The Ranking System Plays A Cruel Trick

by hawkeye Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:36 am

First topic message reminder :

After the US Open Djokovic is still at number one with 10,980 points but Nadal is only 120 points behind at 10,860 points. However Nadal's 150 points for finishing runner up in Vin Del Mar in February have not been included. Apparently he has been penalized for not playing a 500 event after the US Open last year! Ha ha! So along with all the zero's he has for not being able to play for 8 months when he started to play he wasn't able to keep the points he earned as a punishment. Looking at the rules Nadal may have got off lightly. After all he did also miss Canada and Cincinnati last year so I'm surprised the ATP didn't prevent him playing in Monte Carlo and Rome earlier this year too. That would have been funny...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx

The really funny thing is that Nadal has earned enough points this year to be number one. If he was able to count his 150 points he would overtake Djokovic. The Ranking system has played a cruel trick!

by Guest Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:20 pm

Morisette wouldnt know ironic if it hit her with the cd case of a bad single...

by hawkeye Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:38 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:. But go on admit it don't you think it's a little odd (or dare I say cruel) that a player can be penalized (or to put it another way punished) for not being able to play because they have been injured.
No. What would be odd is giving players points when they don't play. When JMDP missed a year-ish he went down to nearly 500 in the world. Should he have been given points for not playing so that he could remain ranked ahead of players who played? Of course not.
Maybe you'd like Murray to get extra points for missing the French Open?

Either you really don't understand or you are deliberately quoting me out of context? Hopefully it's the former Very Happy

Of course Rafa, JMDP, Murray or indeed any other player shouldn't be given points when they don't play. And I never said that they should!

What I thought was cruel was Nadal not being able to count the points he won fair and square in the first tournament he played when he returned to play. The reason being he was penalized for not playing when he was injured. Of course he didn't get and shouldn't get any points when he was injured.

Now do you understand?

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:37 pm

I understand. Let's just say we differ in our interpretation of the value of the ranking system. You seem to think if it works against Rafa it must be an unfair system. I disagree.

by naxroy Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:05 pm

who cares about number 1 anyway.

slams and titles is what counts, number 1 is a consequence

by **laverfan** Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:49 am

@Johnny ... Thanks, Sweetheart. rose

I used your comment as a context for Cav's. No unfounded accusation was intended ,and apologies if it was misconstrued.

@Cav... I am glad to explain my position. JHM and I have done it on many occasions, on numerous articles. If we make a mistake, it is to avoid partisanship. HE likes a bit of spice (aka trench warfare).

@HE... do you recall a certain Mr. Del Potro or a certain Mr Hewitt or certain Mr. Haas, or a certain Mr. Blake working through injuries and layoffs to come back. There is nothing 'cruel' about proving yourself to the world. Even Raonic did that after his hip injury/surgery, IIRC. Why are you seeking a special dispensation for a certain Mr. Nadal. Is your fandom making you a partisan? Should a moderator's fandom getting in the way of moderation? chin

by Haddie-nuff Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:17 am

Im trying to understand why i have only just heard of this punishment and cruelty to Rafa via this forum... believe me if there was anything really harsh about it that involved purely Rafa and would not apply to any other player then you could bet your bottom € Uncle T would have had plenty to say... but silence is the only thing that is coming from Rafa´s camp.as I say his rise to No.1.is inevitable anyway

by hawkeye Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:03 am

laverfan wrote:

@Cav... I am glad to explain my position. JHM and I have done it on many occasions, on numerous articles. If we make a mistake, it is to avoid partisanship. HE likes a bit of spice (aka trench warfare).

@HE... do you recall a certain Mr. Del Potro or a certain Mr Hewitt or certain Mr. Haas, or a certain Mr. Blake working through injuries and layoffs to come back. There is nothing 'cruel' about proving yourself to the world. Even Raonic did that after his hip injury/surgery, IIRC. Why are you seeking a special dispensation for a certain Mr. Nadal. Is your fandom making you a partisan? Should a moderator's fandom getting in the way of moderation?

laverfan. I don't recall any of these players not being able to count their first tournaments points after coming back after injury. IMO that of course would be equally harsh (is that a less controversial word than cruel?). The thing is it often takes a big name case for something like this to come to notice. That it prevented Nadal from being number one just exposes the consequences of applying this particular rule.

Of course I'm not seeking special dispensation for Nadal. Ha ha! As if! I just thought it was worth commenting on and IMO the rule is ridiculous. What was the purpose of the penalty? An injured player cannot adhere to this particular rule. I thought I made it obvious that I thought the rule was ridiculous whoever it was applied to. I suspect that some see the name Nadal and are unable to make any sort of objective opinion. I would have been interested to hear how those that approve of the penalty justify it's use because no one has.

As far as Nadal goes it is of little consequence and certainly not something I would imagine he or his team are losing sleep over.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:37 am

The points did count when he first got them. They just dropped off as he played more tournaments and thus reached the maximum allowed point-scoring tournaments. The latter includes the ones he missed through injury. There's no punishment involved, merely a lack of reward as a result of not playing.
It's a perfectly understandable, common-sense rule.

by YvonneT Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:15 am

The rules aren't ridiculous, of course, but it is rather arbitrary which of the ATP500 are allocated as sticky zero pointers. After Beijing, Nadal will have played the 4 required tournaments this year, but still have a zero pointer from last year.

Anyway, another oddity of the ranking points this week - Berdych to no.6 below Federer because he didn't defend all his Davis Cup semi points. The reason he didn't defend them was because Stepanek won his singles on day 1 making the day 3 singles matches dead rubbers - his own teammate forced him down the rankings. Federer is doing very well at climbing the rankings however bad his results.

by Guest Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:18 am

Maybe there should be 'sickpay' system in tennis which allows injured players to gain some points when they can't play Smile

everyone is a winner that way.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:23 am

YvonneT wrote:The rules aren't ridiculous, of course, but it is rather arbitrary which of the ATP500 are allocated as sticky zero pointers. After Beijing, Nadal will have played the 4 required tournaments this year, but still have a zero pointer from last year.

Anyway, another oddity of the ranking points this week - Berdych to no.6 below Federer because he didn't defend all his Davis Cup semi points. The reason he didn't defend them was because Stepanek won his singles on day 1 making the day 3 singles matches dead rubbers - his own teammate forced him down the rankings. Federer is doing very well at climbing the rankings however bad his results.

Stepanek was very cruel to punish Berdych like that.

PS it's not arbitrary, it's a set of rules worked out with the players' reps that are considered best for everybody - players, sponsors, tournament directors etc.

by hawkeye Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:29 am

Julius. I understand the rules Very Happy

Included in the maximum allowed point-scoring tournaments are two tournaments he had no way of playing (Valencia and Beijing). His score card is filled up with the 0 points he received because he was unable to play these events because he was injured. Players are allowed to keep points from 4 x 500 events. Nadal only played two. Presumably one of the reasons the penalty was put in place was to ensure that top players didn't skip these lower tier events. I think it is important that top players do play these so I agree some rules should be in place to prevent players avoiding these events for no reason. But in this case Nadal (or any injured player) had a very good reason for not playing as he'd missed 7/8 months of the season. He was penalized for doing what the ATP were trying to encourage. ie playing smaller events.

YvonneT. Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons I'm not convinced that ATP points should be awarded for Davis Cup play.... or the Olympics... Run

by hawkeye Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:30 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:

PS it's not arbitrary, it's a set of rules worked out with the players' reps that are considered best for everybody - players, sponsors, tournament directors etc.

Ha ha! So they must be right then Wink

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:48 am

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:

PS it's not arbitrary, it's a set of rules worked out with the players' reps that are considered best for everybody - players, sponsors, tournament directors etc.
Ha ha! So they must be right then

Everyone seems pretty happy with them apart from perhaps a select few whose interests don't match the best interests of the game as a whole.

by Johnyjeep Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:11 am

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:

PS it's not arbitrary, it's a set of rules worked out with the players' reps that are considered best for everybody - players, sponsors, tournament directors etc.
Ha ha! So they must be right then

You still don't get it do you? Whether it is right or not is not the issue here. You are making out Rafa is being mistreated. This little gem from you:

Cruelty is cruelty and just because Nadal is Nadal and this cruelty will make little difference I thought it worth commenting on. I'm sure if this little twist had been applied to another player who had never held the number one position it would have been worth remarking on so why not Nadal?

I wonder if you understand the word 'cruelty'. Even though a dictionary definition has been posted. You then try and link it into the No.1 position for some unfathomable reason. Like it would make a difference if the positions were 198 and 199. (it wouldn't by the way).

Then there was another little pearl of wisdom from you:

I did this because many seemed to think that perhaps because Nadal had been number one before and is very likely to reach it again very soon meant that it didn't matter that he had been punished in this way.

That this punishment has been dished out solely because his name is Nadal. Which is your default defence position of Nadal. You then go on to state in other posts that you appreciate the rules because it makes players play in lesser tournaments (sounds like progress!).

So what is the issue? Have the rules, but waive them for Nadal? Have the rules but waive them for injured players? That would make the rules worthless because people would just cite injury and pull out and escape punishment. The length of injury is not taken into account nor should it. Unless it is sufficient to apply for protected ranking. Therefore keeping (potentially) more points than someone who turns up and loses in the first round. It would defeat the object. It is this lack of progressive thinking that drives people mad. You see Nadal..and that's it.

You have yet to clarify who the many are that are outraged. You have yet to clarify want is a sensible solution. If you can do the latter you might find members more willing to engage in (sensible) discussion with you.

And to answer the quote I used at the very top...no it doesn't make it right. But it makes it the best solution. Putting together rules is not a mathematical sum. You don't get 1+1=2 (although if Nadal said it to be 3 you'd probably throw your calculator on the floor for being incorrect). What you do is consult with the players representatives (as voted for by the players) and work out what is best for EVERYONE.

by lags72 Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:14 am

hawkeye wrote:

...............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

As far as Nadal goes it is of little consequence and certainly not something I would imagine he or his team are losing sleep over.

True. They sure won't be losing any sleep at all.

Although I can think of a particular poster who seems to be doing exactly that.

by Guest Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:30 am

Look at all these fishes!

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:41 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:Look at all these fishes!

You think maybe HE is playing a cruel trick on us?

by Guest Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:43 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Look at all these fishes!
You think maybe HE is playing a cruel trick on us?

I do indeed. She cast the net and got you all. I think as punishment she should be deducted something.

by Guest Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:47 am

I would go as far as to recommend HE as Director of Communications for Labour! They would romp home in the elections!

by lags72 Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:58 am

Not sure about that lk.

I suspect instead their arguments might end up simply being dismissed throughout the election campaign - in much the same way the OP's argument has been dismissed (and at times even ridiculed) by the majority of contributors to this thread.

by Guest Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:03 am

Oh come on lags. She is an absolute legend of spin. She is a politicians dream on Question Time. Answers every question with a question and gives basic generic answers. I think she would be awesome.

by YvonneT Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:50 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:PS it's not arbitrary, it's a set of rules worked out with the players' reps that are considered best for everybody - players, sponsors, tournament directors etc.

Yes, we could say the whole rankings are arbitrary in that it's just one view of which wins count the most to decide who's the best tennis player over a period of time. They seem reasonable enough on the whole to me though - and they are published so everyone knows where they stand.

by naxroy Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:10 pm

cruel or not, I still dont understand why viña del mar doesnt count

but I havent read the rules.... so

by MidnightToker Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:15 pm

Christ the OP made a valid point about a ridiculous ranking system and asked what if something stupid like this cost a lesser player than nadal his only shot at being number one. He was then given the online forum equivalent of an indian bus trip!

Tennis fans, snobby know it all bar stewards

by lydian Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:56 am

Don't tar us all with the same brush, however I somewhat agree that HE is far too vilified on here, she bears the brunt of a lot of personal attacks in my opinion without being particularly personal herself.

by kingraf Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:27 am

I never really did get why Nadal didnt protect his ranking... I just assumed it was because he didnt really have a time table for his return, and therefore could have been back at any time....

I agree though that the attacks are overbearing... I suspect this discussion would have been more level-headed if HE was talking about, say, Tsonga. The rankings are the rankings and everyone involvee knows the rules, but to now admonish HE using that argument is defeating the purpose of the forum.

by Guest Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:30 am

Why have the attacks not been reported?

by banbrotam Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:40 am

And what "attacks" are we talking about

If I post an article moaning about Andy's struggle to maintain a Top 4 place, despite holding a Masters and a Slam, I'll be roundly criticised

And quite right too

Can we perhaps note the difference between a poster constantly berating the same player or over-praising another same player time and time again to the exclusion of others AND people simply pointing out the sheer ludricous nature of said poster's stance

by Johnyjeep Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:11 am

MidnightToker wrote:Christ the OP made a valid point about a ridiculous ranking system and asked what if something stupid like this cost a lesser player than nadal his only shot at being number one. He was then given the online forum equivalent of an indian bus trip!

Tennis fans, snobby know it all bar stewards

Why is the ranking system 'ridiculous'?

The OP herself thinks that the system in place is needed to help protect the lessers tournaments (I believe she makes that point herself on this thread). I think the frustration stems from a historical tendancy to twist and distort how and when systems (which are there to protect every player) should be applied and the wider impact it would have over all (as oppose to just one player). I know it does for me. I'm allowed to point these out much as HE is entitled to air her percieved disappointment regarding the application of them.

by Born Slippy Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:18 am

kingraf wrote:I never really did get why Nadal didnt protect his ranking... I just assumed it was because he didnt really have a time table for his return, and therefore could have been back at any time....

I agree though that the attacks are overbearing... I suspect this discussion would have been more level-headed if HE was talking about, say, Tsonga. The rankings are the rankings and everyone involvee knows the rules, but to now admonish HE using that argument is defeating the purpose of the forum.

Rafa never needed a protected ranking. A protected ranking only allows you entry to tournaments in the event that your actual ranking has fallen too low. However, as Rafa's ranking never dropped below 5 he was always able to enter all tournaments. A protected ranking has no impact on seeding.

Have to say I don't see many attacks on this thread. It has probably been greeted with more merriment than if, say, Lydian had posted it but that's due to the reputational history of the OP rather than the fact it is about Rafa.

by hawkeye Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:30 am

MidnightToker wrote:Christ the OP made a valid point about a ridiculous ranking system and asked what if something stupid like this cost a lesser player than nadal his only shot at being number one. He was then given the online forum equivalent of an indian bus trip!

Tennis fans, snobby know it all bar stewards

If you think this is bad you should see some of the responses to my article pondering about how Djokovic's loss at the FO might affect him or even the responses to my article pointing out that Nadal was the first player to win a slam in 9 consecutive years...

I'm quite relieved I don't have to sit next to some posters on a bus...

by hawkeye Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:36 am

Born Slippy wrote:

Have to say I don't see many attacks on this thread.

by kingraf Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:55 am

Attacks was probably a little strong. Ridicule, then?

by Johnyjeep Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:01 am

hawkeye wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:

Have to say I don't see many attacks on this thread.

Have to say I don't see many answers to what I think are reasonable questions either. Of course you don't have to answer them. But maybe it would help people understand your view point. Questions such as:

So what is the issue? Have the rules, but waive them for Nadal? Have the rules but waive them for injured players?

or this comment which is obviously at the very heart of the matter:

"I did this because many seemed to think that perhaps because Nadal had been number one before and is very likely to reach it again very soon meant that it didn't matter that he had been punished in this way."

So I'll ask again..who are these many? And would it have mattered more if the rules that apply to everyone else were not applied in this instance (regardless of who the player is)?

I see this as neither an attack or ridicule. Just a genuine request for further discussion.

by R!skysports Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:08 am

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You lot are funny. Rules are rules but before I posted this I was imagining the hissy fits if the rankings had played this cruel trick on Murray to deny him his only chance of holding the number one position. Of course it makes little difference to Nadal.

Rules may be rules but the ATP wasn't handed down ranking points from on high on a stone tablet. Some people act as if that was the case.

I think if you look at that comment, it can be understandable why people sometimes respond the way they do. Something nothing to do with Murray, yet still manage to throw an attack on his fans

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:24 am

hawkeye wrote:
MidnightToker wrote:Christ the OP made a valid point about a ridiculous ranking system and asked what if something stupid like this cost a lesser player than nadal his only shot at being number one. He was then given the online forum equivalent of an indian bus trip!

Tennis fans, snobby know it all bar stewards
If you think this is bad you should see some of the responses to my article pondering about how Djokovic's loss at the FO might affect him....

Ah yes, that was the one you waited 4 weeks to post i.e. immediately after Murray beat Djoko in the Wimby final. I can't imagine why. No, actually, I don't have to imagine, I know why Smile

by hawkeye Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:44 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:
hawkeye wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:

Have to say I don't see many attacks on this thread.
Have to say I don't see many answers to what I think are reasonable questions either. Of course you don't have to answer them. But maybe it would help people understand your view point. Questions such as:

So what is the issue? Have the rules, but waive them for Nadal? Have the rules but waive them for injured players?

or this comment which is obviously at the very heart of the matter:

"I did this because many seemed to think that perhaps because Nadal had been number one before and is very likely to reach it again very soon meant that it didn't matter that he had been punished in this way."

So I'll ask again..who are these many? And would it have mattered more if the rules that apply to everyone else were not applied in this instance (regardless of who the player is)?

I see this as neither an attack or ridicule. Just a genuine request for further discussion.

I got the impression from your to put it bluntly aggressive tone that you had no wish to engage in discussion about my article. If you are at all interested I've made my point as clear as I could. In fact I've clarified it several times as the way ranking points are allocated or not isn't always clear to some.

by hawkeye Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:51 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:
MidnightToker wrote:Christ the OP made a valid point about a ridiculous ranking system and asked what if something stupid like this cost a lesser player than nadal his only shot at being number one. He was then given the online forum equivalent of an indian bus trip!

Tennis fans, snobby know it all bar stewards
If you think this is bad you should see some of the responses to my article pondering about how Djokovic's loss at the FO might affect him....
Ah yes, that was the one you waited 4 weeks to post i.e. immediately after Murray beat Djoko in the Wimby final. I can't imagine why. No, actually, I don't have to imagine, I know why

That was the point that the effect of Djokovic's loss became obvious. Losing at the US Open was another time that I might have been tempted to write about it but censored

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:01 pm

Of course. You wrote about how Djoko's loss to Murray was as a result of losing at the FO, but didn't write about Djoko's loss to Rafa at the USO.
I can't imagine why. No, actually, I don't have to imagine, I know why Smile

by Johnyjeep Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:06 pm

hawkeye wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:
hawkeye wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:

Have to say I don't see many attacks on this thread.
Have to say I don't see many answers to what I think are reasonable questions either. Of course you don't have to answer them. But maybe it would help people understand your view point. Questions such as:

So what is the issue? Have the rules, but waive them for Nadal? Have the rules but waive them for injured players?

or this comment which is obviously at the very heart of the matter:

"I did this because many seemed to think that perhaps because Nadal had been number one before and is very likely to reach it again very soon meant that it didn't matter that he had been punished in this way."

So I'll ask again..who are these many? And would it have mattered more if the rules that apply to everyone else were not applied in this instance (regardless of who the player is)?

I see this as neither an attack or ridicule. Just a genuine request for further discussion.
I got the impression from your to put it bluntly aggressive tone that you had no wish to engage in discussion about my article. If you are at all interested I've made my point as clear as I could. In fact I've clarified it several times as the way ranking points are allocated or not isn't always clear to some.

Actually you haven't. Those questions remain unanswered. I've read this thread a few times and I see no answer to them. I am more than happy to be corrected. I guess a discussion for you is just a one way street. Hey ho. I'll guess we'll have to leave it there then.

by Born Slippy Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:48 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Of course. You wrote about how Djoko's loss to Murray was as a result of losing at the FO, but didn't write about Djoko's loss to Rafa at the USO.
I can't imagine why. No, actually, I don't have to imagine, I know why

Surely a better article after the US Open would be "Why Murray's Wimbledon Win Crushed Novak's Spirit"?

by Cav Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:39 pm

lydian wrote:Don't tar us all with the same brush, however I somewhat agree that HE is far too vilified on here, she bears the brunt of a lot of personal attacks in my opinion without being particularly personal herself.

I very much agree with this.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:If you think this is bad you should see some of the responses to my article pondering about how Djokovic's loss at the FO might affect him....
Ah yes, that was the one you waited 4 weeks to post i.e. immediately after Murray beat Djoko in the Wimby final. I can't imagine why. No, actually, I don't have to imagine, I know why

HE's full statement was "If you think this is bad you should see some of the responses to my article pondering about how Djokovic's loss at the FO might affect him or even the responses to my article pointing out that Nadal was the first player to win a slam in 9 consecutive years..."

You omitted the last bit of her statement. I could say "conveniently" because as a lay person who reads this forum, in the wake of Nadal's French Open victory, she posted an article about that stat, and the insults came flying. I found that an astonishing and unpleasant reaction by posters to vilify her for an article that was entirely topical at that time, yet it was allowed to happen. She received a ban for the Djokovic loss at Wimbledon article.

As an outsider looking in, people are too wrapped up in what her behaviours are like. Well, this is why I say that a step back should be taken because there's too much of the pack mentality directed at her, which is personal, when she is not personal at posters herself.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:06 pm

Cav wrote:You omitted the last bit of her statement. I could say "conveniently" because as a lay person who reads this forum, in the wake of Nadal's French Open victory, she posted an article about that stat, and the insults came flying. I found that an astonishing and unpleasant reaction by posters to vilify her for an article that was entirely topical at that time, yet it was allowed to happen.

I defended HE on that thread, as I thought it was a good topic/post.

Cav wrote:She received a ban for the Djokovic loss at Wimbledon article.

No she didn't.

by hawkeye Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:13 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Cav wrote:You omitted the last bit of her statement. I could say "conveniently" because as a lay person who reads this forum, in the wake of Nadal's French Open victory, she posted an article about that stat, and the insults came flying. I found that an astonishing and unpleasant reaction by posters to vilify her for an article that was entirely topical at that time, yet it was allowed to happen.
I defended HE on that thread, as I thought it was a good topic/post.

Cav wrote:She received a ban for the Djokovic loss at Wimbledon article.
No she didn't.

This is my article drawing attention to Nadal winning slams for 9 years in a row

https://www.606v2.com/t45296-nadal-sets-new-slam-winning-streak

Read some of the ridiculous comments following it?

This is my article about Djokovic's loss at the FO (with even if I say so myself a great title!)

https://www.606v2.com/t46273-djokovic-s-holy-grail-la-coupe-des-mousquetaires

Read some of the ridiculous comments following it including one completely unprovoked ranting "attack".

Julious. You keep saying I wasn't banned for that article but I was banned on the night it was posted and my only comments after writing the article are there for everyone to see. So if I wasn't banned for the article (which not only has a great title but has a subject matter that is still pertinent today) or my comments what was I banned for? When I've asked before you've referred to a PM from Admin implying that this was the reason I was banned. But when I checked the only message from admin was one that was sent months before I wrote my article. It was a general one alerting posters to this article

https://www.606v2.com/t41972-to-all-users-of-the-tennis-section-please-read#1931829

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:28 pm

You were banned for a series of anti-Murray WUM articles that drove posters away from the forum (not Murray fans, just posters who don't like forums with wumming). We tolerated this for quite some time, but a general warning was given over a number of issues having a negative impact on the forum (complaints and people leaving), and that was one of them.

I know you claim that you claim the Djoko post was entirely innocent, but you had 4 weeks to write it, including the entire Wimbledon fortnight, but wrote it after Murray won, so frankly, I don't believe your argument.
You can point to the content of that post and claim innocence, but we're not that dumb. Like I said, we were aware of the wumming, however cleverly it was disguised and had tolerated it for long enough. Eventually the camel's back broke.

by banbrotam Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:42 pm

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Cav wrote:You omitted the last bit of her statement. I could say "conveniently" because as a lay person who reads this forum, in the wake of Nadal's French Open victory, she posted an article about that stat, and the insults came flying. I found that an astonishing and unpleasant reaction by posters to vilify her for an article that was entirely topical at that time, yet it was allowed to happen.
I defended HE on that thread, as I thought it was a good topic/post.

Cav wrote:She received a ban for the Djokovic loss at Wimbledon article.
No she didn't.
This is my article drawing attention to Nadal winning slams for 9 years in a row

https://www.606v2.com/t45296-nadal-sets-new-slam-winning-streak

Read some of the ridiculous comments following it?

This is my article about Djokovic's loss at the FO (with even if I say so myself a great title!)

https://www.606v2.com/t46273-djokovic-s-holy-grail-la-coupe-des-mousquetaires

Read some of the ridiculous comments following it including one completely unprovoked ranting "attack".

Julious. You keep saying I wasn't banned for that article but I was banned on the night it was posted and my only comments after writing the article are there for everyone to see. So if I wasn't banned for the article (which not only has a great title but has a subject matter that is still pertinent today) or my comments what was I banned for? When I've asked before you've referred to a PM from Admin implying that this was the reason I was banned. But when I checked the only message from admin was one that was sent months before I wrote my article. It was a general one alerting posters to this article

https://www.606v2.com/t41972-to-all-users-of-the-tennis-section-please-read#1931829

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!! I think it's time that the United Nations were called. Or at least a parliamentary enquiry - they always find someone to blame, even when it's not anyone's fault . I mean even given the 50 zillion counts of wummery against Murray, they'll still side with you HE Laugh

You could, er, just give it up Rolling Eyes

by hawkeye Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:43 pm

Julius. So my Djokovic article was considered an anti Murray WUM article? It was considered the sort of article that would drive posters away? I do think some of the ridiculous comments and insults left on it were off putting but they are not my fault. I think the FO was the key to this tennis season is that against the rules of 606v2? Does that make me "innocent" or "guilty"? I don't write WUM articles I just give my opinion. "Cleverly disguised wumming"? That's nonsense! I say exactly what I think. But unlike others I have no interest in aggressive, childish personal insults or trying to prevent others from giving their opinion. That appears to be tolerated.

I noticed that when this article appeared right after Nadal won in New York it wasn't labeled "anti-Nadal WUMing"

https://www.606v2.com/t47764-the-murray-aftermath

Not that I have any objection to it. But what is the difference between the timing of that and my article about Djokovic?

by Born Slippy Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:32 am

Leaving aside the obvious differences between that article and your Djokovic one, your statement that it was posted after Rafa's win isn't correct, so that's not a great start.

by Danny_1982 Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:55 am

I must admit I like HE articles. I think it is quite impressive how many times she manages to insert subliminal Murray insults, and then say "who, me?" When people pick up on them. It's amusing. Classic Wummery. Even in this article she's managed to * both Murray's slam wins.

I understand the stance of Julius though, if it puts people off joining or people grow tired of it and leave what's he supposed to do, just let it carry on?

But from my perspective, carry on HE... They're a bit obsessive but they are a funny read a lot of the time. I bloody love them!

by Sponsored content