US Open 2012: The Morning After...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Is this not something the Umpires and Referees on the ground make a decision for.

And they always make the right decisions.

laverfan wrote: Do you think a televised picture is a better source for making such a decision, from a fan's point of view?

At least my decision can't be influenced by any TDs or anyone sitting in a board room. So indeed yes on that front.

And yet your decision is influenced by who you are a fan of! An umpire walks the court, assesses slipperiness of the court, considers the rate of falling rain, feels the wind speed, determines the light in the court (remember W 2008). He is not sitting across a high-gain HD camera whose brightness can be amplified for TV audiences.

If you are so upset with the management of Tennis, become a part of it and fix it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: Yet, the conditions were handled by Murray and Ferrer, who are also in the same court, correct? I have also quoted Djokovic's post-match interview.

Ahh.. Did I not already said that under any condition, someone will definitely handle it better? Even if its pouring as hell, and the players are forced to play, someone will definitely win. Yes he had the same conditions as the opponent and won by adapting and handling it better. But did it remain a tennis match? NO.

An opinion.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Now next time umpires should hand guns to both players if it goes to a tie-breaker, and then see who adapts better under the conditions.

Great Idea LF, isn't it?

Luxilon strings and 110 sq in racquets are not enough, must there be violence in Tennis. Perhaps Call of Duty is what you prefer.

Djokovic did bring a gun-case in Miami.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:I also remember the Madrid blue clay issue. Federer and many others handled and adjusted, while Nadal and Djokovic, perhaps after adjustments, still vented their displeasure.

Did I not say there is a limit to things and sensible judgement have to be taken. Play can continue in difficult playing conditions, but it should not go over the limit. Blue clay was slippery as some said, yes it was difficult. But it was not ice. Next time unless a tornado hit the AA, the play must continue and winner will be who managed to stay alive. Perfect.

That sport is called 'Storm Chasing', not Tennis.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:Amri we don't need you to come here and pour oil on the fire. Keep to tennis and its related subjects.

I am defending Laverfan.

I feel he was totally unfairly attacked by Sphair.
Why did you not tell Sphair that his posts were 'off topic'?

Cause LF and Sphair are discussing tennis...even if it's sacastic tone, they stick to tennis. You come and bring nothing about tennis. Can you see teh difference?

How is Sphair accusing LF of being 'insulting' and 'condescending' anything to do with tennis?

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Is this not something the Umpires and Referees on the ground make a decision for.

And they always make the right decisions.

laverfan wrote: Do you think a televised picture is a better source for making such a decision, from a fan's point of view?

At least my decision can't be influenced by any TDs or anyone sitting in a board room. So indeed yes on that front.

And yet your decision is influenced by who you are a fan of! An umpire walks the court, assesses slipperiness of the court, considers the rate of falling rain, feels the wind speed, determines the light in the court (remember W 2008). He is not sitting across a high-gain HD camera whose brightness can be amplified for TV audiences.

If you are so upset with the management of Tennis, become a part of it and fix it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: Yet, the conditions were handled by Murray and Ferrer, who are also in the same court, correct? I have also quoted Djokovic's post-match interview.

Ahh.. Did I not already said that under any condition, someone will definitely handle it better? Even if its pouring as hell, and the players are forced to play, someone will definitely win. Yes he had the same conditions as the opponent and won by adapting and handling it better. But did it remain a tennis match? NO.

An opinion.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Now next time umpires should hand guns to both players if it goes to a tie-breaker, and then see who adapts better under the conditions.

Great Idea LF, isn't it?

Luxilon strings and 110 sq in racquets are not enough, must there be violence in Tennis. Perhaps Call of Duty is what you prefer.

Djokovic did bring a gun-case in Miami.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:I also remember the Madrid blue clay issue. Federer and many others handled and adjusted, while Nadal and Djokovic, perhaps after adjustments, still vented their displeasure.

Did I not say there is a limit to things and sensible judgement have to be taken. Play can continue in difficult playing conditions, but it should not go over the limit. Blue clay was slippery as some said, yes it was difficult. But it was not ice. Next time unless a tornado hit the AA, the play must continue and winner will be who managed to stay alive. Perfect.

That sport is called 'Storm Chasing', not Tennis.

LF... I think you are misunderstanding the 'conditions' thing.
No one is saying that Murray didn't deserve to win in those conditions etc.

What they are saying is that different conditions favour different people, which is absolutely correct.
For example if Tenez says 'Djokovic would have won the USO final' if not for the wind' it's not taking any credit away from Murray, but maybe saying Murray's game is better suited to the wind.

Again LF with the Rosol example you are not being logical and off-topic. Yes Berdych is more inconsistent than the top 4 but usually when he is doing well in one tournament he can go quite far. He's not like Gulbis who after a great match plays poorly. After beating Fed at Wimbers he defeated Nole in the next match only to lose to Nadal at his best in the final, so during a given event he is consistent. Madrid lost in final vs. Fed but was close to winning. Lost last year in Paris in final vs. Fed after beating Murray but did not play badly. So again, LF, you show limitations in your abilities to make analogies...

As I said before I am not a statistician per se and I dislike statistics as I am more of a math purist (I like probabilities and stochastic calculus ). Anyways, I don't really care about debating the whole rigged draw thingy... All I know and I can recall is at some point you made a rather idiotic argument that had to do with seed numbers vs. names. I can't recall if SB managed to convince you at the end that you were wrong but hopefully he did. After that post though I knew there was no point reading anything else you wrote on the subject as it showed a lack of common sense and simple math logic from you. Just as a general hint, let's say you want to prove nobody cheated at this draw rigging and you say, if nobody cheats, then they use the seed numbers to make the draw not the names, but if they use the seed numbers, then what happens is not surprising and looks a lot like the 50-50 we would expect, so it proves nobody cheated, no? Can you see the fallacy in your argument? Assuming they are actually using the seed numbers in the first place and not the names is assuming they are following the rules, which means is assuming they are not cheating in the first place. So proving anything else than they are not cheating and you would clearly show they are cheating by contradiction. But concluding they are not cheating from using it as hypothesis in the first place (OK, you did not write it as explicitly but it was implicit in your seed assumption) does not prove anything.

sphairistike wrote: All I know and i can recall is at some point you made a rather idiotic argument that had to do with seed numbers vs. names. I can't recall if SB managed to convince you at the end that you were wrong but hopefully he did.

That's very disrespectful to Laverfan.

Actually both me and Summerblues were arguing against Laverfan on this one (I am IMBL on v2) and I did not agree with Laverfan: http://www.606v2.com/t33610-names-numbers-and-nole Yet I did not call LF's argument 'idiotic' but debated sensibly.

Amritia3ee wrote:What they are saying is that different conditions favour different people, which is absolutely correct. For example if Tenez says 'Djokovic would have won the USO final' if not for the wind' it's not taking any credit away from Murray, but maybe saying Murray's game is better suited to the wind.

laverfan wrote:I consider a player who can deal with 40+ mph, subjectively better than some one who cannot handle 13-20+ mph winds.

This is what my opinion is.

These were my posts on draw-rigging, that I think LF has not been able to yet answer:

It Must Be Love wrote:From the other thread:

laverfan wrote:No,

You're missing the point here. Summer's point is theoretical. It has nothing to do with tennis. Some of your replies to Summer have been slightly vague.
I can see that this is a topic which you care about- and hence maybe your emotions are getting in the way. Also I must note, that Socal's tone also suggests that he has strong emotions about this. Nevertheless this doesn't necessarily mean that neither you or Socal are wrong, but this should be kept in mind.

Now I don't believe that draw rigging exists in tennis. I don't think the ATP really has that much of an incentive to kill the integrity of the game for such things. Firstly Djokovic could be very useful to them, merchandise wise, why would they try to down him. It makes no sense. Also I have seen no evidence that the SF draw can be rigged. Can someone, LF or Socal, find out if there is a possibility where the draw can be changed- is there some sort of loophole? This is crucial.

Anyway as I said earlier tennis, or the ATP doesn't have much to do with Summer's point. Summer is pointing out, and rightly so, that by showing the seedings as balanced doesn't necessarily mean the draw is 'more' or 'less' suspicious. This doesn't mean the draws are rigged, neither me or Summer are saying that for sure LF, let's not get it twisted.
However what Summer pointed out in his tribe argument is correct. Nothing to do with tennis.

summerblues wrote:
This country's population is populated by two tribes - A and B. Once a year, the king, who is from tribe A, assigns numbers 1 and 2 to these two tribes. He then randomly pulls a number (1 or 2) from a hat. The tribe whose number is drawn has to provide the victim for the dragon.

The last 40 years, the following numbers were assigned to the tribes:

Tribe A: 1212212112111221221121212211122121122122
Tribe B: 2121121221222112112212121122211212211211

The king has drawn these numbers from his hat: 2121121221222112112212121122211212211211

As a result, the victims were coming from these tribes: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Which of the following better describes your reaction?

(a) Over the last 40 years, 20 1s and 20 2s were drawn, with no obvious pattern, so I see no reason to think anything untoward has been happening.

(b) I suspect this king is not a very fair kind of guy.

Clearly this shows your point that just having the seedings balanced doesn't kill the point. Period.

laverfan wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:What they are saying is that different conditions favour different people, which is absolutely correct. For example if Tenez says 'Djokovic would have won the USO final' if not for the wind' it's not taking any credit away from Murray, but maybe saying Murray's game is better suited to the wind.

laverfan wrote:I consider a player who can deal with 40+ mph, subjectively better than some one who cannot handle 13-20+ mph winds.

This is what my opinion is.

I agree with you there

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:Amri we don't need you to come here and pour oil on the fire. Keep to tennis and its related subjects.

I am defending Laverfan.

I feel he was totally unfairly attacked by Sphair.
Why did you not tell Sphair that his posts were 'off topic'?

Cause LF and Sphair are discussing tennis...even if it's sacastic tone, they stick to tennis. You come and bring nothing about tennis. Can you see teh difference?

Tenez, you are blinded by your own stigmas and this is not the first time it has happened. It is not without the reason that you got banned everywhere and now you have your own forum and you can discuss what ever you want. When have you discussed tennis? You never discuss tennis, you only discuss physicality and doping.

No Amrit, from a pure mathematical point of view it is an idiotic argument and I explained why after in my example. Nice of you to want to defend LF but she is the one who started writing to me in a way that seemed to suggest she took me for someone stupid, which I am not. Exposing an idiotic statement is not condescending when it is backed up by a proof. Talking to someone like they are stupid is. Anyways, let's keep the discussion to tennis. I didn't want to discuss the draw study in the first place...

wow3 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:Amri we don't need you to come here and pour oil on the fire. Keep to tennis and its related subjects.

I am defending Laverfan.

I feel he was totally unfairly attacked by Sphair.
Why did you not tell Sphair that his posts were 'off topic'?

Cause LF and Sphair are discussing tennis...even if it's sacastic tone, they stick to tennis. You come and bring nothing about tennis. Can you see teh difference?

Tenez, you are blinded by your own stigmas and this is not the first time it has happened. It is not without the reason that you got banned everywhere and now you have your own forum and you can discuss what ever you want. When have you discussed tennis? You never discuss tennis, you only discuss physicality and doping.

wow... don't be rude to Tenez.
He can discuss what he likes, there is free speech. He probably thinks 'doping and physicality' are interlinked with tennis so he always talks about it.. that's his choice.
I was a bit surprised though at the way he attacked me for being 'off-topic' for defending Laverfan, but not Sphair who made simply ridiculous allegations towards LF in the first place.. and then is now being very disrespectful to Laverfan.

And you are probably right in asking as what Amri is doing here because this forum is for tenez and co who believes in double standards. They can criticise nadal for physicality but not Djoker. They can criticse Murray for being pusher but not djoker.

Are yuo "it must be love" Amri on v2?

Yes, Amritia3ee = IMBL

sphairistike wrote:Again LF with the Rosol example you are not being logical and off-topic. Yes Berdych is more inconsistent than the top 4 but usually when he is doing well in one tournament he can go quite far. He's not like Gulbis who after a great match plays poorly. After beating Fed at Wimbers he defeated Nole in the next match only to lose to Nadal at his best in the final, so during a given event he is consistent. Madrid lost in final vs. Fed but was close to winning. Lost last year in Paris in final vs. Fed after beating Murray but did not play badly. So again, LF, you show limitations in your abilities to make analogies...

I did not expect Federer to lose his match against Berdych. Berdych played a very good match as the rest of the USO. IMO, Murray played the best set of matches at USO 2012, Raonic match was an example of a 'perfect' match to match the skills of the player across the net.

sphairistike wrote:As I said before I am not a statistician per se and I dislike statistics as I am more of a math purist (I like probabilities and stochastic calculus ). Anyways, I don't really care about debating the whole rigged draw thingy... All I know and I can recall is at some point you made a rather idiotic argument that had to do with seed numbers vs. names. I can't recall if SB managed to convince you at the end that you were wrong but hopefully he did. After that post though I knew there was no point reading anything else you wrote on the subject as it showed a lack of common sense and simple math logic from you. Just as a general hint, let's say you want to prove nobody cheated at this draw rigging and you say, if nobody cheats, then they use the seed numbers to make the draw not the names, but if they use the seed numbers, then what happens is not surprising and looks a lot like the 50-50 we would expect, so it proves nobody cheated, no? Can you see the fallacy in your argument? Assuming they are actually using the seed numbers in the first place and not the names is assuming they are following the rules, which means is assuming they are not cheating in the first place. So proving anything else than they are not cheating and you would clearly show they are cheating by contradiction. But concluding they are not cheating from using it as hypothesis in the first place (OK, you did not write it as explicitly but it was implicit in your seed assumption) does not prove anything.

As amritia3ee points out. I have objections to the King and the Dragon example as stated in the thread. It makes no sense to repeat it here.

sphairistike wrote: Anyways, let's keep the discussion to tennis.

Nice of you to say that after you accused Laverfan of being insulting, before going on to be very disrespectful to her yourself....

Anyway, let's stop this now. I've defended LF, and I think rightfully so, and we can go back to tennis.

Tenez wrote:Are yuo "it must be love" Amri on v2?

Yes

Djoker and nadal were the only two players to create a drama against the blue clay. Federer who is an all time great, went there, played and won it. Fed has also played in windy conditions and adapted well. SO if Fed can adapt why cannot Djoker?

Siding with Nadal, isn't Djoker trying to be Nadal version 2. His style of play is more like Nadal than Fed anyway.

wow3 wrote:Djoker and nadal were the only two players to create a drama against the blue clay. Federer who is an all time great, went there, played and won it. Fed has also played in windy conditions and adapted well. SO if Fed can adapt why cannot Djoker?

Siding with Nadal, isn't Djoker trying to be Nadal version 2. His style of play is more like Nadal than Fed anyway.

Federer fan's prefer Djokovic to Nadal, because Nadal bosses Federer in the big events, unlike Djokovic.

Well I am a fedfan, innit? And it is not that I don't like Djokoivc. I like Novak as he brings something special to the court but he plays same like Murray and Nadal. There is hardly any difference. Tenez must have watched the different match for USO final 2012 because the match I watched Djoko was defending most of the points and hardly hit any winners until the 4th set.

wow3 wrote:Well I am a fedfan, innit? And it is not that I don't like Djokoivc. I like Novak as he brings something special to the court but he plays same like Murray and Nadal. There is hardly any difference.

If it's so special why does Federer dominate him so much?

@WoW

These player are very competitive. They constantly try and improve. Djokovic recovered after the Todd Martin and service motion fiasco.

Annacone helped Federer, Lendl is helping Murray.

Nadal changed the weight on his racquet. He solved the challenge of 2011 Djokovic, whether Djokovic went backwards, or Nadal forwards, is a matter of very subjective interpretation.

@Amritia3ee.. Thanks. Sphair is all right, I have no issues with any poster. I think we can work an amicable approach. Sphair wants to stay away from the DR discussion, let us leave it at that.

laverfan wrote:@WoW

These player are very competitive. They constantly try and improve. Djokovic recovered after the Todd Martin and service motion fiasco.

Annacone helped Federer, Lendl is helping Murray.

Nadal changed the weight on his racquet. He solved the challenge of 2011 Djokovic, whether Djokovic went backwards, or Nadal forwards, is a matter of very subjective interpretation.

@Amritia3ee.. Thanks. Sphair is all right, I have no issues with any poster. I think we can work an amicable approach. Sphair wants to stay away from the DR discussion, let us leave it at that.

LF, you are a very friendly poster

Amritia3ee wrote:

wow3 wrote:Well I am a fedfan, innit? And it is not that I don't like Djokoivc. I like Novak as he brings something special to the court but he plays same like Murray and Nadal. There is hardly any difference.

If it's so special why does Federer dominate him so much?

Well, his forehand angled shots are good to watch. He can come to net like he did against Murray on few points. His on court demanours are good unlike Murray' s moaning or bamos of Nadal. His bouncing is bit of ooo at times but other than that he has been playing quite sportingly in past 2 years. His backhand is quite supreme and his court coverage is immense as we saw in the match against ferrer. His post match speeche was really good and the gesture of going across the court to hug Andy. When Nole beat Nadal at Wimby, Nadal was sulking although he did not show it that much after the match but during the match he was.

laverfan wrote:@WoW

These player are very competitive. They constantly try and improve. Djokovic recovered after the Todd Martin and service motion fiasco.

Annacone helped Federer, Lendl is helping Murray.

Nadal changed the weight on his racquet. He solved the challenge of 2011 Djokovic, whether Djokovic went backwards, or Nadal forwards, is a matter of very subjective interpretation.

@Amritia3ee.. Thanks. Sphair is all right, I have no issues with any poster. I think we can work an amicable approach. Sphair wants to stay away from the DR discussion, let us leave it at that.

LF djoko's team got the strategy wrong this year. On Andy will win USO thread i did pointed out that in recent years players who played masters before approaching USO have not won the USO. Djoko has played far too many matches this year and I am telling you now only that you will see few shock results for Djoko in the coming tourneys.

wow3 wrote:

Well, his forehand angled shots are good to watch.

Subjective, I can see why though

wow3 wrote:
He can come to net like he did against Murray on few points.

If Bogbrush on v2 is to be believed, he served and volleyed 3 times in the USO

wow3 wrote:
His on court demanours are good unlike Murray' s moaning or bamos of Nadal.

You mean the medieval screams, or the 'ripping shirt off and growling' after he has won?

wow3 wrote:
His backhand is quite supreme and his court coverage is immense as we saw in the match against ferrer.

IMO, at his best Nadal's court coverage is better, and his forehand is more lethal then Djokovic's backhand.

wow3 wrote:
His post match speeche was really good

Nadal is very gracious in his speeches, after Monte Carlo 2012 he said to Djokovic 'Thank-you for letting me win this time.'

wow3 wrote:
Nadal was sulking although he did not show it that much after the match but during the match he was.

Why on earth would he sulk during a match?
He went 2 sets down, and fought back to take the 3rd set. According to the bookies he was favourite as the match was heading into a 4th set, but Nole grabbed the one crucial break.

Well coming to net play during the final, you can see the stats. BB does not like Djoker everyone knows that.

Sulking during the match, untimely challenges during AO and FO final, annoying fist pumps, shove to Rosol and arguments with umpire. I don't think that Nadal would have crossed the court to hug Andy on his achievement.

Nadal's coverage was better but at present Djoko can outdo him.

Andy Murray: “Rafael Nadal messaged me after the match and said, ‘Just enjoy it, I’m very happy for you. You deserved it.’ That means a lot to me. I got a lot of congratulations from a lot of people but, when you get it from someone you competing against and he’s one of the best players ever, it means a little bit more.”

Amritia3ee wrote:Andy Murray: “Rafael Nadal messaged me after the match and said, ‘Just enjoy it, I’m very happy for you. You deserved it.’ That means a lot to me. I got a lot of congratulations from a lot of people but, when you get it from someone you competing against and he’s one of the best players ever, it means a little bit more.”

Well Nadal is not anti-tennis all the times. At times he is good as well. I dont dislike him all the time, it's just when he does not play fair

Amrit, don't mean to be patronizing but please be careful not to misquote other posters (from this or any other forum). I read briefly some stuff on 606v2 this AM and the only thing BB said was Nole served and volleyed a total of 3 times this USO. Totally different facts!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG6XM82aWQg

Yes, you are right Sphair:
http://www.606v2.com/spa/bogbrush

Apologies, did not do that on purpose

My point still stands, I really think net play isn't a strong part of Nole's game.

Dont anyone touch my dearest friend Tebez here! I'm having to intervene right during the intermezk of The Dictor's Dilemma play at the Southbanks....

And this phone is killing me!!!!
Anyway, thoroughly recommend the play, to be preceesded by a hearty dinner , of couse ..cheers!

noleisthebest wrote:And this phone is killing me!!!!
Anyway, thoroughly recommend the play, to be preceesded by a hearty dinner , of couse ..cheers!

Buy an iPhone5 announced today.

noleisthebest wrote:Dont anyone touch my dearest friend Tebez here! I'm having to intervene right during the intermezk of The Dictor's Dilemma play at the Southbanks....

Did you mean Tevez? . Focus on the play. Tennis on a holiday till DC.

Amri,
I keep telling you this is no v2.
I do understand that you are attracted here by some brilliant, knowledgeable posters, and I don't blame you for it, it's a lot more interesting.
Think why.

noleisthebest wrote:I keep telling you this is no v2.

Nothing is v2, but only v2. There can be only one as The Highlander of Clan McLeod says.

noleisthebest wrote:I do understand that you are attracted here by some brilliant, knowledgeable posters, and I don't blame you for it, it's a lot more interesting. Think why.

All fora have brilliant posters. Many posters on OTF also post on other fora. Exclusive club mindsets also cause the demise of such clubs. The smaller the gene pool, the lower the chances of a species' survival.

BTW, I presume you post on many other fora, correct?

laverfan wrote: There can be only one as The Highlander of Clan McLeod says.

By the way guys, do you know what is meant by that? Most likely not what we are initially meant to understand...

sphairistike wrote:

laverfan wrote: There can be only one as The Highlander of Clan McLeod says.

By the way guys, do you know what is meant by that? Most likely not what we are initially meant to understand...

I used to follow Connor (Christopher Lambert) and Duncan (Adrian Paul) quite a bit. In the end... before that sentence may make more sense. There is a reference to the Gathering and Quickening as well as the power released when an immortal's head is taken.

Should the interpretation be different?

laverfan wrote:

BTW, I presume you post on many other fora, correct?

Not on many. This is my home. And when I visit elsewhere, I respect it's others' home so don't try and tell them how to order it.

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

BTW, I presume you post on many other fora, correct?

Not on many. This is my home. And when I visit elsewhere, I respect it's others' home so don't try and tell them how to order it.

From my perspective, each forum is a hotel, not a home, a significant difference, IMO. You can come in as a guest, hang out, partake of the environment, and leave if you so choose, perhaps because there is a family that has a group of rambunctious personalities who have taken over the front lobby, making it difficult to get to your den.

The hotel welcomes you too, but there will always be a difference between a home and a parking space for a few days, months or years.

laverfan wrote:

I used to follow Connor (Christopher Lambert) and Duncan (Adrian Paul) quite a bit. In the end... before that sentence may make more sense. There is a reference to the Gathering and Quickening as well as the power released when an immortal's head is taken.

Should the interpretation be different?

Yes, it should be different. The "In the end..." is actually misleading a bit. Only hint it gives you is that you have to watch the concluding episode of Highlander, or was it a movie? it is with Adrian Paul as Duncan McLeod and spoiler alert, he is the one, but hint, not all other immortals are dead...