Nadal's Knees

First topic message reminder :

Is this the biggest lie of all time? It seems whenever these phantom knees appear, they go away just as quickly, and Nadal somehow manages 5 set marathons like it is nothing. If there was anything wrong with his knees all this play and ultra defending would surely show it up. The knee claims seem to always come after he loses. Funny that.

What exactly is the proof he suffers with bad knees? Maybe it is just another one of Nadal's tics...

Red wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Ah Tenez, one of the major reasons I decided not to be involved in the Tennis forum 18 months ago after about 1 day and only recently came back

It's not Tenez.
Tenez, despite being a poster who makes really weird statements and predictions and really actively dislikes Nadal, has a bit of class.

_homogenised_ has already been temporarily banned for racist comments on another section on this site, and is frankly bordering on slightly pathetic with his actions here.

I agree, Tenez is hardline and stubborn but knowledgable. His position on time delay was ahead of its time and its the mainstream opinion that has moved to his position rather than the reverse.

Also his arguments with lydian about Rafa are legendary.

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Ah Tenez, one of the major reasons I decided not to be involved in the Tennis forum 18 months ago after about 1 day and only recently came back

It's not Tenez.
Tenez, despite being a poster who makes really weird statements and predictions and really actively dislikes Nadal, has a bit of class.

_homogenised_ has already been temporarily banned for racist comments on another section on this site, and is frankly bordering on slightly pathetic with his actions here.

I agree, Tenez is hardline and stubborn but knowledgable.

In the past I have to agree with you on the latter point, but lately I think some of his arguments are past his prime. I think maybe cos he's been banned from the mainstream forums (well this one anyway, and I think the Court one as well), I feel his views are a bit confusing, and bordering on slightly weird and obsessed.
Every year he predicted that Nadal is on a slippery slope and that he has no chance of winning another slam... including this spring. Also he has predicted many times that Nadal has no chance against Djokovic ever again, but Nadal has won quite a few matches in the past 2 years. Also I think he said that after coming back from injury Nadal's game is 'obsolete against the Top 10'... and considering Nadal's performance yesterday that looks a bit silly now.
He also has now openly admitted that his main priority while watching tennis is to see Nadal lose, and that he would prefer that to Federer winning. I think that's fair enough- it's certainly allowed, but I do think that attitude can lead to some bias, no?

Anyway sorry mods, after this I'll keep the debate on PM as it's not really relevant to the article.

Oh I see, I've lost touch with him since he left this site, I don't go anywhere else.

bogbrush wrote:Oh I see, I've lost touch with him since he left this site, I don't go anywhere else.

Neither do I but I sometimes get an incy bincy bit curious and have a peek now and again

So criticising the Koran and Islam is racist now? Dear lord. I also note how most of you are attacking me and not the position. How typical.

This thread is discussing Nadal and injury, not me.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Its beneath me to get into dialogue with this "person" who is attempting to start the whole thing up again on here about Nadal. Something I believe the mods have gone to great lengths to erradicate.

What is it that mods wanted to eradicate?

Also I do not subscribe to the doping theories, although it is possible. I simply think Nadal is an ass who, like on court, uses and abuses rules with impunity. He wanted time off to rest away from his worst surface, and lied to be able to do it. Simple. He's not a very nice person, we all see that with his on-court antics, and interviews when he loses. He is all smiles only when winning. When losing, his true colours come out. He is, to my knowledge, the only player who has physically assaulted another player on court. And he should have received a lengthy ban for it.

_homogenised_ wrote:So criticising the Koran and Islam is racist now? Dear lord. I also note how most of you are attacking me and not the position. How typical.

This thread is discussing Nadal and injury, not me.

Unfortunately we now live in a World which expects very little of people, hence laws are passed to ban discussion, rather than permit discussion and expect tolerance and personal robustness. My own opinion is that opinion should be allowed unless it actively encourages someone to violence (that's tells them to do it, not annoys them).

It follows that I am tolerant of any speech criticising religions, politics, behaviour. Indeed I think these expressions are fundamental to any useful definition of liberty.

Sadly the media and governments have conspired to tell everyone that 'hating' (expressing adverse opinion) is a crime. They pass laws to force everyone to express only those opinions which are permitted by the State.

And onto the real point, forums are governed by those laws so forum owners are legally liable if unlawful comments are made, hence they have to control discussion within the law.

It stinks to high Heaven, but it's not their fault.

I was on a thread discussing the beheading of a soldier. I made the connection with the Koran... what I should have done is just quote the Koran. Or would that have been "racist". As I explained in the post, Islam is a RELIGION. It is not a race. Apparently, there's some real moron around here who has no clue what free speech is, or what racism is.

You think that's stupid? I keep hearing how laughing at Scots / Welsh / French / English is 'racist'. Someone even said recently that 'negro' wasn't a race, the country was.

Gotta remember though that the forum runners aren't the problem, the thought police (largely comprising left of centre opinion fighting dirty) are.

_homogenised_ wrote:I was on a thread discussing the beheading of a soldier. I made the connection with the Koran... what I should have done is just quote the Koran. Or would that have been "racist". As I explained in the post, Islam is a RELIGION. It is not a race. Apparently, there's some real moron around here who has no clue what free speech is, or what racism is.

I say read BBs previous post; he put it really well.

The definition of 'racism' is now largely broadened so it includes more than just 'race'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Racial_Discrimination#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22

Keep this part of the forum away from religion, we dont care why you got banned, but keep anything religious out of the forum, as youve seen it gets you and the forum into HUGE trouble.

bogbrush wrote:You think that's stupid? I keep hearing how laughing at Scots / Welsh / French / English is 'racist'. Someone even said recently that 'negro' wasn't a race, the country was.

Gotta remember though that the forum runners aren't the problem, the thought police (largely comprising left of centre opinion fighting dirty) are.

That's true, but what I said wasn't a crime. Yet. It is perfectly acceptable and lawful to attack, ridicule and criticise a religion. The same as it is to criticise a political party. My ban from this forum for 1 day was the biggest joke I have ever seen. Next time, I will quote the Koran directly, and then the mod here can ban Muhammad hahahha!

falzy21 wrote:Keep this part of the forum away from religion, we dont care why you got banned, but keep anything religious out of the forum, as youve seen it gets you and the forum into HUGE trouble.

I didn't bring it up. And I agree. Why can't you all stay on topic? I know why... it's the oldest trick in the book. When someone makes a point that you don't like

Attack the poster and get into a heated slanging match. Result= Thread derailed.

Homoegenised, can you explain this time with a bit more clarity why Nadal took the 7 months out?

You just have about 3 times... What you just said some people will consider ridiculing their religion. the mods worked hard to get this place up and running, its not fair to discuss soemthing like this here which CAN get the site taken down if the wrong person see it

falzy21 wrote:You just have about 3 times...

In fairness, it was not he who brought it up - the issue was first mentioned by someone else. Let's stay clear of this.

falzy21 wrote:You just have about 3 times... What you just said some people will consider ridiculing their religion. the mods worked hard to get this place up and running, its not fair to discuss soemthing like this here which CAN get the site taken down if the wrong person see it

So why open a thread about the beheading of a soldier, when it is obvious that people are going to criticise the unnameable. I am afraid you are simply wrong about the law. It is perfectly legal to criticise a religion. That's a fact. Now will you please get back on topic?

OK homogenised, back on topic, can you clarify why you think Nadal took 7 months out?

Red wrote:The definition of 'racism' is now largely broadened so it includes more than just 'race'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Racial_Discrimination#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22

Orwell would have shaken his head at this wouldn't he? He saw newspeak coming decades ahead of its time.

That said, I don't see this including nationality as being within the definition.

Meanwhile, as the State drives expression of opinion into the ground it practices the most brutally racist policies possible on a daily basis. But it doesn't use bad words, so that makes it ok.

Red wrote:Homoegenised, can you explain this time with a bit more clarity why Nadal took the 7 months out?

I've explained it... he had a minor injury, wanted to rest and skip the hard court season. And that's exactly what he did. Even when the Australian Open came around, he came up with a new excuse to skip that one as well. He is abusing the rules to get his own way. He does exactly the same thing on court. Why are people surprised that he would disregard the rules and lie? When he does it all the time on court.

All youve said homog makes some sense, but this is a tennis forum, its a relaly tense subject, soo dont even mention it.
On topic Nadal's break could be a number of things, but we cant just asusme anything bad less its proved.

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:Homoegenised, can you explain this time with a bit more clarity why Nadal took the 7 months out?

I've explained it... he had a minor injury, wanted to rest and skip the hard court season. And that's exactly what he did. Even when the Australian Open came around, he came up with a new excuse to skip that one as well. He is abusing the rules to get his own way. He does exactly the same thing on court. Why are people surprised that he would disregard the rules and lie? When he does it all the time on court.

No what I don't understand is why you think he took the time out?
As in the reasons why he wanted to skip the time out.

falzy21 wrote:but we cant just asusme anything bad less its proved.

That sounds like more thought policing to me.

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:Homoegenised, can you explain this time with a bit more clarity why Nadal took the 7 months out?

I've explained it... he had a minor injury, wanted to rest and skip the hard court season. And that's exactly what he did. Even when the Australian Open came around, he came up with a new excuse to skip that one as well. He is abusing the rules to get his own way. He does exactly the same thing on court. Why are people surprised that he would disregard the rules and lie? When he does it all the time on court.

No what I don't understand is why you think he took the time out?
As in the reasons why he wanted to skip the time out.

He has made no secret of the fact that he fears hard court. He fears it will end his career early, and he has asked more than once for the hard court season to be reduced. He hates hard courts. That's why.

Well homog he skipped the Australianopen cause he didnt feel ready.. hes allowed to do that. He needed more time soo he took some more out, he wanted to strat his comeback on a comfortable, and easy on his knees surface. In hindsight it was a good call.
He has to think about his body, not everyone elses opinion of him.

He's not allowed to come up with lies to get out of a Slam. It's a mandatory event. He said he had a virus. I say... it was another lie. Why were no tests done? Does the tennis authority just accept what Nadal says? What if other plays get a virus?

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:Homoegenised, can you explain this time with a bit more clarity why Nadal took the 7 months out?

I've explained it... he had a minor injury, wanted to rest and skip the hard court season. And that's exactly what he did. Even when the Australian Open came around, he came up with a new excuse to skip that one as well. He is abusing the rules to get his own way. He does exactly the same thing on court. Why are people surprised that he would disregard the rules and lie? When he does it all the time on court.

No what I don't understand is why you think he took the time out?
As in the reasons why he wanted to skip the time out.

He has made no secret of the fact that he fears hard court. He fears it will end his career early, and he has asked more than once for the hard court season to be reduced. He hates hard courts. That's why.

OK, I see.
I suppose that does make sense, he does hate hard courts so randomly missing half the year in order to not miss playing tennis without actually having a major injury is impenetrable logic if you think about it.

in response to thought policing. Weve had this before, a huuge problem with it. Saying you think someones doped without proof is considered libel, and the site gets bang in trouble, discussing its possible is I THINK ok, but expect backlash if your only proof is just a hunch.

_homogenised_ wrote:He's not allowed to come up with lies to get out of a Slam. It's a mandatory event. He said he had a virus. I say... it was another lie. Why were no tests done? Does the tennis authority just accept what Nadal says? What if other plays get a virus?

Perennial liar this guy is, isn't he?
What would you say you hate the most about him? A long answer with significant detail would be good.

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:Homoegenised, can you explain this time with a bit more clarity why Nadal took the 7 months out?

I've explained it... he had a minor injury, wanted to rest and skip the hard court season. And that's exactly what he did. Even when the Australian Open came around, he came up with a new excuse to skip that one as well. He is abusing the rules to get his own way. He does exactly the same thing on court. Why are people surprised that he would disregard the rules and lie? When he does it all the time on court.

No what I don't understand is why you think he took the time out?
As in the reasons why he wanted to skip the time out.

He has made no secret of the fact that he fears hard court. He fears it will end his career early, and he has asked more than once for the hard court season to be reduced. He hates hard courts. That's why.

OK, I see.
I suppose that does make sense, he does hate hard courts so randomly missing half the year in order to not miss playing tennis without actually having a major injury is impenetrable logic if you think about it.

It wasn't random. His "injury" started the second the hard court season started, and ended the second it had ended. He then returned and made straight finals in ALL events... up to now.

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:He's not allowed to come up with lies to get out of a Slam. It's a mandatory event. He said he had a virus. I say... it was another lie. Why were no tests done? Does the tennis authority just accept what Nadal says? What if other plays get a virus?

Perennial liar this guy is, isn't he?
What would you say you hate the most about him? A long answer with significant detail would be good.

hate the most? His gamesmanship on court. How he deliberately abuses rules to win. The rosol assault took the biscuit though, as the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on a tennis court.

Ita mandatory if hes fit to play. He didnt feel fit to play. The ITF cant force him to play if they think hes fibbing a bit about the severity.These are people not circus acts. What about Federer taking time off during mandatory events for a holiday? I had no problem with that.

_homogenised_ wrote:

It wasn't random. His "injury" started the second the hard court season started, and ended the second it had ended.

Yes, your knowledge of the ATP calendar is quite astounding, there's only one hard court season per year isn't there.

falzy21 wrote:Ita mandatory if hes fit to play. He didnt feel fit to play. The ITF cant force him to play if they think hes fibbing a bit about the severity.These are people not circus acts. What about Federer taking time off during mandatory events for a holiday? I had no problem with that.

If the players are lying to get out of playing a mandatory event, that is a clear violation of the rules.

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:He's not allowed to come up with lies to get out of a Slam. It's a mandatory event. He said he had a virus. I say... it was another lie. Why were no tests done? Does the tennis authority just accept what Nadal says? What if other plays get a virus?

Perennial liar this guy is, isn't he?
What would you say you hate the most about him? A long answer with significant detail would be good.

hate the most? His gamesmanship on court. How he deliberately abuses rules to win. The rosol assault took the biscuit though, as the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on a tennis court.

Can you go into some more detail on his significant assaults on the tennis court, and why you hate him so strongly.

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

It wasn't random. His "injury" started the second the hard court season started, and ended the second it had ended.

Yes, your knowledge of the ATP calendar is quite astounding, there's only one hard court season per year isn't there.

That's another attack on the person, and you know well what I meant.

But youre quoting one match where he wasnt too sporting against 750+ when hes been fine. Yes hes slow between points, part of its severe OCD but yeah, he bends that a bit, but that doesnt erase all the good stuff he does. Djokovic if you remember use to take the cake with ball bouncing,

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:He's not allowed to come up with lies to get out of a Slam. It's a mandatory event. He said he had a virus. I say... it was another lie. Why were no tests done? Does the tennis authority just accept what Nadal says? What if other plays get a virus?

Perennial liar this guy is, isn't he?
What would you say you hate the most about him? A long answer with significant detail would be good.

hate the most? His gamesmanship on court. How he deliberately abuses rules to win. The rosol assault took the biscuit though, as the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on a tennis court.

Can you go into some more detail on his significant assaults on the tennis court, and why you hate him so strongly.

Stop trolling. I've just answered that.

_homogenised_ wrote:

falzy21 wrote:Ita mandatory if hes fit to play. He didnt feel fit to play. The ITF cant force him to play if they think hes fibbing a bit about the severity.These are people not circus acts. What about Federer taking time off during mandatory events for a holiday? I had no problem with that.

If the players are lying to get out of playing a mandatory event, that is a clear violation of the rules.

Wait, if he wasn't injured for the Australian Open, then why would he miss it?

You cant prove hes lying though homog. He may well have had a virus and couldnt play. You cant prove he was lying soo you cant speak as though its the truth, thats libel

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

falzy21 wrote:Ita mandatory if hes fit to play. He didnt feel fit to play. The ITF cant force him to play if they think hes fibbing a bit about the severity.These are people not circus acts. What about Federer taking time off during mandatory events for a holiday? I had no problem with that.

If the players are lying to get out of playing a mandatory event, that is a clear violation of the rules.

Wait, if he wasn't injured for the Australian Open, then why would he miss it?

because he didn't want to come back to a hard court. The same reason he skipped the hard courts all season. He wanted to skip them, and he did. For the reasons I have already given. You are trying very unsuccessfully to use circular reasoning to "win" the debate. Stop.

There are some rubbish articles on the forum, and it would be better if they were not there. But it wouldn't be right for the moderators to delete them either.

The tennis section of the forum seems to be doing well at the moment, the last day or two has been a bit ropey, but maybe some of those jumping in will go away after the FO or after Wimbledon.

And homo I take it you fully expect Rafa to withdraw from the rest of this hard court and grass season then?

Ok homog I have to go, i dont care about winning the debate , you have your opinion, I have mine, Im just trying to make sure the forum stays friendly and doesnt get into trouble, its already had issues with this.

_homogenised_ wrote:

Red wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

falzy21 wrote:Ita mandatory if hes fit to play. He didnt feel fit to play. The ITF cant force him to play if they think hes fibbing a bit about the severity.These are people not circus acts. What about Federer taking time off during mandatory events for a holiday? I had no problem with that.

If the players are lying to get out of playing a mandatory event, that is a clear violation of the rules.

Wait, if he wasn't injured for the Australian Open, then why would he miss it?

because he didn't want to come back to a hard court. The same reason he skipped the hard courts all season. He wanted to skip them, and he did. For the reasons I have already given. You are trying very unsuccessfully to use circular reasoning to "win" the debate. Stop.

I actually totally agree with your logic and viewpoint so I'm certainly not trying to win any debate.

Your argument is that he missed the hard court season because he was too scared and he felt like it. I have agreed with you, that it sounds very likely- I don't see where we disagree.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And homo I take it you fully expect Rafa to withdraw from the rest of this hard court and grass season then?

Yes, because he doesn't like playing on these surfaces.
He did really badly in the last hard court tournament he played didn't he, so if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. To suggest anything else would be an insult.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And homo I take it you fully expect Rafa to withdraw from the rest of this hard court and grass season then?

He will play the grass, he usually has no issue with it. I would not be surprised if a few excuses popped up for skipping the upcoming hard courts. We will just have to see He has repeatedly told people he does not like hard courts and wants them off tour. His words, not mine.

I wonder if homo is game to put a bet on his certainty that Rafa pulled out last year because he hates hard courts yet has won slams on each of the slam surfaces - be it hard, clay or grass. How very bizarre.