The Grass Season

First topic message reminder :

With the grass season underway, I thought we could use a thread to discuss the pre Wimbledon events.

The draws are out for Stuttgart and S'Hertogenbosch, which start properly tomorrow. Both 250s but a noticeable difference in quality. Stuttgart has most of the quality:

Stuttgart

Full Draw 

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/current/stuttgart/321/draws

Anticipated QF

Federer - Troicki
Thiem - Lopez
Simon - Pouille
Kohlschreiber - Cilic

Summary/Prediction


If he's fit, it's hard to look past Federer here. His very first match could be tough though as he will face the big serving Taylor Fritz, if Fritz can get past a qualifier. I suspect it will be Lopez in the SF, with Fed to come through a tough 3 setter. I'm picking Kohlschreiber to come through the other half. Federer to win the final in straights.

Worth looking out for the first round match between Del Potro and Dimitrov. The winner will have a good shot to then beat Pouille and make the QF at least. Stepanek is also playing last round of qualies today - will be a real danger for anyone in R1.

S'Hertorgenbosch

Full Draw

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/current/s-hertogenbosch/440/draws

Anticipated QF

Ferrer - Muller
Karlovic - Seppi
Querrey - Johnson
Mahut - Tomic

Summary/Prediction

A much weaker field, which Ferrer of a couple of years ago would have walked. However, he's been generally poor this year and I don't see him getting past Muller, who I think will then also edge out Ivo in the SF. The other half is very tough with no one really in form. I'm going to pick Querrey to come through. Muller for the title.

Federer's movement is about 75% maybe worse latterly. The only hope is it's more to do with the wet grass than the back. His serve motion is still 2013 like- clearly protecting the back and arming it. He'll have a lot of work and some healing luck to do to be ready for Wimbledon.

temporary21 wrote:Perhaps, just perhaps we should give the big wins Murray gets the respect they deserve

Sure, and nothing wrong with that.  Posters who want to do so can do so.  But let's not try to force posters to be fair.

temporary21 wrote:Anyone catch the last set? How does Rogers back look?

Roger looked so-so, but it was not clear to me it was necessarily due to back (though could have been too).  To me he looked more rusty than anything else.  Also, he is getting older.  Even before his injury I made a prediction that he would be out of top 10 by year-end (though I admit I did not necessarily think I would be correct).  I think he will now start sliding much much quicker.

That's fair. I mean most of the bouts between the big guys are partly decided by one being hindered in some way and another stepping up.
Generally we be diplomatic and focus on the latter. Accepting that one guy playing well matters more to the outcome
Muzz seems to cop the former a lot more than other guys on here, that inconsistency can definitely grate. He was fab in the OG final and would have pushed even peak Roger very hard

summerblues wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Simple really because I don't see such posts about any other player.

But how is this even relevant?  If posters like to pick on Murray, they can pick on Murray.  They do not have to spread their criticism fairly.

That is fine if you are looking for posters to be picking on players for dislike sake - takes us back to the old 606 days. As that is what it comes down to really when you criticize or knock one player's achievements and belittle them when other players achievements are left unasterisked or unbelittled in any way.

I suppose if that is the way posters wish to be then that is up to them but don't expect any back-slapping from me for such posts.

Those such posts I will retort to and say if they think Murray has been lucky in his career then I say they dont look at the facts. I do believe he is the only ten times slam finalist to have played all of his slam finals against players ranked no lower than three - damned unlucky that when you look at other such multiple slam finalists.

We also get the stuff that he only has stats he has due to homogenisation. I will challenge that vehemently. Players who did well on less homogenised surfaces were great returners of serve as Murray is. He nullifies fast servers some faster than even Sampras today so I'd say he would have coped just fine on faster surfaces.

Lets just remember Murray is one of only ten players ever to reach the slam final of all four slams, on the cusp of top ten of most slam final appearances of all-time, two times slam winner, Davis Cup winner and Olympic champion. You would not think it reading some of the posts about him but hey ho at least those in the know appreciate him.

temporary21 wrote:that inconsistency can definitely grate.

I am sure it can grate.  But I still think it is better to have all of that on the forum than try to enforce a "fair" forum.

CC, of course, by all means disagree and present counterarguments.  I am not suggesting you need to just take unfair posts about Andy.

But I think the counterargument should remain on the level of discussing players and tennis.

I do not see the reason to bring posters into it - i.e., why start talking about whether or not a poster is being disingenuous?  How is that relevant, and what does it matter even if they are disingenuous?  The talk should be about tennis not about posters, no?

If posters are big enough to belittle players achievements then surely they are big enough to be labelled disengenious. No?

CaledonianCraig wrote:If posters are big enough to belittle players achievements then surely they are big enough to be labelled disengenious. No?

They may be big enough, but that does not make it right.  Just because a poster attacks a player (even if unfairly), it does not make it ok to personally attack that poster.

Attacking a player is tennis discussion - and it is perfectly appropriate on a forum.  Attacking a poster in return is not.

Calling a poster disengenious hardly constitutes an attack. It is an observation and believe you me I have seen far worse going unpunished on this forum.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If posters are big enough to belittle players achievements then surely they are big enough to be labelled disengenious. No?

The difference is the former is attacking the player (if it really is a belittling comment - rather than just an impartial analysis or an honestly conceived opinion - even if it is perhaps a somewhat mistaken opinion) and the latter is attacking the commentator (the claim of "disingenuous" is an ad hominem attack on the poster, suggesting the poster is insincere and deceptive).

The fuzzy condition is that some consider an "attack" on a player as an attack on themselves (as supporter of that player). Sometimes this may be the case - I think troll is a label to describe this.

Now back to specifics: I may be wrong but I think that CC is suggesting Lydian is disingenuous.  Now I believe Lydian is many things (all commendable in my view) but disingenuous is not one of them.

The main thing is it isn't consistent across players. That makes fans of one player feel he is getting picked on.

When they then protest, and rightly so, but it keeps happening all the time, it's like they're being ignored or disrespected, that's why it grates


It's not easy. We don't want to, and shouldn't, tell people how to think, but when one player is viewed negatively so long, it isolates. All we can really ask is to be consistent. Don't complain if the same logic gets applied to other guys

Disingenious as in insincere. I would say that was accurate as far as views on Murray goes. Scour the posts and if you find a rare snippet of praise for Murray you will do well and when there is then there is always a caveat with it.

I admire and respect posters who are fair. Criticize when appropriate and praise when appropriate even if it means praising a player they don't like. There are players I dislike but will always give credit where credit is due.

We all have posts that irk on here. Obviously, the weak era one irks many as it is far too difficult to prove for various reasons. It irks so much that it is virtually a taboo topic. Well I see the asterisking of players achievements as identical. Trying to erode an achievement by putting it down to fatigue or wind is unprovable and quite frankly a pointless exercise but seems it is a topic allowed to be discussed despite it being a pointless subject.

CaledonianCraig wrote:believe you me I have seen far worse going unpunished on this forum.

Well yes, but that still does not make it right

My take is that just about everything should go as far as players are concerned (with some very extreme exceptions, plus of course no libelous stuff) but there should be no personal criticism of posters.  Now, I would make an exception for the latter where it is banter between two willing parties (say socal vs BB) but if a poster gets attacked and they are not comfortable with that, that is clearly off-limits and should not be allowed.

temporary21 wrote:All we can really ask is to be consistent. Don't complain if the same logic gets applied to other guys

I do not think we can ask posters to be consistent (or, rather, we can "ask" but not "demand").  If a poster is inconsistent, so be it.  Of course, it applies in all directions, but there is no guarantee that it will even out - some players may still come in for more than their fair share of criticism.  But that is ok.

In the end nobody dies.  I happen to be a Fed fan and I happen to think that he may well be the best of all time.  But what if he is not?  What if there are others who are really more deserving?  What if - shock, horror - Rafa is really better than him?  Should I hide somewhere and cry?  It is all just idle talk here anyway.

A few weeks ago someone here mentioned they used to "dread" visiting the forum (was it Lydian?  HN?, or maybe even you? cannot recall).  That strikes me as so far above and beyond what the forum is worth.  Dread what?  That we come here and find that someone posted that Rafa is a talentless moonballer who would - in proper conditions - fail to make top 50?  But that is such an embarrassingly first world problem.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously, the weak era one irks many as it is far too difficult to prove for various reasons. It irks so much that it is virtually a taboo topic.

But it should not be taboo.  For example, I love socal's weak era ravings.  It is fantastically readable and entertaining.  And I will even grant him that he manages to combine an absolutely over-the-top presentation with some valid points.  Why should weak era stuff be off limits?

From my perspective, the most interesting reads are the ones I disagree with.  The ones I agree with tend to more-or-less follow the same reasoning as I will have gone through in my mind anyway (which is why we agree), so they are somewhat less likely to bring in something new to me.  It is the ones that see it differently that are more likely to bring in an angle I had not thought of.  Of course, more often than not I will still end up in disagreement, but I am more likely to find new views there.  And it does not even matter so much if the initial intent was to be fair or not.  socal is again a good example.  A lot of his Fed posting was quite obviously peppered with anti-Fed bias.  But he still threw in enough thoughtful stuff that the whole thing was well worth a read  - it was both thoughtful and entertaining.

Firstly Lydian is not insincere.
Secondly this demonstrates the danger of using ad hominem's which acts to disrupt and bring down a forum.  The subject matter is lost and an interaction develops that becomes a slanging match between unprovable personal traits of a poster who invariably gets angry and leaves the site.

Quality of a forum is only as good as the quality of posts and posters. Verbal diarrhoea such as asterisking of achievements are not posts of quality but that which can not be proven and only antagonize. Not the sort of atmosphere to encourage quality posts. And with all due respect summertimeblues Federer fans don't have to put up with it as those sort of posts aren't made about Federer. Socal has been known to make posts of that nature and is perhaps why he is seen as the devil incarnate.

As for lydian he is well-educated poster and can and does post well-researched posts of that there is no doubt so he gains respect for that but he himself has admitted Murray is by no means his favourite player by far. I can live with that as well but when that leads to asterisking achievememts that is a step too far for me. Sorry if my remark has offended lydian.

Anyways enjoy the grass court season everyone and I will sign off now.

I don't want anyone to "leave the site" - I value both CC and Lydian.

There shouldn't be any issue here that can't br solved by giving one of us mods a pm and having a friendly dialogue. Anytime. There's no need to go before at least hearing how us three really feel

CaledonianCraig wrote:And with all due respect summertimeblues Federer fans don't have to put up with it as those sort of posts aren't made about Federer.

You keep coming back to this, but how is that relevant?  What does that have to do with price of bread?

To me you almost sound like you think that the forum should be "fair" to players and if it is not, then that is a problem that needs to be solved.

Looking at the draw for Queen's next week - even with Nadal and Tsonga out and with Federer, Nishikori, Thiem and Berdych (so 4 of the top 10) at Halle, still must one of the strongest ATP500 fields. Well, maybe Basel and Beijing are often as strong too.

Some good R1 matches to look forward to: most notably Kyrgios-Raonic but also Verdasco-Wawrinka, Del Potro-Isner, Lopez-Cilic. Murray has Mahut which will be tricky: Mahut has reached the final in s-Hertogenbosch and according to British media reports, Andy only starting practising on grass today.

Strange little all GB v France top quarter - Murray-Mahut, Bedene-Paire, Evans-Mathieu, Edmund-Simon.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If posters are big enough to belittle players achievements then surely they are big enough to be labelled disengenious. No?

Been out all day...interesting reading of the thread.

You can label me whatever you like CC...if I chose to express my opinion that Murray won OG Gold because Federer was knackered then it's a free world. I also read the comment that implied loads of Murray fans have left due to such heinous negativity - who are these people? I don't recall Murray fans leaving for those reasons. But hey if the forum doesn't like me expressing my reasoned opinion on Murray then fine, I'll take my opinions elsewhere and you can seek to bask in balanced vanilla opinion where no one can ever say anything negative about a player.

But the idea is you counter me and we debate...play the ball, not the man. By simply labelling the poster as disingenuous we get nowhere. Actually, to the contrary though - I was being very clear on my reasons Federer lost....reasons that many people shared including sports and media observers. In ant case I'm not here to try and be balanced about players, I'll leave that to others. Likewise I'm not here to present quite frankly banal views and platitudes on the game at large. I rarely opine without a base reason laid out...my posts are not random and inane attacks on players.

I don't particularly care - shock, horror - for Murray for a number of reasons. Yes I feel he has had enormous slices of luck...which is kind of supported by the fact he has the worst slam final record (for 5+ finals) in the open era. That opinion probably rankles his fans, but trust me I don't say it to wind up his fans or be disingenuous - I wholeheartedly believe it and will express it if the situation suits. Because it's a forum.


However, it's not really worth losing forum sleep over, nobody died and you don't personally know Murray. So what if I hold these views...if you want to debate the issue of Federer being knackered or Murray not benefitting through homogenisation or the tailing off of Fed/Nad or wind at USO, or anything else then hey lets go for it...but remember I have never made a personal comment about you on this forum.

Got to give BS some credit for his predictions for week1 on grass. In s-Hertogenbosch, Muller did indeed edge out Ivo to make the final, though Querrey lost narrowly to Mahut in the other SF. In Stuttgart, Fritz did prove tough for Federer, Del Potro did have a good run, Stepanek was indeed a real danger to 2nd seed Cilic and Kohlschreiber did make the final. Only really wrong about Federer winning but was his fitness was dubious anyway.

Surely it's the opposite Lydian? The fact he has the worst slam final record suggests bad luck. You seem a sensible chap yet you are trying to argue that a guy who has 12 Masters titles (and an above 50% win rate in Masters finals against the big 3) and has been in 10 slam finals has had "enormous" luck to win 2 slams. How many finals do you think he would have won if his average opponent's rank was 11 (the same as Fed's)? 

I've no doubt you believe it but, unfortunately, your view is clearly massively prejudiced by your admitted dislike of Murray. The fact you have previously stated that the limited Berdych would have beaten him but for the wind at US12 speaks volumes. Murray has smashed him up every time they have met in a slam since because he is a far superior player.

YvonneT wrote:Got to give BS some credit for his predictions for week1 on grass. In s-Hertogenbosch, Muller did indeed edge out Ivo to make the final, though Querrey lost narrowly to Mahut in the other SF. In Stuttgart, Fritz did prove tough for Federer, Del Potro did have a good run, Stepanek was indeed a real danger to 2nd seed Cilic and Kohlschreiber did make the final. Only really wrong about Federer winning but was his fitness was dubious anyway.

Thanks Yvonne :-). I underrated Thiem on grass but wasn't too bad otherwise!

It can be at bit tedious returning to that gold medal match because whatever people's opinion of it, there's nothing really new to add to it. I'm not even that much of a regular here but I feel I could make a pretty good stab at listing every regular's opinion of it - I'd bury the discussion away in the stickies and make the rest of the forum a 2012 gold medal match free zone (well not really, in case anyone thinks I'm 100% serious there). Though I do think it's worth saying that in this thread, it was Craig that dragged the subject back up, the discussion was about Del Potro until that match was brought into it.

YvonneT wrote:Looking at the draw for Queen's next week - even with Nadal and Tsonga out and with Federer, Nishikori, Thiem and Berdych (so 4 of the top 10) at Halle, still must one of the strongest ATP500 fields. Well, maybe Basel and Beijing are often as strong too.

Some good R1 matches to look forward to: most notably Kyrgios-Raonic but also Verdasco-Wawrinka, Del Potro-Isner, Lopez-Cilic. Murray has Mahut which will be tricky: Mahut has reached the final in s-Hertogenbosch and according to British media reports, Andy only starting practising on grass today.

Strange little all GB v France top quarter - Murray-Mahut, Bedene-Paire, Evans-Mathieu, Edmund-Simon.

If Andy can get past Mahut then he should make the final. As you say, the bottom half is absolutely stacked. Really hope Krygios can make it through as that would be an awesome final.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Quality of a forum is only as good as the quality of posts and posters. Verbal diarrhoea such as asterisking of achievements are not posts of quality but that which can not be proven and only antagonize. Not the sort of atmosphere to encourage quality posts.

Quality of a forum is the mix of opinions, topics and debate. "Asterisking" of achievements is fine if opinions are clearly put forwards...why is that labelled verbal diarrhoea? For example, if Federer broke his leg during the match and I said Murray only won because Federer broke his leg is that a) disingenuous and b) diarrhoea? If that reason is stated as tiredness why is it so heinous? You purport that my posts are intended to antagonise...well that is actually never the case. Life is too short for forum politics.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for lydian he is well-educated poster and can and does post well-researched posts of that there is no doubt so he gains respect for that but he himself has admitted Murray is by no means his favourite player by far. I can live with that as well but when that leads to asterisking achievememts that is a step too far for me. Sorry if my remark has offended lydian.

The use of BUT implies that I'm a knowledgeable poster unless I write negatively about Murray...or "asterisk" an achievement. Again, why is that verbal diarrhoea, it's an opinion. Rather than posters run off why don't we debate the topic and agree to disagree. It's what makes forums go round...after all this "negativity" is not a drop in the ocean compared to what Nadal used to receive on here. It's just tennis at the end of the day and it's a game we all love...just because I have a few opinions on Murrau doesn't mean we can't all co-habitate.

If you take away Murrays OG win because Fed was tired, then by fairness I consider it open season to consider taking away Feds 07 Wimbledon and 08 Us open, for the exact same reasons

You dont want to open up that kind of can of worms.

Its easy to just go and say stuff and tell people not to worry, its a free country, but thats because you DONT have to worry about the forum, and bear no responsibility for its running, and dealing with people growing tired of it, like cc is getting now.

Its an unwritten rule that you dont say about other players what you wouldnt like said about your own favourite.

People went ballistic when it was even suggested that Querrey threw a good chance of a set win over Roger through nerves...

We cant have it so that how "negative" one can talk about a player depends entirely on how bullish their fanbase on the forum is.

Ergo if people are very sensitive about it for one top guy, we HAVE to, just by fairness, ask for the same for other guys.

If you feel that impedes your free speech, well i apologise but can only shrug. Were just trying to compromise and find ways to get a bunch if people, many of whom arent friendly to one another, to be able to coexist. Compromise is part of that.

Sure, any tennis result is open to debate...that's the beauty of sport.

You say I'm merely saying "stuff" like I don't care, that I don't have to worry about the forum, that people getting tired of the kind of remarks I'm making. Clearly I don't fit into the new regime any longer, I'm obviously literally too unbalanced.

Then fine...worry yourself no longer. I'm gone.

Oh for petes sake, dont be so dramatic.

You know fully well how discrediting wins inflames people on the board but you do it anyway.

We all have thoughts like that on certain matches, but we simply keep it to ourselves for the most part as not to make it uncomfortable. Youre not the only person here remember, hence we ask people to compromise so we all fit in.
If you just go in a huff everytime someone doesnt fully agree with you, you'll not get anywhere...

I was trying to work out if Federer's chance of being seeded second at Wimbledon had gone with his defeat today. I'm too tired now to be sure of my maths. I think Murray is 2170 points ahead after this week. Thus far, I think the Wimbledon formula (grass points in last 12 months, plus 75% of best result in prev 12 months) adds:
Federer: 1200 + 90 + (75% of 1200) = 2190
Murray: 720 + (75% of 500) = 1095
So if Federer won Halle, and Murray lost in R1 at Queens, Federer would be 1670 points (2170 - 500) behind in actual ranking points and only 1595 points (2190 + 500 - 1095) ahead in formula additions i.e. he can't be seeded second.
I think Murray would get 10 points or something like that for a R1 loss anyway, but not sure on that.
If anyone cares to check my maths and point out my silly mistakes, I'd be most grateful

I've not even looked at the detail for fourth seed between Nadal (if he plays) and Wawrinka, but gut feel is Wawrinka would be ahead on that as the rankings are close and Nadal does not have much to add via the formula.

No need to math out the second one. Nadal has officially pulled out of Wimbo

So he did! (I did admit I was tired!)

Murray played well the whole tournament at the Olympics. If he benefited from Federer’s tiredness it’s because he was able to win his semi final (against Djokovic no less) in straights while Federer could not. Maybe he would have won the final anyway. But I think Lydian is fine to express a different opinion, maybe I’m right, maybe you are, I don’t really care. I think Summer Blues posts on this topic have been good.

Temp, I think the comment about discrediting wins inflaming people on the board should not be a cause for concern for a moderator, or enough reason to try and stamp it out.

There was a time where the forum had a pro-Federer bias, with BB and Emancipator and others jumping on every thread and coming at every single article from a pro-Federer perspective, and Nadal fans fleeing the forum. I feel it’s settled down since then. It’s fairly even handed now – ish.

I really don’t get this thing of people, perhaps in some cases emotionally, threatening to leave and sometimes actual leaving and eventually coming back, or maybe not. It wonder if it’s an over reaction when people do that. Why not just post less often, or take a break.

Other miscellaneous points:
Agree about the good predictions, e.g. Kohli for final good shout, I thought so at the time too.

I think I said someone that Thiem could do well on grass although I didn’t necessarily think it would be this season. Not surprised by the Federer win though, I thought that would be 50/50 match factoring in form. I think if they were to play at Wimbledon that Federer, if fit, would probably have improved his form whereas Thiem may not quite have the experience to beat him over 5.

I did subscribe to Tennis TV once, but they did some overcharging and slow to refund nastiness.

Hope everyone's doing well.

temporary21 wrote:We cant have it so that how "negative" one can talk about a player depends entirely on how bullish their fanbase on the forum is.

Certainly true.

temporary21 wrote:Ergo if people are very sensitive about it for one top guy, we HAVE to, just by fairness, ask for the same for other guys.

But this does not follow.

If Fed fans are sensitive to Fed criticism, the same applies to them as to fans of any other player:

It is ok for them to defend whatever position they want to defend, but not ok to attack the posters who bring in the view that Fed fans do not like.

It really should be quite simple - ok as long as the talk is about players, not ok once it slips into talk about posters.  So, if poster A attacks player X and poster B in return attacks poster A, it is poster B that is causing the problem, not poster A.

I really do not like posters leaving for any reason.  I am struggling to remember a single poster - irrespective of whom they were rooting for - that I was happy to see go.  In general, the more the merrier.

But, if it gets to a point where somehow someone HAS to go, it should be like this:

- Poster A attacks poster B, then poster A needs to go.
- Poster A attacks player X and poster B cannot stand it, then poster B needs to go.

YvonneT wrote:most notably Kyrgios-Raonic

Wow, that could be a good one.  I hope Kyrgios wins, he is my latest greatest young hope.  I feel quite confident that - if his head allows him to - he will be very good very soon.

Similar to some others here, I am also surprised how well Thiem is doing this week.  Not so much the Fed match specifically, but in general I did not expect him to do well on grass.  He is a clay courter foremost, but he looked reasonable today.  He was trying to come in to the net quite a bit too.

Henman Bill wrote:I did subscribe to Tennis TV once, but they did some overcharging and slow to refund nastiness.

I do not know what they did to you, but my experience has been fairly good.  Years ago when they were starting I would occasionally have issues where out of the blue my login would fail to work and they would be very slow (i.e., a few days too slow - long after the tournament was done) to address the problem, but that is years ago.

If you like watching smaller tournaments and do not find it too expensive, I really recommend it - maybe you can give it at least one more try.  Obviously, these days it works on mobile as well as on desktop, so one can watch tennis "on-the-go" quite easily too.

I think it costs me $130 per year or thereabouts.  I do not have either TV or cable at home as I do not care for TV much in general, so this $130 is "instead of" rather than "in addition to" TV, so from that angle it feels pretty cheap to me.

temporary21 wrote:Oh for petes sake, dont be so dramatic.

You know fully well how discrediting wins inflames people on the board but you do it anyway.

We all have thoughts like that on certain matches, but we simply keep it to ourselves for the most part as not to make it uncomfortable. Youre not the only person here remember, hence we ask people to compromise so we all fit in.
If you just go in a huff everytime someone doesnt fully agree with you, you'll not get anywhere...

1. Trust me, this isn't about dramatic effect and leaving in a blaze of glory. I'm too old for such things to matter. However, the tone and subtext of your reaction above...starting with "oh for Petes sake"...confirms that I don't particularly want to be part of this forum anymore. I don't need to be part of an increasingly sanitised environment which is an outcome of being told I can't post reasoned, fact based "negativity"about a tennis player due to sensitivity offences arising.

Where was this level of concern over the years when the Nadal fan base was mercilessly and unrelentingly personally attacked on here resulting in droves of posters leaving from all quarters? I actually helped stop many more leaving...such is the irony.

2. It's also ironic because personalised responses on this thread basically imply I'm bloody minded, effectively a WUM. I wonder if sensitivity from the Murray quarter has been rounded off by moderation's same affiliation with said player? After 5 years on here it's the first (and last) time I've been implied a WUM...which is what CC was also angling at. I don't care for such personalisations.

3. I also don't care for being told how to frame my thoughts after 9000 posts on here...I think I know what constitutes "within boundary comment" on players and for me this issue has become a defining watershed moment on OTT sanitisation. If I can't post reasoned thoughts on Murray (which is hardly cropping up on every thread, I cover a whole range of topics on here) without incurring the wrath of moderation then I'm done.

4. Finally, I'm further endeared to the forum by being told I go off in a "huff" when someone doesn't agree with me. No I don't and that's an unwarranted character assessment. The irony is that I have not made any personal comments about any posters and yet responses have been all about me and the things I do for highly negative and bloody minded effect, ie wummery.

There's no drama in me leaving, I'm just not prepared to be told how to think and how to act when it's not warranted IMO. Does your own affiliation to Murray truly have no bearing on the handling of this either?

As you were.

In the words of Bricktop, I hope this is isn't a bad moment...

Polarising views to say the least.

The thing to remember with any sport, luck happens and is required. It can be in the form of anything. Lucky shot, injured opponent, bad weather, whatever.

For some it's a starting point. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in first Slam finals faced other Slam Final debutants. If only Murray had such a luxury in his and those since.

So what if Andy benefitted from good luck in big victories. I am amazed some just don't find good luck a good thing!

Lydian, honestly you should re read what youve posted, or get a close friend to read it, and see what they think

Were not telling you how to think, were ASKING you to be a little diplomatic and understanding sometimes. People do that in real life all the time.

If you know in real life something isnt going to go down well, (as you say, you have 9000 posts, so you know the deal), then you leave it, you dont complain about being forced not to say it. Its the same here.

Nobodies called you a WUM, again youre being dramatic here. If you have REALLY leaped that far forward from what ive said then I think you should go for a time.

Clearly youre not in a good frame of mind right now, whether its something in your personal life, or a build up over time, you obviously need to sort that out and take a break first.

We used to have nightmares all the time when similar comments were made about Fedeerer, usually when weekera or the dreaded GOAT came up. Its not unreasonable in the slightest to be cautious or ask to avoid the same sitch when it comes up for Murray

Another thing

There seems to be the idea that youre continued participation in this forum is leverage of some kind. It is not...

We dont really care for people trying to strongarm us to agree with their point by threatening to leave or making a scene.

If you cant go to the feedback section and ask the boffins, or have a dialogue with us without being dramatic, then just leave.

If you wont budge, and try to compromise, and be open to talking your problems out with us, then I wish you the best and hope you have a good grass seaon.

Ciao...

temporary21 wrote:Another thing

There seems to be the idea that youre continued participation in this forum is leverage of some kind. It is not...

We dont really care for people trying to strongarm us to agree with their point by threatening to leave or making a scene.

Leverage, strong arm, making a scene?

Those are not my intentions at all and are way off-beam comments.

Your sign off is pretty clear so yes, ciao...and my personal life is fine thank.

In fact I'm about to step into court...

Well that would certainly explain the stressed comments.

Best of luck in court, hope it goes ok

Murray reuniting with Lendl! At least for Queen's and Wimbledon, possibly going forward up to 20 weeks per year from what various journalists are saying. Interesting .....

That's certainly going to put even more pressure on Andy at Wimbledon.

I know some people are not too happy to have the moderation questioned, but this recent exchange with Lydian has been too much. Lydian was perfectly civil and took an opinion which was in no way extreme, on a subject regarding a Murray match which Craig brought up himself - and he's told to stop in case it offends one or more Murray fans. And then he's told that he might have personal issues for getting annoyed about that. That really is too much. There's no point in being part of a forum like this without accepting some conflict.

Well to put our problem into perspective, we just lost a poster for an extended period directly due to what Lydian said. Thats the second one in a month for a very similar reason...

We cant win no matter what we do, these are old wounds, and im being put into a completely impossible situation by you all.

I didnt ask anyone to stop, I just asked people to be a little diplomatic. You all know its a sensitive topic, something ive explained, and I hope you would all be receptive to that, not just put up walls.

I wish you would try to understand that, instead of all just buggering off...

lydian wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on bankro. We could look at every tennis match ad infinitum and put losses down to fatigue but don't. But Murray's successes are given special precedence.

Sure but this was exceptional...4.5hrs...and Federer's level was probably the worst I've ever seen him play in a final. He beat Murray 3-1 a few weeks earlier at the slam...I just don't believe he loses to Murray on grass at that time without something being really amiss. But for sure the games is littered with titles due to the other player being injured, exhausted, whatever...it's life but doesn't make me punch the air and say "well done" to the player who vastly benefits.

Lydian. You're a scream. You really do believe that all Murray's wins against his three historic rivals, are down to some special kind of handicap they had

Do us a favour and give us a laugh. Will you go through through every Murray win against the three and explain what the 'excuse' for the rival was?

I'll give you one, Nadal in Rotterdam in 2009. You've another thirty to go through, should keep you busy for a while

Meanwhile, I'm sending your posts on the wee Scotsman to Lendl, as I'm sure as soon as he reads them, he'll realise he's no chance of any more slams

temporary21 wrote:Well to put our problem into perspective, we just lost a poster for an extended period directly due to what Lydian said. Thats the second one in a month for a very similar reason...

We cant win no matter what we do, these are old wounds, and im being put into a completely impossible situation by you all.

I didnt ask anyone to stop, I just asked people to be a little diplomatic. You all know its a sensitive topic, something ive explained, and I hope you would all be receptive to that, not just put up walls.

I wish you would try to understand that, instead of all just buggering off...

Sorry. Only just seen this.