Re: Indian Wells Thread

[summerblues]

[Daniel]

See, Fed 2004-7 would have put this match to bed. Too many unforced errors.

[Tenez]

See, Fed 2004-7 would have put this match to bed.  Too many unforced errors.

Oh yeah? Remember Canada 2007?

[noleisthebest]

What an ugly match...
Fed won the first set by hitting through the court, Nole the second by spreading it.

I actually didn't even want to watch it at all for some really weird reason, first time it's happened.

[Tenez]

Federer looks very fragile again.

[Daniel]

See, Fed 2004-7 would have put this match to bed.  Too many unforced errors.

Oh yeah? Remember Canada 2007?

Different match. Fed is making way more silly errors than he used to.

[summerblues]

[Tenez]

See, Fed 2004-7 would have put this match to bed.  Too many unforced errors.

Oh yeah? Remember Canada 2007?

Different match.  Fed is making way more silly errors than he used to.

Different match? Fed at his peak lost to 20yo Djoko...you remember? you know the ashmatic version, not the rubber band retrieving everything who has won 5 slams!!

fed is rusty today, clearly off form. He is not moving nearly as well as yesterday. So it has not much to do with age.

[Tenez]

Not a bad reflex volley for an oldie.

[bluenose]

FedererKingIt wasn't attempting to debate and it wasn't calling you a c*nt.  Nadal IS a c*nt in my opinion, deal with it.

OMG I have waited my entire life for this riposte - he has neither the depth nor the capacity to please.

Oof, accomplished.

[Tenez]

FedererKingIt wasn't attempting to debate and it wasn't calling you a c*nt.  Nadal IS a c*nt in my opinion, deal with it.

OMG I have waited my entire life for this riposte - he has neither the depth nor the capacity to please.

Oof, accomplished.

  That's the good thing about OTF...one can speak his mind!

[noleisthebest]

FedererKingIt wasn't attempting to debate and it wasn't calling you a c*nt.  Nadal IS a c*nt in my opinion, deal with it.

OMG I have waited my entire life for this riposte - he has neither the depth nor the capacity to please.

Oof, accomplished.

  That's the good thing about OTF...one can speak his mind!

It's not true, and you know it.

Btw, what's so funny in that comment?

[Tenez]

Federer waking up...a bit too late

[Tenez]

FedererKingIt wasn't attempting to debate and it wasn't calling you a c*nt.  Nadal IS a c*nt in my opinion, deal with it.

OMG I have waited my entire life for this riposte - he has neither the depth nor the capacity to please.

Oof, accomplished.

  That's the good thing about OTF...one can speak his mind!

It's not true, and you know it.

We can as long as it's about tennis...

[Daniel]

COME ON FED!!!!

[Daniel]

GET IN!!

[summerblues]

[Tenez]

3 amazing points!

[Daniel]

Federer now has all the momentum and no pressure.  This is the time to turn the screw! pressure all on Djokovic in the next game.

[Daniel]

Well... it's going to a tie breaker. Federer needs this win... it will do him the world of confidence.

[Tenez]

sad......but Fed woke up too late.

[Daniel]

What cost Federer in this match was once again consistency.  He went from 74% first serves in set 1, to around 50% in set 2. His serving has been haywire for years.

[summerblues]

Oh well, not today.  Congrats Novak, he was probably the better player overall.

[Tenez]

Oh well, not today.  Congrats Novak, he was probably the better player overall.

You sound like a V2 poster!   

[Tenez]

What cost Federer in this match was once again consistency.  He went from 74% first serves in set 1, to around 50% in set 2.  His serving has been haywire for years.

His FH was terrible today in patches.

But Djoko certainly played way better in those last 2 sets extending the rallies and making Federer run.

Federer to me is still coping very badly with successive matches. He played well v Dolgo cause he had a day rest before but as soon as he is asked to play in succession he can be very erratic like in that Sydney final .

[N2D2L]

Born Slippy is one of my favourite posters, excellent analyst.

[N2D2L]

Federer to me is still coping very badly with successive matches.

Instead of making excuses maybe just admit Djokoivc was too solid   

As for Nole, for me this will give him huge confidence, he'll be back to his best for Miami.

[Tenez]

Born Slippy is one of my favourite posters, excellent analyst.

Yes Amri and Larry also think Born Slippy is an excellent analyst.

So since no-one compliments you on your dodgy analysis, you have to praise yourself.

That's a bit sad, isn't it?

[N2D2L]

What are you talking about?

[N2D2L]

Are you in a bad mood as Federer lost?

[Tenez]

We know you are Born Slippy on v2...are you going to deny it like you deny many other facts?

[N2D2L]

We know you are Born Slippy on v2...are you going to deny it like you deny many other facts?

  

I am not Born Slippy. This is a perfect example of how you believe whatever you want and assume they are 'facts'.

[Tenez]

We know you are Born Slippy on v2...are you going to deny it like you deny many other facts?

  

I am not Born Slippy. This is a perfect example of how you believe whatever you want and assume they are 'facts'.

I have memory too..You said so a few months ago.

Anyway...Nadal losing 1000 points or so....Djoko making 640.

2000 points separate them now. With Miami and the clay season.....those 2000 might melt like snow in spring!

[truffin1]

Funny- the v2,posters today were going on about Amrit and his crazy postings, but also talked about the different name changes and i.d.s on v2....

On to the match- fed was def not in the form that got him there. Why he lets these guys lull him into the baseline when he is beating them with aggressive forward attacking is frstrating. Still. Great fight to take it to tiebreak - from where he was 6 months ago, it says a lot that many are so disappointed that he loses to #2 djokovic by the slimmest of margins.

As to djokovic - sorry but I can't congratulate him knowing he was coached - especially when he wS behind. The Espn Comms ended up mentioning 3 times in the 2nd , third set- so clearly it was ongoing. In a match that was decided by a tiebreak, I am pretty sure that a coach directing your return game the whole match while the guy across the net was relying on himself was worth a few extra points to djoko- and thanks the margin he won by. Federer has been robbed by nadal and now djoko cheating so many times.

At this pointing goat Feds career a runnerup isn't going to be remembered but he did accomplish an important ranking move, and certainly gained confidence.

[N2D2L]

I have memory too..You said so a few months ago.

When? This is totally made up.

[N2D2L]

Funny- the v2,posters today were going on about Amrit and his crazy postings

I just checked at it seems like only 2 posters criticised me, it wasn't the bash-fest some were hoping for.

P.S. as for the PMs, surely everyone can realise it was light hearted and not serious?

[Tenez]

Funny- the v2,posters today were going on about Amrit and his crazy postings, but also talked about the different name changes and i.d.s on v2....  

On to the match- fed was def not in the form that got him there. Why he lets these guys lull him into the baseline when he is beating them with aggressive forward attacking is frstrating. Still. Great fight to take it to tiebreak - from where he was 6 months ago, it says a lot that many are so disappointed that  he loses to #2 djokovic by the slimmest of margins.  

As to djokovic - sorry but I can't congratulate him knowing he was coached - especially when he wS behind.  The Espn Comms ended up mentioning 3 times in the 2nd , third set- so clearly it was ongoing. In a match that was decided by a tiebreak, I am pretty sure that a coach directing your return game the whole match while the guy across the net was relying on himself was worth a few extra points to djoko- and thanks the margin he won by.  Federer has been robbed by nadal and now djoko cheating so many times.

At this pointing goat Feds career a runnerup isn't going to be remembered but he did accomplish an important ranking move, and certainly gained confidence.

Djoko's returning is what really unsettled Fed....plus Fed losing his form as you say. I woudl not be too concerned by Djoko's coaching. The main thing here is that Djoko was able to throw long rallies and the chip and charge was not an option on those slow court.

fed was all over the net in Dubai....here he coudl not.

[truffin1]

Yes, the return game, and that was where the Espn Comms said vjada was coaching djokovic. This tells me that djoko, best returner in the game, was mentally unsettled and needed help. Surely if left to his own devices- that mental fragility could have made the difference in Feds favor- one break was the margin for most of the match. Djoko was getting it from his trusted old coach too.

Certainly the conditions highly favored djoko- if faster, prob a straight forward fed victory- but this was razor thin and one guy was coached while the other wasn't.

Oh well- I've said my peace. Onto Miami and the even slower conditions. I think fed will be happy with a quarter appearance there, then Davis cup and a nice break with a new baby arriving

[summerblues]

Firstly you say I am disingenuous- on what basis do you make this claim. It is quite a bold one to make, because you are not only saying I am wrong, but imply that I know I am wrong.

I was not saying you knew you were wrong (and while I do think you are wrong in many cases, I was not even saying that).  I imagine you really like Nadal and you really think highly of him.

What I am saying is that you are not prepared to lead an honest discussion about him.  I think it is probably very similar to the example you yourself once gave.  You said something along the lines of "if I want to argue that smoking is bad for you, of course I will pick the arguments that support my view".  I think your arguments about Nadal are similar - from the myriad of arguments - pro and con - you will consciously pick up those that back up your position, ignore many of those that go against your position, and base argument on that.

And in the argument itself, you are then ready to fight tooth and nail to defend the position you have taken - whenever the natural line of reasoning appears to go against you, you will be ready to build an elaborate counterargument and demand that people disprove beyond the shadow of the doubt the positions you are taking.

I will once again give you the chess game example I gave you before.  A debate on a forum can often be similar to a chess game where typical posters are trying to jointly figure out which side has the winning position.  You, however, act like you have already made your decision and now are just focusing on playing the game best you can to win the game for your side.  In the context of a forum, to me that equates to being disingenuous.

Secondly, why would you publicly say this against me, and not anyone else?

I am not attempting to be an arbiter of posters here and I need not try to make sure I measure my comments equally in each direction - I comment on whatever strikes my fancy.  There may be plenty of reasons - of all stripes - why I may not make a comment about something other posters write:

- I may agree with them so fully that there is nothing else to say
- I may disagree with them so fully that I think it is pointless to even attempt a discussion
- I may just be too busy too comment
- I may find their posts insufficiently interesting to respond to
- I may have better things to do
- many others

In some sense, you should not be totally unhappy that I "picked on you" - I would not have done it if I had felt certain it was a lost cause.

Also, it is not quite true I never argue with anyone else.  For example, Tenez and I discussed his claim that Rafa was within the time rule some 90%(?) of the time in one of the old matches.  I made it plenty clear that I thought Tenez was not being intellectually honest there.  Presumably he disagreed, so we effectively agreed to disagree, but neither of us was complaining how come we do not equally criticize other posters.

[N2D2L]

Also, it is not quite true I never argue with anyone else.

SB, I never said you don't argue with anyone. However you don't normally publicly pass a judgement on a poster, unless its me. Certainly not in a direct way like you did here.
My best estimate was that you pick on me either because you think everyone is, in your words, 'a very good poster', or because you know posts against me on this forum will prove popular, while posts against the rest will see people defending each other.
If this is not the case, complete this challenge:
-List the posters on this forum who aren't in your opinion 'very good posters'. For each give a quick short reason as to why that is not the case.
If you can't do this, it is clear you are simply focused on picking me.

[N2D2L]

I was not saying you knew you were wrong

Really...

This is what you said to Tenez:

From all what I have seen from you, I am fairly certain that - unlike Amri - when you make an argument you honestly believe in it.

Pretty clear contradiction from you.
How can I not honestly believe my arguments and yet think Im right. Try and clear up this blatant contradiction.

I think your arguments about Nadal are similar - from the myriad of arguments - pro and con - you will consciously pick up those that back up your position

And can you really say with a straight face that Tenez does not do the same?
It is beyond laughable that you only put this accusation against me publicly on here. You talk about pros and cons, how often do you see that from Tenez, NITB, FedererKing about Nadal.
When FedererKing posted an OP calling Nadal a c***, did we see any 'pros'??
But alas, you never complain about pros and cons when FK is calling Nadal the c word, or NITB says Nadal is the death of tennis.
Quelle surprise! Only when a Nadal fan is saying that the vitriolic abuse he receives is unjust and illogical, only he will be guilty of not covering both pros and cons. Coming from who? Coming from you, and you yourself said last Wimbledon that for you after Nadal goes out 'there must be a happy ending'.

Contradictions, double standards, and pure hypocrisy at times; Im afraid your unjust argument is in tatters.

[raiders_of_the_lost_ark]

Horrible TB from Fed. Poor serving and UEs to make it worse. Djokovic was solid and he actually didn't have much more required to do, Fed simply self destructed. He played great to break Djokovic and push the 3rd to a TB.

[summerblues]

If this is not the case, complete this challenge:

...and what does that have to do with the price of bread?  You seem to have not read my previous post very carefully.

[raiders_of_the_lost_ark]

Oh well- I've said my peace. Onto Miami and the even slower conditions.  I think fed will be happy with a quarter appearance there, then Davis cup and a nice break with a new baby arriving

I read somewhere in the local news paper that its twins again. Anyone has any news on this? 

[summerblues]

I was not saying you knew you were wrong

Really...

This is what you said to Tenez:

From all what I have seen from you, I am fairly certain that - unlike Amri - when you make an argument you honestly believe in it.

Pretty clear contradiction from you.
How can I not honestly believe my arguments and yet think Im right.

But it is not a contradiction - it is much like my chess game example - you can simultaneously believe that the position you have picked is genuinely a winning position while at the same time knowingly trying to take advantage of the other side's suboptimal moves.

In some sense, you should not be totally unhappy that I "picked on you" - I would not have done it if I had felt certain it was a lost cause.

Maybe I was wrong after all.  In which case there is a good chance I will not be picking on you in future

[Tenez]

Horrible TB from Fed. Poor serving and UEs to make it worse. Djokovic was solid and he actually didn't have much more required to do, Fed simply self destructed. He played great to break Djokovic and push the 3rd to a TB.

Agreed. Sad to see Fed shank many balls even with the bigger frame.

[N2D2L]

But it is not a contradiction - it is much like my chess game example - you can simultaneously believe that the position you have picked is genuinely a winning position while at the same time knowingly trying to take advantage of the other side's suboptimal moves.

You said I 'don't honestly believe in my arguments'.
But now you say I believe I have picked 'a winning position'. It simply does not make logical sense.
If I believe it's a winning position, why would I not believe it?

Maybe I was wrong after all. In which case there is a good chance I will not be picking on you in future

What a subtlety nasty comment this is.

---------
You did not address the main points of my post. Can you really argue that all posters apart from me here cover all pros and cons of a debate?
Do you think Tenez, FedererKing etc, really cover both pros and cons.
As I said the reasons for you simply targeting me is 2 reasons:
1/ You genuinely believe everyone else in the forum make efforts to 'cover pros and cons in the myriad of arguments'
2/ You realise picking me out and attacking me will make you more popular on this forum; despite knowing others do the same thing. But targeting them would mean they all defend each they.

'I think your arguments about Nadal are similar - from the myriad of arguments - pro and con - you will consciously pick up those that back up your position'
Does Tenez not do the same? Give me an example then of a debate where he has given pros and cons against his viewpoint.
Of course you won't though, you can't if you tried, and he's not your target.

[Tenez]

Interesting stats.

AT A GLANCE
• World No. 2 Novak Djokovic rallied for a 36 63 76(3) victory over No. 7 seed Roger Federer to win his first ATP World Tour title of the season, his 17th ATP Masters 1000 title and 42nd overall. With the win, he moves ahead of Stefan Edberg for 14th place in the Open Era titles list. He is also tied for No. 3 (w/Agassi) in the ATP Masters 1000 titles list (behind Nadal 26, Federer 21).

• Djokovic won one more point (99-98) than Federer in the 2hr, 12min. final.

• This was the third time in four years the eventual winner lost the opening set (2011, ’13-14).

• It was Djokovic’s third BNP Paribas Open title (2008, ’11), joining Jimmy Connors, Michael Chang and Rafael Nadal for second place on the tournament’s titles list (Federer leads with four).

• All three of Djokovic’s titles in Indian Wells have come in three sets (2008, d. Fish 62 57 63; 2011, d. Nadal 46 63 62).

• Djokovic avenged his semi-final loss to Federer in Dubai last month and he closed the career head-to-head record to 16-17 against the Swiss (tied 13-13 on hard courts).

• This was the second time in their 33 meetings the match came down to a decisive set tie-break (’07 Montreal Final, Djokovic 76 26 76). That was also the Serb’s first career win (after four losses) in their rivalry.

• This was the 27th time in the last 28 ATP Masters 1000 tournaments (since 2011) a member of the Big 4 (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Federer) has won the title (except ’12 Paris-Bercy, Ferrer).

• Federer’s 11-match winning streak came to an end and he was trying to earn his second title (Dubai) of the season. The 32-year-old Swiss will move from No. 8 to No. 5 in the Emirates ATP Rankings.

[Tenez]

JS, not all players' fans are equal under the sun. Being a Nadal fan is not the same thing as being a Federer fan. In a caricatural way, supporting GW Bush is not the same as supporting Abraham Lincoln. They may have both their benefits and disadvantages, they simply are not going to leave the same footprints in history.

It's much harder to defend Bush's legacy than Lincoln's and same between Federer and Nadal. It does not matter how logic one is and what arguments you use, they are both going to be remembered for what they were and what they did.

[gallery play]

I only saw the third set. Nothing new i guess. They know each others games so well.
To me what eventually made the difference was the return. Djoko was returning both first and second serves on Fed's feet (imo this was one of the keys of his 2011 succes year). This is where Fed lost most of the advantage of serving. He had to play very risky in order to maintain an upperhand in his service games. Fed on the other hand blocked almost every serve: easy targets for Djoko.

I also think the high bounce in the desert made it easy for Djoko to push Federer away from the baseline. But that's knocking at an open door.

[Sponsored content]