GOAT Debate

by Adam D Tue 07 Oct 2014, 8:48 am

First topic message reminder :

For all GOAT debate posts, good or bad, better or worse, sickness and health.
We'll move stuff in here from other future threads, to keep it all together.

LF & JHM

Edit - I guess if this is to be for people who really want to have a GOAT debate, we'll have to remove posts from people who think the GOAT debate is worthless. So no opportunity for satire, humour or dismissiveness at the expense of the debate. Let's leave it to those who take it seriously and post accordingly. I think any poster's absence from this thread can be interpreted as having no interest in it. JHM.

by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 10:51 am

This is fantastic. I know I shouldn't post links to other forums, but if people truly believe this is a pro-Nadal forum then check out the comments on this thread!

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2014-11-22/17769.php

Laugh

by It Must Be Love Fri 28 Nov 2014, 6:03 pm

Haven't really talked on this thread about the GOAT debate itself, so I'll chip in now:

I think we could potentially divide up the All Time Greats into many tiers.
For me the top tier would consist of these players:
Borg, Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Laver, Emerson

Putting those top 6 in order is perhaps more difficult, and as I've said earlier I don't think there's one 'right' way to do it.
We've been lucky to have two exceptional players in Nadal and Federer play in the same decade and many times against each other- so unlike the rest Federer vs Nadal debates are also played out there on the court up against each other too.
Federer has clearly accumulated the most statistically, but that does not necessarily make him the best/ greatest.
In terms of this 'Fedal' question, people will have different perspectives and opinions, so the best way to see whose argument is the most logical, rational and can stand up to scrutiny best is by having a debate I say.

So, anyone up for a debate ? Wink

by Born Slippy Fri 28 Nov 2014, 10:53 pm

How far back are you going? Tilden Budge Hoad and Gonzales might be earlier candidates. I think most would also regard Rosewall as better than Emerson.

by It Must Be Love Fri 28 Nov 2014, 11:13 pm

Born Slippy wrote:How far back are you going? Tilden Budge Hoad and Gonzales might be earlier candidates. I think most would also regard Rosewall as better than Emerson.

I did not watch these guys live, so can only go on what highlights I see on youtube and the statistical breakdown.

by Guest Sun 30 Nov 2014, 5:19 pm

Toni Nadal makes it clear that Federer is the GOAT.

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Toni-Novak-Djokovic-a-Better-Player-Than-Rafael-Nadal-And-Federer-articolo21423.html

by It Must Be Love Sun 30 Nov 2014, 5:28 pm

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/05/agassi-goat-id-put-nadal-no-1-federer-no-2/51390/

by It Must Be Love Sun 30 Nov 2014, 5:33 pm

Toni Nadal is rarely positive about Nadal in public.

Apparently the day after his first Slam victory when he was 19 in 2005, the next morning Toni made Rafa re-watch the final and to see where he made unnecessary unforced errors and how he could improve further.
He always puts Nadal's serious opponents as the favourite ahead of big matches and says they are better players than Nadal, and Rafa himself does the former. That's the mentality they have.

Edit: My mistake, luvsports correction

by LuvSports! Sun 30 Nov 2014, 5:40 pm

by hawkeye Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:43 am

emancipator wrote:Toni Nadal makes it clear that Federer is the GOAT.

Rumor has it that Stefan Edberg is certain that NADAL is the GOAT but is too scared to say censored

by Born Slippy Mon 01 Dec 2014, 12:56 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:How far back are you going? Tilden Budge Hoad and Gonzales might be earlier candidates. I think most would also regard Rosewall as better than Emerson.
I did not watch these guys live, so can only go on what highlights I see on youtube and the statistical breakdown.

Emerson's stats are significantly skewed by the fact that he stayed amateur when the likes of Rosewall and Laver were professional. I don't think he would probably even be regarded as in the top 3 in the world in any year in which he was playing. For example, Gonzales (despite being 40) beat him at the French Open in 1968.

by DirectView2 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:34 pm

hawkeye wrote:
emancipator wrote:Toni Nadal makes it clear that Federer is the GOAT.

Rumor has it that Stefan Edberg is certain that NADAL is the GOAT but is too scared to say

Rumor has in that Rafael Nadal is certain that Roger Federer is the GOAT but wasn't scared to say and hence told it some times back. Very Happy

by DirectView2 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:35 pm

hawkeye wrote:
DirectView2 wrote:

Yes Nadal on 14 slams and record holder in masters titles, but he severly lags behind Sampras ,Fed in many other departments like no. of WTF wins, year end No.1's No. of Weeks at No.1, No. of Wimbledon titles, defending year end No.1, defending GS title outside clay etc,... and his fans to think him as GOAT is way too over rating at the moment.

Ha ha! Well Federer and Samprass "severely" lag behind Nadal in RG titles. So what? Who cares about the WTF

If you say who cares about WTF, why not add the similar saying who cares about FO and all of a sudden Rafa's legacy goes 70% down. picard

If one of the most successful tournament is taken out of legends or GOAT candidates they still hold a big enough CV, for instance Sampras would still have 7 Slams and 5 WTF and 286 weeks as no.1, Fed will still have 10 Slams and 6 WTFs and 302 weeks as no.1, in contrast Rafa would just have 5 slams ,0 WTFs and 141 weeks at no.1.

If you bring in Djoko to discussion now [taking AO the most successful open out] he still has 3 slams ,4 WTFs and 123 * weeks at number 1 and would easily pass Rafa's week at no.1 by the upcoming year itself.

Outside 1 tournament Djoko's CV looks more or less similar to Rafa and might even get better in the upcoming year itself.

So my direct view regarding this topic was answered in the previous comment itself. thumbsup

GOAT shouldn't be based on 1 successful tournament but the greatest successful player in general.

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:55 pm

OK saw some interesting foundations of a discussion on another thread, but it started to get more relevant to this one so will reply here.
If I say something which you really really disagree with that's fine, try and respond in a civil manner; if people use the technique of just personal abuse or insults I'm simply not going to respond.

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 5:00 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Another observation I make:
From 2009, there are 5 Slams where I feel Nadal has played but not been able to compete to the best of his ability in the match he lost due to injury (Note: this doesn't mean I necessarily think he would have won those slams without the injury, that is speculation).
Furthermore from 2009 he's had to miss 4 Slams due to injury, i.e. not play them at all.
Now first things first, I thing that shows Nadal has not been able to do well in the 'ability to not get injured' department of the game. If someone replies to my observation that this shows Nadal can't play for years sustained without injuries and negative effects on his body, I agree with you. However as I have said before, I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as a particularly important factor when judging a tennis player; things such as serve, forehand, movement, reflexes etc. are all far more important for me.

Second point is that I think from 2009, with the exclusion of these 9 slams where he has been affected by injury, he has won 9/15 of them, so 60%. If we apply the same statistical ratio to these 9 slams, it comes to 5.4 slams (again, this would be the best way I think of calculating an estimate, obviously I'm not actually suggesting Nadal would literally add 5.4 slams to his slam count if he was healthy for those slams).

So overall I think the two conclusions one can reach is firstly Nadal is not very good at avoiding injuries (for a combination of factors: congenital feet problem which means he has to wear special shoes which put more pressure on his knee, as well as playing style). And secondly these injuries have really been a huge obstruction to his career; it's no surprise he has the best W/L ratio out of any player in history. If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count.
tend to agree with most of that. There is a lot of talk about how Nadal likes to be the chaser and does not do as well when actually at number 1. However, it seems to me what usually happens is that Nadal has a phase when he is healthy - gets to number 1 and then drops down again when he picks up an injury.

In 2008, when he became number 1, he then tore through the hard court season picking up the Olympic title en route. He then won his one and only Australian Open before dominating the clay season as per normal. He lost the number 1 spot after being unable to defend his Wimbledon title through injury.

Having recovered, he then went on another dominant run in 2010 winning three slams in a row (winning his first US Open after he had regained the number 1 ranking). I don't consider his level dipped in 2011 - Djokovic just played incredibly to usurp him (Nadal still managed a slam and two finals).

Rafa regained the number 1 spot in late 2013. He has then had an injury plagued 2014 and lost the spot mid-way through the year.

There also seems to be a lot of talk about how Rafa's playing style has led to his injuries. That seems unlikely to me to have been a significant factor and I don't think there is any evidence to support that theory. He has been injury-prone throughout his career and I strongly suspect that even if he played like Federer, he would probably have spent a very similar amount of time off the tour.

Yes, I'd have to agree with the vast majority of your analysis there.
With the exception of your last line perhaps, I think it is a combination of playing style and congenital problems which has meant he is as injury prone as he is.

by Silver Mon 01 Dec 2014, 5:11 pm

My first (and last) entry into this thread.

I tend to agree with Federer himself - in yet another sublime display of arrogance, he's persistently said that it's impossible to compare across eras, and that nobody can be GOAT, himself included. Even comparing Fedal is difficult due to the differences between 2000 - 2007 and 2008 onwards, let alone past players.

That being said, gun to my head, my vote goes to Laver Bubbly

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 5:42 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
This is where I think you get yourself on a sticky wicket.

You give Nadal the benefit of an "if": if he had been fit, he would have won more than Federer.

But this can be applied to all players. What if Borg had played for longer or had bothered playing in Australia? What if Connors had bothered playing in Australia or hadn't been banned from the French Open during his peak years?

And, of course, Federer himself. What if he hadn't been ill in AO08? What if his back had been pain free in 2013? He might otherwise be on more than 17.

I only ever see the "if" argument used to elevate Nadal's achievements past Federer's. It doesn't seem to get applied in elevating other players' achievements past Nadal's.

This is actually a very fair post, but I do think I have a satisfactory answer. Two points, firstly a more general point, and then specifically on comparing Federer and Nadal as I was addressing:

1/ We can do further analysis of any player; Nadal, Borg, Laver, whatever you want. I put Borg and Nadal on the same 'tier 1 GOAT' despite the fact Nadal has better aggregate stats. Just because I take part in 'Fedal' discussions doesn't mean I don't think similar discussions, e.g. saying why Borg could be as good as Sampras despite having less slams, titles, and weeks at number 1 don't have value too.

2/ False equivalence.
I talked about Nadal's injures, and the damage that has had on his career (in stopping him winning more). You talked about Federer's back injury in 2013, and his mononucleosis. So I suppose an observer might say:
'Ah look, IMBL talks about Nadal's injuries; but now HM talks about Federer's injuries, so we're back to where we started- square one!'
Except we're not. It is not equivalent. Injuries have been a much bigger hindrance to Nadal's career than Federer's. To claim some sort of phoney 'balance' is just inaccurate. Not just have Nadal's injuries been more frequent, they've also come constantly while he's at the peak of his career.

by DirectView2 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 6:12 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
This is where I think you get yourself on a sticky wicket.

You give Nadal the benefit of an "if": if he had been fit, he would have won more than Federer.

But this can be applied to all players. What if Borg had played for longer or had bothered playing in Australia? What if Connors had bothered playing in Australia or hadn't been banned from the French Open during his peak years?

And, of course, Federer himself. What if he hadn't been ill in AO08? What if his back had been pain free in 2013? He might otherwise be on more than 17.

I only ever see the "if" argument used to elevate Nadal's achievements past Federer's. It doesn't seem to get applied in elevating other players' achievements past Nadal's.

Great post HMM, its a nail in the coffin to silly arguments of "if only",

how about if only Del Potro would not have got injured Rafa would have never won USO, if only Nadal would have played more of prime Davydenko in USO and AO he would have never won any of those slams, if only Nadal's team would not have benefited from all medical advancements he would not eve even won half his titles?

If only I would have played Tennis I would have beaten Nadal to shambles 6-0 6-0 6-0 on slow clay court FO, sorry to say but the "if" and "if only" is used by the people who already lost the argument. censored

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 6:31 pm

DirectView2 wrote:
If only I would have played Tennis I would have beaten Nadal to shambles 6-0 6-0 6-0 on slow clay court FO, sorry to say but the "if" and "if only" is used by the people who already lost the argument.

This sort of sarcastic response spectacularly misses my point; but as you're the fourth person to make this 'clever' sort of comeback, I'll dignify it with a response.

-Let's say we are comparing the injury records of Nadal and Federer, and seeing how it impacted on their career.
-Now I show how Nadal has had to miss a certain number of slams due to injury. I work out an estimate figure of how many of those slams he would have won if he had avoided injury. To do this, I apply the same percentage of slams he has won/played in when he is not affected by injury. I am not claiming he would have won all the slams he hadn't played, this would be very unlikely, but am using his normal percentage in the time period to come to a close estimate which is most likely.
-Trying to paint this with the same brush as your claim that you could have won 6-0 6-0 6-0 against Nadal in the French Open is ridiculous. What you're suggesting is very unlikely, while I'm simply using Nadal's normal win ratio and applying it to slams he didn't enter.
-Yes, this also means I have to be fair an acknowledge that Federer is better at keeping fit and healthy for sustained periods compared to Nadal.

by hawkeye Mon 01 Dec 2014, 6:41 pm

DirectView2 wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
This is where I think you get yourself on a sticky wicket.

You give Nadal the benefit of an "if": if he had been fit, he would have won more than Federer.

But this can be applied to all players. What if Borg had played for longer or had bothered playing in Australia? What if Connors had bothered playing in Australia or hadn't been banned from the French Open during his peak years?

And, of course, Federer himself. What if he hadn't been ill in AO08? What if his back had been pain free in 2013? He might otherwise be on more than 17.

I only ever see the "if" argument used to elevate Nadal's achievements past Federer's. It doesn't seem to get applied in elevating other players' achievements past Nadal's.

Great post HMM, its a nail in the coffin to silly arguments of "if only",

how about if only Del Potro would not have got injured Rafa would have never won USO, if only Nadal would have played more of prime Davydenko in USO and AO he would have never won any of those slams, if only Nadal's team would not have benefited from all medical advancements he would not eve even won half his titles?

If only I would have played Tennis I would have beaten Nadal to shambles 6-0 6-0 6-0 on slow clay court FO, sorry to say but the "if" and "if only" is used by the people who already lost the argument.

Well no the "if" can't be applied equally to all players. Laver gets a special "if" for the slams he missed when he turned pro because he won a grand slam both prior and after the slams he missed. Borg doesn't get the same special "if" for tournaments he missed after he retired because there is less proof that his form wouldn't have declined anyway. But Borgs "if" is still way more special than the "if" that DirectView2 gets for his proposal that he could beat Nadal 6-0, 6-0, 6-0.

Nadal's "if" is similar to Laver's "if" Smile

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 6:45 pm

Hawkeye, DV2; I think what we have to consider here is the probability of something happen.
I don't believe in 'special' ifs or 'not so special' ifs- but I can judge what I think is more likely to happen.
DV2 playing Nadal and beating him 6-0 6-0 6-0 is very unlikely to occur; but me applying Nadal's win ratio in a certain period to the slams he's missed in that slam period is far more likely.

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 7:09 pm

What if Gullikson hadn't been taken ill at the 1995 AO? I would hazard that Sampras would be on 15 Slams.

What if Del Potro or Soderling not got injured? Needless to say they would have HOF careers, but again could've picked up some Slams between and disrupt the whole Big 4 dynamic.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 01 Dec 2014, 7:57 pm

Should I re-title this "The IF debate"?

by Matchpoint Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:06 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Should I re-title this "The IF debate"?

About time. Pls do. Or how about "The Woulda, Shoulda and Coulda Non-debate"?

by LuvSports! Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:07 pm

The GOAT IF debate?
Putting DV2 into the mix as well.

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:12 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Should I re-title this "The IF debate"?

Just for you Very Happy

https://youtu.be/_vId_4r925o

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:18 pm

Again, seems as if people either can't comprehend what I'm trying to say, or are purposefully misinterpreting it:

1/ Firstly if I say 'It is raining today and the temperature is 15 degrees. If the temperature was -5 degrees, it's more likely the precipitation would drop down on us as snow rather than rain.' This statement I think is reasonable.
If the response by someone clever was then 'And I think if the temperature was 90 degrees we'd all be boiled alive!'- that does not in any way argue against what my first statement was.
If people don't have a response, they don't have to reply. Raising other hypotheticals which doesn't contradict what I'm saying... doesn't contradict what I'm saying.

2/ Secondly, the point I made about false equivalence to HM. Not all players have had the same experience with injuries. It is a scale, and some people's careers have been affected more than others.

3/ The main issue I was raising was not the hypothetical at all. For one, it is impossible for anyone to have 19.4 Slams, as I made clear. After HM/BS responds, I will expand further.

Also a quote from the OP of this thread by the admin:

Edit - I guess if this is to be for people who really want to have a GOAT debate, we'll have to remove posts from people who think the GOAT debate is worthless. So no opportunity for satire, humour or dismissiveness at the expense of the debate. Let's leave it to those who take it seriously and post accordingly. I think any poster's absence from this thread can be interpreted as having no interest in it. JHM.

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:33 pm

For this discussion to take a serious tone, please dispense with the 'if' as it's un-quantifiable and doesn't add to the achievements of any of the players.

Simple.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:36 pm

I think HE's post this morning set the trend. I can remove if that helps.

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:44 pm

LK, as I said I will expand on what I was saying, and my main point was not the hypothetical itself. I will let HM first reply to my post before I do so.
Julius- I'm not sure which post you're talking about, but if you think it's not serious then sure.

by LuvSports! Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:04 pm

How many more slams would Federer have won with his current racket frame? :O

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:10 pm

LuvSports! wrote:How many more slams would Federer have won with his current racket frame? :O

Well so far he hasn't won any with his current racket frame.

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:22 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:How many more slams would Federer have won with his current racket frame? :O
Well so far he hasn't won any with his current racket frame.

Then again he wasn't always 33 Wink

by temporary21 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:23 pm

His current frame didnt exist at the time either

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:26 pm

What time are you talking about?

by temporary21 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:27 pm

When he wasnt 33

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:30 pm

Last time I checked the 97in racquet was in existence 10 years ago.

by temporary21 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:34 pm

Federer hit the ball soo well back then he didnt need a more helpful raquet, hence I guess why he didnt change it. Its Nadal that's the main what if for Roger, if any

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:37 pm

Well I will leave that for the Federer mob to debate.

by hawkeye Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:52 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think HE's post this morning set the trend. I can remove if that helps.

Are you referring to this?

hawkeye wrote:
emancipator wrote:Toni Nadal makes it clear that Federer is the GOAT.

Rumor has it that Stefan Edberg is certain that NADAL is the GOAT but is too scared to say

If so and you don't understand the serious point I was trying to make (in a joky manner because it is just sport we are talking about and nothing life or death) I will explain it to you?

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 01 Dec 2014, 10:19 pm

Not really a problem - IMBL was complaining about people's jokey manners, but I was OK with it, so left it there. I don't want to remove unless others complain.

by summerblues Tue 02 Dec 2014, 4:21 am

It Must Be Love wrote:2/ False equivalence.
I talked about Nadal's injures, and the damage that has had on his career (in stopping him winning more). You talked about Federer's back injury in 2013, and his mononucleosis. So I suppose an observer might say:
'Ah look, IMBL talks about Nadal's injuries; but now HM talks about Federer's injuries, so we're back to where we started- square one!'
Except we're not. It is not equivalent. Injuries have been a much bigger hindrance to Nadal's career than Federer's. To claim some sort of phoney 'balance' is just inaccurate. Not just have Nadal's injuries been more frequent, they've also come constantly while he's at the peak of his career.

I do not know for sure what HMM meant but I suspect you are misunderstanding his point. I doubt he was suggesting that you would necessarily get back to square one. I think he was just pointing out that one has to be careful not to start cherry-picking "what if" scenarios.

In other words, if you are suggesting (as I am fairly sure you are Smile

) that the raw stats of Rafa and Federer need adjustments to allow for a fairer comparison AND that those adjustments would favor Rafa, then you need to do more than just pick one "what if" scenario and suggest that after adjusting for that scenario, Rafa will look better than the raw stats suggest. You need to - in principle at least - demonstrate that if you rummaged through all possible "what if" scenarios and made all appropriate adjustments, then those would still favor Rafa.

by hawkeye Tue 02 Dec 2014, 7:00 am

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I think HE's post this morning set the trend. I can remove if that helps.

Are you referring to this?

hawkeye wrote:
emancipator wrote:Toni Nadal makes it clear that Federer is the GOAT.

Rumor has it that Stefan Edberg is certain that NADAL is the GOAT but is too scared to say

If so and you don't understand the serious point I was trying to make (in a joky manner because it is just sport we are talking about and nothing life or death) I will explain it to you?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not really a problem - IMBL was complaining about people's jokey manners, but I was OK with it, so left it there. I don't want to remove unless others complain.

Well thank you for leaving my comment there but I'm upset and shocked that it risked the extreme censorship of deletion. If you understand the serious point I was making maybe you could suggest a better way of putting what I believe was a valuable contribution to the discussion that would pass moderation?

by hawkeye Tue 02 Dec 2014, 7:07 am

summerblues wrote:

In other words, if you are suggesting (as I am fairly sure you are ) that the raw stats of Rafa and Federer need adjustments to allow for a fairer comparison AND that those adjustments would favor Rafa, then you need to do more than just pick one "what if" scenario and suggest that after adjusting for that scenario, Rafa will look better than the raw stats suggest. You need to - in principle at least - demonstrate that if you rummaged through all possible "what if" scenarios and made all appropriate adjustments, then those would still favor Rafa.

If you remove all the "ifs" from the GOAT discussion then you are not only dismissing Nadal but Laver, Sampras, Borg... in fact almost everyone. It is a good attempt to win the GOAT debate but I doubt it will go unchallenged.

by Guest Tue 02 Dec 2014, 7:25 am

hawkeye wrote:
summerblues wrote:

In other words, if you are suggesting (as I am fairly sure you are ) that the raw stats of Rafa and Federer need adjustments to allow for a fairer comparison AND that those adjustments would favor Rafa, then you need to do more than just pick one "what if" scenario and suggest that after adjusting for that scenario, Rafa will look better than the raw stats suggest. You need to - in principle at least - demonstrate that if you rummaged through all possible "what if" scenarios and made all appropriate adjustments, then those would still favor Rafa.

If you remove all the "ifs" from the GOAT discussion then you are not only dismissing Nadal but Laver, Sampras, Borg... in fact almost everyone. It is a good attempt to win the GOAT debate but I doubt it will go unchallenged.

Roughly translated into: the only way Nadal comes up trumps in a GOAT debate is with "ifs" Smile

by LuvSports! Tue 02 Dec 2014, 7:53 am

I have never actually seen HE say why Rafa is the Goat ahead of Feds apart from missing slams or being injured. Is that it?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 02 Dec 2014, 8:22 am

hawkeye wrote:
hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I think HE's post this morning set the trend. I can remove if that helps.

Are you referring to this?

hawkeye wrote:
emancipator wrote:Toni Nadal makes it clear that Federer is the GOAT.

Rumor has it that Stefan Edberg is certain that NADAL is the GOAT but is too scared to say

If so and you don't understand the serious point I was trying to make (in a joky manner because it is just sport we are talking about and nothing life or death) I will explain it to you?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not really a problem - IMBL was complaining about people's jokey manners, but I was OK with it, so left it there. I don't want to remove unless others complain.

Well thank you for leaving my comment there but I'm upset and shocked that it risked the extreme censorship of deletion. If you understand the serious point I was making maybe you could suggest a better way of putting what I believe was a valuable contribution to the discussion that would pass moderation?

It did pass moderation (obviously, since it's still there). I had no problem with it at all - the only person who got upset in any way with people getting jokey was IMBL, but I left your post up there anyway, at the risk of upsetting him. I think he's OK with it though.

by It Must Be Love Tue 02 Dec 2014, 8:51 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It did pass moderation (obviously, since it's still there). I had no problem with it at all - the only person who got upset in any way with people getting jokey was IMBL, but I left your post up there anyway, at the risk of upsetting him. I think he's OK with it though.

I never even saw HE's post.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 02 Dec 2014, 8:57 am

OK fair enough - you seemed a bit put out by people being jokey and I saw HE's post and figured that was where it all started. As ever, please report individual posts you feel to be inappropriate to the thread - saves the mods having to guess which ones.

by Jahu Tue 02 Dec 2014, 12:26 pm

JHM, let IMBL deal/accept/integrate/refuse/fight etc etc other peoples comments.

No point nanny'ing every complaint or unhappiness about a comment.

Unless its some sort personal attack (though some can be very nice), anyone sending PM's to Mods to complain, will be slapped on xmass night. GOAT Debate - Page 2 1054138444

by It Must Be Love Tue 02 Dec 2014, 12:32 pm

The admin team can judge individual comments as they see fit, what balance they find is upto them.
Anyway we can move back on topic now, there's been some good points made that I can address.

by Sponsored content