takes fanboy/fan-girlness to a new hilarious level of sadness.
I can almost understand it in impressionable children, but adults with sport "idols" who defend them to the level that they do does make me both laugh and be concerned at the same time.