Re: Decoding Amri's Jinxes: Nobody saw it coming but Nadal did, that's why he lost.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:23 am

I have a recorded tape from the semi last year, and in the 5th set the crowd support from Rafa seems greater than for Djokovic.
This could be simply the Nadal fans were louder, or there were more fans for him compared to Djokovic.

by luvsports! Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:34 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:I remember the crowd booing him against Tsonga in 2012 for basically no reason, the French crowd haven't yet taken to him.
However I have a feeling he will start to become more popular there with time.

They certainly took to him in the FO'12 final over Nadal.
Jeered and whistled rafa at times and gave huge roars of appreciation for djoko.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:49 am

When?
I have the tape recorded, the crowd only got annoyed at the end when they left the court due to rain... but I think that's because they wanted play to continue rather than getting annoyed at Nadal.
Really though they should have gone off before that, tennis is not meant to be played in rain.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:51 am

LS, what did you think of my post day before yesterday?

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:06 am

I agree with you that S. Edberg Award is a commercial joke, the ultimate proof was - it was given to Nadal!

You simply cannot receive the Sportsman of the Year award if you blatantly and continually bend the rules to suit you and harm your opponent.
Mind you, the system that gives that award heavily allows him to carry on like that.

I also agree with you that there are better sportsmen that never got that reward, Tsonga is a good example.
I am not sure Challengers are the best place to look for sportsmanship material, as there is a lot less at stake and pressure at that level, no media coverage, no fans involved.

As for Federer, he has done so much for tennis in the best possible way, they need to invent an award in his name!

The way he grew over the years and conducted himself is very commendable.

When he retires, tennis is just never going to be the same, he will be missed like noone else before.
I liked Mattek-Sands idea of having a minute of silence when it happens.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:43 am

noleisthebest wrote:I am not sure Challengers are the best place to look for sportsmanship material, as there is a lot less at stake and pressure at that level, no media coverage, no fans involved.

Nope, I couldn't disagree with this more.
Yes the media coverage is less, and the fan following is less; but the pressure on players is huge.
Unlike many ATP tournaments, in Challengers and Futures not all the expenses for the trip are paid (it tends to vary). Not all national tennis organisations have the money of the LTA, and not many countries have the social security of Britain- the pressure is really really on financially if the players are to earn a good living from Challengers and Futures. When Nadal loses a match he can still buy 4 Ferraris with his sponsorship money from a few weeks alone; he isn't going to be struggling cash.
In the Challengers and Futures, you get a higher income depending on how well you do... so massive pressure to get through each round of a tournament.

I agree with you that S. Edberg Award is a commercial joke, the ultimate proof was - it was given to Nadal!

Well this isn't a very strong argument; if I wanted to I could take the position of Nadal is a good sportsman because he won the award... and it would simply be stalemate and the debate would go round in circles.
As I have said, from the evidence I have seen so far, Nadal is a better sportsman than Federer, though that is my opinion. Certainly people who say that the award is proof of that, must also agree that Nadal is the second best sportsman, or they are using double standards.

by Tenez Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:21 am

Julia Santamaria wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I am not sure Challengers are the best place to look for sportsmanship material, as there is a lot less at stake and pressure at that level, no media coverage, no fans involved.

Nope, I couldn't disagree with this more.
Yes the media coverage is less, and the fan following is less; but the pressure on players is huge.
Unlike many ATP tournaments, in Challengers and Futures not all the expenses for the trip are paid (it tends to vary). Not all national tennis organisations have the money of the LTA, and not many countries have the social security of Britain- the pressure is really really on financially if the players are to earn a good living from Challengers and Futures. When Nadal loses a match he can still buy 4 Ferraris with his sponsorship money from a few weeks alone; he isn't going to be struggling cash.
In the Challengers and Futures, you get a higher income depending on how well you do... so massive pressure to get through each round of a tournament.

But regardless of the pressure they have, we the crowd need to be interested in that award (well at least in theory) and since we hardly see those matches and do not know who those players are, there is no real point in having them be part of that award. They may have their own award, fine, I would not be against but being told that Raoul Boredo won the fairplay award won't do anything to me ..and most of us I am sure. And I also agree with NITB that the pressure is not quiet the same. Both, the satellite and main tour, play for money only one plays for history.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:52 am

So just because the crowd aren't interested in someone means they can't be in contention for the sportsmanship award??
That's shows exactly what I'm saying! how superficial this award is. Moreover this is even more accentuated at the top, legends like Nadal will have a better chance than Ferrer.

Both, the satellite and main tour, play for money only one plays for history.

This is a pretty primitive way of looking at things.
In reality the financial pressures on players exponentially increase as you go down the rankings; remember top players not only get more sponsorship money but also all expenses of tour played for them.

by Tenez Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:31 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:So just because the crowd aren't interested in someone means they can't be in contention for the sportsmanship award??

eeuuhhh yes. That's what awards are for. An award has value if recognised by "a" crowd. I could give myself the award of the best tennis player in the UK....I don't think it would have much value would he?....unless a large part of the population agrees.

That's shows exactly what I'm saying! how superficial this award is. Moreover this is even more accentuated at the top, legends like Nadal will have a better chance than Ferrer.

But like everything it has to make sense. Giving it to Nadal did not make sense. You can try to please the crowd as much as you want, A large part pf the crowd thought it was ridiculous to give it to Nadal while much less were thinking so when given to Federer, even if some other players deserved it as much or more.

This is a pretty primitive way of looking at things.
In reality the financial pressures on players exponentially increase as you go down the rankings; remember top players not only get more sponsorship money but also all expenses of tour played for them.

Please make sense again. The sponsors money go hand in hand with your achievement. A first round loser of a GS earns $15k? probably the same as what a player reaching the final of a sat tournament.

For Stan losing in a GS first round and winning it is absolutely giant in terms of money (price money plus all the sponsors contract bonuses) probably $15k for losing a 1st round to $5million minimum for winning one (with sponsors money). Its like winning the lottery.

You cannot compare that with the ups and down of satellite tour.....plus making history!

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:12 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I agree with you that S. Edberg Award is a commercial joke, the ultimate proof was - it was given to Nadal!

Well this isn't a very strong argument; if I wanted to I could take the position of Nadal is a good sportsman because he won the award... and it would simply be stalemate and the debate would go round in circles.
As I have said, from the evidence I have seen so far, Nadal is a better sportsman than Federer, though that is my opinion. Certainly people who say that the award is proof of that, must also agree that Nadal is the second best sportsman, or they are using double standards.

You have conveniently failed to quote the argument in its fulness:

noleisthebest wrote: I agree with you that S. Edberg Award is a commercial joke, the ultimate proof was - it was given to Nadal!

You simply cannot receive the Sportsman of the Year award if you blatantly and continually bend the rules to suit you and harm your opponent. .

How do you view Nadal's rule bending during matches?
Surely, you don't think someone who does that deserves a Sportsmanhip Award!

by luvsports! Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:23 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:When?
I have the tape recorded, the crowd only got annoyed at the end when they left the court due to rain... but I think that's because they wanted play to continue rather than getting annoyed at Nadal.
Really though they should have gone off before that, tennis is not meant to be played in rain.

No they complained about rafa not wanting to carry on as djoko had won like 5 games in a row or something.
They were definitely way more behind djoko than rafa. The roar from the crowd when djoko won the 3rd set was huge!

by luvsports! Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:23 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:LS, what did you think of my post day before yesterday?

which post? soz im pooped from work.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:55 pm

Tenez wrote:eeuuhhh yes. That's what awards are for. An award has value if recognised by "a" crowd. I could give myself the award of the best tennis player in the UK....I don't think it would have much value would he?....unless a large part of the population agrees.

The more you try and defend this, the more you expose how superficial this award is.
I think it's clear this award is not reflective of reality, and does not give a fair chance to players who are less known but still the greatest sportsman.

Tenez wrote:For Stan losing in a GS first round and winning it is absolutely giant in terms of money (price money plus all the sponsors contract bonuses) probably $15k for losing a 1st round to $5million minimum for winning one (with sponsors money). Its like winning the lottery.

You just don't understand, do you?
There are players playing lower down the tour who desperately need money... sometimes just to cover the cost of the tour. And some don't have a rich LTA or a generous social security Britain has. Playing under such huge financial pressure, that's hardship, not Wawrinka getting a few more million.

noleisthebest wrote:How do you view Nadal's rule bending during matches?
Surely, you don't think someone who does that deserves a Sportsmanhip Award!

He has obsessive compulsive disorder, which explains his weird ritual which takes up time. I've written more in detail why I think he's a better sportsman than Federer; if you or anyone wants to refute me here, refer to that post.
As for your second question, as I have said I question the accuracy of the award, simply because I don't think it gives a fair chance to lower ranked players who are playing under real financial pressure.

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:03 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:For Stan losing in a GS first round and winning it is absolutely giant in terms of money (price money plus all the sponsors contract bonuses) probably $15k for losing a 1st round to $5million minimum for winning one (with sponsors money). Its like winning the lottery.
You just don't understand, do you?
There are players playing lower down the tour who desperately need money... sometimes just to cover the cost of the tour. And some don't have a rich LTA or a generous social security Britain has. Playing under such huge financial pressure, that's hardship, not Wawrinka getting a few more million.

Amri,
There are thousands of tennis players competing in challengers and futures tournaments.
Nothing is stopping them from getting a mundane, boring office job like the rest of the world.
We have a guy in the club, he is 36, who used to be a rated 150 ATP player and he is happy just coaching for £22 an hour now (who funnily is a huge Stan fan!)
I can look at him and say, oh, but it's not fair, he doesn't have to pay club membership fees, he gets free racquets and balls from his sponsorship deals, and I have to pay through the nose for mine..

But how many of those players can do what Federer can? None.
You cannot compare them, it's two different worlds.
That's why Federer earns what he earns and the rest have to pay their own way.

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:31 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:How do you view Nadal's rule bending during matches?
Surely, you don't think someone who does that deserves a Sportsmanhip Award!
He has obsessive compulsive disorder, which explains his weird ritual which takes up time. I've written more in detail why I think he's a better sportsman than Federer; if you or anyone wants to refute me here, refer to that post.
As for your second question, as I have said I question the accuracy of the award, simply because I don't think it gives a fair chance to lower ranked players who are playing under real financial pressure.

I don't buy any of that OCD nonsense.
He did none of it during his 2nd set Oscar performance against Wawrinka.
I nearly choked on my coffee when I saw him ACTUALLY SERVE AND VOLLEY during one point......

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:41 pm

noleisthebest wrote:

Amri,
There are thousands of tennis players competing in challengers and futures tournaments.
Nothing is stopping them from getting a mundane, boring office job like the rest of the world.

I did stress that the pressure is greater for players from less affluent countries, who maybe don't have social security, expensive tennis clubs, and job prospects like Britain.

And even if they do find a 'boring office job' that prospect itself is quite daunting... imagine playing tennis, and you know that unless you win a certain number of matches you will not be able to afford the tour, and thus will have to be forced into retirement from doing something that you've trained for a lot of your life.

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:59 pm

I'm afraid that's the reality of life...
If anyone had a hard path and had to struggle it was Nole. In every possible way: emotional, financial, not to mention the war and all that brings.
Players quickly find out how good they are once they taste a bit of competition.

Tennis is an expensive sport, and requires a lot of sacrifices with a high risk of very little or no return.
Up to the age of 15, it's mostly parents that push a child, after that if they are promising and still want to continue, money comes into play and a lot can't afford to continue.
Those who do, know what they are getting into.

Some countries like France have excellent facilities/network and provide support for their talented players.
They also have rich tradition so it all helps.

Not all violinists get to play as soloists on big stages.
Although they all start dreaming of it, sooner or later, they have to resign to the fact they never will and end up in an orchestra, some not even that - they busk....

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:43 pm

Yes I'm not arguing it's not a fact of life... of course it is; I'm just saying that the financial pressure on players outside the top 400 or so (and even above that tbh) can be quite stressful.

by SayonaRa Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:49 pm

Amri, you’re still here! Bwhahahaha Laugh

The fact that you’ve to work so hard to speak for your beloved only proves how much he's in need of damage control, although I think his badly tainted reputation and records is far beyond repair.

by SayonaRa Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:57 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I am not sure Challengers are the best place to look for sportsmanship material, as there is a lot less at stake and pressure at that level, no media coverage, no fans involved.

Nope, I couldn't disagree with this more.
Yes the media coverage is less, and the fan following is less; but the pressure on players is huge.
Unlike many ATP tournaments, in Challengers and Futures not all the expenses for the trip are paid (it tends to vary). Not all national tennis organisations have the money of the LTA, and not many countries have the social security of Britain- the pressure is really really on financially if the players are to earn a good living from Challengers and Futures. When Nadal loses a match he can still buy 4 Ferraris with his sponsorship money from a few weeks alone; he isn't going to be struggling cash.
In the Challengers and Futures, you get a higher income depending on how well you do... so massive pressure to get through each round of a tournament.

I agree with you that S. Edberg Award is a commercial joke, the ultimate proof was - it was given to Nadal!

Well this isn't a very strong argument; if I wanted to I could take the position of Nadal is a good sportsman because he won the award... and it would simply be stalemate and the debate would go round in circles.
As I have said, from the evidence I have seen so far, Nadal is a better sportsman than Federer, though that is my opinion. Certainly people who say that the award is proof of that, must also agree that Nadal is the second best sportsman, or they are using double standards.

Why dwell only on the Edberg Award? Why are you ignoring the significance of the Jean Borotra IC Sportsmanship Awards I posted above and repeat as follows:

“..The relevant objective of the ICs [International Club] is to “develop, encourage and maintain the highest standards of sportsmanship and understanding among players of all nations and among young players in particular”. Past winners are Stefan Edberg, Chris Evert, Todd Martin, Maria Bueno, Pat Rafter, Kim Clijsters, Gustavo Kuerten and Mats Wilander.

Federer only won it last year for the first time close to 32. Five other male players won it before Federer. No Nadal. And you’re still trying to force your imaginary "evidence" “he's a better sportsman than Federer.” Laugh

Dream on and believe what travesty you want. But make no mistake, the rest of us do know as a fact that given his tainted history, Nadal can never even be half the sportsman Fed’s proven himself to be. Sorry, I do feel your pain.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:04 pm

SR wrote:Amri, you’re still here! Bwhahahaha

The fact that you’ve to work so hard to speak for your beloved only proves how much he's in need of damage control, although I think his badly tainted reputation and records is far beyond repair.

Thank-you SR, I was really worried I wouldn't get to respond to a semi-literate post with some misplaced smiley faces; but when I saw your username I was relieved and as usual you haven't let me down.

As for the content of your post, what I'm discussing at the moment is the pressure on lower ranked players, and how the financial stress can have a much bigger impact on them compared to the top players.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:06 pm

SR wrote:Why are you ignoring the significance of the Jean Borotra IC Sportsmanship Awards I posted above

My argument against this is exactly identical to the Edberg award, I have seen no evidence of either actually considering less well known players who might be incredible sportsmen.

by Daniel Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm

Wait til Nadal starts losing a whole lot more. He's bad already. When a man is losing, you find out what he is made of. It won't be pretty. Thumbs Up

by SayonaRa Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:05 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
SR wrote:Why are you ignoring the significance of the Jean Borotra IC Sportsmanship Awards I posted above
My argument against this is exactly identical to the Edberg award, I have seen no evidence of either actually considering less well known players who might be incredible sportsmen.

Sour grapes only, no substantiated argument. Nice try though. Thumbs Up

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:06 pm

SR wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
SR wrote:Why are you ignoring the significance of the Jean Borotra IC Sportsmanship Awards I posted above
My argument against this is exactly identical to the Edberg award, I have seen no evidence of either actually considering less well known players who might be incredible sportsmen.
Sour grapes only, no substantiated argument. Nice try though.

There is a clear substantiated argument, which you haven't yet replied to. Let me repost it. As I said my argument applied to both the Edberg award and the IC award.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Quick repost, as SR must have somehow missed this:
*Just to clarify, I'm talking about Nadal winning the Edberg award initially. My analysis at the end applies to both Edberg and IC awards.

-Nadal is the only player apart from Federer to have won the Sportsmanshp award in the past few years.
-Thus if you are using the Sportsmanship title as an indicator, Nadal would be the second best sportsman in the last few years.
-If you disagree with that, you are doubting the validity of the sportsmanship award.

-I believe the sportsmanship award is fundamentally flawed
-This is because it is a popular vote, which gives a clear bias to players who are more well known and have a lot of positive publicity.
-This is accentuated further by the fact if a legend like Federer comes to any tennis player and says 'Hi, how was your day' they will be ecstatic; but if the world number 150 did the same thing in a nicer tone, players would be nonchalant.
-It may be possible that there are players lower down the circuit, who are playing under huge pressure to even financially cope with the tennis tour, with better sportsmanship. Infact I watched Challenger events quite regularly, and from what I see there are many players who show great sportsmanship.
-Thus I believe that the best sportsman is probably not even in the top 100, so thus any award is superficial, unless people are hired to study closely the behaviour of all the tennis players.

by SayonaRa Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:33 pm

You’re right. We’re going in circles. I’ve already told you I don’t read your rubbish with little or no credibility. So don’t waste posting and reposting your so-called “argument.”

Since when are you better than the New York Magazine?

The following is only one official source/reference why nadal will never be half the sportsman Fed is:

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/06/rafael_nadal_and_the_dark_art.html

Rafael Nadal and the Dark Art of the Tennis Dive
Rafael Nadal is in acute distress. He's just lost the game, he's facing a momentum-defining tiebreaker, and his opponent has his second wind. Rafa's just hit yet another impossible shot from an impossible angle, and one foot seems to have borne all the acrobatic brunt. He's in deep crouch, trying to gauge the extent and implications of the pain. Then he heads to his chair and calls for the trainer; the tiebreaker will have to wait; his opponent, oozing adrenaline, will have to cool his heels. After a tense interlude during which his opponent, visibly upset, remonstrates with the umpire to restart, Nadal returns, takes the tiebreaker, and romps. The press waits with bated breath to hear the results of the MRI — will he be able to carry on and defend his title? The results show nothing of any concern, and Nadal smashes his next opponent in four sets, fresh as a daisy.
As a counterpoint, consider a key moment in the most recent season of another Spanish juggernaut, soccer's FC Barcelona. They're in the midst of a crucial Champions League encounter they are expected to win, yet the game remains tensely poised, and Barça are potentially facing elimination from the sport's most prestigious competition. As if on cue, the Barcelona players respond by crumpling to the ground in operatic agony whenever they brush up against an opposing player; clutching their faces as if their eyes had been gouged out after a contested header; and gang-griping to the ref after any phantom infraction by the opposition. The collective pressure tells on the official, an irreplaceable player on the other side is soon sent off, and Barça go on to win not only the game but the entire tournament.
You can see where I'm going with this. (And perhaps see that I am a fan of Arsenal, Barcelona's opponent in that match.) Diving, the feigning of injury to accrue unfair advantage, is the ineradicable dark art that shadows the beautiful game. And whereas its most cynical exponents are invariably Italian, the Spanish have made great strides in incorporating it into their style of play, which, coincidentally or not, has been the most successful one of the past few years.
Is there an equivalent to the art of the dive in tennis? Soccer in Spain being the real unifying religion firing the nation's spiritual life, is it not reasonable to wonder whether its rites, rituals, and codes of conduct (or lack thereof) exert an influence in other national sports? The admittedly partisan description above involving Barcelona was of one match, yet it could just as easily have described any of the four clásicos they played against Real Madrid toward the end of this past season — that is, games of immense importance in which the blaugrana were up against the wall. Each time when the game threatened to get away from them, their default mode was to dive...."

..........visit the link for the rest.

by SayonaRa Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:42 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
SR wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
SR wrote:Why are you ignoring the significance of the Jean Borotra IC Sportsmanship Awards I posted above
My argument against this is exactly identical to the Edberg award, I have seen no evidence of either actually considering less well known players who might be incredible sportsmen.
Sour grapes only, no substantiated argument. Nice try though.
There is a clear substantiated argument, which you haven't yet replied to. Let me repost it. As I said my argument applied to both the Edberg award and the IC award.

I stand by what I said, no argument necessary from me personally btw, just base on press documentation like the link i posted above, you're a bunch of sour grapes.

by SayonaRa Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:51 pm

Add and irrelevant.

by SayonaRa Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:53 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
SR wrote:Amri, you’re still here! Bwhahahaha

The fact that you’ve to work so hard to speak for your beloved only proves how much he's in need of damage control, although I think his badly tainted reputation and records is far beyond repair.

Thank-you SR, I was really worried I wouldn't get to respond to a semi-literate post with some misplaced smiley faces; but when I saw your username I was relieved and as usual you haven't let me down.

Oops, someone is getting upset. Whistle

by Daniel Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:28 pm

Cheating is cheating. We need to stop using the word Gamesmanship. It's a politically correct nonsense word to tone down what is going on.

Nadal is a cheat.

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:30 pm

SR wrote:You’re right. We’re going in circles. I’ve already told you I don’t read your rubbish with little or no credibility. So don’t waste posting and reposting your so-called “argument.”

Since when are you better than the New York Magazine?

SR, this isn't a very intelligent response is it?
If my argument had been based on me saying 'This is true because I said it'- then your response would be appropriate.
But that wasn't the case, my point was simply making logical connections... it is irrelevant whether me, LS, or the queen said it.

SR wrote:The following is only one official source/reference why nadal will never be half the sportsman Fed is:

Well it's an opinion piece on a magazine, even if it seems official, let's be honest it's hardly a debate clincher is it.
I mean to start with, the so called 'only official source' has got the timing of Nadal's injury wrong. The magazine seems to indicate it's just after Nadal's lost the return service game and it's the start of the tiebreak, so Del Potro has the momentum.
Actually it was when Nadal was 6-5 up set point up, so he had all the momentum. So that's a pretty massive mistake from our only official source, dear me.
As to whether he faked the injury: would it be in Nadal's interest to disturb his own momentum set point up?
As I said fast impact medicine has progressed rapidly, it is possible to treat a relatively minor but painful injury quite quickly. So it seems plausible that it was genuine.

SR wrote:I stand by what I said, no argument necessary from me personally btw, just base on press documentation like the link i posted above, you're a bunch of sour grapes.

Even forgetting your 'official' link made a pretty massive error (which was central to its argument) and just a poorly researched piece, even if I let that go: it still did not actually address anything I said about my concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the Edberg award.
Infact I have seen no argument so far that even attempts to challenge what I'm saying (about the Edberg award disadvantaging less well known players who may be great sportsmen).

Honestly from now on I think let Truffin argue on your behalf, you're not doing a great job are you?

by N2D2L Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:32 pm

FedererKing wrote:Cheating is cheating. We need to stop using the word Gamesmanship. It's a politically correct nonsense word to tone down what is going on.

Nadal is a cheat.

Is this a competition between you and SR on who can provide the weaker argument? Feels like it.

by SayonaRa Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:37 pm

Amri, how thick can you be?

A) How many times do you want me to repeat that I don’t bother reading/addressing/challenging/refuting your view, in this case the Edberg and IC Sportsmanship Awards for a good reason - BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. Is that clear enough now? You don’t force others to indulge in the type of nonsense you chose to promote. How disrespectful!! We all have our reasons why we pick and choose who and what we want to read or address. Aren’t you the same inconsistent nadal fan most recently bragging he gave a “blistering performance” one day when he was winning but suddenly you see him on a “permanent decline” the next day when you can’t come to terms with the simple fact that he lost to a better player? Yes, thanks for mentioning truffin and you seem to respect him. He is just the poster who has repeatedly exposed your lack of credibility, lunacy and fanaticism in this forum. So cut the BS. Explain to me why do you still expect me to read certain stuff of yours I chose not to for an obvious reason?

B) Secondly, the other reason I don’t bother with your Awards argument is that it is irrelevant to the core issue in question: whether you’re right or wrong re the Awards being flawed makes absolutely no difference to both Fed’s and Nadal’s current status quo as sportsman. You ignore the more important fact that Fed was given the honour to stand with Mandela in the measure of his respectability and honour. Of course he carries the shine of that reputation to the sports arena. So you think all the people who vote for Mandela are flawed too? Arrogance doesn’t even begin to describe the weakness of your approach. Even if I’m generous enough to give you the benefit of doubt that you’re correct re both the Awards being unreliable, and let’s say Fed NEVER won any of those awards, Roger Federer IS still perceived by the public as the superior sportsman compared to Nadal because, just to highlight the most obvious and already widely acknowledged evidence 1) off-court, Roger’s name has never been tainted by doping allegations the same way nadal is notoriously suspected to have served at least 1 silent ban; 2) on-court, Roger’s never been accused of serious gamesmanship issues while nadal is beyond famous for needing help to win by breaking all the rules.

C) Actually common sense is all you need with all the records laid opened on the table. No matter how to want to slice your sportsman opinion, Roger > Nadal is not even open to question.

D) From now no do get a better grip. Don’t impose a narrow and fragmented view hoping that you can trick people from seeing what the big picture really entails as a whole. When you find a publisher for your alleged "argument" accompanied by at least one supportive citation from an independent outside source, let me know. Right now, a half-assed job is just what it is, half-assed. Nothing to brag about, is there? Laugh

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:05 pm

SR wrote:A) How many times do you want me to repeat that I don’t bother reading/addressing/challenging/refuting your view, in this case the Edberg and IC Sportsmanship Awards for a good reason - BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.

I am not basing my argument on whether I have credibility, I am simply making logical points.
As I said earlier, it is frankly irrelevant who makes the points I'm making. It could be me, nitb, you, or the queen herself; the observations I make can be agreed or disagreed with independent to who wrote it.

SR wrote:He is just the poster who has repeatedly exposed your lack of credibility, lunacy and fanaticism in this forum.

Look, TRuffin claimed 3 things, both of which I have proved to be wrong... and thus I could also write in capital letters 'you have no credibility'.
Firstly he said I claimed to know Tim Ruffin, and I showed the quotes which show he was lying there, and he had no argument back.
Secondly he said he only joined the forum because of an argument between me and Veejay, another lie, I showed he joined the forum before me and had a minimum of 50 posts already before I joined.
Thirdly he said he named himself TRuffin because of my argument with Veejay, which was another lie; as I showed above he joined the forum with that username (before I did).

Now these above points, 3 examples where I have proven with facts that Truffin was lying, may be seen as damaging his credibility. But it is irrelevant in a debate, unless his points actually depend on his credibility. If he makes a logical point comparing murray to nadal or shows evidence via a youtube link etc.- then me talking about his credibility would be a sign of me losing the debate.
The only reason it could be relevant in a debate is if I based an argument about myself, which I'm not doing.

SR wrote: Secondly, the other reason I don’t bother with your Awards argument is that it is irrelevant to the core issue in question:

Well it's clear from whole comment that you didn't actually read my points, but before you do that; what is your opinion? Do you see the Edberg award as reliable? Yes, or no? Simply question, let's see if you answer.

SR wrote:When you find a publisher for your alleged "argument" companied by at least one citation supported by an independent outside source, let me know. A half-assed job is just what it is, half-assed. Nothing to brag about, is there?

See, there we go again. I could easily say the same to every single post on here, I can ask Tenez everytime he posts anything to find publishers and citations... that would be a clear cut sign I'm losing the debate.
This is the epitome of clutching at straws, you have no answer to my arguments, so you don't even attempt to debate, write 'you have no credibility' in capital letters (even though my credibility is irrelevant to the argument I'm making), and now you demand that I find publishers and citations.
Funnily enough you wrote in capital letters in an earlier post about the 'official source' which was an opinion blog from a magazine... and that turned out to have got its crucial facts wrong. So much for your 'ONLY OFFICIAL SOURCE' New York magazine, eh?

SR wrote:Roger > Nadal is not even open to question.

It is absolutely open to question. That doesn't mean you have to agree with my view on this, infact I quite enjoy debating when people disagree with my view and try and substantiate why they do.

by SayonaRa Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:13 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
FedererKing wrote:Cheating is cheating. We need to stop using the word Gamesmanship. It's a politically correct nonsense word to tone down what is going on.

Nadal is a cheat.
Is this a competition between you and SR on who can provide the weaker argument? Feels like it.

Shame. I don’t think the one whose arguments are repeatedly overturned by (Prof) Truffin while being exposed as having no credibility is in any position to judge people's arguments. Besides, the most decorated and respected athlete does not need any further arguments in his favor from any fans. Fed’s sportsmanship has already been proven by his records, you know that.

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:25 pm

Who are you to judge who's arguments have been overturned by who? And what credibility do you have, are you a decorated judge or something?

And my arguments are saying that awards like the Edberg award are actually unreliable, while the one nearly equating him with Mandela had a very sample voting sample size (I worked it out as 0.0007% of the world's population).
If you could, you would address the points I have made, but you have no coherent response in the debate, and thus you try to ramble on about who you see as credible.

by SayonaRa Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:30 pm

I am not basing my argument on whether I have credibility, I am simply making logical points.
As I said earlier, it is frankly irrelevant who makes the points I'm making. It could be me, nitb, you, or the queen herself; the observations I make can be agreed or disagreed with independent to who wrote it.

OMG, you mean you've never written a term paper, you're not a univ. graduate? No body ever told you a piece of written work requires proper sources (bibliography) for validation and verification of the "logical point"? You cannot be logical just because you say so. You've to prove it. You've never done a bibliography and footnotes?

No wonder you just don't understand the importance of sources and the concept of credibility. I've given you more credit than you deserve. I stop right here. Waste enough time. No point to continue with someone so naive. Very disappointing.

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:32 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Wikipeida wrote:An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7]

This is the mistake you're making SR^.
The only way ad hominem arguments are actually valid in terms of a response in a debate is if my claims are based on myself, ie if I claim 'I am the King of Mexico' or I claim 'I give Nadal EPO every day' etc. As long as my argument is not based on myself, your ad hominem attacks aren't getting us anywhere.
I mean it's fine if you want to insult me, but don't pretend it's constitutes a legitimate response in a debate. Even if I (or anyone) was in a fowl mood and did launch a scathing ad hominem attack, I would not pretend it was part of the debate.

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:36 pm

SR wrote:OMG, you mean you've never written a term paper, you're not a univ. graduate? No body ever told you a piece of written work requires proper sources (bibliography) for validation and verification of the "logical point"? You cannot be logical just because you say so. You've to prove it. You've never done a bibliography and footnotes?

No wonder you just don't understand the importance of sources and the concept of credibility. I've given you more credit than you deserve. I stop right here. Waste enough time. No point to continue with someone so naive. Very disappointing.

This really is like talking to a brick wall.
Yes, I have done work before where I've had to do a bibliography and footnotes. And no, I'm not going to do so in a forum, nor would it make any difference.

SR wrote:You cannot be logical just because you say so. You've to prove it. You've never done a bibliography and footnotes?

Look if you think my point is illogical, say why you think so. I am not going to add citations everytime I make a logical argument.

Has Tenez ever made a post with bibliography or citations?
As I said you really are clutching at straws, losing the debate and then asking me for a bibliography is probably the most humiliating climbdown I have seen.

by Daniel Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:45 pm

As I said before "Julia", I don't intend to "debate" with you, as it is pointless. I wasn't just saying that. I meant it. I am not going to waste my time. I am going to state my feelings and move on. Every time. Sorry.

You excuse everything Nadal does. I am still unsure whether you are just trolling. That's how ridiculous your defending of his actions has gotten.

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:47 pm

FedererKing wrote:As I said before "Julia", I don't intend to "debate" with you, as it is pointless. I wasn't just saying that. I meant it. I am not going to waste my time. I am going to state my feelings and move on. Every time. Sorry.

Well of course, that's not surprising. If I kept on losing debates to someone there would come a point where I'd have to either just resort to ad hominem attacks and pretend that's debating (as SR has done) or simply stop debating (as you have done).

by SayonaRa Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:55 pm

Amri: I’M NOT BASING MY ARGUMENT ON WHETHER I HAVE CREDIBILITY

WOW, I’m speechless. That has to be the most spectacular declaration I've come across on a forum. You don’t actually care about have credibility. Do you have any idea the damage this sentence has done to you as a poster? Amri, seriously, you need help and I mean it in a good way.

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:06 pm

You've put it in capital letters and bold, perhaps you can also try a larger font.

Let me explain this once again, maybe then you can also post it in red colour:

-My argument is not based on whether I have credibility
-There are arguments which I could make which would be based on my credibility, ie:
1/ I can eat granite
2/ I myself saw Nadal joining a Satanic tribe
etc.
What is common in these two arguments above, is that if my credibility is questioned, my argument is also harmed. For the first example, if I lacked credibility then my claim would be doubted; same for the second example.

However in this instance my argument is not based on my credibility, as it goes something like this (my Edberg award one):
-If people think the Edberg award is reliable, they must admit in recent years Nadal is the second best sportsman behind Federer
-But some may think it is unreliable, as..
-The Edberg award is a player vote on who shows the best sportsmanship
-This gives an advantage to more famous legends of the game, as they are more well known
-There may be more sportsmanlike players ranked below the top 100, playing under financial pressure, but even if they are incredible sportsmanlike they have a pretty low chance of winning the award due to its format
-Thus I believe the Edberg award is flawed, superficial, and unreliable

See this argument SR, does not depend on my credibility, as I am simply making logical connections and not talking about myself specifically.
Does that make sense? Will it stop you from posting stuff in capital letters and bold?

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:07 pm

FedererKing wrote:
You excuse everything Nadal does.

You vilify everything Nadal does.
I am actually quite fair on Nadal I think, he is not perfect, and if you follow my argument closely, I've actually argued that him winning the superficial Edberg award is... superficial (due to reasons explained earlier).

by Daniel Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:17 pm

I don't vilify everything he does. The issue is, he is cheating or annoying the opponent, or making excuses for losing, or feigning injuries in almost every match. Be it breaking time rule, coaching, or otherwise. When he stops doing that and behaves like all the other players, I will stop complaining about him.

It's a very fair deal.

by N2D2L Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:26 pm

What happens if his injuries are genuine?
I mean Federer has blamed quite a few defeats on injury, you don't complain about that?

Time rule he breaks I believe due to his rituals stemming from OCD.
On court coaching I talked about in some detail in a post a few days ago, it is much rarer than people think, and is normally Toni literally screaming encouragement like 'Stay positive' or 'Go for it' in Catalan. I explained earlier why Truffins theory on Toni fidgeting is flawed.

This reply is brief, but I did write a much more detailed post in this a few days ago, why not back up your opinion against that?

by SayonaRa Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:08 pm

FK, this one is mainly for you.

In retrospect, I now understand all the fuss amri was making about her argument vs the Sportsmanship Award. She tried so hard to engage us in it because she’s designed it to downgrade the Awards and thus actually long for us to see her down a bit of Fed’s legacy. When we rejected her overture she threw tantrums like a kid flunking toys out of the pram.

Funny that she never really bother to address/defend/ discuss nadal’s poor sportsmanship issue but very bossy re how she goes about denigrating Fed. This she attempted to do here via attacking the Institutions that presented Fed with 10 sportsmanship awards. Anyway, I lost all interest and quit reading everything the instance I saw the sentence where amri called attention to her own lack of credibility.

Nothing new really. Here we have a nadal fan as fake as the idol she worships. Not that I’ve a problem with that. Just very ironic to note that a typical nadal fan could feel so powerless in the face of all of nadal’s serious sportsmanship issues but so empowered in a little corner merely by the thought of denigrating Fed’s legacy. I have seen nadal fans do this over and over in other forums, even if their anti-Fen agenda often end up broken to pieces like the fruitless current attempt.

by N2D2L Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:24 pm

Anyway, I lost all interest and quit reading everything the instance I saw the sentence where amri called attention to her own lack of credibility.

No, I said my arguments did not depend on my credibility, there's a big difference.

In retrospect, I now understand all the fuss amri was making about her argument vs the Sportsmanship Award.

If you disagree with my position, and you believe the Edberg award is reliable, then you also admit that Nadal is the second best sportsman currently- as he is the only person in recent years apart from Federer to win it.
You have not even attempted to argue against me, in that the Edberg award is unreliable and inaccurate.

Funny that she never really bother to address/defend/ discuss nadal’s poor sportsmanship issue

I've written a really long post on that exactly, actually.

Nothing new really. Here we have a nadal fan as fake as the idol she worships.

I've said I'm a he to you, numerous times. As I've explained these ad hominem attacks just show how weak and insecure your position is in this debate.

by N2D2L Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:31 pm

Perhaps SR, instead of continuing with ad hominem attacks, you can actually debate the points I make?

Tenez argued against me earlier on the Edberg award and it's reliability, you can do that if you wish. Also I've written a long post (I think yesterday) on Nadal, if you wish disect that.

I've had enough of constant insults, if you don't want to debate, dont' debate... if you want to then do for sure.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31