The Thorny Subject Of Competitive Eras

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-thorny-subject-competitive-eras-170300220--ten.html

 

"Andrew Prochnow is a derivatives trader by day"....
Clearly not trustworthy then!

Oh my god, another pundit who has finally drawn the similar conclusions to the one I have been making for years. It is clear that Federer had much easier competition than that faced by Djoko and Nadal. His greatest rivals were all 5 and 6 years younger and his contemporaries for whatever reason failed to launch. And no these guys weren't just losing to Roger in every final and semi they were displaced unceremoniously by the younger players, something that I might add the younger players of today are having great difficulty in accomplishing. Late 90s till the mid to 2000s was the poorest and least competitive period of tennis I remember watching and I started watching tennis around 83.

HE, this is your dream article! It focuses on Fedal AND says Murray is not on their level!

The bit I agree with is: At minimum, this proves that Djokovic and Nadal's quality has been consistently higher than any of Federer's direct contemporaries (by age).

There are two flaws in his analysis though:

1) He counts the total career titles of opponents and not how many titles they had won at the time of the encounter. For instance, Novak was not a 6 slam winner until Jan 13 and Rafa not until Jan 09. This method also overlooks wrinkles like when Federer played two-slam winner Hewitt at USO04, Fed was only a three-slam winner.

2) It only counts finals. If we count the SFs where Fed beat Djokovic, Fed's stats look much better.

Interesting article though, I enjoyed it.

Fed's average is also helped by playing a 35 year old 8 time slam winner in the USO final. Andre was 3 years older than fed is now when that match took place, so there are plus and minus in accounting for both players.

Oh my God, are you all still talking about the same things?

First time I've popped in for months and I'm so relieved to see I missed nothing.

I'll check again in another three months or so. I won't have my hopes up.

bogbrush wrote:Oh my God, are you all still talking about the same things?

First time I've popped in for months and I'm so relieved to see I missed nothing.

I'll check again in another three months or so. I won't have my hopes up.

Nice to hear from you to. Please rush back, I don't know how I will bear your absence.

HM Murdoch wrote:HE, this is your dream article! It focuses on Fedal AND says Murray is not on their level!

Ha ha! only deluded Murray fanboys would ever try and argue that Murray is at the same leval as Fedal. I quite like it when they try though   

Bogbrush   Don't stay away too long Fed could do with some support.

hawkeye wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:HE, this is your dream article! It focuses on Fedal AND says Murray is not on their level!

Ha ha! only deluded Murray fanboys would ever try and argue that Murray is at the same leval as Fedal. I quite like it when they try though   

You must read that sort of stuff on other forums. On this forum, Murray fans don't say that, but sometimes other posters twist their words trying to pretend that they do.

socal1976 wrote:Fed's average is also helped by playing a 35 year old 8 time slam winner in the USO final. Andre was 3 years older than fed is now when that match took place, so there are plus and minus in accounting for both players.

Just one final in 2005? Perhaps Baghdatis and Gonzalez should be mentioned as well.

Can you remind us how long was Agassi not ranked in Top 10? Agassi last won against Federer in Miami, IIRC (2002 or 2003). ;)Cahill had to drag him out of wilderness.

JuliusHMarx wrote:"Andrew Prochnow is a derivatives trader by day"....
Clearly not trustworthy then!

Hmm..... Indeed !

Doubt that "derivatives trader" would ever top a poll of most respected occupations .....   

In the never-ending quest to somehow create a divide of fictitious eras and vast gulfs in strength of competition, the basic facts are so often lost in a mass of statistics, analysis, percentages and more statistics.

And the most significant basic fact of all being that the triumvirate of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were - for so much of their careers - essentially facing the same field of competition, and their respective hauls of Slam titles reflect a close synergy of achievement.

Nadal first won a Slam in 2005, since when he has claimed a total of 13 ; in the same period, Federer has also won 13.

Djokovic first won a Slam in 2008 and has won 7 in all ; in the same period (the now ageing) Federer has won 5.

(I might just follow bogbrush's policy and pop my head in after around three months to see if Miss Wee Keira is still going strong .........)

lags72. Djokovic only has 6 slams. I can understand your mistake though it feels like he should have more...

I stand corrected HE.

And yes, I guess he could indeed have had a lot more by now - if only he had been playing in an era where the competition was ....ahem ...... 'easier' ; or if the super-tough competitive field he was facing hadn't included that pesky Federer chap, who so rudely interrupted his progress in half a dozen or so Slams .......  

My-dada-is-bigger-than-yours… ad infinitum ad nauseam…

@HB… it is all an endless death march towards the GOAT.

my dad's a financial broker who may or not have played a role in the global financial meltdown... The fact that I'm enjoying the fruits of his labor means I can't judge the moral values of a derivatives trader...

laverfan wrote:My-dada-is-bigger-than-yours….

How big is your surrealism?

bogbrush wrote:Oh my God, are you all still talking about the same things?

First time I've popped in for months and I'm so relieved to see I missed nothing.

I'll check again in another three months or so. I won't have my hopes up.

Can't agree more, and I have adopted similar approach.   

This forum has lost a lot of life over the past few months precisely because of terrible attitudes like that shown above. If you don't like an article just ignore it.

Its a shame really good posters like Red/Amritia seem to have been driven away. Even Socal barely posts anymore. I know it was done with the best of intentions but pandering to the type of people who complain about articles they don't like is usually harmful to a forum. They close down the debates they don't like and then often themselves drift away as, in fact, they don't have anything to say to replace it.

In relation to the article itself, I didn't think much of it. There is no ststistical way to prove whether an era is weak or not. You can only subjectively judge it based on assessing the players concerned.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Oh my God, are you all still talking about the same things?

First time I've popped in for months and I'm so relieved to see I missed nothing.

I'll check again in another three months or so. I won't have my hopes up.

Can't agree more, and I have adopted similar approach.   

Nice of you to pop in and say this  

Born Slippy wrote:This forum has lost a lot of life over the past few months precisely because of terrible attitudes like that shown above. If you don't like an article just ignore it.

There is always an article to dislike and express one's opinion.

Born Slippy wrote:Its a shame really good posters like Red/Amritia seem to have been driven away. Even Socal barely posts anymore. I know it was done with the best of intentions but pandering to the type of people who complain about articles they don't like is usually harmful to a forum. They close down the debates they don't like and then often themselves drift away as, in fact, they don't have anything to say to replace it.

Nothing was done intentionally by Mods/Admins. There is a balance between being repetitive (h2h debates towards GOATness - which shows a lack of creativity) and originality like JK's Gulbis discussion. The off-season lull also plays into ennui. I am certain the community will rise to the occasion when Tennis resumes.

Born Slippy wrote:In relation to the article itself, I didn't think much of it. There is no ststistical way to prove whether an era is weak or not. You can only subjectively judge it based on assessing the players concerned.

Quite agree, but there is an attempt, at least once every month/week, to try and come up with some quaint proof anyway. Just waiting for Doha and Brisbane to kick off the season and add some Tennis.

hawkeye wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Oh my God, are you all still talking about the same things?

First time I've popped in for months and I'm so relieved to see I missed nothing.

I'll check again in another three months or so. I won't have my hopes up.

Can't agree more, and I have adopted similar approach.   

Nice of you to pop in and say this  

If people feel they can add to the debate or breadth of topics then please do so!

This forum does tend to be a little myopic around the top 4 players but that's the same for many single-section tennis forums. I frequent some American forums that discuss in depth not only players but tennis gear, technique/coaching, junior tennis, etc...most on here aren't really into all that stuff and fair enough but there's only so many ways we can discuss the top 4 (and vs. yesteryear top 4).

For all Prochnow's analytical data he covers in the piece, one point he fails to make is Federer's relationship to the other three in the Majors. He writes about each of their accomplishments individually in Majors, but in relation to one another Federer in the Majors comes out much better than Prochnow claims. In Majors, Federer leads Djokovic H2H 6-5 and leads Murray 3-1. So if Prochnow wants to make the case that Federer faced lesser competitors - and then claim Djokovic has had tougher roads facing better players - it's a claim that doesn't stand up just on a casual look at stats.

It's not Federer's fault that the talent of his era (and there was plenty of it) had great games - but many of them failed to fulfill them because they were mental cases. Two that stand out are Safin, and Nalbandian. Had either of them had the discipline mentally of someone like Nadal, there is no telling what they might have accomplished. But on their games alone, each of them have taken out Federer on some very big stages (and they both have also taken out Nadal AND Djokovic on equally big occasions). There was a time when Nalbandian held Federer H2H decisively, and it took Federer up until the Fall of 2006 to gain the lead in their H2H. That said, Nalbandian recorded 8 wins over Federer in his prime. If this is what constitutes weak in regard to Federer, then losses to either Safin or Nalbandian also then have to count as weaknesses for both Nadal and Djokovic.

Roger Federer has been to 24 Major Finals, winning 17. In fact none of the other three have even come close (nor will they) of reaching 24 Major Finals (Nadal is possible, but it's remote, given his injury history). Six of the seven losses have come to Rafael Nadal. Federer has been to the Final of every Major at least 5 times!!! He's won 3 of the 4 Majors at least four times each. That's just insane. Unlike Nadal and Djokovic - who have one Major where they've managed to make up the bulk of their total number of Majors won - Federer has been far more consistent no matter who he's had to play. And it hasn't mattered whether he's had to play them early or later in his career. Nadal has been to 8 French Open Finals, and is 8-0, Djokovic has been to 4 Australian Open Finals, and is 4-0. But each of them has one other Major where they've reached multiple Finals but are below .500: Nadal is 2-3 in Wimbledon Finals; Djokovic is 1-4 in US Open Finals. Federer in Major Finals, by contrast, is 7-1 at Wimbledon; 5-1 at the US Open, and 4-1 at the Australian Open. And he's beaten all of the other three in Major Finals - Djokovic at the USO; Murray at the USO and Wimbledon; and Nadal twice at Wimbledon. So Federer has 5 wins in Majors against the very guys Prochnow claims had to face better. Those 5 wins of Federer are more than double the number of Majors Murray owns and almost as many as Djokovic owns. What's clear is that Federer is the best - even the other three players will tell you that. What's equally clear is that Prochnow has no idea what he's talking about.

antonico wrote: What's clear is that Federer is the best - even the other three players will tell you that.

. You should post your analysis on Prochnow's article.

antonico wrote:What's equally clear is that Prochnow has no idea what he's talking about.

Armchair day-trader, soda-slinger and all that!

From http://bleacherreport.com/users/1155412-andrew-prochnow ...

Favorite Coaches Toni Nadal, Ivan Lendl

All-Time Sports Moment - Rafael Nadal defeats Roger Federer 2009 Australian Open Final

Federer or Sampras? Nadal

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/corey-hart-39-jerry-maguire-39-moment-seattle-145900375--mlb.html

Andrew Prochnow is a derivatives trader that previously slung sodas for Sportservice at Milwaukee County Stadium.  

Born Slippy wrote:This forum has lost a lot of life over the past few months precisely because of terrible attitudes like that shown above. If you don't like an article just ignore it.

Why not you follow the similar approach if you don't like a comment not intended to you just ignore    

I still don't understand how we have terrible attitude, some posters have turned off from the forum for quite a while to avoid the junks , all I told is I am adopting similar approach to stay off from the forum boring repeated topics die down, the only person I see who has attitude is you in this article   , but thats ok Merry Christmas.  

Btw Red was driven off not by us nor by any member in the forum   

@HE, my comments was earlier was certainly not aimed at your article, it was aimed at some repetitive boring failed analysis.  

Well that's good to know, although I'm not sure how he could be driven off by someone not a member of the forum. The timing seemed remarkably coincidental to the attempt to clamp down on debate about certain topics. As would be apparent from reviewing a selection, this forum has a lot less WUMs/Fedal haters than most forums and the more extreme have been expertly dealt with by the mods. Comments like yours (and more specifically BB's) give a false impression that articles like this are common when they clearly are not.

Anyway, Merry Xmas and hopefully as Laverfan says, the new season will revitalise the tennis section. Less than a week away now!

Red/Amritia is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome on OTF these days. Bizarre.

The long & short of it is that this forum isn't attracting new members, instead its leaching them, I cant quite put my finger on it but the dynamic isnt quite right - indeed, is there a dynamic on here anymore? I wonder if too much sanitisation of debate and censoring of what can or cant be discussed, e.g. weak eras, has led to people drifting away. If people want to discuss 'controversial' topics then let them, others can ignore it, as long as its within house rules. Anyway, I don't post anywhere near as much as I used to, not a lot of interesting stuff to reply to if I'm honest.

Re: the posts above, well very time Federer goes through the doldrums BB does a disappearing act, was always the same on the old 606 tbh. A few good wins or run in a slam and he'll be back.

lydian wrote:I cant quite put my finger on it but the dynamic isnt quite right - indeed, is there a dynamic on here anymore?

There's been a clear correlation between Fed having worse results this year and a lot of people not posting anymore.

lydian wrote:Red/Amritia is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome on OTF these days. Bizarre.

The Fedal GOATness debate can continue forever. It is not much fun anymore. It also shows neither side's willingness to discuss other topics.

lydian wrote:The long & short of it is that this forum isn't attracting new members, instead its leaching them, I cant quite put my finger on it but the dynamic isnt quite right - indeed, is there a dynamic on here anymore?

BB actually came back. SoCal posted and probably will once the season picks up. .

lydian wrote:I wonder if too much sanitisation of debate and censoring of what can or cant be discussed, e.g. weak eras, has led to people drifting away. If people want to discuss 'controversial' topics then let them, others can ignore it, as long as its within house rules. Anyway, I don't post anywhere near as much as I used to, not a lot of interesting stuff to reply to if I'm honest.

The only sanitization that comes into play is when illegal enhancements of pharmaceutical kind are discussed and volleys of unsubstantiated accusations or drop shots of rumors are considered facts. Threads like this one get more scorn rather than being sanitized.

lydian wrote:Re: the posts above, well very time Federer goes through the doldrums BB does a disappearing act, was always the same on the old 606 tbh. A few good wins or run in a slam and he'll be back.

Holidays and an off-season contributing to it.

@HMM… Federer in Brisbane may start the year with a different dynamic, perhaps. He is trying his best to get to #18 (progeny-wise or trophy-wise )

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:I cant quite put my finger on it but the dynamic isnt quite right - indeed, is there a dynamic on here anymore?

There's been a clear correlation between Fed having worse results this year and a lot of people not posting anymore.

Its quite understandable given Fed had/has so many fans , but I don't think so thats the only case, lack of interesting topics and season coming to an end created some vacuum , I am pretty sure roll on AO and we would have this dull phase cleared out, I have a strong belief Murray gonna win it, and hence some controversy articles will be opened Like how I opened some topics like "Murray the strong favorite for Wimbledon " earlier this year.

Last but not least so far this decade hasn't thrown up a young rising star, We had Fed/Hewitt/Roddick in early 00's and then Nadal/Djoko/Murrray in mid 00's and Del Potro in late 00's but nothing to interest us in say like last 5-6 years, Tennis really need some young sensations to bring in new energy fresh breath overall let alone this forum.   

LF, so you're linking Amritia to Fedal debates? Is that why she was banned from here?
At least she added to the debate.

BB came back to post...er, 1 post, to say the place is boring and always discussing the same old thing. He has a point. More and more of us post less.

Lets face it, its been so dull on here that even JHM felt the need to join OTF to walk on the wild side and apologise to Tenez & 'NITB'-ITB for their bans, presumably to bring them back here...the way things are going I say what the hell, why not. This place needs all the actual posting members it can get, lol.

Lets see, maybe it will pick up in January.

Lydian, Amritia isn't banned from here. I think he even has an account on here under another name, but doesn't post.
 
For the record, I did not apologise to Tenez and NITB for their bans, I simply said I wasn't around when it happened, and that if I had been perhaps I would have mediated in the dispute, as I have done with many other disputes between posters. At no point did I discuss their returning to 606v2, other than to acknowledge that they don't want to. I did however apologise for, among other things, the mean things my 'alter-ego' said about them on their forum.

Poster bans being one of my pet peeves, I will chime in:

laverfan wrote:The only sanitization that comes into play is when illegal enhancements of pharmaceutical kind are discussed and volleys of unsubstantiated accusations or drop shots of rumors are considered facts. Threads like this one get more scorn rather than being sanitized.

Is that true though?  Of the four most prominent cases that come to my mind, none formally involved PEDs:

1. Tenez.  While his comments on performance enhancements could arguably justify a ban, that is, to the best of my knowledge, not why he was banned.  If forum owners felt that they needed to ban him for that reason, he should have received proper warnings explaining the reason, and a ban with the same reason.  However, as I understand it, he was banned instead because a number of posters disliked his posting.

2. NITB.  I believe she was banned because she provided - via pm - the name of the forum to which Tenez moved.  Technically, this is perhaps a bannable offence under the house rules, but I doubt many posters would find themselves banned for the same reason, and given the circumstances, it was to be expected that some posters would be looking for where Tenez moved.

3. Amri aka Red.  He was saying he was banned from here.  Again, it would be difficult to see any reason other than complaints from posters, certainly not PEDs.   JHM's post suggests Red may not have been banned, so I am uncertain on this case.

4. HE.  She received a temporary ban because of her questioning Djokovic's motivation for last year's Wimbledon.

All of the above cases suggest "sanitization" of the forum, yet in none of them were PEDs claimed to be the reason.  I wonder what the stats would be on the impact of the bans - did the forum see increase in activity after the bans?

lydian wrote:Red/Amritia is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome on OTF these days. Bizarre.

I think Amri just likes to argue - even for the argument's sake at times.  At the same time, he likes tennis.  So, naturally he is attracted to confrontational tennis discussions, and this forum here tends to be somewhat shy of those.

JHM, nor did I say you had apologised, merely felt the need to. After all this is what you said on OTF last month: "...I don't actually know exactly what happened. Maybe I would have been able to change the outcome, I don't know. Would an apology from me be worth anything, given that it didn't involve me?"

My understanding is that Am/Red was banned for 2 months - for what reason?
Was HE banned for the reason SB outlines?

SB, NITB said some pretty horrible & nasty things about LF I seem to remember which we're removed by Admin immediately and precipitated the ban. Tenez had been banned 3-4 times from here - many posters had complained to Admin about his behaviour which he wouldnt modify one iota, the permanent ban was only a matter of time.

Looking back, I believe the forum could have got on better with a bit more compromise from all sides led by more active moderation to temper posting behaviours in the period from June 2011 to April 2012. But it wasn't to be and is old history now.

However, lets look at that history once again for a moment because it comes up often. Moderation, or therein a lack of active, on the fly, moderation led to the huge flare point 18 months ago not being dissipated quickly enough beforehand. In particular, IMO a lack of active moderation in the run up to April 2012 had not assuaged the serial bans and then final bans were merely a fait-a-complis thereafter given entrenched posting behaviours hadn't been ameliorated properly leading to people ruling the roost, setting the agenda and cheesing off a huge proportion of the forum. Tenez & NITB had good things to say amongst the more extreme stuff but that was lost under the gathering swell of negative feeling that was building and building from their incessant Nadal agenda. This resulted in at least a dozen or so people complaining to Admin. They also complained to me as I became a focal point for a lot of the bad feelings amongst posters on here. I was literally receiving dozens of PMs to me about it. Was I supposed to sit idly by as posters were leaving - and not all Nadal fans - or did I also feed those feelings of discontent onto Admin to see if people could be persuaded to stay? What would you have done SB?

My concern is the forum moving forwards, its attracting no new members and the reg's are posting less, myself included if you ignore the past couple of days. I don't know what the solution is but the sanitisation of debate needs to be moderated better in my opinion...more levity needs to be given but within bounds.

We don't want the anarchy of 18 months ago but nor do we want sterilisation of debate which is where it feels like we're headed. But I wonder if its rather too late for this group of reg's now...probably need a new intake to pick up the baton within active and sensible moderation. Good luck in finding the new regulars....

I like the ambiguity regarding Red/Ami's gender... Adds to the debate

Lydian, I didn't feel the need to apologise - if I had felt that need, then I would have done it. I honestly don't know how you could interpret my post on OTF in that way.
 
Amritia wasn't banned for 2 months - it was 1 day! - for a number posts which were personal attacks on another poster, and following warnings about spam posts on one particular other thread. He then asked for the 'Red' ID to be deleted, which it was and he has since rejoined under another user ID, but doesn't post on the tennis section.
 
You may remember that he was banned permanently at one point by the admins for some posts that were not on the tennis forum, but we agreed to let him back in, as IMBL/Red - so we've given him every opportunity - and he can post here whenever he wants.
 
HE was banned for a few days, as I have said before I think, for taking the anti-Murray campaign too far. I was getting more complaints about that than I ever got about Tenez, and people were leaving the forum because of it. Not because it was anti-Murray per se, but because it constantly twisted the truth and misrepresented the facts and was, in effect, wumming. Even then none of the threads were actually removed. In that case, as you say "Was I supposed to sit idly by as posters were leaving - and not all Murray fans?"
 
What debates are sanitised? Serious question. We asked for fewer GOAT debates because everyone was moaning about them, and apart from that we basically asked that the house rules be observed.
 
Once again, I issue an open invitation to anyone who wishes to become a Mod - so far no-one else has been willing to help out, despite plenty of criticism for those who do volunteer.

lydian wrote:
Was HE banned for the reason SB outlines?

I thought everyone knew! I was banned for writing this article

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

It was a bit of a shock because despite there being a few comments attacking me on this thread (I thought perhaps they were more in need of moderation) there was some interesting discussion. I came back to post a reply and discovered I'd been banned.

I remain proud of that article though and Djokovic himself admitted to being mentally scared by that semi final at the FO (in an interview at the WTF). IMO Djokovic's holy grail is still la coupe des mousquetaires.

I take the view that moderation should be used to eliminate posters being rude to each other. Some forums are SO tedious if this gets out of hand. But moderation shouldn't be used to eliminate opinions. If anyone disagrees with an opinion the way to do so is by saying why. I have no problem with posters writing stuff that I don't agree with and fail to understand why anyone does. It can be fun to tell people why they are wrong   This place will struggle to attract new posters because how will they find us with a name like "606v2".

hawkeye wrote:

lydian wrote:
Was HE banned for the reason SB outlines?

I thought everyone knew! I was banned for writing this article

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

I've explained before that that simply isn't true.

Julius. From your explanation I was banned because my holy grail article broke the rules laid out in this article

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

To all users of the Tennis board,

The Admin Team feels that the overall hostile and unfriendly tone of tennis section is currently detrimental to 606v2 as a whole and that all posters should honestly question whether their posts bring anything positive and healthy to the forum. We would like to emphasise that it is not about rule-breaking but about creating a more friendly, healthy environment that more posters would want to be involved in rather than leave.

If things don't change there are several members who could be removed from the site or the section could be temporarily (at first) closed.

Please take account of the following and if any of the listed changes apply to your posts, please amend your posting style immediately. This is an open warning and any further transgressions will be dealt with accordingly.

The problem isn't rule-breaking, it's the overall negativity of the forum and the endless circular debates to 'prove' one point of contention is correct, or one player is better/worse - often aimed specifically at the expense of other posters. Eventually the posters who post loudest and longest 'win' and the others disappear from the forum, because it has ceased to hold any enjoyment for them. Not from losing the argument, but from the hostility and animosity of the other posters.

It seems most threads are either created for the purposes of criticism and/or battle, or else hi-jacked into a battle.
It's no wonder outsiders look at the tennis forum and think there is more than the fair share of nutjobs on there (as one poster put it on the GOAT thread).

The list of changes that are required from certain posters are:


   Users to stop creating thread purely to deride or post negatives about specific players.
   Stop creating endless threads which raise issues that are a thinly-disguised attempt to 'prove' one point or another that has already been debated to death. Please be happy that you believe it and not be so desparate to endlessly 'prove' it to everyone else, or to 'prove' that posters you dislike are wrong.
   Users to stop the indignation every time someone says the slightest negative thing about their favourite player.
   Users to stop going on about how they are always right and letting their dislike of players and their fans colour their posts.
   Not to make disparaging generalisations of other groups of posters/fans of other players
   To treat all posters equally regardless of differences of opinion and not to retort in kind if one poster transgresses the behaviour required for a harmonious forum.


You may recognise traits of other posters in the above list. However, this is not a name and shame exercise, anybody who says 'x point applies to y user' will receive a 2 day ban without warning or notification.


Enforcer
   Founder
.....
 
I was therefore banned for writing my holy grail article.

No you weren't - and I've explained why elsewhere. Clearly there is no end to your misrepresenting the truth. It's a bad habit IMHO.

hawkeye wrote:Julius. From your explanation I was banned because my holy grail article broke the rules laid out in this article

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

To all users of the Tennis board,

The Admin Team feels that the overall hostile and unfriendly tone of tennis section is currently detrimental to 606v2 as a whole and that all posters should honestly question whether their posts bring anything positive and healthy to the forum. We would like to emphasise that it is not about rule-breaking but about creating a more friendly, healthy environment that more posters would want to be involved in rather than leave.

If things don't change there are several members who could be removed from the site or the section could be temporarily (at first) closed.

Please take account of the following and if any of the listed changes apply to your posts, please amend your posting style immediately. This is an open warning and any further transgressions will be dealt with accordingly.

The problem isn't rule-breaking, it's the overall negativity of the forum and the endless circular debates to 'prove' one point of contention is correct, or one player is better/worse - often aimed specifically at the expense of other posters. Eventually the posters who post loudest and longest 'win' and the others disappear from the forum, because it has ceased to hold any enjoyment for them. Not from losing the argument, but from the hostility and animosity of the other posters.

It seems most threads are either created for the purposes of criticism and/or battle, or else hi-jacked into a battle.
It's no wonder outsiders look at the tennis forum and think there is more than the fair share of nutjobs on there (as one poster put it on the GOAT thread).

The list of changes that are required from certain posters are:


   Users to stop creating thread purely to deride or post negatives about specific players.
   Stop creating endless threads which raise issues that are a thinly-disguised attempt to 'prove' one point or another that has already been debated to death. Please be happy that you believe it and not be so desparate to endlessly 'prove' it to everyone else, or to 'prove' that posters you dislike are wrong.
   Users to stop the indignation every time someone says the slightest negative thing about their favourite player.
   Users to stop going on about how they are always right and letting their dislike of players and their fans colour their posts.
   Not to make disparaging generalisations of other groups of posters/fans of other players
   To treat all posters equally regardless of differences of opinion and not to retort in kind if one poster transgresses the behaviour required for a harmonious forum.


You may recognise traits of other posters in the above list. However, this is not a name and shame exercise, anybody who says 'x point applies to y user' will receive a 2 day ban without warning or notification.


Enforcer
   Founder
.....
 
I was therefore banned for writing my holy grail article.

I still think this is a little place to have some fun chatting about a sport we like in the spare time. Amazing to see how people can get self important for no reason!

hawkeye wrote:

lydian wrote:
Was HE banned for the reason SB outlines?

I thought everyone knew! I was banned for writing this article

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

It was a bit of a shock because despite there being a few comments attacking me on this thread (I thought perhaps they were more in need of moderation) there was some interesting discussion. I came back to post a reply and discovered I'd been banned.

I remain proud of that article though and Djokovic himself admitted to being mentally scared by that semi final at the FO (in an interview at the WTF). IMO Djokovic's holy grail is still la coupe des mousquetaires.

I take the view that moderation should be used to eliminate posters being rude to each other. Some forums are SO tedious if this gets out of hand. But moderation shouldn't be used to eliminate opinions. If anyone disagrees with an opinion the way to do so is by saying why. I have no problem with posters writing stuff that I don't agree with and fail to understand why anyone does. It can be fun to tell people why they are wrong   This place will struggle to attract new posters because how will they find us with a name like "606v2".

"Acting like an idiot."
Is that being rude HE?

HE says - "This place will struggle to attract new posters because how will they find us with a name like "606v2"

No the forum will struggle, (especially to gain new fans),as long as people like you continue to put down Andy Murray.

If you should get banned again I would hope its permanent!

lydian wrote:JHM, nor did I say you had apologised, merely felt the need to. After all this is what you said on OTF last month: "...I don't actually know exactly what happened. Maybe I would have been able to change the outcome, I don't know. Would an apology from me be worth anything, given that it didn't involve me?"

I remember that line but I do not think JHM was offering an apology.  I think either nitb or Tenez were suggesting an apology would be appropriate (or something of the sort) and JHM's line came in response to that.  I read it as a rhetorical question, effectively saying that looking for an apology from him was pointless regardless.

lydian wrote:What would you have done SB?

What would I have done if I had been either an admin or a mod?  I do not think there was much to do in the first place.  If a poster thinks Nadal lacks talent relative to other top players, would never have made it had conditions not changed dramatically, and cheats more than most players, then I certainly think that poster should be able to present that view, robustly if they wish so.

With the exception of PED discussions, I cannot think of anything where I would say Tenez warranted even a consideration for a ban.  Of course, for legal reasons, forums cannot allow PED accusations.  But if that is the issue, it should be dealt with directly - clear warnings with clearly delineated consequences, and ultimately a ban, if needed.

But that is not why Tenez was banned, at least not on the face of it.  So either his ban was a backdoor way to get rid of his PED comments or, worse still, the forum would have been happy to live with his PED comments but was unwilling to keep him because other posters disliked him.

HE's case is actually quite similar in a way.  She attracts a lot of negative feelings from many posters for similar reasons as Tenez did - she is quite persistent in her criticisms of Andy.  You feel that something needed to be done in Tenez's case.  There are probably good many posters who similarly feel that something needs to be done in her case.  But if the forum keeps removing posters that attract criticism, it is bound to lose a lot of color over time.  Plus it is not just Tenez and HE that one loses, one loses other posters who - while maybe not as controversial as the posters that are let go - may prefer more freewheeling nature of the forum.  Presumably, the theory is that it is worth it, because in their stead the forum will gain more - and perhaps better - posters.  I doubt it.  As I said before, it would be very interesting to see the stats; I certainly do not have the feeling that bans helped increase the traffic on this forum.

lydian wrote:SB, NITB said some pretty horrible & nasty things about LF I seem to remember which we're removed by Admin immediately and precipitated the ban.

I did not see those so cannot explicitly comment on whether or not I personally feel her statements were worth a ban.

If her comments were bad enough to warrant a permanent ban, then she should have been banned for those comments.  However, she was banned for a PM in which she told a poster where Tenez moved.  If the real problem was her nasty comments, then that is an odd way to deal with it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
 
Once again, I issue an open invitation to anyone who wishes to become a Mod - so far no-one else has been willing to help out, despite plenty of criticism for those who do volunteer.

I will volunteer.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
 
Once again, I issue an open invitation to anyone who wishes to become a Mod - so far no-one else has been willing to help out, despite plenty of criticism for those who do volunteer.

I will volunteer.

OK - drop a PM to one of the Admins (Mods don't have the tekkie powers to change user settings)

NOOOOO don't make HE become a MOD!

LuvSports! wrote:NOOOOO don't make HE become a MOD!

A bit unfair, LS, IMHO. Becoming a Mod has it's benefits, and may help HE moderate her anti-Murray stance. You need to give people a chance. I wish LK(v1/v2) could also help.