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.

Nore Staat wrote:For the sake of disclosure I want to say I think these tennis players should get a proper job.  Getting millions and millions of pounds for a game of tennis I mean what is all that about?  They should do something productive for society, like working down a coal mine or teaching in an inner city school.  They can still play tennis but it should be done in their spare time.

Actually NS I find this so amusing (not sure you meant it to be) Would we be allowed to watch Federer and Nadal wielding their pick axes down a coal mine..and exactly what would Novak teach to an inner city school.
Not least the it beggars the question what the hell would we talk about on 606v2


I'm with temp all the way when it comes to Roger.. Ive never been able to get behind the man .. Ive always acknowledged his talent and achievements there is no doubt on that score... but I simply cannot take to him, neither could I Sampras.. if that makes me a philistine then so be it
Bye the way.. this has nothing to do with him being Rafa's biggest rival (indeed I credit him with helping make Rafa the player he is)

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The jacket was hardly Feds fault, it was his sponsors that designed it without him knowing much. He even had to have it pointed out to him that there was a 15 on it somewhere... I was more disappointed by his total lack of empathy for Roddick and in clumsily comparing Roddick's loss to his own the previous year. Either way you should be able to say and express what you want. It's ridiculous people complaining and taking things personally and all these secret people leaving or not joining because of posters expressing from what I can see nothing but moderate opinions. It should be fine to express negativity.

I don't care for Murray anymore. I was glad when he won US open and Wimbledon but I don't want to see him win anything else now. His game is fake/forced to me. I've already expressed my sentiments towards what I think of Nadal's game and a non-calendar slam is a great reward to Novak for saving tennis from him imo. For good measure if you think the tennis now is the highest level played then, yes, Fed's numbers are higher than they would have been had he had this to compete with. I think Fed has been remarkably humble seeing as he has been the one playing within the rules the whole time and given his game style. Either that or didn't have the balls to complain.

Obviously you are allowed your opinion and I have no issue with you expressing it. You may not like the way a player plays but they have to work out what works best for them. No point coming out playing flashy tennis and seeing your opponent taking your game apart. I don't understand how a player can have a 'fake' game.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The jacket was hardly Feds fault, it was his sponsors that designed it without him knowing much. He even had to have it pointed out to him that there was a 15 on it somewhere... I was more disappointed by his total lack of empathy for Roddick and in clumsily comparing Roddick's loss to his own the previous year. Either way you should be able to say and express what you want. It's ridiculous people complaining and taking things personally and all these secret people leaving or not joining because of posters expressing from what I can see nothing but moderate opinions. It should be fine to express negativity.

I don't care for Murray anymore. I was glad when he won US open and Wimbledon but I don't want to see him win anything else now. His game is fake/forced to me. I've already expressed my sentiments towards what I think of Nadal's game and a non-calendar slam is a great reward to Novak for saving tennis from him imo. For good measure if you think the tennis now is the highest level played then, yes, Fed's numbers are higher than they would have been had he had this to compete with. I think Fed has been remarkably humble seeing as he has been the one playing within the rules the whole time and given his game style. Either that or didn't have the balls to complain.

"The jacket" "His game is fake"

Just chipping in re the controversy. I know that CC is a very passionate Murray supporter and I'm not at all surprised that Lydian's talk of luck rankled with him. I've got no problem with CC strongly challenging Lydian's viewpoint (after all, isn't that what a tennis forum is for?), but I totally reject the idea that Lydian shouldn't have expressed his viewpoint in the first place.

I'm a Murray supporter also, but I accept the fact that other posters may dislike him (or simply not rate him as highly as I do) and, consequently, may also have a tendency to downplay his achievements. Frankly, I can't think of anything worse on a forum than entirely balanced posters, with equal respect given to all players. What the forum needs to stay interesting is a diversity of views and the freedom to express them. Let's face it, often the most entertaining posters are those that have an axe to grind against certain players (Hawkeye, Socal, Bogbrush to name a few). Personally, I don't have a strong dislike of any player, but that probably makes me a fairly dull poster!

I think we're heading down a very dangerous path if we start to restrict legitimate tennis debate on the grounds that some posters may get offended. If you can't cope with your favourite tennis player being criticised, then a tennis forum like v2 is probably not the place for you (perhaps try a fan site instead). Sure, if certain topics cause forum meltdown on a regular basis, then there might be an argument for restricting them, but only as an absolute last resort.

I also don't think we should allow forum policy to be influenced by those taking offence and threatening to leave. While it's regrettable if anyone leaves, I think it's far worse to stifle the debate to protect the oversensitive few. I think people are far more likely to leave if they feel they can't express themselves and engage in lively debate.

Temp implies that there is a clamour to stamp out the kind of comment Lydian made. I don't, of course, know who has been saying what by PM, but I do find that very hard to believe. If we carried out a poll, I think the overwhelming majority would not have a problem with Lydian's remarks. In fact, I'm not sure even CC was suggesting they should be outlawed.

I know that moderating is a thankless and difficult task, so I am very reluctant to criticise. However, I do think there has been worrying tendency recently to pounce on anything mildly controversial and that this overzealous approach is actually fanning the flames further and reducing the quality of debate.

Couple of things

That view I expressed is very outdated now. From a 19 year old to a 26 year old doctor is a long time. I lost that anger for the great man a long time ago. Nowadays it's just more indifference

Secondly. In principle I should be able to express it, it wasn't personal, and I explained it. You know however that I would well get some abuse for expressing that, and I just don't to avoid the fallouts we get

Hopefully that explains the concern when similar type things are said about other guys.

Because we don't have a critical mass of posters in every corner, who can support your corner. People can very easily feel like they're being ganged up on and isolated. That makes out job quite hard

I would LOVE us to be open and frank about things. But you know fully well from the goat and weak era debates. How much cr@p we had to moderate on that that certain things are implicitly not allowed by the weight of criticism against it and the subsequent angry fights we get

Particularly negative opinions on Roger and rafa have caused some nasty fallout and so we have no choice but to avoid it

I don't think it is negative opinions per se that cause an issue - it is the repetition of them. If a point is made and then continually made again and again over a relatively short period of time (whatever the definition of 'short period' is), or make up the bulk of a poster's posts, then problems can arise and mods/admins may have to step in.

Why would you get abuse for expressing that opinion? I disagreed with it without abusing you as I'm sure everyone else would. Tbh I think you're just imagining what things would be/were like. I don't recall Fed fans publicly complaining about negativity towards him, as I recall other posters would just disagree like I did.

Take socal and bogbrush for instance, I never saw their exchanges as confrontational; it was just banter. I like reading negative stuff as much as positive stuff including about Federer.

One has to take the whole discourse into consideration, not take one comment in isolation.  If the discourse is such that it is reasonable for a poster to air their opinion because it is relevant to the context then surely that is reasonable for the discourse.  Expecting someone to change their opinion is perhaps unreasonable.  Calling someone insincere for airing a consistent opinion is perhaps unreasonable.  Getting angry because someone holds an opinion different to your own is perhaps unreasonable.  Trying to "prove" an opinion is unreasonable.  

This is only my opinion - but what do I know.  I am only guided by Socrates - or at least the words Plato ascribed to Socrates.   "I know that I know nothing.  But as I know that I know nothing then I know something and this makes me the most knowledgeable person in the whole world".  Not sure if this quote is 100% accurate, and to be fair I am not sure I fully understand what he was getting at.

Btw regarding the jacket, I'm wasn't suggesting you were still angry but rather that you shouldn't have been in the first place because I was saying it wasn't his fault while suggesting something that I thought was worthy of being angry at. Anyhow make of that what you will.

Sorry to moderators, but you are the biggest hinders on this forum and it is unprecedented how you react here. You should only have the right to delete a post, when it includes a swearing or is clearly personally offending or discriminating. All the other stuff must be allowed to discuss. Otherwise it is utterly pathetic.

Ps most of us have been around long enough on this forum to know the full set of opinions any one commentator has.  If the discourse is relevant for an exchange of opinion to occur then some of us just look at that opinion and say okay this person is airing their opinion, and I know this is their opinion from what I have seen in past discourses of the same topic.  Now here is my opinion, it's the same opinion as I have aired before but it is relevant to repeat it in the context of the moment.  And others look at what is going on and say yes they are airing their opinion and A's opinion is this and B's opinion is this.  And A and B's opinions are different.  Okay we say.  

It's only when someone claims their opinion is the "truth" and urges all others to accept their opinion as the truth, or to suppress the other from airing their opinion, even if the discourse makes it reasonable for the ritualistic exchange of opinions to occur.  But then this is just my opinion.  But then what do I know - yes I know Socrates is a cruel master to follow.  Maybe I should ditch Socrates for someone more assertive.

pps I also know, or at least I think I know, that we are all human. And humans are not "perfect" and we need to give humans a bit of leeway because they are not perfect, they contain what is known as "emotion". A computer algorithm is perfect. A sphere is perfect. But then spheres and algorithms are limited.

Case in point. We're trying to reason with you and come to an understanding. Then someone comes on SOLELY to have a pop at us, because the place isn't precisely to their liking

Tbh it was the whole end ceremony. It was hard to watch and you can see I wasn't the only person put off. Iv never really liked any of the flash stuff the big guys wear. The grandad jacket the gold clothes and those stupid racquet bags with their successes in it. Just not for me

Julius is right. Hearing stuff like this again and again becomes overbearing if you have no support. We've had previous as you know

Those who REALLY don't like this are also the guys wh are in the majority. It's probably why theyre blind to the problems we have

To go back to the point.
We had a very tough sitch. Cc was about to leave because he was tired of hearing an opinion very commonly pedalled here. If I may be frank it's an opinion that to be honest is more bitter and ignorant, than it is actually critical

Cc isn't sensitive. As we all know. He's also not a casual member. Hes a 5 year veteran and one of our oldest posters. Clearly it's been pedalled too long and caused frustrstion.

I can't just leave it and let him go without trying something

Are the forum rules to be found on this site and are they stated clearly?

I personally don't get het up on other peoples opinions - it is only when they personally attack me, attack my intelligence or character, for holding my own opinions that I have difficulty handling.  

I might try to diffuse the situation with humour, but if that doesn't work I will put the person on ignore, or take time out.  This has happened to me on two of the other sporting sections.

I come here for the mix of opinion, but mainly for the expertise and experience of those that comment here.

ps Lydian and CC are both five year members of the site (basically from inception).   As I am as well and quite a few others.  But I personally don't claim to have any expertise on tennis and I recognise my contribution to this tennis forum as not being of much importance or relevance compared to many others - who regularly play the game, are able to technically analyse the game etc.

They're on the front page on a topic labelled site rules. It's crystal clear. .. You're supposed to have read them
Rules 1 and 4 are relevant. I've never liked the writing of rule 4. It suggests you have to do anything we say... What it really means is that the mods mag take action in the interest of the forum. If this is at odds you can they freely use pm or feedback sections to talk it out with us case by case

Very few problems we've ever had here couldn't have been solved by using rule 4 and some polite discussion like this. None of you ever do though

We've seen plenty of times on the goat debate and beyond how people don't like belittling achievements of fedal. That much is clear. Hence via rule 1. It's not unfair at all to ask the sand treatments for fans of others

Okay - I have found them. I'll look through them later.

Here is the link for those that might have had a little difficulty in locating them:

https://www.606v2.com/t1019-site-rules

I don't think there's enough empathy for the position of the Mods here:

* They give of their time freely - we don't pay a jot for this and come and go as we please
* The last thing they want is the departure of established posters who make a real contribution if it can be avoided
* I understand why they might try to manage a situation where a disagreement is obviously heading towards a departure, or want to stop a long-running disagreement which can obviously not be resolved
* I slightly think that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

All that said, I suspect that they were trying to manage the unmanageable here.  We all know why CC was unhappy - he explained why - but it's almost impossible to define what Lydian was doing that upset CC in a way that can be consistently applied so that a Mod is always on the right side.  Lydian was not 'wumming' - he's not that sort of poster.

I think CC should have sucked it up, or left quietly for somewhere else.  Instead, he started suggesting that it would be necessary to 'retaliate', which had the effect of sucking mods into the debate.  It cannot possibly be necessary to retaliate on an anonymous internet forum.  What CC did, unwittingly I'm sure, was that he decided not to be able to deal himself with his issue, his inability to look the other way from posts sent by someone he's never met and never will, and turn this into everyone else's issue by taking a stand which inevitably invited the mods to feel that they needed to get involved, which brings "rule 4" into play eventually.  CC said that a particular point of view was offensive to him and he would respond in kind if it were repeated in future - unsurprisingly the mods saw a problem coming out of an exchange of views that did not involve exchange of insults or ad personam comments (i.e. breaches of rules 2 or 3), but one which CC finds upsetting because it disparages the ability of his favourite tennis player and was advanced consistently by Lydian.

Perhaps the rest of us will remember what happens if we start getting offended by points of view with which we disagree but which don't breach rules 2 & 3 and start making a fuss which is likely to involve rule 4. We need to remember that rule 1 cuts both ways.

To be honest. Havent you all seen those before? Surely if you're debatingmoderating, those are the first things you should look for

barrystar wrote:...  We need to remember that rule 1 cuts both ways.

The golden rule has been around for sometime and the list of criticisms of it has also been around for sometime - "One man's meat is another man's poison" ... imagine the masochist following the golden rule.

I imagine that BS intended to use this thread for all the pre-Wimbledon grass tournaments, but since the discussion has veered quite a bit off that, I'll start a new thread for Queen's and Halle etc. I think it's quite useful to have the discussion we had here on moderation etc left at the end and not lost among tournament posts.

Great win for Thiem, to not just beat Federer but follow it up in the final against Kohlschreiber. I don't think we should necessarily expect anything from him at Wimbledon this year, but overall he looks like he is very much on the upward trend.

My final word on this thread, if not the forum.
Try being a Nadal fan on this forum and 606 and see just how much you can suck up
Tenez, NITB, BB, Socal and many many more and guess what Im still here
coz I don give a monkey's whether you agree with my opinion
what I nearly left for was some poster's personal attack on me and my family.
Other than that your personal opinion of my opinion or me as a person is your problem not mine.  I might not have much to contribute in the greater scheme of things but I reserve the right to be here unless I breach the rules and, for the most part, I support the mods they attempt to do their best like the rest of us. I hate to see some of the old familiar "faces" leave for whatever their reason. But I do agree that we should be allowed to voice whether we like or do not like, criticise or praise whatever players we chose.

I see Mahut also won his tournament this week. He often does well in grass tournaments, this is the third time he's won this event, while he also won in Newport once. He also once beat Nadal at Queens before losing to Roddick in the final on a final set tiebreaker after having a championship point. Outside grass, he's never reached a final, however.

The funny thing with Mahut then, is his lost decade of Wimbledon results since his debut in 2006 (rather late, aged 24, having already played other slams) where he rather respectably reached the 3rd round, where we could hardly blame him for losing to Roger Federer at his absolute peak at his perhaps best tournament!

And yet, for someone who ranks as one of the very last grass court specialists, since then he hasn't been back to the 3rd round! I can hardly believe that. I just went to look it up on his Wikipedia article and I thought his record at Wimbledon would show at least a few R3s and maybe an R4 - and even that might be a disappointment - but no, not a single R3 again since 2006. A record of W6-L10 overall at Wimbledon.

How do we explain this? Perhaps the slow Wimbledon court since about 2007 blunting his serve and volley approach (are other grass courts a bit faster)? Is he just bottling it on the bigger stage?

Let's see how he does this year.

For those that don't know, the golden rules is "Treat others as you would want to be treated.”

This is perhaps not bad as a guiding principle, but it's useless in resolving forum disputes. Take the CC/Lydian spat. It's probably safe to say that neither broke the rule from their perspective (although I suspect CC may have taken exception to being branded disingenuous for merely expressing an honestly held opinion).

What's absolutely clear is that the golden rule cannot be applied by moderators. It does not provide a universal standard to adhere to, as people will inevitably have wildly differing views on what is acceptable conduct.

On the tennis section, I think we need to be careful that the rule doesn't get corrupted into:

"Treat others as they want to be treated.”

Some may want to do this to be courteous, but no one should be compelled to.

Clearly rule 4 (essentially, what the moderator says goes) pretty much overrides everything else anyway, but I don't think it's unreasonable for other posters to object if we think the mods' prerogative is being poorly applied.

I agree with Barrystar that CC put Temp in a difficult position, but, in my view, that still doesn't justify the heavy-handed treatment that Lydian got. I also thought that bringing in his personal life was quite bizarre.

Ultimately, Temp, as mod, does have the right to impose his/her will and, if we're told to change the subject, we should do so. For a forum to run smoothly, giving this sort of power to mods is pretty much unavoidable. However, as I said above, I also think that posters should be able to speak up if they feel the mod's approach is harming the forum.

I can understand that. You've endured more than most over the years.
I'm genuinely sorry I couldn't make this place more friendly to you. I promise you I tried my very best

Best of luck. Perhaps we'll meet on another forum one day

Haddie's not going anywhere. Think you misread her opener.

Maybe. "If not" means "perhaps even"

CC will be back soon enough. Lydian, I'm not so sure about. He's what Virginia Wade would call a drama queen. Given that, it's amazing he doesn't have more time for our Andy. They're kindred spirits really.

Anyway, back to the tennis.....

Think we've migrated that to the queens and halle thread

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The jacket was hardly Feds fault, it was his sponsors that designed it without him knowing much. I think Fed has been remarkably humble seeing as he has been the one playing within the rules the whole time and given his game style.

 I've heard it all now. I'll never move from these boards, some of the funniest comments ever are placed on here

temporary21 wrote:Maybe. "If not" means "perhaps even"

Actually temp Im very undecided. Whatever I choose is open to circumstance but can only say that I for one have appreciated your efforts.. truly you have been a brick. !!! But this old girl is getting battle weary

Ive enjoyed the banter but not the fights and now that Rafa will sooner, rather than later, I fear no longer be the player he was.. I will dip my toe in the water, now and again, but not at the deep end

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:CC will be back soon enough. Lydian, I'm not so sure about. He's what Virginia Wade would call a drama queen. Given that, it's amazing he doesn't have more time for our Andy. They're kindred spirits really.

Anyway, back to the tennis.....

This I cannot not comment on.
Lydian ??? normally one of the most level headed posters I know.. and in support of a fellow Rafa fan I can only tell you that the man has more knowledge in his little finger than most any other poster I know.
He is far from a drama queen.. he is passionate about this game we call tennis. His knowledge is unprecedented imo and has become a good friend of mine in the time Ive posted here. I too have become, I believe, a friend of CC.
This has become a storm in a tea cup and have every belief that this misunderstanding will resolve itself. Cmon lads !!!

banbrotam wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The jacket was hardly Feds fault, it was his sponsors that designed it without him knowing much. I think Fed has been remarkably humble seeing as he has been the one playing within the rules the whole time and given his game style.

 I've heard it all now. I'll never move from these boards, some of the funniest comments ever are placed on here

Did you miss this posters comment about Andy's game being "Fake"

You do wonder if some of these people do actually watch the tennis!

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:CC will be back soon enough. Lydian, I'm not so sure about. He's what Virginia Wade would call a drama queen. Given that, it's amazing he doesn't have more time for our Andy. They're kindred spirits really.

Anyway, back to the tennis.....

This I cannot not comment on.
Lydian ??? normally one of the most level headed posters I know.. and in support of a fellow Rafa fan I can only tell you that the man has more knowledge in his little finger than most any other poster I know.
He is far from a drama queen.. he is passionate about this game we call tennis. His knowledge is unprecedented imo and has become a good friend of mine in the time Ive posted here. I too have become, I believe, a friend of CC.
This has become a storm in a tea cup and have every belief that this misunderstanding will resolve itself. Cmon lads !!!

This too I cannot not not cannot comment on.  Now where were we ... I seem to have lost my train of thought.  

Oh yes calling someone a drama queen is an ad hominem, a claim on the personal character of an individual poster.   These personal claims / attacks have a potential to spiral out of control and it has nothing to do with tennis.  

I too am grateful for Lydian's expertise and knowledgeable experience that he has brought in answering some of my queries and to the tennis forum in general.  With CC I appreciate his enthusiasm for tennis and his presence and ability to help keep this forum going during lull periods.

Then what would you call it

drama queen

a person who habitually responds to situations in a melodramatic way.

Which when applied to Lydian is blatantly untrue.
So to me this remark is inappropriate.

In response to HN - looking at the particulars of the case in question which I merely use as an example to highlight more general principles.

exhibit a

Aut0Gr4ph wrote: ... [ although I suspect CC may have taken exception to being branded disingenuous for merely expressing an honestly held opinion ...

This is a case of mistaken identity which may have influenced Aut0Gr4ph later comment.

exhibit b

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:CC will be back soon enough. Lydian, I'm not so sure about. He's what Virginia Wade would call a drama queen. Given that, it's amazing he doesn't have more time for our Andy. They're kindred spirits really. ...

Now there is a certain ambiguity as to who Aut0gr4ph is referring to in his Virginia Wade comment ... but the Andy comment suggests he is referencing Lydian.  And then with the kindred spirits comment that seems to be a claim that both Lydian and CC are drama queens.  

Now whether one or the other or both are drama queens, or whether I am myself a drama queen is neither here nor there - the fact is we have a statement making an assertion on the character of a poster .... "He is .... a drama queen".  

This is an ad hominem whether it is true or not.  These types of claims can lead to a spiral etc etc.  We end up talking about the character (true or otherwise) of a poster rather than the sport of tennis.

That is the only point I was trying to convey.

Of course I am not suggesting the use of the phrase "drama queen" be banned.  I think it is fair to use it if you think someone is being oversensitive to a particular comment - but it shouldn't be used as an assertion of character - it should rather be used as a possibility of being mistaken for a drama queen etc etc (i.e. expressed in the subjunctive case rather than the accusative case).

Well if you say so NS if you ever wanted to know where the top of my head was you have just gone over it, Really ?? can you come back to earth where the majority of the posters on this forum reside.. and if necessary stoop a bit lower to address the likes of little ole me .

Can I just point out I was joking. It was tongue in cheek (should have used an emoticon). I don't think Lydian is a drama queen. If you read back, I was defending him all the way. I really hope we don't lose Lydian (or CC, for that matter). I don't always agree with him, but he's a knowledgeable poster with robust views, so what's not to like.

Think maybe your light hearted banter missed the mark.. Hopefully the tone will lighten up in view of Adam's article.. keep smiling

Hi Aut0gr4ph, yes.  I just took one part of your comment to highlight a point I have been making several times on this thread starting from page two.  Summerblue also has made similar points.  I admire and respect everybody that contributes to the tennis forum but sometimes it is in the nature of the beast to talk about individuals posters.   I do accept that I occasionally or maybe not so occasionally misinterpret comments.

To H-N: ignore my last comment I think the first comment was clear enough.  In my last comment I just used your comment as an opportunity to highlight a case of mistaken identity and add a few further things.

But I think we have exhausted this thread now and everybody else who might have stumbled in on it