Re: Indian Wells Thread

[Tenez]

... 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.

Yes good point and this was emphasised by Djoko spiny and loopy shots. Having said that if Fed had been in better form Djoko would not have been to engage in rallies but Fed lost lots of confidence as his serve was not as good as the day before and his whole game went awol in that 2nd set.

But the good thing is that he started to play well towards the end...bar that TB sadly.

[Tenez]

And Djoko is pretty lucky to break Fed in that 2nd set. Well he created a few opportunities but on the break point that led to the break, Fed is in full command and Djoko completely stretched pulls a lob landing on the baseline.

[truffin1]

ROGER FEDERER PRESS CONFERENCE
Indian Wells, USA
16.03.2014
N. DJOKOVIC/R. Federer

3-6, 6-3, 7-6

An interview with:

ROGER FEDERER

THE MODERATOR: Questions, please.

Q. Talk about getting that break there in the third set and the getting to the tiebreaker.
ROGER FEDERER: No, I think I played a good game to break back. Got the first serve returns back, and then played well from the baseline.
I think I was playing with the wind at that moment, as well. A bit more wind coming from my side, which made it more difficult for him maybe to serve it out.
It would have been easier for me to get on the offensive, you know, in the rallies. And then the same thing switched around in the breaker. He then played the first six points with the wind. He used took advantage of that, and, you know, maybe against the wind that's when you have to get those easy points and those service winners I couldn't get and he couldn't get.
So it was an interesting end to the match, no doubt. But I think he played well, you know. At the end he made sure he kept the ball in play and I might have made a few too many errors when it really mattered.
But, you know, I think he made a crucial sort of 20 minutes, half and hour midway through the second set and third set where things could have gone either way.
But credit to him for toughening it out and winning that second set and getting the breaker in the third.

Q. Given all the moments that you had last year, does it sort of make handling losses easier? Does it not seem such a big deal when you know you're fit and healthy and playing well?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, depends from which angle you look at it. You could be very disappointed after a match like that because, you know, you put in a lot of hard work, and walking away without the trophy being a few points from victory is tough. But it's how it is, you know.
I have been on that side, you know, many times, but I have been on the winners' side more often. Maybe that softens the blow a little bit.
Like you say, if you see the angle that last year was difficult, especially this time around last year in Indian Wells, that I'm able to turn it all around now and I'm really playing nice tennis.
You know, that's also what I said out on the court. And I truly believe that, playing good tennis, and then it's maybe sometimes a little easier to lose this way.
Because I really did believe I was playing good tennis, was a solid match, you know. It was good also movement wise. My serve was around. You know, it was overall good performance.
I'm actually very happy with the tournament.

Q. What did you tell yourself when Novak was serving for the match at 5 4 that helped you break him?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, I think important was actually to stay with him whenever I got the break, because normally then Novak has a tendency to sort of just run away with it, or you have tendency to maybe play a little bit more too freely and make mistakes or too passive, and then he takes big cuts at the ball.
But I was able to just keep the pressure on Novak and show him that if he slips up, I will be there and I will make it a very competitive match in the end for him.
That's exactly what happened. So I think it came more from there than actually the game itself. Even though I did explain I think I was with the wind, which was a little bit helpful, as well.

Q. Rafa went down pretty early in the tournament. Murray lost to Raonic; Stan lost. All the talk was, it's sort of a dawning of a new day; the locker room is changing. Yet what happened in the end? Two champions, two old champions emerge. What's your thought about the state of the game in that context?
ROGER FEDERER: I think it's good. You know, it's good the way it is. It's unfortunate we had a few injuries around. Del Po, Ferrer now. I mean, Murray is coming back. He's not injured anymore, which is good. He's been playing a lot of tennis this year, the most of any player, which is slightly surprising, you know, knowing that he has had back surgery.
That's his way of dealing with it right now is playing a lot. And maybe who knows maybe he will slow down a bit on the clay or eventually he will figure things out.
But, you know, I think I'm not going to analyze every single young player that's coming up, you know. But definitely, you know, thanks to their higher seedings now getting deeper in tournaments automatically now, and now it's just a question, can they upset once in a while the big guys and, you know, not lose against lower ranked players, which is always inevitably going to happen. Is always a tough thing to avoid happening.
But consistency is what it's about now for them, you know, just going deep. I think obviously Novak and Rafa and all these guys won't have a stranglehold at the top. I'm moving up that direction, as well. That's very encouraging for me as well personally. I'm just happy I'm playing well again.

Q. But a new age hasn't exactly arrived?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, you guys know best, so don't ask me. (Smiling).

Q. You're the man now.
ROGER FEDERER: But you guys make your own opinions, very quickly sometimes.

Q. You were very complimentary about the tournament, but what do the kids and Mirka like to do around them? What do they like around Indian Wells?
ROGER FEDERER: It's like blue skies every day. When you're a parent it's a whole lot easier when you're not fighting the rain. That's our point. It's that indoor/outdoor feeling, which is great.
You know, you can go for just go outside and go do anything. Catch up with other kids, you know, jump in the pool the whole time, that kind of thing. Draw with chalk on the ground, you name it.
I'm not going to explain how to do that. I'm trying hard myself already. We enjoy it here.

Q. Can I ask you about Miami? What are your thoughts right now? Are you going to go back home or are you going to skip it?
ROGER FEDERER: No, I mean, normally I'll go. I'm going to leave tonight to Miami, and then I will see how I feel over there. But I will definitely go to that direction and have an event as well over there, so most likely, yes, I will play.

Q. I know it's not your goal or your focus, but what do you think it might mean for you later this year if you're able to get back to No. 1 in the rankings?
ROGER FEDERER: That would be a big deal. But being No. 4 or 3, that's not a big deal. It might help the seedings, you know, and how do you say, the draws, but other than that, just right now, to think too far ahead will be a mistake.
A few weeks ago, months ago, a few people said I couldn't play tennis anymore. So for me, I need to focus on my own game, my own routines, hard work, make sure I keep a good schedule for myself, for my family, and, you know, enjoy it.
But at the same time, that fire, wanting to win, is important, and right now I have that. I think have a really good balance right now.

Q. Did you feel how much that crowd was for you? Did you feel that?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I did. It was very nice. It was special, no doubt about it. I really enjoy it, because I don't expect it in any way. I feel like I'm humble enough to understand that they might be here just for the tournament, just for tennis, just for the opponent. It doesn't matter.
If they do show up and they do support me, that's gold. It's beautiful. So I really enjoy it.

Q. You were just saying about all those people that pretty much discounted you the way you were playing, et cetera. In one sense, do you think they are eating humble pie now, or does that not really matter to you?
ROGER FEDERER: To me, it doesn't matter. I mean, I understand it's a quick moving sport. You win a match, it's all good again. You lose a match, it's all bad.
Problem is everybody loses except one guy every week. It's very easy. It's served on a platter for the press.
I understand that. I'm not talking I can look at each of you guys in the eye, each of you guys, but it happens very quickly.
Some people after a while have a hard time analyzing it correctly and properly because you're caught in this fast speed train, which is not always the case. You have to look at the overall case, what's been happening, what are the reasons for maybe not playing so well, or for playing well.
You don't just forget how to play tennis, you know. Age is just a number. It's nothing more, really. That's how I see it, anyway.

Q. From your comments yesterday, it seemed pretty clear that you had a really tough year last year physically. What was your level of confidence that your body was going to come back so you're able to do the things you are doing now?
ROGER FEDERER: I knew if I was going to feel well again that success would return, or I would be more successful than at certain times last year, which sometimes is not very hard to do.
But then the question is, Are you going to get back to that level?
There maybe I had some doubts at certain times. But overall, I knew that it can't be that I will feel this way forever. It wasn't that kind of an injury.
So it was just important to stay patient and wait. That's the most difficult thing to do. I haven't had it very often in my career. That's why it was somewhat new for me.

Q. You mentioned that you were surprised about how fast you felt you got back into rhythm given that you made it to the final, even though you didn't win but thinking of what's coming. Are you content with that, you know, level?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, very happy. I think I'm playing really good tennis. I'm moving well. Serving well, consistently well, you know.
So many things are working. I'm just surprised that I'm able to keep it up week for week now. I expected myself to have a breakthrough tournament, but then maybe a couple of early exits. Who knows, maybe that's all upon me, I don't know (smiling).
But overall I'm just happy I'm playing consistent tennis and I'm going deep in tournaments and I'm giving myself chances to win. So clearly would have been amazing to win here and win back to back tournaments with Dubai.
But I got very, very close, so it's encouraging for Miami and for the rest of the season, no doubt.

Q. There is a local kid who has hit with you. Would you mind talking a little bit about him and your thoughts about him.
ROGER FEDERER: I mean, look, honestly when I'm hitting like that it's just like focusing, just get the warmup out of the way. I appreciate that they are around, they want to hit with me, but it's hard for me to overanalyze someone's game just from hitting in the middle and just playing with me for that short time.
But he seemed very much upbeat, loving tennis, excited, which is always good to see. Do I want to hit with someone who is like, Do I really have to do this? It all happens, you know.
It's sometimes hard to get out of bed and go play tennis. This guy definitely wasn't one of those guys.

Q. The other day you suggested maybe three out of five sets here for the final. Did you feel like that today, that you would like it to be three out of five?
ROGER FEDERER: Look, that is a different match. We were all there knowing three sets, but if you know it's going to be five sets you have a different mindset. Maybe it's a different pace overall to the match.
It's different preparation and all that. I just think we need to get some maybe more best of five set matches back into the ATP events. Definitely think we should have it at the World Tour Finals. Maybe at the Masters 1000. I don't know if 500 or 250s can have it again.
That's how I came about. I played best of five sometimes at 250s and 500s, and some matches I guess are more memorable. I understand we went the other way, so more players can play more tournaments and more fans can see those best players because a five setter clearly at the wrong time can either injure you or make you extremely tired or just you run the risk of being burnt out.
So that's why you have to do it at the right times and be fair which tournament gets it and which one doesn't. So maybe that's going to be a negotiation, a debate. I don't know what it's going to be.
So I think it will be nice to have a few more best of five set matches on the tour.

Q. At what time in your career do you think you were playing your best tennis? How did your level now compare with that?
ROGER FEDERER: I mean, I don't know. Maybe the times when I wasn't losing hardly, you know, four, five matches a year. I guess I was playing my best then, but I still do hope today maybe I'm a better player just out of hard work, out of experience, and all these things.
But confidence is a funny thing, you know. Confidence, you go for shots maybe you wouldn't go for otherwise.
That's the thing. Some guys are maybe, you know, working on right now as we speak on the practice courts are hoping for a tournament to come around even though they are scared to lose early, but then eventually all of a sudden you end up winning the tournament.
Confidence is sometimes everything, and I have gone through those phases where I just felt like, you know, that forehand is going to land in the corner. It's not going to go out. That way you clearly win matches.

Q. You're feeling that now?
ROGER FEDERER: A little bit, yeah. Somewhat similar, yeah. Not quite.

Q. When you play a guy like this, played him so many times, you have seen everything he can do, does that bring more strategy and tactics into a match or less or does it come back just to execution?
ROGER FEDERER: Good question. I don't know. Huh.

Q. When you go into a match like this...
ROGER FEDERER: I think it's maybe almost a little less. Sounds weird, but against a guy you have never played against, you know, you've got a lot of info. You try to figure it out. If things don't go well and if they do go well, you just play the way it's been working.
Against a guy like Novak or Rafa who I know exactly what's going to happen if you hit hard into the forehand what happens if you hit slow into the forehand, the same thing. You just know what's going to happen.
So, yeah, I don't know. Seems like this is more simple when you know the guy.

Q. You said maybe proving people wrong, after the US Open there were a few people saying it was sad to see you losing fourth round maybe not playing your best and that you should retire because it was unfortunate to see you after you had been so good for so long. Did you take anything from that? Do you enjoy proving people wrong?
ROGER FEDERER: I'm not that guy. I'm not that guy. I don't like to take revenge and prove and all that stuff. I do that for myself and for my team and for my country and for my fans. The press, I get along well. I don't mind. They have a job to write stuff, and I understand that.
That's why you can't take it too personal, you know. Important just I know why am I in this situation. Why am I explaining a first round loss, a second round loss, a third round loss, a fourth round loss, and that I don't get influenced by you guys maybe.
I don't come in here thinking actually, I know what's wrong, and I walk out and I think, I'm actually terrible. That can happen too, because I just spent too much time here.
So you can get influenced way too much, believe it or not, and that's where I think the experience for me helps today. But clearly it is nicer going into press, Yeah, that forehand was great. Wasn't that a good shot against Dolgopolov?
It's much more upbeat people coming to you saying, Well played. Well done for Dubai. Just more happy surroundings; whereas if you're explaining yourself all the time in the press and nobody is coming up to you saying, Well played, it's a different vibe out there.
That's why you can't have it allow it to break you or influence you in who you are, and that's why I think you need to have a strong character.

Q. Is that something you have always had, that ability?
ROGER FEDERER: Pretty much. I used to get influenced more back in the day, like everybody would, just because I just felt not understood sometimes from the press.
That's more because people didn't know me or they thought they did and they didn't, so then they write different things that you actually said; whereas today I think we kind of know each other a little bit.

Q. One thing Novak said yesterday was that he uses part of his team to analyze his opponents's game. How much data do you have when you're going into a match, or do you simply play by feel? How much do you use all the statistics in data that's out there now?
ROGER FEDERER: I don't use it too much. I mean, Novak relies on his team; I rely on Severin and Stefan, basically. And then the rest needs to be feel. You can get carried away with all the statistics and all these things you hear. You have to play more down the line, more like this.
And next thing you're going down the line on the worst shot. So it's really that complicated sometimes. Sometimes it's easier to simplify things and just go with the feel.
That's kind of how I played this week. I was in touch with my team, but I really just let it flow. I think that's usually when I played my best tennis was just some very important little input, some reminders, and a lot of that has to be feel, as well.

FastScripts by ASAP Sports

[Tenez]

Thanks Truff!
 
So it looks like he is playing Miami. He will  be happy with the draw!
 
This part is interesting regarding our discussion about age:
 
Q. At what time in your career do you think you were playing your best tennis? How did your level now compare with that?
ROGER FEDERER: I mean, I don't know. Maybe the times when I wasn't losing hardly, you know, four, five matches a year. I guess I was playing my best then, but I still do hope today maybe I'm a better player just out of hard work, out of experience, and all these things.
But confidence is a funny thing, you know. Confidence, you go for shots maybe you wouldn't go for otherwise.
That's the thing. Some guys are maybe, you know, working on right now as we speak on the practice courts are hoping for a tournament to come around even though they are scared to lose early, but then eventually all of a sudden you end up winning the tournament.
Confidence is sometimes everything, and I have gone through those phases where I just felt like, you know, that forehand is going to land in the corner. It's not going to go out. That way you clearly win matches.
 
Q. You're feeling that now?
ROGER FEDERER: A little bit, yeah. Somewhat similar, yeah. Not quite.
 
 
I think he is very right. Back in 2006 and 07 the HC were a bit faster and the players were still hitting the ball through bar Hewitt. Hewitt was the first bring doubts in his mind while Nadalby had the talent to challenge him......but confidence was so high that he ended up having great strings against those 2 players.
 
Then that "confidence" was eroded again v Nadal on clay....and as the courts slowed a couple of players started to develop their fitness and that confidence got eroded as well on HC v Djoko and Murray. Not bad. He could beat them most of the time but those guys became more and more solid.
 
When he is talking about that FH not missing....he is right.....except again on slow surfaces v Nadal. In 2005 his semi v Nadal while he was on top of his confidence disappeared like a flash in the pan. Same in FO 2006....started great and then the UEs creepped in. That FH that was not missing started to miss a lot. This is why it is a mistake to gauge a players form solely ion results....It's who and where they play. Typical Djoko in Dubai and Djoko in IW for instance.
 
This is what this new generation is about, bringing the ball back, ask for more running and asking the question about that FH and BH time and time again until that confidence breaks down. They play with bigger margins cause they know they won't goi anywhere with thin (talent) ones. And from what I see Federer is better equipped today than then....and I think he hints to that here.

[noleisthebest]

I find it fascinating to compare  two contrasting approaches to playing tennis:  the intuitive and the counter punching one.
With the modern technology,  the latter has recently evolved into the road-running, percentage hybrid.

The two are completely different worlds.

For me, there is only one way to play and enjoy tennis, and that's the intuitive way....everything else is not a game, not a thrill,  just a conscious, higly premeditated way of spending your entire focus on what the intuitive player is doing and try to absorb and negate it.
It must be very draining and tiresome to play like that as you rarely get the joy of pulling off  brilliant shots. You are never going anywhere, but forever wait for the ball with dread.

The intuitive, instinctive way of playing is extremely fragile which is why confidence is everything there, as it frees you up to  and turns the brain off, clearing any doubt and suspicion which the counter puncher has on ALL the time.

One shot that both styles of play have in common when it comes to instinct and confidence is the serve...there, you have to have the peace and clear mind, which shows that Nole has been struggling a lot in the last year as he seems to be failing to serve matches out almost on a regular basis now.
In his case, FH is affected as well, as he rallies but does the shot making with it, too.

Many, many players never get out of the comfort zone of safe and percentage tennis, why...that's another thing to talk about.

[Tenez]

I noticed something with Fed is that he often plays at 80% only....attacking bit like a defending player as his margins though very thin look bigger for him than the common player. This is why he doesn't make many UEs and was able to win and compete with those guys for so long. But then when he has the back against the wall, he sometimes can string amazing shots like he did in that game he broke Djoko. He then plays 100% of his possibilities and it becomes really impressive. It can be make or break but usually it makes the difference. It did not work out in that final TB but just to break back was great and I think this is what has allowed him to get this excellent all time TB record.

[noleisthebest]

Interesting observation which makes a lot of sense.

In current playing conditions (both the slow courts and strings) it would be suicidal to play 100%,  it's actually probably impossible at a pro level now.
Dolgo is the only player who tried to play like that, but even he had to discipline his game now.
Maybe only against a non road-runner in Wimbledon.
Serves are returned deeply, and then balls keep coming back consistently.
I am so glad Federer switched to the bigger frame.

[noleisthebest]

I really enjoyed that interview from Federer. There is so much in it.

From explaining the fragility of instinctive tennis, the strength of character needed to rise above all the filthy media etc waters, to giving  an excellent analysis of what happened in the TB and how the wind affected each player's momentum.

He manages to say a lot despite PR constraints placed on all top players.

[summerblues]

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?

The part in bold is not an equivalent of the statements above it.  The examples I gave - the chess one as well as the smoking one - fit well the case where one may believe they have a winning position yet are consciously using disingenuous arguments that are flawed.  I do not know how better to explain it so if you cannot see it, let's leave it at that.

Can you really argue that all posters apart from me here cover all pros and cons of a debate?

I do not remember ever making that argument.  Plus it is entirely irrelevant.

[N2D2L]

Right, quit contradicting yourself with every new post.

Firstly let's compare two posts from you, which were a day apart:

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). 

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

So apparently I don't know I'm wrong, but I don't honestly believe in my arguments?
I mean forgetting the fact you are comically contradicing yourself, you yourself have no way of knowing whether I believe my arguments or not. The reality is, and I know this to be the case, is that I myself think I'm right. If you want to argue that I'm wrong then please do so, but who do you think you are to claim you know what I think or not? You really are a nasty poster.

And you have not even attempted to respond to the rest of my post:

'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'

I'm not sure how with a straight face you can make the claim to me, but not to Tenez, FedererKing etc. Do they not consciously pick up the arguments which back their position?
The funny thing is I remember in your PMs you saying me and Tenez are similar in many respects during debating (infact IIRC you seemed to associate your main 'chess game' argument with him)... but you don't have the guts to say that on a public forum, I mean criticise him that is.

And that brings me onto another point you've not answered:


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. You know you can't argue that FedererKing etc. don't just pre-pick points which are anti-Nadal; but of course you know the vast majority of Federer fans will defend each other- your hypocricy is unreal.

[N2D2L]

By the way, which points have I made which you feel I think are flawed?

My main point earlier on this thread was this:
I don't think Nadal is perfect. Infact I have said as well I don't think his SE award in 2010 was really valid, and I can think of better candidates for that award.
However I do think a signficant section of people who hate him target and pick on him unfairly. Firstly by constantly talking about things he does quite rarely, they try and make an impression he does it more often. Hence the sudden surprise at his behaviour at Indian Wells, when that is his normal behaviour.
Secondly the criticism of him is inconsistent, (of course 2 wrongs don't make a right.. no one is perfect), but that doesn't give a license to hypocricy. The example I used was FedererKing saying Nadal was disrespectful to Dolgo for saying he did not play his best. But nearly every other player, including Federer, has said that after they have lost the match- and thus it unfair to pick on Nadal.

Distortion and hypocrisy, those are the tools Nadal haters use to continue their agenda against Nadal, you know this is the case and SB your contradictory and 'subtle-nasty' personal tirades does not change this fact.

[Tenez]

I am not following this conversation but I think it's not very nice to expose things SB sent you as PM.

I am sure he doesn't care a iota but just by principle.

[N2D2L]

I am not following this conversation but I think it's not very nice to expose things SB sent you as PM.

I am sure he doesn't care a iota but just by principle.

As I've said earlier specifically, if he wants me to edit anything in my post out abotu PMs he can tell me to do so.

[Daniel]

I'm not sure how with a straight face you can make the claim to me, but not to Tenez, FedererKing etc. Do they not consciously pick up the arguments which back their position?

Sure do. But we actually listen to counter views and accept realities. You see what you want to see. I see Nadal break the time rule more than any other player, and I can prove it with video evidence. We all see it. Yet you say nothing about that, or come back making some ridiculous point or diversion.

He places in his autobiography that he was helped at US Open by his Uncle Moron, and you have nothing to say.

In fact, everything Nadal does bad (and overwhelmingly more than any other player), you are silent.

Let me explain to you where you and I differ. Here it is-

If Federer did what Nadal did, despite his great talent, I could not and would not support him. I would be heavily critical of him.

You are a mindless fanboy, who is never ever going to see both sides, and will run around in circles until the whole site is dizzy. That's why I got off the merry go round. There is no beating someone like you, or any joy in debating with you. You are never going to listen or accept someone else's view. Everyone to some degree is a little closed minded, but you are a brick wall.

Nadal is universally condemned (outside the media) for his tactics. FOR A GOOD REASON. He admits to cheating and he has been caught cheating numerous times.

What hope does anyone have of discussing non serious things concerning Nadal, if you won't even accept the things that can be proved? It's no good bringing me into it either. Your discussion with summerblues does not concern me.

[N2D2L]

But we actually listen to counter views and accept realities.

OK, perhaps listen to counter views, but never really take them on.
Have you ever changed your mind on a Nadal issue, in a way that would be not anti-Nadal?

Let me use the example I used before, you said Nadal was disrespectful for saying he didn't play his best. Would you agree that most professionals have said similar things after a defeat? Would you agree your favourite player Federer has said something similar, and thus do you also see him as disrespectful?

If Federer did what Nadal did, despite his great talent, I could not and would not support him.

But I've already shown an example of an inconsistency above ^
I've never seen you criticise Federer after saying the comments he did against Robredo.

Nadal is universally condemned (outside the media) for his tactics.

Is he really? You say 'outside the media'- isn't that an example of you being selective due to your agenda.
Forget the media, according to the Edberg award, he's won it once and constantly been nominated in the top 5 or 6.

But still, I am not saying Nadal is perfect, far from it. However I think people who hate him are inconsistent with their attacks, and also distort the reality by constantly talking about rare occurrences and making them seem like common events.

[summerblues]

Right, quit contradicting yourself with every new post.

Firstly let's compare two posts from you, which were a day apart:

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). 

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

So apparently I don't know I'm wrong, but I don't honestly believe in my arguments?

But there is nothing contradictory in that - it very easily can (and does) happen that a person believes they are correct yet they are fully aware that the arguments they use to support their view are wrong.

Once again - you need not look any further than at my smoking and chess examples.

Did you give those examples a serious thought? Do you understand what I mean by them?

[N2D2L]

Let's use the smoking example:

Suppose I am arguing smoking is dangerous:
-Theory: Smoking is Dangerous
-Argument: Smoking causes lung cancer

Or suppose I am arguing smoking is not dangerous:
-Theory: Smoking is not Dangerous
Argument: Smoking does not cause lung cancer

Either way, if I think my argument is wrong, how could I think my theory is right?

[summerblues]

But you could well have something like this (hypothetically):

- I believe smoking is unhealthy
- I want to argue the point in a presentation
- I go to a library and check out some papers on it
- I find a few that support my theory and a few that oppose it
- In my presentation, I make an argument using only those that support my theory and keeping silent about the other ones

Something like this may well happen - and I believe often happens - in real life.  And it fits the bill - the person believes they are correct yet they know their argument is wrong.

As an aside, I believe this scenario is in spirit somewhat similar to your original smoking example from a few months back (though I admit I do not remember it word-for-word).

[N2D2L]

That argument is not 'wrong' as in 'inaccurate' but it is not balanced.
I've never seen anyone else on the forum use arguments against their position. (Unless you argue Tenez etc. is simply right about everything, which means there aren't arguments against his position).
So why are you targeting me for this? If you want I can show examples of you not showing negatives against your opinion.

As your terminology earlier was appalling, so unclear.
I still don't understand why you said to Tenez:

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

Firstly I do honestly believe my arguments, secondly does Tenez not do what you accused me of doing? In all my years of being on tennis forum, Tenez is probably one of the best posters/ debaters I've seen, but also the one who can selectively take only evidence which suits his agenda at will.

Anyway, my postings may not be perfect, but I am logical; and atleast Im not a nasty poster

[Tenez]

Anyway, my postings may not be perfect, but I am logical; and atleast Im not a nasty poster

JS - I don't want to be unpleasant but I do not see you as being "logical". You are more of a sophist...which you could take as a compliment though you do not have many followers:

Wiki: In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others.

Sophists are those who killed Socrates. Socrates being a Logos incarnation, real master of logic.

A sophist will typically start modifying, twisting the sense of words and then use a kind of logic based on wrong definitions.

Our politicians do it best. For instance they start to call our countries "democracies" when they are anything but. They give us the right to vote every 5 years as our sole "active" part in democracies....while they have 5 years to wash our brains and convince us that we are contributing to our countries' policies when frankly we are manipulated from beginning to end. We vote every 4 or 5 years for an elite and certainly not for common people as democracy was define and implemented by the Greeks more than 2000 years ago.

All that to say that until you redefine and understand basic concepts such as talent, relative fitness and powers, you will not be able to convince me.

Also it would be good to work on the following concepts:

If A ∩ B = C it does not mean A = C or B = C even if Exceptionally they can.

[N2D2L]

Anyway, my postings may not be perfect, but I am logical; and atleast Im not a nasty poster

JS - I don't want to be unpleasant but I do not see you as being "logical". You are more of a sophist...which you could take as a compliment though you do not have many followers:

Wiki: In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others.

Sophists are those who killed Socrates. Socrates being a Logos incarnation, real master of logic.

A sophist will typically start modifying, twisting the sense of words and then use a kind of logic based on wrong definitions.

Our politicians do it best. For instance they start to call our countries "democracies" when they are anything but. They give us the right to vote every 5 years as our sole "active" part in democracies....while they have 5 years to wash our brains and convince us that we are contributing to our countries' policies when frankly we are manipulated from beginning to end. We vote every 4 or 5 years for an elite and certainly not for common people as democracy was define and implemented by the Greeks more than 2000 years ago.

All that to say that until you redefine and understand basic concepts such as talent, relative fitness and powers, you will not be able to convince me.

Also it would be good to work on the following concepts:

If A ∩ B = C it does not mean A = C or B = C even if Exceptionally they can.

I had interesting debate with a person on a forum once, and this is how it went:

-We were arguing about Rafael Nadal.
He was convinced that Nadal's uncle made Nadal change from right handed to left handed when he was seven years old.
Then, having assumed that his initial statement was correct, he indicated that it was because Toni does not care about talent, and just cares about fitness and stamina etc.

Now let's forget whether the first statement leads on to the second one, and whether the argument itself makes any sense.
I did some research, well I know, from interviews and the encyclopaedia Britannica; that this simply isn't the case. Toni did not change Nadal from a right handed player to a left handed player, but when he was 7 simply made Nadal change from a left handed double handed forehand to a left handed single handed forehand (And those of you you aren't away of the different between LH DHFH and RH DHFH, it's the arm which is at the end of the racket).
This itself is a very different change from right handed to left handed; infact the conclusions from this move could be very different: a change from double handed shot to a single handed one is not one associated with physicality, but some may even argue that a SHFH is more useful for shotmaking.
So the difference in reality of the Nadal change has different implications.

Despite learning about this fact, the poster I was debating with simply ignored it; and has continuously repeated the above assumption and false conclusion; irrelevant of the facts.
And, by coincidence, the conclusion you took from this argument Tenez, is the one you have already formed in your mind; you will simply twist and sometimes ignore any facts to ensure it fits in with your pre-held view. Changing from a double hander to single hander does not indicate physicality, and if you felt it did, I have no doubt you would be using that as the basis of your argument.

Tenez, one of us is the sophist, the other is consistent and uses logic. I would ask summerblues what he thought, but he is only interested in being nasty to the Nadal fan unfortunately- tribalism runs deep.

[noleisthebest]

Good job Miami is staring in earnest today, otherwise this "debate" would have goon to Moon and back a couple of times and noone would have noticed anything unusual about this photo:

http://www.kurir-info.rs/hit-fotka-dokovic-postao-nadal-druzio-se-sa-gusterom-i-igrao-golf-sa-troickim-clanak-1286691

Some people try and find solution to the problem, and some the opposite.

[Tenez]

Nice piece of sophism again! twisting LH with RH first to confuse us and then throwing a bit of emotional dust by accusing SB of tribalism! Beautiful! Hats off JS!
 
You do not see that all the subtle, fine and instinctive gestures by Nadal are done with his RH. His left brain had plenty more nerves going towards his right arm than his Left one. But Toni had a plan and this plan as he says himself was not to play nice like Federer or Gasquet but to play a tennis that will take them away from that kind of tennis.
 
Now you don't want to see that, it does not suit you...so no choice but being a sophist.

[N2D2L]

Nice piece of sophism again! twisting LH with RH first to confuse us and then throwing a bit of emotional dust by accusing SB of tribalism! Beautiful! Hats off JS!
 
You do not see that all the subtle, fine and instinctive gestures by Nadal are done with his RH. His left brain had plenty more nerves going towards his right arm than his Left one. But Toni had a plan and this plan as he says himself was not to play nice like Federer or Gasquet but to play a tennis that will take them away from that kind of tennis.
 
Now you don't want to see that, it does not suit you...so no choice but being a sophist.

There we go again, you are the one who ignored my points.
The only change Toni brought to Nadal's game was nothing to do with which hand Nadal played with, it was changing the forehand from double handed to single handed.
I am not here arguing that you are wrong about Nadal, even though I believe you are. I am showing how you are willing to simply twist facts to suit your pre-held beliefs.

I will repeat myself and try to make myself as clear as possible:

-You have said that Toni changed Nadal from right handed to left handed, in order to put emphasis on physicality rather than talent
-I showed that this is simply not true. The change was from a double handed FH to single handed.
-This change is not associated with increasing physicality, and instead it can be argued that single handed shots are more useful for shotmaking.
-After learning the facts (about the real change), you seemed to totally ignore them.
-You continued with a repetition of your initial inaccurate views of what happened, and these coincidentally match what your pre-held views are.
-Nevertheless I feel that if what I had pointed out had been more suitable to your already-held opinion, you would have quickly corrected your mistake; instead you ignored the facts.
-Thus, this shows that you simply take on board what you want to hear, and are willing to ignore or simply twist the reality as long as it suits or enhances your theories.

Peux-tu comprendre, Monsieur Sophist?

[summerblues]

That argument is not 'wrong' as in 'inaccurate' but it is not balanced.

In my books, if someone mentions favorable evidence in their argument and intentionally hides the not so favorable, then their argument is certainly 'wrong'.  But that is not critical for my point anyway.  I certainly hope that you realize that I could have just as easily constructed a hypothetical example where the person believes smoking is unhealthy, yet they use 'inaccurate' arguments in their presentation.

I still don't understand why you said to Tenez:

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

Because I think that Tenez believes in arguments he makes.

All people have biases, none of us are unbiased.  There are certainly areas where I think Tenez's personal biases lead him astray in his reasoning.  I am sure an impartial observer can easily spot biases in my posts, as much as I try to ignore my personal preferences in my analysis.

But, as best I can tell, Tenez honestly believes his arguments - I do not think he is deliberately hiding evidence that he is aware of.  To the extent he may appear 'dishonest', he would be dishonest with himself as much as with the others.

With you, however, I do not think that is the case - for you all tennis discussions are battles to be "won" or "lost".  And in the process, if you know of an argument that would undermine your position, you will certainly not bring it up - because you are more likely to "win" if you do not.

I obviously cannot "prove" this is what you do - but I have seen enough of your posts to feel reasonably confident about it.  I by and large like you as a poster, and that is why I said it was a shame you were - as best I can tell - doing this.  If I disliked you, I would not have said anything - which is, by the way, a reason why you should not feel unhappy that I singled you out.

Anyway, this is my last post on this topic.  Happy to agree to disagree.

[N2D2L]

OK SB, firstly I can say myself I have never knowingly either made an argument which I don't believe, or purposefully not added an argument which I do believe. Perhaps my memory fails me, but I simply can't recall an incident when I have done as you think. (Of course with the exception of my light hearted jinxing )

Because I think that Tenez believes in arguments he makes.

I still think your not phrasing this very well, it's quite misleading tbh.
Perhaps you mean to say:
'I think you believe the arguments you do say, however I think you also intentionally omit arguments you honestly believe. '
That above ^ is what you're basically saying, but the phrase 'don't honestly believe in your arguments' would indicate something different.

There are certainly areas where I think Tenez's personal biases lead him astray in his reasoning.

OK, SB; I know you said that was your last post; but do answer this (sort of) related question.

Refer to my post to Tenez at 7:10pm (GMT), and in particular the quoted section with my bullet points.
Now my argument here is not for or against what Tenez's verdict on Nadal is overall, that is for another day, but more specific than that and related to what you were saying.

-My argument here is not based on the initial factual inaccuracy, I've seen many fans mistaken with the change in Nadal's game.
-Let me ask you this question-
Tenez mistakenly thought the change was from right handed to left handed. He implicated that the change was due to Toni's emphasis on physicality rather than talent.
I pointed out, using evidence from encyclopaedia Britannica, that this is untrue. I remember me arguing this with ROTLA in late 2012, and you saying having observed the argument something along the lines that you were surprised ROTLA was arguing this despite clear evidence proving the contrary.
The reality was that Nadal's change was from DHFH to SHFH. Now this change itself is certainly not an indicator of physicality; infact the single handed shot is probably associated less with physicality and more with shotmaking. (Thus would not be useful as another piece of evidence backing up Tenez's theory).
Tenez seemed to totally ignore the evidence when I provided it to him, and later on other threads repeated the same arguments.

Onto my question, it is this: If let's say I had done the research from encyclopaedia Britannica, and I had found out that Toni actually changed Nadal from a right handed player who has a Single-Handed BH, as well as a Single-Handed FH; to a left handed player with a double handed backhand, how do you think Tenez would react?
I think, rather than ignoring (as he did with this real one), he would thank me for his research and use it as evidence- which would to be fair genuinely and inherently be backing up his theory.

What would you call that? Intellectual dishonesty? Sophism?

[Sponsored content]