Grass - 2017

DECIMA wrote:Maybe some people think I've been unfair to Tenez in accusing him of 'covering all bases'- basically saying so many wildly different things that whatever happens afterwards he can selectively recall what he's said and act smug.

Case in point, within the space of a day:

Daniel on this very thread yesterday challenging Tenez on Murray doing well despite the fact he's getting older. This was Tenez' response:

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Murray?  What's he been up to lately?

Nothing! He is just world number 1, Wimbledon title holder and ...he is 30!

Tenez to me just now, when I challenged him on the fact he predicted youngsters to breakthrough and dominate the already established top players including Murray every year from 2012-now:

Tenez wrote:Djoko got beaten twice by Kyrgios this year and Murray keeps losing to everybody.

Clear as daylight.

i dont think that youve been harsh at all,we all need to take accountability for what we say or write,whether it was yesterday or 10 years go
the reluctance to admit that one can be wrong,even when proven wrong and then resorting to belittling insults takes fun the out of debating and discussing away

Jahu wrote:Vee, you into black again? Since Serena got fertilized, I though you given up on the black thingy you had 

black dont crack like the cheating russians  

Hahaha yeah yeah, once you go black - you never go back, all natural, no Gov. forced drugs 

Jahu wrote:Hahaha yeah yeah, once you go black - you never go back, all natural, no Gov. forced drugs 

or being refused wild cards cause youre black 

Oh naughty, must be a Conservative member on the Wild Cards Board 

Jahu wrote:Oh naughty, must be a Conservative member on the Wild Cards Board 

definitely not a member of trumpets cabinet 
all the cheating russians would be given wilds cards!!

Damn right, no one needs russians, trumpets or state sponsored drug orgies.

Jahu wrote:

... wrote:

Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in  Halle.

The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.

What? So discrimination now? Or is it just hurting you cause you melt for russians? 

Tennis does not need any drugged russians 

I did not know Evans was Russian!

Tenez wrote:

Jahu wrote:

... wrote:

Tenez wrote:Mean to ask Rublev to qualify after reaching 1/4F in  Halle.

The cost of being Russian and not "Canadian" like Shapalov.

What? So discrimination now? Or is it just hurting you cause you melt for russians? 

Tennis does not need any drugged russians 

I did not know Evans was Russian!

sharapova definitely is!!

Tenez wrote:You are really getting silly Decima. A real fan who who suddenly reappear to boast about Nadal recent success you who had spend a year finishing him off.

Well, why wouldn't Decima?  Have you seen how hostile you all are to Decima and Nadal (and I am not saying I have been perfect before either, before you jump in on that one)?  To the point of out and out calling Nadal for doping every time he wins?  It's not really surprising, is it? And I've agreed Nadal is at least suspicious, but unlike you I think a justice system should rely on evidence.  I also don't think I am right about everything and I state the bets I have made and where my money is.  I've won far more than I've lost.  But you and Bogbrush think being right on a tennis forum is the meaning of life.   It isn't.  And you are both too cowardly to state your predictions and feelings in a way that's consistent or open - because you are scared stiff of being wrong. That's probably why Bogbrush doesn't bet - cause he can't fool the bookie haha.  He's got such a chip on his shoulder I can actually imagine him like Doyle Lonnegan demanding his cash back LOL


Bogbrush:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYjyFQS3DWM&t=02m29s


  News flash: No matter how well you judge players or matches, luck and the day to day variance has a huge factor on who wins. When I put Kyrgios on to beat Federer (managing to get back my money with cash out), it looked like a VERY solid bet.  But then Federer played the best match he has all year.  Go and watch what he did... it was unreal.  No one could have predicted that - or that an annoying fan would put Kyrgios off when he was serving 2 points to take the match. That's how it is. 

You and Bogbrush are so full of yourselves that you can't take criticism.  You've both got a god complex. You think you are right and the world is wrong.  It's sad.    Riddled with confirmation bias and cherry picking facts to reach conclusions.  Opinions stated as fact and made up from wanting something to be true.

That's untrue, sometimes the Workd gets it right too.

I don't bet. I prefer to earn money and I've noticed how profitable bookies get on the back of people who think they know better than their odds.

Anything you say, Doyle. Ya falla? 

Daniel wrote:Riddled with confirmation bias and cherry picking facts to reach conclusions.  Opinions stated as fact and made up from wanting something to be true.

Tenez today was hilarious, honestly in some ways I have respect for him not going all 606v2 and temporarily banning me mid-debate it was getting so embarrassing.

Tenez wrote:Life must be too complex for a simple brain like yours Decima.

Yes here I am playing checkers and you're playing 3D chess, wowzers.

Tenez wrote:
Besides some over rated expectations on some yougsters i m not sure where i have been wrong. The Murrays exampke clearly shows the complexity of things. Get on with it.

OK as you're not sure where you've been wrong, and I'm very simple, I will do a very simple summary of this debate so far. When I quote you I will do so precisely and using italics. Fair?

1/ You say so many contradicting things that whatever happens you can be smug and claim you were right.
Evidence-
Tenez yesterday:

"No. I am very consistent...I have been saying players were "probably not peaking at 26/27" since 2009. Now we have the proof in the pudding."

I bring up a quote from April 2012: Laverfan 2012- "Any player at the top who starts losing matches early in tourneys has similar dilemma, like Federer or Murray. "
Tenez 2012-

"Yes LF, it will happen to Federer soon too because of his age."

Tenez yesterday, after being confronted with that quote:

"Did you expect me to say in 2012 that Federer woudl peak at 36? I did believe then that players peaked between 29 and 32. And I still believe that's the case."

Me: If you thought players peaked between 29 and 32 why did you say when Federer was 30 that he would soon start losing matches early in tournaments due to age? You would say he has a good 1-2 years of peak tennis left before declining. Doesn't add up.
No response from Tenez

2/ You have continuously made nonsensical predictions regarding young players doing well since 2012, so that if they do well you will claim credit for being right, and if they don't do well you will forget those predictions and just focus on how you said people improve with age.
Evidence (I use a quote from 2012, but frankly could have used so many more every year since... about Nishi, Dimitrov etc.)
Tenez June 2012:

"Raonic, delpotro, dolgo, Harison and others we don't know yet are already on their way to create upsets. Not all will succeed but they will get there before Djoko and Nadal decline. They will get used to that game and find the weapons to defeat it.
While we will have players like Rao, Delpo Dolgo able to hit through some those current players, otherswill becomes better retireving versions than Djoko and Nadal to also give Rao and his peers a very tough opposition. Tomic can be seen as a possible better retriever than Djoko ever will be.
In short I don't know who will be dominating in 2 years but I know it won't be Nadal and Djokovic, certainly not as much as now."

Me: Nadal and Djokovic won 12 of possible 21 Slams since Tenez said that, and only one slam was won by a player younger than Djokovic, Cilic. This mistake can't be explained away by technology stagnation (which can play a part in explaining why average age of top 50 is going up), as Tenez already knew what technology his heralded young players (like Ryan Harrison) were using.
No response.

3/ Tenez can use the exact same piece of evidence, and twist it in two different ways to suit whatever argument suits him.
Evidence of such a case found within the space of 10 hours is rather unique:
Daniel was challenging Tenez on 'old' Murray not doing well this year

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Murray?  What's he been up to lately?

Nothing! He is just world number 1, Wimbledon title holder and ...he is 30!

Tenez to me less than 10 hours later, when I challenged him on the fact he predicted youngsters to breakthrough and dominate the already established top players including Murray every year from 2012-now:

Tenez wrote:Djoko got beaten twice by Kyrgios this year and Murray keeps losing to everybody.

Yes you are right Tenez, tennis is complex, and everyone (me) makes wrong predictions; but what is not so complex is that your charade has been exposed, saying two contradicting things to always makes yourself retrospectively right, using the same example to back up two contradicting points etc... perhaps it is time to stop being so smug.

Murray has also been mentioning the word retirement in interviews.  But I guess being 30 he has the best years of his life to come yet.  He can bag another 8 slams. Easy.

Me: If you thought players peaked between 29 and 32 why did you say when Federer was 30 that he would soon start losing matches early in tournaments due to age? You would say he has a good 1-2 years of peak tennis left before declining. Doesn't add up.
No response from Tenez
==============
Often I don't respond cause I don't read. You aim is not to try to understand but to confuse. I find it tiring and futile. And this very point here is exactly what I mean. peaking between 29 and 32 could be peaking at 29 or 32..and even maybe a wider window for some. Did you really expect me to know Fed's biological clock? You are giving me too much credit. It's flattering. I know I have taught you a lot about the game but there you are pushing it a bit. 


I am afraid you really are silly...or maybe just trying bring the debate to stupid arguments. 


Fed was closer to 31 than 30 when I said that isn't it? So when I said "soon" I expected him to decline in a year or so...what is that you don;t understand?

Tenez wrote:peaking between 29 and 32 could be peaking at 29 or 32..and even maybe a wider window for some. Did you really expect me to know Fed's biological clock? You are giving me too much credit. It's flattering.

Don't be too flattered. I'm not expecting you to know Federer's biological clock exactly. But look closely at what you yourself said.  
You went a step further than saying he wouldn't be peaking, you said he would 'start losing early in tournaments'. If you genuinely believed that the possible years of peaking is between 29 and 32, and someone is 30 you don't say they would soon start losing early in tournaments.
This is what I'm talking about, you could have the humility to admit you were wrong in 2012 and have perhaps changed your mind on the matter now, but you're trying to comically use the word 'soon' so liberally it extends years and then claim losing early in tournaments is the same as not being the exact year of peak; all to keep up this silly facade.

because you lack arguments, you keep saying 30....but he was only 3 months short of being 31. So "soon" in career term doesn't mean in the next 30min....it means in the next 12 months or so. 

I am afraid you are not making sense....once again.

Tenez wrote:because you lack arguments, you keep saying 30....but he was only 3 months short of being 31. So "soon" in career term doesn't mean in the next 30min....it means in the next 12 months or so. 

I am afraid you are not making sense....once again.

Well at the time it was actually 4 months short of 31. That's still 30 years old Tenez.  
You are saying now that at the time you thought potential years of peak is between 29-32; Federer would be 32 from 8th August 8th 2013-August 7th 2014.
He would still be 32 2 years 4 months after your post. So even if we stretch 'soon' to 12 months, and we stretch 32 to 'not 32', you're still saying he would start 'losing early' during a time where he's potentially at his peak.
It's hilarious what lengths you go to and what straws you clutch to avoid admitting you were ever in the wrong.

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:because you lack arguments, you keep saying 30....but he was only 3 months short of being 31. So "soon" in career term doesn't mean in the next 30min....it means in the next 12 months or so. 

I am afraid you are not making sense....once again.

Well at the time it was actually 4 months short of 31. That's still 30 years old Tenez.  
You are saying now that at the time you thought potential years of peak is between 29-32; Federer would be 32 from 8th August 8th 2013-August 7th 2014.
Even if you have the next 12 months as 'soon', he would still be 32 2 years 4 months after your post. And not being at your absolute peak is different from losing early in tournaments.
It's hilarious what lengths you go to and what straws you clutch to avoid admitting you were ever in the wrong.

It's funny, this is exact;y the feeling I have about you. 

My point then was that players were not peaking as early as you and others thought ...so if anything I was even more right than I thought I was. ..or you were even more wrong that you thought!

You are trying to prove me wrong but you are only making me look better than I am.

Having said that had federer not adopted a new racquet...he woudl have won nothing significant after 2012...so frankly once again....I don;t get your point...besides of course "clutching to straws  to avoid admitting you were ever in the wrong". 


You are lucky I have no time to search all the stupid things you said over the last 7 years.

Tenez wrote:
My point then was that players were not peaking as early as you and others thought ...so if anything I was even more right than I thought I was. ..or you were even more wrong that you thought!

But that's not what you were saying in 2012. You wrote an article saying Nadal aged 26 would go on a slippery slope and that Federer aged 30 would soon start declining so much that he would be losing early in tournaments.
It's perfectly fine if you admit you were wrong, or say you changed your mind, but what I am calling out is how you nonsensically try to claim that in 2012 you were saying Fed could still be in peak years. You've tried to twist your own quote so much, the only way you could be right about what you said you believed at the time is if 'soon' was 2 years 5 months, 32 was actually 31, and 'peaking' was losing early.

You are trying to prove me wrong but you are only making me look better than I am.

Look even if we forget the embarrassing hilarity of your defence of this post; you aren't addressing my main point.
It's that you post so wildly different things to the point where you can always do mental gymnastics, and deify yourself as some sort of prophet even when you've got it completely wrong. You keep predicting that the young guns will do well, not just in the post where you said Harrison and Tomic would soon overtake Djokovic and Nadal, but every year. And you say players are improving with age. If the 'young' (now 23-28) players did turn out to be champion-quality and start dominating the current established players as you promised you would be taking all the credit. If that didn't happen, you would hope people forgot those predictions and take credit as it would be proof that players get better as they get older.
You've set it up such that either way you're a prophet. You're the sort of prophet you says before a coin toss that it will either be heads or tails.

Pilpul....

Having said that had federer not adopted a new racquet...he woudl have won nothing significant after 2012
-----

There is no way you can prove that.

Also, since I actually have the balls to state things clearly, you'll see some where I got it spot on.

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t1180p50-djokovic-remaining-career#65728

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:because you lack arguments, you keep saying 30....but he was only 3 months short of being 31. So "soon" in career term doesn't mean in the next 30min....it means in the next 12 months or so. 

I am afraid you are not making sense....once again.

Well at the time it was actually 4 months short of 31. That's still 30 years old Tenez.  
You are saying now that at the time you thought potential years of peak is between 29-32; Federer would be 32 from 8th August 8th 2013-August 7th 2014.
He would still be 32 2 years 4 months after your post. So even if we stretch 'soon' to 12 months, and we stretch 32 to 'not 32', you're still saying he would start 'losing early' during a time where he's potentially at his peak.
It's hilarious what lengths you go to and what straws you clutch to avoid admitting you were ever in the wrong.

you should read through the sharapova thread

It's like I am back on 606V2!

As for Evans testing positive, clearly a political strike!

legendkillar wrote:It's like I am back on 606V2!

As for Evans testing positive, clearly a political strike!

definitely political!! 

just watching this program about wimbledon on BBC2
agassi " i believe our sport tennis to be very clean" after just admitting to taking crystal meth and failing a drugs test  

dominic thiem losing to a qualifier in the antalay open..
im quite a fan of thiem,wish that he was better on grass ggrr

He lacks a bit of finess. He is the new Munster after all.

Needs a proper coach i think, to channel that power.

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It's like I am back on 606V2!

As for Evans testing positive, clearly a political strike!

definitely political!! 

It was. Russia clearly influenced WADA because of the country's inability to vote for a majority government.

However, Dan deserves praise. He did at least come out and admit it. All he needs to do now is give Gasquet a call on how to beat the rap.

legendkillar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It's like I am back on 606V2!

As for Evans testing positive, clearly a political strike!

definitely political!! 

It was. Russia clearly influenced WADA because of the country's inability to vote for a majority government.

However, Dan deserves praise. He did at least come out and admit it. All he needs to do now is give Gasquet a call on how to beat the rap.

i said this before,if sharapova can lie her way out of failing a drugs test then i dint see why evans cant do the same

Better than Sharapova who took performance enhancing drugs, tried to hide it, and then made it into a story about how hard done by she is.  Evans should be given the one year ban.  Sharapova should be history.

LOL Konta making a meal out of a little fall. Such a wuss.

The commentators talking about stretchers and neck braces - lol.

She cries, rolls around, has the whole world attend to her, and then promptly gets up and wins the next 2 points to win the match.

Emancipator wrote:The commentators talking about stretchers and neck braces - lol.

She cries, rolls around, has the whole world attend to her, and then promptly gets up and wins the next 2 points to win the match.

That's what pissed Nastase I guess.

Is this the fall where she landed heavily on her back? Would have probably winded her, so totally understandable that it took her a little bit of time to recover. Bizarre thing to criticise her for.

And I see she's now pulled out of the SF with a spine injury. Hopefully it's just precautionary.

Good match Monf-Gasket, Monf in 3.

Slippy wrote:And I see she's now pulled out of the SF with a spine injury. Hopefully it's just precautionary.

Maybe I was a little harsh 

But the drama and the histrionics... that girl needs to get a stiff upper lip 

Drama Queen.

wozniacki is utterly useless,dont know how she was ever the world no1

bogbrush wrote:Drama Queen.

Exactly, she fell on her back on grass from whilst virtually crouching and then rolled around, cried, screaming out get someone, anyone to help me. Seriously you woulda thought she'd been shot or something. Then she lay on the ground crying for ages, causing even Kerber to go across the net and hold her hand not to mention about five other people. Then after all that she got up, without so much as a limp, and won the next 2 points, one of which was a long rally.

The reason for pulling out of the next rd is because she's got some bruising in her back and it's precautionary. F***ing hell imagine if she'd suffered an actual injury. Air ambulance probably.

Pathetic. Needs to grow a spine (pun intended).

So, Nole wins Eastbourne as a WC beating Monfils (also a WC) 14th time in a row...

Nice to see him with a trophy again, good choice to go to the "lowly" 250 event.

Emancipator wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Drama Queen.

Exactly, she fell on her back on grass from whilst virtually crouching and then rolled around, cried, screaming out get someone, anyone to help me. Seriously you woulda thought she'd been shot or something. Then she lay on the ground crying for ages, causing even Kerber to go across the net and hold her hand not to mention about five other people. Then after all that she got up, without so much as a limp, and won the next 2 points, one of which was a long rally.

The reason for pulling out of the next rd is because she's got some bruising in her back and it's precautionary. F***ing hell imagine if she'd suffered an actual injury. Air ambulance probably.

Pathetic. Needs to grow a spine (pun intended).

BB is too kind with his words there...

She is a bitch because of who Naste, a proper tennis legend, now can't go to slams as he used to.

I hope she gets knocked out early in Wimbledon.

I didn't see the scene, thanks for describing it Emaci.

So Monbye loses serve to lose the match.

At least he's consistent.

... wrote:

Emancipator wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Drama Queen.

Exactly, she fell on her back on grass from whilst virtually crouching and then rolled around, cried, screaming out get someone, anyone to help me. Seriously you woulda thought she'd been shot or something. Then she lay on the ground crying for ages, causing even Kerber to go across the net and hold her hand not to mention about five other people. Then after all that she got up, without so much as a limp, and won the next 2 points, one of which was a long rally.

The reason for pulling out of the next rd is because she's got some bruising in her back and it's precautionary. F***ing hell imagine if she'd suffered an actual injury. Air ambulance probably.

Pathetic. Needs to grow a spine (pun intended).

BB is too kind with his words there...

She is a bitch because of who Naste, a proper tennis legend, now can't go to slams as he used to.

I hope she gets knocked out early in Wimbledon.

I didn't see the scene, thanks for describing it Emaci.

nope the reason why nastase cant go to slams is because he refuses to apoloise
whether konta is a drama queen or not,it still doesnt justify Nastase's outburst
he still has no right to call her a fucking bitch over and over 
have you seen anyone commentating on the match in eastbourne say that? no because its still totally unacceptable say something like that regardless of whatever drama she created 
whats even worse is his refusal to apologise by continually saying that he doesnt care
all he needed to do was just say sorry and everyone would have looked at it at something he just said in the heat of the moment 
well if he doesnt care enough to apologise,history wont care to remember anything about his legacy excpet this outburst 
his reputation is left in tatters and the fault is no one but his own

Why should he apologise?
What harm has he done to the match?

It was Konta that was using gamesmanship. You only read British side of the story and we all know how objective british press is...

Naste was right.


Konta should apologise her teammates for letting them down.

Nole won today, but I was not too impressed. Unless he improves significantly, he will not get anywhere near the Wimbledon final.