Re: Innocent or Guilty?

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:09 pm

laverfan wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I missed a bit of this discussion and it has taken a totally new turn.

They usually turn into a Nadal bash.

Well at least for some its known what will it turn out to be. Nadal bash, fine. But for some it goes around the world in circles hopping from one thing to another and never reaching at anything.

by laverfan Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:31 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:But for some it goes around the world in circles hopping from one thing to another and never reaching at anything.

Does God exist? Laugh

Should I search the Internet for God's existence, or perhaps a French or English Tennis forum or Wooffie's website? Winking

by noleisthebest Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:15 pm

laverfan wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:But for some it goes around the world in circles hopping from one thing to another and never reaching at anything.

Does God exist? Should I search the Internet for God's existence, or perhaps a French or English Tennis forum or Wooffie's website?

Of course God exists. He made you in His image. You'll meet Him when your soul leaves your body and returns to eternity where He is. Make sure you are reconciled to Him. If you don't know how to do it read the Gospels.

You'll find out that there He was mocked then as well by majority. Same type of ones that celebrate his alleged birthday every year and goes through the motion with "peace and good will among men" for a week or two.

by summerblues Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:29 am

Tenez wrote:SB - I am stunned you take Lydian's side on this very verifiable point.

I am not going to go through the numbers themselves again in any detail (the average time Nadal was taking in that match was over 27s). This has all been covered back in early spring. The point I am making here is that you have a strong tendency to see the facts you want to see and ignore others. Here are some of your quotes from back then:

While discussing Nadal’s routine, you and Lydian ended up arguing about Miami 04 and 05 matches. In respect of the 04 match, Lydian said that Nadal was taking about 27.5 on average. In your reaction, you said:

YOu have not demonstarted anything about Miami. You came with your own stats showing Nadal played outside teh 20s rule when we coudl see he was almost always well within the 20s. It;s there on youtube...many have checked it for themselves..what else is there to say?

I then double checked Lydian's numbers and also got above 27s average. Your reaction included this:

I am more and more sceptic about your and Lydian's stats.

I agree that it's clear Nadal doesn;t break the rule knowingly up to Miami 05. I was given numbers that can't quite match what we all see.

A few posts, later, you said:

Yes I guess I can trust your data as we have very close results. But to me he is only on the slow side in Miami 04 (though I'd need to see more of it) because he probably got breathless and not because it was planned.

It's clear however that under heavy rallying in miami 04 (maybe 05 too I have not checked it all), he extends his time. But we can all see it's no routine and in any case he plays much faster than now.

Your admission that you were wrong was implicit at best, and you quickly shifted focus to a more vague point. After a while you later reverted to your original statements about Nadal not taking extra time until after Miami 05. By now, when reminded of this, you point out two fastest games and happily conclude:

And you and Lydian are arguing that he was taking time already then?

So yes, I am pretty certain that you cherry pick your evidence. Also, as in these quotes, you yourself are never above "moving goalposts" - a trait you like to complain about in others.

by summerblues Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:01 am

Transplanted from the draw fixing thread but fitting here nicely too:

noleisthebest wrote:It has now become very clear it was all done for the benefit of Nadal as was always suspected.

There were two possible outcomes today. Either Murray in Nole's half, proving still further the draws are rigged against Nole, or Murray in Roger's half, proving the draws were always rigged to benefit Nadal. Winking

by Tenez Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:01 am

SB -Can you please link to that v2 thread? Could not find it.

by noleisthebest Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:59 am

What if someone is innocent and guilty at the same time Winking

Quite possible in Nadal's case isn't it?

by summerblues Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:09 am

Tenez wrote:SB -Can you please link to that v2 thread? Could not find it.

Here:

http://www.606v2.com/t25506-the-latest-interview-nadal-s-who-else-s

by Tenez Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:16 pm

SB

I checked the first 2 games of Miami 04 and I maintain my very simple point that Nadal plays fast. I still don't understand how you and Lydian could argue otherwise. We have similar results and clearly Nadal plays whithin the 25sec in 8 out of 9 points!!!! (the 27sec point woudl have been within boundaries had they not messed up with balls) and the median is 19 or 20s, the mode is 18, 19 or 20 sec!!!! What welse do you and Lydian need to acknowledge that Nadal has no routine for serving slowly???!!! in Miami04?

Here is what I find.... game#2 22s, 19s, 18s, 19s, 27s (Ball boys and Nadal messing up with the balls in that last point) otherwise would have most likely played circa 20s. Game#4....34s (long point nadal is breathless and the crowd cheers) then 18s, 18s, 19s!!! SO similar results than you though you seem to record time bewteen points before the ball bounces twice..but let not argue for a sec there and there.

Your finding are similar.

Average: 27.0s
Median: 23.8s
Percent below 25s: 54%

While these numbers confirmed Lydian's data, the pace "felt" quicker than in more recent times. So, for good measure, I repeated the same exercise with their last year's Miami semifinal. Same venue, similar scoreline, so a good comparison:

Average: 30.7s
Median: 29.0s
Percent below 25s: 25%

BUt for the sake of credibility I will use your numbers though I think they are on average at least 1sec average over time ...You can see that even yourself found a 5 sec Median difference, quite a bit a 22% in extra time taking. Your median is one sec within the allowed time in MIami 04 and 4 sec over the Miami 2011 time (your reference).

So it is clear why you felt the pace was faster in Miami04, simply cause it was really faster!!!

Miami 2011: Game 2: 27, 24, 22 Game 4 : 27s, 22s, 26s

It's important to note that in this MIami 11 match Nadal has very short points, winning his first 2 serve to love with 3 shots rally max, therefore giving him no reason to slow down the game....yet he takes an average time in Miami 2004 first 2 games: 21.5s and 24.6s in Miami 11. However Miami11 is most likely not a very good representation. It's like an odditity match.

If you coinsider the IW 2012 first 2 games for instance...it tells a completely different story:

IW 12....

G1

37 - 03 - 26s

32 - 04 - 32s

26 - 01 - 35s

08 - 40 - 32s

04 - 36 - 32s

47 - 22 - 35s

12 - 47 - 35s

G2

27 - 53 - 26s

Third point has HE and is not therefore valid.

46 - 16 - 30s

SO IW12 has 31.4s on average!!!! More than 10s than the average first 2 games of Miami 04.

The median and mode are both 32s I believe.

This is why I am stunned you think 1) I was wrong, and then 2) that I could not accept I was wrong. How do you want me to accpet I was wrong when the stats point to considerably longer time taking? I could say for instance that your cheery picked MIami 11 as it a clear exceptional fast game from Nadal....despite being still 22% slower than Miami 2004.

When you watch Miami 04 and 05, we all, including yourself see what teh figures tell, us. He plays within the allowed time in at least 8points out of 10...which is a striking difference with IW12 where no points in those first 2 games are played within the 25s limit.

by laverfan Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:32 pm

Summerblues wrote:By now, when reminded of this, you point out two fastest games and happily conclude:

And you and Lydian are arguing that he was taking time already then?

Why do you repeat the same fallacy again and again? Please watch the whole match. Winking

by laverfan Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:49 pm

noleisthebest wrote:What if someone is innocent and guilty at the same time
Quite possible in Nadal's case isn't it?

Why not in Lance Armstrong's case? Laugh

Why is Nadal being singled out?

This desire to make Nadal the anti-hero is rather strange and almost obsessive (like Nadal's pant-adjustment routine Winking

). Federer is the anti-hero because he was in Djokovic's half and the draws were rigged.

As SB says...

summerblues wrote:

Transplanted from the draw fixing thread but fitting here nicely too:

noleisthebest wrote:
It has now become very clear it was all done for the benefit of Nadal as was always suspected.

There were two possible outcomes today. Either Murray in Nole's half, proving still further the draws are rigged against Nole, or Murray in Roger's half, proving the draws were always rigged to benefit Nadal.

Tenez wrote:So it is clear why you felt the pace was faster in Miami04, simply cause it was really faster!!!

Miami 2011: Game 2: 27, 24, 22 Game 4 : 27s, 22s, 26s

Just cherry picked two games, yet again, and two of the fastest. Laugh

Again, please watch the whole match.

Tenez wrote:It's important to note that in this MIami 11 match Nadal has very short points, winning his first 2 serve to love with 3 shots rally max, therefore giving him no reason to slow down the game....yet he takes an average time in Miami 2004 first 2 games: 21.5s and 24.6s in Miami 11. However Miami11 is most likely not a very good representation. It's like an odditity match.

No we have dragged in Miami 11 and IW 2012. into this. Federer at 30+ vs Federer at 23+ (a seven year difference where both players changed). The Miami 2011 match was stunning. Federer showed no desire to stand and fight, was he injured? It is an oddity, but it is still being referenced. Laugh

by Tenez Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:28 pm

I am cherry picking the first 2 games cause I do not want to go through the whole match. 2 games is enough to decide whether there is a routine of time taking or not. Had I cherry picked game 8 and 10 you may have a point. When I checked for the first time whther Nadal had a routine in Miami 05, and then 04, I did not watch the whole match. I watched the beginning and that was enough to for me to make a clear conclusion. If I watch Nadal's routine post Miami 05, I will also concentrate to the beginning of the match...not the whole match. There is a limit to the time I can spend recording data.

Choosing Miami11 with an average of 2 shots-rallie is also cherry picking! Especially as it has a strinking different result with 90% of Nadal's matches.

It's enough to conclude that there is no routine in Miami 04 and 05 Unlike you, Lydian and SB are stipulating and IW12 and many other matches will prove clearly that there is a routine afterwards.

So as ever you are not bringing anything on the table but keep losing the thread of the debate.

You are clearly unable to acknowledge that Nadal takes on average 10s more per point between Miami 04/05 and after. How honest is that? Explain!!!

It's ironinc that you accuse to repeat the same thing everybody can observe while at teh same time you keep saying completely irrelevant things every time you answer a poster. NITB, Rotla cannot make sense of most your posts.

by Tenez Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:46 pm

SB - How do you think I found out about Miami05? Would you have been able to pin point that Miami05 was the time Toni and Nadal decided to apply a routine? Simply because it was the last 5 setter Nadal had lost I could remember at the time. That's why I looked at it...not because I wanted to believe he played faster then. I went and checked (the first 2 games again were enough) that Nadal was not going through routine and extra time taking. I realised then even watching the last set that he had lost the last 6 games completely out of breath..even surprising Federer. When you are a coach like Toni and you have worked almost every day of you life for the last 12 years to make you protege better, this kind of information (running out of steam) is crucial and doesn't go unnotice and you take action! One of this action was clearly to provide Nadal with more O2 during the match cause his game requires more than average.

It's simple really. You observe the apple falling off the tree, then you find out the law of gravity...not the other way around.

by laverfan Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:12 pm

Tenez wrote:There is a limit to the time I can spend recording data.

There are two independent observers who have already done that. You are unwilling to accept that you are incorrect. These two have watched the whole match, as the link from 606v2 states.

Tenez wrote:Choosing Miami11 with an average of 2 shots-rallie is also cherry picking! Especially as it has a strinking different result with 90% of Nadal's matches.

No, it is just another match. All matches are different. As I clearly stated, Federer was unwilling to fight. A 6-3, 6-2 quick match. 103 points played in 80 minutes, which is less than a minute per point average. Playing Nadal, Federer's resistance determines the end result. IW 2012 is an example. Federer wanted to win the title, and he did.

Tenez wrote:It's enough to conclude that there is no routine in Miami 04 and 05 Unlike you, Lydian and SB are stipulating and IW12 and many other matches will prove clearly that there is a routine afterwards.

There has always been a routine. Things get added to the routine, like adjusting clothing, hair, sweat-wiping, touching ears, etc. Winking

Tenez wrote:So as ever you are not bringing anything on the table but keep losing the thread of the debate.

You are clearly unable to acknowledge that Nadal takes on average 10s more per point between Miami 04/05 and after. How honest is that? Explain!!!

You are unwilling to watch the whole match, because you do not have time, but have time to continue this meaningless argument to continue to prop up a myth. Very nice. Applause

Tenez wrote:It's ironinc that you accuse to repeat the same thing everybody can observe while at the same time you keep saying completely irrelevant things every time you answer a poster. NITB, Rotla cannot make sense of most your posts.

It is indeed ironic, that you keep repeating the legs and lungs physicality argument and continue to argue this across many fora. Stop accusing posters of bringing the same arguments. If your agenda is limited and you continue to bring the same discussion to every forum you visit/create, expect the same counter arguments.

Let us take NITB. I have done enough analysis on draw rigging, not using any 'old' statistical arguments, and posted a link on a SB article on v2. You can go read it. There is a link on the draw fixing' thread here as well.

We are still discussing the whole SHBH/Topspin thing in the Cincy final thread. Let us see how it progresses. Winking

by noleisthebest Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:18 pm

laverfan wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:What if someone is innocent and guilty at the same time
Quite possible in Nadal's case isn't it?

Why not in Lance Armstrong's case? Why is Nadal being singled out?

This desire to make Nadal the anti-hero is rather strange and almost obsessive (like Nadal's pant-adjustment routine ). Federer is the anti-hero because he was in Djokovic's half and the draws were rigged.

As SB says...

summerblues wrote:

Transplanted from the draw fixing thread but fitting here nicely too:

noleisthebest wrote:
It has now become very clear it was all done for the benefit of Nadal as was always suspected.

There were two possible outcomes today. Either Murray in Nole's half, proving still further the draws are rigged against Nole, or Murray in Roger's half, proving the draws were always rigged to benefit Nadal.

Tenez wrote:So it is clear why you felt the pace was faster in Miami04, simply cause it was really faster!!!

Miami 2011: Game 2: 27, 24, 22 Game 4 : 27s, 22s, 26s

Just cherry picked two games, yet again, and two of the fastest. Again, please watch the whole match.

Tenez wrote:It's important to note that in this MIami 11 match Nadal has very short points, winning his first 2 serve to love with 3 shots rally max, therefore giving him no reason to slow down the game....yet he takes an average time in Miami 2004 first 2 games: 21.5s and 24.6s in Miami 11. However Miami11 is most likely not a very good representation. It's like an odditity match.

No we have dragged in Miami 11 and IW 2012. into this. Federer at 30+ vs Federer at 23+ (a seven year difference where both players changed). The Miami 2011 match was stunning. Federer showed no desire to stand and fight, was he injured? It is an oddity, but it is still being referenced.

I suppose because you started this thread with Nadal, not Armstrong in mind....and after all, this IS a tennis forum Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 123628122

by Larry Ellison Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:20 pm

Honestly Laverfan, honestly are you just going to stay here and continue to get insulted for no reason.
We can see what Summerblues said was absolutely right, I don't know why this debate is even happening.

Anyway LF I'll PM you on v2, with more, I think this is getting silly.

by Tenez Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:22 pm

I have no problem with the whole Miami04 data/match. it shows that the median was 23.8 sec!!!! Which means that at least 50% of the points were played within the rule, I guess, I have not checked but at least 65% must be 25 or lower. So clearly no routine to extend time between point systematically like IW12 and still 5 second shorter than the very fast paced match of Miami11.

Laverfan -You are unwilling to watch the whole match, because you do not have time, but have time to continue this meaningless argument to continue to prop up a myth. Very nice.

And you are again refusing to acknowledge the obvious. Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 3157886161

by Tenez Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:27 pm

Reincarnation wrote:Honestly Laverfan, honestly are you just going to stay here and continue to get insulted for no reason.
We can see what Summerblues said was absolutely right, I don't know why this debate is even happening.

Anyway LF I'll PM you on v2, with more, I think this is getting silly.

Ah - Hawkeye is spying here again...trying to chase NITB down I guess! Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 2033450363

by Larry Ellison Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:29 pm

Tenez this is what you do;

1. At the start you have an agenda. Could be anything. Normally it is based on your feeling of 'good vs evil' in tennis which you talk about from time to time.
2. You have a theory based on this agenda (which in turn slots into the good vs evil line).
3. To back your theory you go through all the evidence which suits your case. You pick the one which is best for your theory, ignoring the others.
4. You talk about your theory as if it a fact, and anyone who fails to agree has no common sense. This normally means you end up looking a bit arrogant.
5. When you are proved wrong you quickly tweak your original theory to try and counter the arguement.
6. You then continue your argument in the same way as before, now using the tweaked theory as 'fact.'

Simple really.
Summerblues was also spot on.

by Larry Ellison Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:31 pm

Tenez wrote:
Reincarnation wrote:Honestly Laverfan, honestly are you just going to stay here and continue to get insulted for no reason.
We can see what Summerblues said was absolutely right, I don't know why this debate is even happening.

Anyway LF I'll PM you on v2, with more, I think this is getting silly.

Ah - Hawkeye is spying here again...trying to chase NITB down I guess!

You think I am Hawkeye?
And you were criticising LF's observation skills erm

by noleisthebest Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:35 pm

Anyway, how are you Reincarnation?

Please feel free to reveal your v2 ID, it would be nice to say hello to old friends, whoever they are Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 1071211947

by mikeyM1000 Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:36 pm

Jesus, are people really going back and timing matchews from 10 years ago to figure out that Nadal is a cheating, doping, time-wasting scumbag?

by Larry Ellison Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:39 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Anyway, how are you Reincarnation?

Please feel free to reveal your v2 ID, it would be nice to say hello to old friends, whoever they are

Hi NITB, I'm fine thanks Cool

btw I can say I'm not Hawkeye from v2, and unlike Tenez says I don't dislike you at all.
In-fact I liked your enthusiasm for Djokovic, however the only time I was unhappy with you was on the 'Tesco' thread.
Anyway we all have different opinions about different subjects, so there we go.

by Larry Ellison Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:42 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:~~Jesus~~ Parera, are people really going back and timing matchews from 10 years ago to figure out that Nadal is a cheating, doping, time-wasting scumbag?

by noleisthebest Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:44 pm

So WHO are you, then Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 123628122

by laverfan Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:53 pm

noleisthebest wrote:So WHO are you, then

It is a very obvious posting style, at least to my eyes and brain? Winking

by noleisthebest Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:56 pm

laverfan wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:So WHO are you, then

It is a very obvious posting style, at least to my eyes and brain?

well, I've had a gruelling cycling session and am still coming round so my brain is a bit fuzzy, so why don't you enlighten me and reveal the mysterious poster, I promise, no ball of lightning will strike Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 1071211947

by laverfan Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:00 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
laverfan wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:So WHO are you, then

It is a very obvious posting style, at least to my eyes and brain?

well, I've had a gruelling cycling session and am still coming round so my brain is a bit fuzzy, so why don't you enlighten me and reveal the mysterious poster, I promise, no ball of lightning will strike

There is the Parera hint. I had much rather Reincarnation reveal it. Is that all right, NITB?

BTW, I am not afraid of thunder and lightening, unlike Nadal is. Winking

by mikeyM1000 Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:01 pm

noleisthebest wrote:well, I've had a gruelling cycling session...

Can I suggest EPO to ease your pain? Unles you already do it - have you been tested? Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 2033450363

by noleisthebest Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:04 pm

mikeyM1000 wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:well, I've had a gruelling cycling session...

Can I suggest EPO to ease your pain? Unles you already do it - have you been tested?

thanks for the thoughtfulness Mikey, but I don't mind a bit of gruuelling, helps me ease the mental pain better than anything....

by mikeyM1000 Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:08 pm

That ain't a denial. Guilty, I reckon

by noleisthebest Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:10 pm

I don't even drink water during gruelling, that's for sissies Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 4006036031

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:13 pm

I don't see anyone has voted for the poll attached to this thread. why? Laugh

by laverfan Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:36 pm

Reincarnation wrote:Honestly Laverfan, honestly are you just going to stay here and continue to get insulted for no reason.
We can see what Summerblues said was absolutely right, I don't know why this debate is even happening.

Anyway LF I'll PM you on v2, with more, I think this is getting silly.

It is a debate, sometime highly contentious, a bit of frayed tempers at the edges, but not as bad as you make it.

I checked v2 PMs. Will check on MTL as well.

by laverfan Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:37 pm

noleisthebest wrote:I don't even drink water during gruelling, that's for sissies

Dehydration is dangerous. Winking

Perhaps before you start.

by noleisthebest Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:00 pm

laverfan wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I don't even drink water during gruelling, that's for sissies

Dehydration is dangerous. Perhaps before you start.

Time-permitting that's what I do most of the time, but prefer it afterwards if I can't make it. Never had any trouble.
I do find people sucking water out of the tube attached to their water bottles a joke. Plus all the heart monitors, lycra etc Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 2033450363

by summerblues Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:14 am

Tenez,

I am not going to discuss time taking comparisons across various matches, because I think those are irrelevant for this thread. I never said that your overall argument that Nadal’s rutine is intentional to give him a better chance to win is without merit. In fact, I am inclined to agree with that argument.

I was specifically referring to the Miami 04 match. You had initially made sweeping statements about Nadal playing within time limits up until Miami 05 (e.g., “we coudl see he was almost always well within the 20s”). Those statements were shown to be incorrect. You never properly faced up to it.

It would be better for your argument if Nadal was indeed almost always within 20s. That would strengthen your claim of intentional change after Miami 05. As it is, you may still be correct on the intentional change but this facet of evidence is not as strong as you had suggested. And one needs to admit that. When you are ultimately weighing both sides of the argument you cannot throw out the fact that he was not “almost always well within 20s”. That fact is still a fact, even though it will have to be placed on the “wrong side of the scales” from your perspective.

Tenez wrote:It's simple really. You observe the apple falling off the tree, then you find out the law of gravity...not the other way around.

Yes, but what makes the law of gravity believable is that it continues to work in future. It is often relatively easy to come up with multiple plausible theories that fit historical data.

by Tenez Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:08 am

summerblues wrote:Tenez,
I was specifically referring to the Miami 04 match. You had initially made sweeping statements about Nadal playing within time limits up until Miami 05 (e.g., “we coudl see he was almost always well within the 20s”). Those statements were shown to be incorrect. You never properly faced up to it.

You right, I don't want to face up to it cause I do not have to. When Lydian came up with Miami04 (cause he could not argue against Maimi 05), I watched Miami 04 clip (that shows only the first 2 games) and it was clear that Nadal was playing "almost always within the 20s) and I posted the link for all to check. Would you have watched the whole match to make up your mind? I was not trying to hide the fact...and many came back after wathing it and agreed with me (on original 606). That the match dragged on afterwards cause a youngster was creating the sensation of the tournament (which I guess explains why some points took longer then) was certainly not going in the way of what we can all observe: That Nadal played within the 25s rule on most points and in those first 2 games (first clip) he simply played 7 points out of 9 under 22s (almost always within the 20s)...in fact only one went over 20s out of those 7 points. So please understand why I find it "rich" when you are saying that I am cherry picking.

I really don't understand how I can be picked up on evidence everybody can check!!!! You sound like LF trying to prove that draws show nothing dodgy???!!!!

Do you really believe Nadal was taking his time in Miami04 (honest and simple question)?

Yes, but what makes the law of gravity believable is that it continues to work in future. It is often relatively easy to come up with multiple plausible theories that fit historical data.

Theories are not easy to create if you don't have a good sense of observation. And if they are not drawn from observation but based on an agenda, they are easy to "debug". I have no agenda cause as I said many times, I do not know Nadal anymore than Federer or Stepanek. It's what I see that makes me like Federer and Stepanek's tennis and understand the dynamics of Nadal's.

If you start from scratch with your 5yo nephew and want to make a champion out of him...then the path to take becomes pretty clear, especially if you ask him to drop his natural arm to start with and teach him the game with his unatural one.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:23 am

SB,

how about a Points Spy chart for USO Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 1071211947

P.S.

pleeeeease!

by Larry Ellison Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:28 am

Novak can't get to number one NITB.

I don't think you'll want to see it- it's not looking good for Novak in terms off reclaiming the number 1 in the near future.

However this autumn Federer defends a lot of points on indoor hard: that will be nole's chance.

by Tenez Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:46 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>

lydian wrote:Tenez, there is no way you can say Nadal was fast serving at Miami 2004...the facts dont support it. He was only under 25s (not even 20s) for about 50% of points...50%!!!...since when was that ever called fast serving???

The Wimb 2003 match is on Youtube. I timed most of the 1st set yesterday...guess what, not much different to Miami 2004. Average over 26 secs. I dont need people to be on my side Tenez, the facts are the facts. He's always been slow...</BLOCKQUOTE>

You see him serve his whole 3 first service games in Miami 04 within the time with only 2 points going over the 25s mark out of 11 and you see this as slow? DO you know how long he takes nowadays?

Yes for me it's fast. It's clear however that under heavy rallying in miami 04 (maybe 05 too I have not checked it all), he extends his time. But we can all see it's no routine and in any case he plays much faster than now.

As mentioned many times Miami 04 has even a faster time per point average than Miami 05!!!

This is where I think you are splitting hair cause that is now your only solid ground.

However I have yet to hear from you that Nadal has no OCD in Miami 04 and 05. I know it would hurt you! Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 810156456

===============================
This is my last post on the matter on the v2 thread. I like it cause it summarises it well.

It's so Lydian...cause I know if I were to check Wimby03, the average woudl more likely be 25s...but he makes it 26 to make it worse....yet a huge difference between nowadays regular 35s.

But Lydian doesn;t want to see the difference between 25s (or 26s) and 35s.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:43 pm

Tenez wrote:
But Lydian doesn;t want to see the difference between 25s (or 26s) and 35s.

I didn't realise Nadal used to play within 20 seconds....What changed in the meantime, then?

by mikeyM1000 Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:18 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
But Lydian doesn;t want to see the difference between 25s (or 26s) and 35s.

I didn't realise Nadal used to play within 20 seconds....What changed in the meantime, then?

He got famous and realised he could cheat and get away with it.

by summerblues Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:03 pm

Tenez,

1. You made a claim to support your position
2. That claim was shown to be incorrect
3. You never acknowledged that this weakens the evidence supporting your position
4. Instead you switched to slightly different claims where data fits your position better

This is a textbook case of evidence cherry-picking. One would have hard time making up a better example if one tried. Your posts on the original thread as well as here are textbook case studies of how it is done in practice.

You are an interesting poster and well worth talking to. But, as I said before, I do not expect debates with you to reach consensus. Therefore, in the absence of materially new arguments, I am inclined to leave it here from my end.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:32 pm

SB,

you cant leave us all here just because you disagree with Tenez over a couple of seconds and Nadal!!!???
I admit I never followed all those discussions as they looked like going round in circles from the distance to me, but even I go interested when I realised that Nadal didn't abuse the time between the points once upon a time.
It's getting really intersting now Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 650269930

by summerblues Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:54 pm

Oh I am certainly not planning to leave you all here smiley

What I meant was that as far as this thread goes I said what I had to say and unless something really new is presented I am not planning to add more rounds of the same.

I introduced Miami 04 example to discuss how we (well, Tenez in this case Winking

) process evidence. The example is pretty self-contained and discussing what Nadal may or may not have done since then is really another topic altogether.

On the topic of the points spy thread, as Amri said, Nole cannot make it to #1 at the USO so not so exciting now. If I get to it, I may try to put something together before the second week but I think it will again become more interesting later this fall.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:57 pm

That's good to know smiley

If anyone told me Federer would be a thousand points in front of Nole this time last year I would not have believed....
But that's the beauty of tennis...things happen so fast and have some crazy turns Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 151447854

by Tenez Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:03 pm

SB,

1. You made a claim to support your position
2. That claim was shown to be incorrect
3. You never acknowledged that Nadal plays most point within the rule even though everybody can see he does.
4. Instead you switched to slightly different claims which would contradict the main valid point I make.

This is a textbook case of evidence cherry-picking. One would have hard time making up a better example if one tried. Your posts on the original thread as well as here are textbook case studies of how it is done in practice.

Likewise, I do not wish debates to be lost in details preventing you to see the bigger picture. Therefore, in the absence of materially new arguments, I am also inclined to leave it here from my end.

by Tenez Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:09 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
But Lydian doesn;t want to see the difference between 25s (or 26s) and 35s.

I didn't realise Nadal used to play within 20 seconds....What changed in the meantime, then?

Eureka!!!! Looks like you and Mickey have finally watched those clips and come to observe the same thing I did. But according to SB we are making it up, Nadal doesn;t play fast and takes his time. I am cherry picking cause he only plays fast during the first set, and less fast the second set.

by noleisthebest Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:14 pm

Sorry to ask a potentially very stupid question, but what was the point of the debate regarding that Miami 2004 match?

(I know I missed just about 99% of the debate, but still...what was the gist Innocent or Guilty? - Page 3 2211252749

)

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

What applies to you?