AO 2015 - Day 8

First topic message reminder :

Order of Play - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/schedule/schedule13.html

Live Scores - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/index.html

Day 8 Preview - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2016-01-24/day_8_preview_vikas_cause_for_celebration.html

My predictions...

Wawrinka in 4 close TB sets.

Murray comfortably in 3 sets.

Ferrer in 5 sets.

Want to see Kuznetsov move up and beat La Monf, perhaps in 4 or 5.

slashermcguirk wrote:Konta is British?? Hmmmm. Didn't she only move to the UK when she was nearly 18 having grown up in and played for Australia??

She was 14 not 18

Konta, a Hungarian born in Australia, moved to UK.

British as much as Aljaž Bedene.

Happy for here nonetheless. It's her right to want to represent the country she's spent nearly half her life in.

She preferred the British sunday roast to the Aussie shrimp on a barby. Smart girl really

Xmas in Aussie is quite something at least. If she was still Aussie I think we'd all still be happy for her anyway. It's not like she's s cricketer

temp, don't remove my posts, it's true what I sad, don't be so sensitive "again" in this 2016.

Indeed BB I caught some of the match and was impressed with how confident Raonic was approaching the net! Never seen him that comfortable on court.

You have to ask how many times have we been here before when someone lays down a big marker and falters in the next match?

Using the Leicester analogy, if they win the league will it signify change that will see other teams without recent league success make the same strides they have or will it be business as usual next season? as romantic as Leicester's run is, is it going to signify major changes?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:She preferred the British sunday roast to the Aussie shrimp on a barby. Smart girl really

I'm sure her favorite meal is a nice classic Goulash

how long should one have to have lived in the UK before they could sensibly be called "British"? I would have thought ten years would be more than enough

But you can never call an imported sportsman a British or whatever country he came to.

So I would skip the "country" name and call it playing for UK, not British.

Jahu wrote:temp, don't remove my posts, it's true what I sad, don't be so sensitive "again" in this 2016.

Wasn't me matey

Sorry.

Has JHM been sacked? Where is he? Not seem him recently.

She plays for us. Pays taxes for us and is happy to be here. Like farah and co, in fine with that being British

Not sure about that MfC ......

I guess age must come into play. I mean ....what if you spent thirty years in another country (from birth), then moved to the UK for whatever reason. After ten years, can you automatically & realistically be called "British"......?

Questioning Konta's nationality and how it should be tied to some arbitrary lines on the map drawn by political idiots and blind men who keep fighting asinine wars over such f$$$ing lines is doom for humanity.

Absolute travesty when she has been living, practicing, playing for GB.

LF, that's very politically correct, you should run for a Senator

I agree to being called representing Britain or playing for UK, and not give it a nationality connotation with "british".

lags72 wrote:Not sure about that MfC ......  

I guess age must come into play. I mean ....what if you spent thirty years in another country (from birth), then moved to the UK for whatever reason. After ten years, can you automatically & realistically be called "British"......?

There were thousands of British passport holders in Uganda, South Africa. When Idi Amin was persecuting his own citizens, such DP humans moved to GB.

Is the label of being 'British' a sign of higher achievements than mere mortals, which were, say, born in Australia, or New Zealand or South Africa? Why is there such an attitude?

Jahu wrote:LF, that's very politically correct, you should run for a Senator

I agree to being called representing Britain or playing for UK, and not give it a nationality connotation with "british".

We already have Trump on this side of the pond. .

If I had my way, LatAm, Mexico, NA and Canada would function like EU.

We may need a separate thread for such discussions and keep Tennis and Politics separate.

Tend to agree with LF, having both French and British citizenship (and Australian, come to that, but let's not go there...) and lived in both countries, it seems the Brits have this obsession with being a "proper" Brit, which the French largely don't (though they do complain about their sportsmen living in Switzerland to avoid taxes...). Always find it a bit strange. For me if you have a UK passport, live in the UK, and feel British, then I'm really not sure why anyone would view you as something else. And yet the comments on the Guardian's (I shudder to think how bad it is on say the Telegraph) article about Konta's latest win are largely about that, rather than congratulating her on a wonderful performance. All a bit odd...

If people are saying that she's not a product of the British tennis system, then that is a view I certainly have some sympathy with, albeit at least she learnt some of her trade in the UK. But to claim she isn't British is just bizarre...

LF: Trump seems to trump anyone

No one would want to be with/under US, not even Mexico, let alone Canada

You're talking like a French socialist

Mad for Chelsea wrote:For me if you have a UK passport, live in the UK, and feel British

How can one feel British, when you are not british? You can feel a Brit citizen/resident.


You are british by roots/blood, not by country you live currently or lived some years. (by british i mean any nation).

So me going for 4-5y in Japan, should make me feel Japanese?

This is getting heavy now

I would say you feel British when you have developed a bond with that country. That may be through parentage (as in my case, though I live here now too), or through living there. Konta, having lived there for 8 years, clearly felt two years ago enough of a connection with the UK to acquire British citizenship.

Certainly if I lived in Japan long enough I would probably start to feel Japanese...

Jahu wrote:You're talking like a French socialist

At least I am not standing in front of the Congress begging for permission to go to war like W.

@T2.. this is not Tennis-related, but I have no specific issues if posters want to discuss this.

The questions about Konta's British-ness do not, I think, stem from people questioning whether she is worthy to represent us.

They stem from us being unsure whether we can really claim her success is a product of our country, culture or gene pool.

Konta is British the moment she becomes a British citizen. The question is to what extent is her success British?

As for any part of the world being governed like the EU... no. Just no.

Mad for Chelsea wrote: Konta, having lived there for 8 years, clearly felt two years ago enough of a connection with the UK to acquire British citizenship.

No, she just had to wait 5 years to apply for Brit citizenship, no special feeling for Britishness

>>Certainly if I lived in Japan long enough I would probably start to feel Japanese...

Don't be a traitor now, stick to your roots

One can see at large emigrant societies, i.e chinese, asians, latinos etc in big cities, they live in their areas, rarily speak the language of that country, and don't feel or care one bit for feeling british/american etc. they live their daily lives perfectly without that feeling.

Now with sports it's different, especially if you come from a poor country, a good Passport is a necessity to travel and a country that gives you infrastructure to develop your skills is more then welcome, sure you will be treated as a traitor in your root country, but that's easy to compensate, once a year like Djoko, you send some $ and pretend you care about poor there, media pictures, all done.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Tend to agree with LF, having both French and British citizenship (and Australian, come to that, but let's not go there...) and lived in both countries, it seems the Brits have this obsession with being a "proper" Brit, which the French largely don't (though they do complain about their sportsmen living in Switzerland to avoid taxes...). Always find it a bit strange. For me if you have a UK passport, live in the UK, and feel British, then I'm really not sure why anyone would view you as something else. And yet the comments on the Guardian's (I shudder to think how bad it is on say the Telegraph) article about Konta's latest win are largely about that, rather than congratulating her on a wonderful performance. All a bit odd...

If people are saying that she's not a product of the British tennis system, then that is a view I certainly have some sympathy with, albeit at least she learnt some of her trade in the UK. But to claim she isn't British is just bizarre...

My take on it is that she's clearly entitled to play as a British player both as an individual and in a Fed Cup team. I tend not to be too bothered about an individual's country in non-team tennis and I am pleased for her that she's done so well - she seems like a decent person.

That said, as a born, bred, and resident Brit I do not respond well to invitations from the Press or the LTA or whoever to celebrate her success as a "British" sporting achievement, because that's not what it seems to me, as opposed to a part-British and part-Australian success. Similarly, I have never really seen Rusedski as a Brit either - not in the same way as I do Murray or Henman for example.

HM Murdock wrote: Konta is British the moment she becomes a British citizen.

How? she can be British citizen, not real British, the Citizenship can be withdrawn by Law, as stated on BNA Act.
(The power to deprive a naturalised person of their citizenship status and leave them vulnerable to statelessness due to “seriously prejudicial” conduct derives from section 66 of the Immigration Act 2014,)

She would become stateless if she has surrendered her Aussie passport.

You can't make a real British stateless, hance a fake citizen.

barrystar wrote:[That said, as a born, bred, and resident Brit I do not respond well to invitations from the Press or the LTA or whoever to celebrate her success as a "British" sporting achievement, because that's not what it seems to me, as opposed to a part-British and part-Australian success.

The press aren't going to nit-pick to this degree are they. Could you imagine the headline if she won Wimbledon "26.24% (or whatever) Brit reigns supreme"

If she says she represents us or any other country then they are part of that country. Quite simple for me, as I'm another who believes in these days, that where you were brought up is largely irrelevant

I'd also like Konta, even if she wasn't 'British'. Like Kvitova, she comes across as a nice person and very grounded

Back to Kyrgios.

Any one seen this Phone on court from yesterday?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGmjZ9ioCw

Well Raonic isn't Canadian now is he?!

This whole debate would rage on nonchalantly without any real resolution. If someone qualifies to represent a country, what's the issue?

Most of the gob$hite brigade in any country harp on for immigrants to go and fight for the country they land in, why should sport be any different in terms of representation?

barrystar wrote:That said, as a born, bred, and resident Brit I do not respond well to invitations from the Press or the LTA or whoever to celebrate her success as a "British" sporting achievement, because that's not what it seems to me, as opposed to a part-British and part-Australian success.  Similarly, I have never really seen Rusedski as a Brit either - not in the same way as I do Murray or Henman for example.

Let us take Murray's "Scottishness", which tends to get hotly debated in some quarters. (I am certain you were expecting this ).

Why is there such a division between the 'logical' acceptance of Konta's win as Britain's success, but a similar lack of "emotional" acceptance of the "British"ness of Konta's win. Yet Murray's DC win is perfectly acceptable as a "British" DC win, or is it?

The primal and tribal instinct for an identity is very illogical for the species that claims to have the highest sentient intelligence. Our logic seems unable to penetrate such primal/tribal parts of brain/persona.

PS: I will exclude Bottle-nose Dolphins.

Interesting points on the Britishness of not.

The idea (laverfan) that this strays into

laverfan wrote:There were thousands of British passport holders in Uganda, South Africa. When Idi Amin was persecuting his own citizens, such DP humans moved to GB.

Is the label of being 'British' a sign of higher achievements than mere mortals, which were, say, born in Australia, or New Zealand or South Africa? Why is there such an attitude?

misrepresents the point. I'm not saying it confers superiority, it's just a fact of identity.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Tend to agree with LF, having both French and British citizenship (and Australian, come to that, but let's not go there...) and lived in both countries, it seems the Brits have this obsession with being a "proper" Brit, which the French largely don't (though they do complain about their sportsmen living in Switzerland to avoid taxes...). Always find it a bit strange. For me if you have a UK passport, live in the UK, and feel British, then I'm really not sure why anyone would view you as something else. And yet the comments on the Guardian's (I shudder to think how bad it is on say the Telegraph) article about Konta's latest win are largely about that, rather than congratulating her on a wonderful performance. All a bit odd...

If people are saying that she's not a product of the British tennis system, then that is a view I certainly have some sympathy with, albeit at least she learnt some of her trade in the UK. But to claim she isn't British is just bizarre...

Fine, but again this isn't my point. If it is indeed so meaningless, why are posters getting so exited on here that she's playing in the later rounds?

People are caught between two stools. Either to be British has permanent meaning which, if you're so inclined, you might feel makes you want to supprt them, or it's a meaningless trinket of legal procedure that we should ignore.

Which is it folks?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Most of the gob$hite brigade in any country harp on for immigrants to go and fight for the country they land in, why should sport be any different in terms of representation?

We (Americans) did it to the Irish, French, Italians, Chinese, Japanese. American Indians at various points in our history. It is a shameful past for any country to have. It is tragic to use the immigrant population as cannon fodder in exchange for the rite of passage to some higher exalted "state".

bogbrush wrote:People are caught between two stools. Either to be British has permanent meaning which, if you're so inclined, you might feel makes you want to support them, or it's a meaningless trinket of legal procedure that we should ignore.

Which is it folks?

It is a an abstract notion to be exploited by politicians at their convenience, nothing more, nothing less. It is a divisive mindset of worthless value. If it gives you a British passport to travel around the world, it also can get you shot in some others.

Jahu wrote:

HM Murdock wrote: Konta is British the moment she becomes a British citizen.

How? she can be British citizen, not real British, the Citizenship can be withdrawn by Law, as stated on BNA Act.
(The power to deprive a naturalised person of their citizenship status and leave them vulnerable to statelessness due to “seriously prejudicial” conduct derives from section 66 of the Immigration Act 2014,)

She would become stateless if she has surrendered her Aussie passport.

You can't make a real British stateless, hance a fake citizen.

Any nationality is defined by law.

Even in the case of "born in the country", the borders are defined by law.

Everyone's nationality is a result of something on a statute book somewhere.

Konta's nationality as defined by law is British.

HM Murdock wrote:

Jahu wrote:

HM Murdock wrote: Konta is British the moment she becomes a British citizen.

How? she can be British citizen, not real British, the Citizenship can be withdrawn by Law, as stated on BNA Act.
(The power to deprive a naturalised person of their citizenship status and leave them vulnerable to statelessness due to “seriously prejudicial” conduct derives from section 66 of the Immigration Act 2014,)

She would become stateless if she has surrendered her Aussie passport.

You can't make a real British stateless, hance a fake citizen.

Any nationality is defined by law.

Even in the case of "born in the country", the borders are defined by law.

Everyone's nationality is a result of something on a statute book somewhere.

Konta's nationality as defined by law is British.

She probably has the Aussie one too, and just for fun a Hungarian one to keep tradition.

British citizen, yes, a british, don't think so, my view.

Where's Dimbleby when you need him?

Think we need him to mediate here and sooth us with his voice

Enough for me today of non-tennis stuff

You going to plunge on that one eyed trouser snake?

Back to tennis......

Murray got the job done but was more off than on. Still he got the job done to reach the quarters. Next up Ferrer.

I was surprised to see Raonic beating Wawrinka especially once he had lost a two set lead. For Raonic he has to build on that and follow that up with a win against Monfils.

legendkillarV2 wrote:You going to plunge on that one eyed trouser snake?

Don't start me now for crying out loud, I'm behaving

CC says back to tennis, so I listen to seniors

Jahu wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:You going to plunge on that one eyed trouser snake?

Don't start me now for crying out loud, I'm behaving

CC says back to tennis, so I listen to seniors

How many RPM's do you get on a plunge?

Depends on the friction, lubrication and size of the target

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:People are caught between two stools. Either to be British has permanent meaning which, if you're so inclined, you might feel makes you want to support them, or it's a meaningless trinket of legal procedure that we should ignore.

Which is it folks?

It is a an abstract notion to be exploited by politicians at their convenience, nothing more, nothing less. It is a divisive mindset of worthless value. If it gives you a British passport to travel around the world, it also can get you shot in some others.

Fine, but my question is why on Earth then are people in Britain excited by her winning? Or Andy Murray?

Just who or who cannot call themselves British ? Half the world and his wife presumably

The trouble is the subject gets hijacked by idiot politicians for their own purpose.

My technical view is that countries can't exist. However groups of humans can form distinct cultures. I am a gigantic fan of the greatest political culture if them all, which is the British one; not the garbage that UK political people spout, but the system of Common Law which allied to hard-won principles like religious freedom and separation of powers created a system that is at the root of the best things to happen to the World in the last 300 years.

The European model is based on rule by monarchs, which is why the Spaniards turned S America into a hell hole and we turned N America into a beacon of freedom and prosperity, and why they call diktat by an unelected Commission 'democracy'.

Joanna Konta is already British in the most important way possible; she's Australian, which is a long-back offshoot of Britain.

I am an immigrant. I came to this country in my thirties. I identify as Briish. I don't see what the bid deal is about Konta being British.

bogbrush wrote:The trouble is the subject gets hijacked by idiot politicians for their own purpose.

My technical view is that countries can't exist. However groups of humans can form distinct cultures. I am a gigantic fan of the greatest political culture if them all, which is the British one; not the garbage that UK political people spout, but the system of Common Law which allied to hard-won principles like religious freedom and separation of powers created a system that is at the root of the best things to happen to the World in the last 300 years.

I was going to make a very similar point but it seems I've been beaten to the punch!

British as a nationality is rather artificial. If lines on a map change, then the those who are British change.

But British culture is a far more substantive and important thing. Ideas such as Habeas Corpus, the rule of law, trial by jury, parliament etc either began or flourished in Britain (or, more precisely, England, as Britain didn't exist as a nation until 1707) and from there spread round the world.

Strangely, British culture has been massively downplayed over recent decades. America, for instance, retains a real respect for Magna Carta but our own dear leader famously didn't even know what it meant.

One might be tempted to point out how the state dogma of "multi-culture" effectively means "no culture" but I'm not going to go there...

When Britain is now seen to be divided over who is Scottish, Irish and now even Welsh.. how do you define who is British ?
I could also be tempted by saying that my family tree dates back to the 15th Century and I can claim to be 100% English.. thus now I do not define myself as British

End of the day we are species. Nothing divides us. Made with a mix of the same biology.