Djokovic Nadal US Open 2011 - One of the all-time great finals?

by MACROS82 Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:53 am

First time poster here, so sorry if this has been discussed before! Just wondered really what people's opinions are of this match, having watched the it for the first time recently (was on holiday at the time) and was stunned by the standard from both men.
I like all the top four players and had been feeling for Nadal a bit recently until I watched the final a week ago. Although Djokovic was the victor (deservedly so) I think Nadal has to try and look back at some at the points he won (and lost!) with immense pride. Jonathan Overend summed it up saying "At times the tennis was frightening. We've seen some amazing things in this golden era for men's tennis, but several of the rallies last night hit new heights. Djokovic and Nadal traded brutal, relentless blows. The rallies were seemingly won, time and time again, only to continue sometimes for upwards of 30 strokes". I genuinely couldn't believe the standard at times and nor could the crowd by the sound of it. The noise levels during the points from the crowd must have been so distracting but both men continued to put balls back in play when it seemed impossible.
In my opinion it's right up there with Nadal Federer Wimbledon 2008 or Borg McEnroe.
What do people believe constitutes an all time great final in the pantheon of tennis matches over the years? Does it have to be 5 sets? Or can the sheer brutality (with a fair amount of finesse, shot making and guts) over 4 in this match compete?

by Guest Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:24 am

Hey Macros,

Welcome to the boards.

I'm afraid I have a very different opinion to you regarding this match.

I think it was a competitive match for 3 sets. The level of physical endurance shown by both players was amazing. The defense and retrieval was incredible.

However, in terms of offensive tennis and pure shotmaking I don't think it was a great match. The reason being is that both players had numerous opportunities in those extended rallies to end the points, if they had been more prepared to play closer to the lines, ie higher risk tennis.

Both guys are more defensive minded, Nadal in particular, and in a high stakes situation they reverted to type, playing metres behind the baseline and basically trying to outdo each other in a war of attrition, often waiting for the mistake from the opponent to end the point rather than taking the bull by the horns.

If Federer or Tsonga, for example, had been playing in that final, the majority of those rallies would have been over in half the amount of strokes. Why? because they are more offensive. In fact this could be seen in the semi final between Fed and Novak which despite going the distance still took only the same amount of time as the final which was only four sets.

I believe the quality of tennis in that semi final exceeded the quality in the final.

In terms of being one of the greatest matches ever played, I'm afraid I have to completely disagree.

by Guest Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:36 am

Just to clarify, when I say more offensive, I mean having the ability to sit on the baseline and dictate points by taking the ball early, often as a half volley. This obviously requires greater hand to eye coordination and better timing than if one were to stand 3 metres behind the baseline and chase down every ball.

Additionally offensive tennis requires going for more winners and hitting closer to the lines, using all court prowess, such as shortening the points by coming to the net and hitting volley winners.

It also means hitting flatter strokes with less topspin to generate greater pace but reducing the net clearance which of course reduces your margin for error.

The final had very little of this, except in the last set where Djokovic was forced to play more offensively due to the injury he was carrying. He had to shorten the rallies and thus was more aggressive.

Ultimately, the final was an incredible display of physicality from both players but in terms of pure tennis ability, it wasn't great. You may have noticed that all the points went in the same direction, ie long extended, brutal rallies with very little subtlety.

With regards to this being a golden era for men's tennis, I don't believe this for one minute. The top three are strong (the jury is still out on Murray) but one of them (Fed) is half the player he used to be.

After the top three, the rest of the field is no better or worse than it has ever been. Evidence of this can be seen by the following players: Youzhny, Ferrer, Melzer, Roddick, Fish, Davydenko and of course Federer, all of whom are 29/30 yrs old and have been in the top 10 in the last 18 months.

The so-called 'golden era' concept is just media hype and hyperbole.

ghost

emancipator

by **laverfan** Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:08 am

It does not have to be a five-setter, a three-setter in Bo5 match can also be a fascinating match.

Recent one is Djokovic-Federer AO 2011.

The Djokovic-Murray Rome 2011 was a great match as well.

The Tsonga-Dimitrov @ W 2011 was a good match.

Nadal-Isner @ FO 2011 (a five-setter though).

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:50 pm

MACROS82 wrote:First time poster here, so sorry if this has been discussed before! Just wondered really what people's opinions are of this match, having watched the it for the first time recently (was on holiday at the time) and was stunned by the standard from both men.

You were stunned by what exactly? Can you elaborate your points? What standard of measurement are you talking about?

MACROS82 wrote: I like all the top four players and had been feeling for Nadal a bit recently until I watched the final a week ago. Although Djokovic was the victor (deservedly so) I think Nadal has to try and look back at some at the points he won (and lost!) with immense pride.

Is it so? Then I think all the players in almost all the matches will need to look back at some points that they won (and lost!) with immense pride. The whole ATP will be overwhelmed with pride. There is no player in the whole ATP circuit completely incapable of playing even 'some' great points which they can look back with immense pride. If a player keeps so low expectations with themselves that even 'some' good points will make them feel proud, then.. I have nothing much to say.

MACROS82 wrote: Jonathan Overend summed it up saying "At times the tennis was frightening. We've seen some amazing things in this golden era for men's tennis, but several of the rallies last night hit new heights. Djokovic and Nadal traded brutal, relentless blows. The rallies were seemingly won, time and time again, only to continue sometimes for upwards of 30 strokes".

Golden era?? I would have liked to ask Mr. Overend what is his golden era but I'm not expecting him to be reading this. So since you seem to agree with him, can you please define what is a golden era and how the current era qualifies for it? Tennis was frightening?? How goes that?? I watch the whole match, live at home but there was hardly anything like frightening. Just because of long rallys?? Now watch this clip. The tennis in this clip is also frightening. The rally is 57 shots, can you imagine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuFXqFifRew .

MACROS82 wrote: I genuinely couldn't believe the standard at times and nor could the crowd by the sound of it. The noise levels during the points from the crowd must have been so distracting but both men continued to put balls back in play when it seemed impossible.

Again what is this standard? Putting balls back in play when it seemed impossible? Can you elaborate it please.

MACROS82 wrote: In my opinion it's right up there with Nadal Federer Wimbledon 2008 or Borg McEnroe.
What do people believe constitutes an all time great final in the pantheon of tennis matches over the years? Does it have to be 5 sets? Or can the sheer brutality (with a fair amount of finesse, shot making and guts) over 4 in this match compete?

Which year and what match between Borg McEnroe?? Up there with wimbledon 2008 finals? In what way?? Do you enjoy 'brutality' in tennis? I want to know exactly you enjoy in tennis? Also can you tell me which year did you start watching tennis seriously?

by Tenez Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:20 pm

It's easy to see what's happening in tennis nowadays. People at large find it easier to appreciate long rallies exhibiting obvious physical prowess than aa flat shbh requiring perfect timing as well as technique but much less physical prowess.

It;s very simple. It's this simple fact that allows some to call this era "greatest" as opposed to past ones.

But that something I fear happens in all sports and art nowadays.

I am not crticising the OP. It's just so.

Rotla - I like the clip you chose. Benetteau a set and a break up before the 57 shot rally but lost the match tamely after that. Mental or physical meltdown?

by legendkillar Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:22 pm

In a word no.

While I recognise you are a first time poster, I think you are under the influence of Mr Overrand who in my opinion is a dreadful correspondent for tennis.

There are many factors as to why it wasn't a great final.

Firstly the standard of Tennis leading into the tournament was poor. This was a view shared by many who posted here during the time. Cincinatti was a poor event and as was Montreal.

Secondly the fitness of Djokovic was in question in every match played and also as a champion in the making was not really putting together any dominant performances and neither was Nadal. Djokovic struggled against both Dolgopolov and Federer.

Thirdly Djokovic wasn't playing near the standard he was prior to Wimbledon. For me that was when he was playing his best and post Wimbledon hasn't been totally convincing. The best performance at the US Open was Federer against Monaco. Similar to the French Open when Federer crushing Djokovic was the best match.

It was an average final at best and due to the delays very much relied on whol had the most in the tank. Nadal's serve eluded him after the 1st set.

by LuvSports! Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:31 pm

wow Rotla - take a chill pill he's new it is just a matter of opinion

by **laverfan** Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:58 pm

The OP should notice that personal opinions in the responses so far, colour what constitutes a good match.

If you liked the match, that is good to know. You should enjoy tennis as a spectator and a player based on your personal preferences.

Keep posting and enjoy the various opinions on a tennis forum.

by legendkillar Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:03 pm

LuvSports! wrote:wow Rotla - take a chill pill he's new it is just a matter of opinion

Now as I see, I didn't really attack any poster.

Who do you think came up with that gem on another thread? Whistle

by legendkillar Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

LF,

I wouldn't have gone as far to call the match great, but then it wasn't bad given that the finalists were able to generate a match given the delays in the schedule.

I think I could agree it was a good match. Hug

by bogbrush Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:21 pm

It was great to see Nadal hoist on his own petard, but otherwise it was lacking in inspirational tennis.

Unless you love retrieving, in which case get a Spaniel.

by **laverfan** Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:32 pm

legendkillar wrote:LF,

I wouldn't have gone as far to call the match great, but then it wasn't bad given that the finalists were able to generate a match given the delays in the schedule.

I think I could agree it was a good match.

Happy to see a new poster join 606v2. It is good to see 'young'(?) blood join a group of veterans and have opinions.

Very much like Tennis as a sport, unless there are varying opinions, debate is impossible. Wink

I wonder if the Star Trek Borg ever have a debate? Laugh

Like BBs idea of Spaniels, but what happens if there are two Spaniels in field, but no one to throw the ball. Erm

by LuvSports! Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:08 am

laver - when you say 'young blood join a group of veterans' does that mean everyone on here is like 40+ i mean im 19 does that mean as we arent seasoned veterans im guessing like yourself that we don't know as much?

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:16 am

LuvSports! wrote:laver - when you say 'young blood join a group of veterans' does that mean everyone on here is like 40+ i mean im 19 does that mean as we arent seasoned veterans im guessing like yourself that we don't know as much?

Young blood from the standpoint of joining a forum, not a poster's age. Wink

A 19 yo or a 90 yo, the age is not the only factor. In fact, youth may have an advantage, that older posters may not have, of current experiences.

Age is more an indicator of experience from the past, but not necessarily of knowledge. Age is also a negative, that posters may be too intransigent in their viewpoints.

Please do not consider this age discrimination, in any way. Smile

by wow Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:03 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T8SVsExV6A

I think this was one of the all time great semi finals Smile

by LuvSports! Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:27 am

haha nice answer laver dont worry i dont just interesting to see how old people are on here

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:59 am

LuvSports! wrote:haha nice answer laver dont worry i dont just interesting to see how old people are on here

If this helps in any way, you may want to take a look at https://www.606v2.com/t16834-goat-how-about-the-best-you-have-seen-play-the-game

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:28 am

LuvSports! wrote:wow Rotla - take a chill pill he's new it is just a matter of opinion

He is new??? So what should I do, celebrate his birth?? I just asked some details. Thats it. I just asked him to elaborate his points, explain why he thinks like that, what essentially he enjoys in tennis. If he thinks the USopen 2011 was among the greatest matches played ever, then I think he need to put down better points as to why he thinks so. This is called reasoning. If the only points he has is "stunned by the standard from both men", Overend's words the I'm not sure I'll take him as a serious tennis fan. If he is a serious tennis fan, he needs to look like one as well. If he is not, its fine as well. I just asked asked him to explain his points.

There are lots of people with only passing interesting in tennis. For little bit of fun they even join a tennis forum, go on writing articles without any seriousness to know more about it or get into a discussion or debate. Raise a random question that pops up in the mind. They won't even bother to backup their points. They won't take the trouble to do any research prior to posting. Or worse don't even put their own views in their own articles. Then suddenly disappear. Do I have to give examples? Not needed. Can you tell me why is Macros82 not replying here? Why can't he take trouble of following up his own thread?

I have nothing against these people either. I myself not very old on 606v2 (606 yes relatively old). But as I've stated before as well. I don't like people bringing opinions without reasoning. being new is no excuse for this. Being a naive is.

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:44 am

Coming from someone that can't reason with anyone that provides reasoning and actual research.

by Danny_1982 Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:00 am

Macros82 - I would not go as far as 'one of the all time great finals' but I thought the third set was superb entertainment. As some have pointed out (in one case a little aggressively it has to be said) it was controlled aggression rather than lights out going for the lines tennis, but it depends on your personal taste really as to what defines great tennis or a great match.

Some have mentioned how different it would have been if Tsonga had been in the final... But that doesn't mean it would have been better. Is someone who goes for broke and blasts winners more entertaining than a mixture of controlled aggression and attritional tennis? Matter of opinion surely.

Murray gets criticised on here for not playing as aggressive as he could given the weapons he has, and whilst I agree to an extent I do like watching different spins and paces. I like longer points sometimes, someone who out thinks his opponent or out manoeuvres them.

I thought the level was tremendous in the third set of the US final. Yes a lot of it was about great retrieval, but I personally didn't think it was as defensive as some on here make out. Djokovic in particular played with consistently great length.

Oh, and welcome to the forum... Smile

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:15 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I don't like people bringing opinions without reasoning. being new is no excuse for this. Being a naive is.

Some people join forums to learn about a sport. No one has Tennis in their DNA, most of it is acquired over a lifetime. Reason is not always a basis for an opinion, but taste can be, or aesthetics, or other illogical/irrational factors. Condescension is a debate killer, and can be destructive in the learning process. Wink

Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder.

by luciusmann Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:25 am

Wise words Laverfan, always a pleasure to read your well reasoned posts!

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:34 am

LF you are wasting such logic with someone who does not desire to acquire or use it.

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:35 am

luciusmann wrote:Wise words Laverfan, always a pleasure to read your well reasoned posts!

and

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:40 am

legendkillar wrote:LF you are wasting such logic with someone who does not desire to acquire or use it.

I am eternally optimistic. Wink

by Tenez Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:50 am

legendkillar wrote:LF you are wasting such logic with someone who does not desire to acquire or use it.

I am not sure why you keep having a go at rotla. I probably missed some threads where you both had an argument but it seems there is clearly some history there. Rotla knows a lot about tennis. He has written great posts. He might express them in a very "frank way" but he makes lots of sense to me and it's good to have different views and styles. His views have substance, whether we like them or not.

In short, he is asking the OP why he liked that final so much. I don;t think there was anything mean about it so I don't understand some of the reaction there.

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:59 am

Tenez wrote:I don;t think there was anything mean about it so I don't understand some of the reaction there.
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:What standard of measurement are you talking about?
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:He is new??? So what should I do, celebrate his birth??

Standards of 'measurement'?

Erm

Celebrate his birth? - Is this substantial and constructive?

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:06 am

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:LF you are wasting such logic with someone who does not desire to acquire or use it.

I am not sure why you keep having a go at rotla. I probably missed some threads where you both had an argument but it seems there is clearly some history there. Rotla knows a lot about tennis. He has written great posts. He might express them in a very "frank way" but he makes lots of sense to me and it's good to have different views and styles. His views have substance, whether we like them or not.

In short, he is asking the OP why he liked that final so much. I don;t think there was anything mean about it so I don't understand some of the reaction there.

Someone who 'pretends' to have reason and is too dismissive of others to me deserves no thought quite frankily.

I don't think he/she is knowledgable. Is far too interested in criticising others that when questioned of their own views moves the goalposts galore.

When he/she has been asked questions, they are either dismissed or he/she rambles on about something different.

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:39 am

Tenez wrote:I am not sure why you keep having a go at rotla.

RaidersOTLA can defend his/her viewpoints/opinions, correct? Wink

We should welcome everyone without prejudice, which includes new and old posters, alike, on 606v2. thumbsup

by banbrotam Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:24 am

laverfan wrote:The OP should notice that personal opinions in the responses so far, colour what constitutes a good match.

If you liked the match, that is good to know. You should enjoy tennis as a spectator and a player based on your personal preferences.

Keep posting and enjoy the various opinions on a tennis forum.

To read some of the comments on here, you'd think our new poster had commited treason. The poor lamb has probably written his last article, thanks to the wonderful snob fans who permeate these boards

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:35 am

Tenez, let me cast your mind back.

Do you remember when we had the discussion about MTO's? I am sure you do. When you suggested a Tariff for MTO's did LF criticise it? No. Did she criticise your view on tennis? No. So this leads to the thread on where she asked simply should a rule be changed? It was an opinion. Yet yourself and ROTLA saw fit to criticise her views as a poster and questioned her merits. This was utterly disgusting conduct. She has never criticised you, your views or that of ROTLA. Both of your behaviour was 'bullying' in my view.

ROTLA demands respect, but has lost mine completely.

And I have to say that you went down in my estimation too.

by Tenez Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:39 am

legendkillar wrote:Tenez, let me cast your mind back.

Do you remember when we had the discussion about MTO's? I am sure you do. When you suggested a Tariff for MTO's did LF criticise it? No. Did she criticise your view on tennis? No. So this leads to the thread on where she asked simply should a rule be changed? It was an opinion. Yet yourself and ROTLA saw fit to criticise her views as a poster and questioned her merits. This was utterly disgusting conduct. She has never criticised you, your views or that of ROTLA. Both of your behaviour was 'bullying' in my view.

ROTLA demands respect, but has lost mine completely.

And I have to say that you went down in my estimation too.

by Guest Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:40 am

Can we try to keep on topic guys. Thanks.

by icecold Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:44 am

What do people believe constitutes an all time great final in the pantheon of tennis matches over the years? Does it have to be 5 sets? Or can the sheer brutality (with a fair amount of finesse, shot making and guts) over 4 in this match compete?

Fiercely contested rallies and drama. The US Open 2011 had some of the most dramatic rallies that I have ever seen with both players absolutely exceptional in attack and defence. A definite classic.

Probably the best match in terms of the sustained quality of tennis I have ever seen was the AO Final 2009 but the USO 2011 is right up there.

On the women's side I would say V Williams vs Davenport Wimbledon 2005 which was an incredible match that I always enjoy seeing again or Graf vs Seles FO 1992.

Welcome to the board, Marcos.

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:47 am

banbrotam wrote:The poor lamb has probably written his last article

I hope that is not the case. Sad

If a customer walked into a restaurant and some of the waiters talked in tones similar to some posts here, I am pretty certain the customer would never come back, but I will keep hoping.

Hope you do not get disheartened and continue posting. Hug

by banbrotam Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:54 am

laverfan wrote:
banbrotam wrote:The poor lamb has probably written his last article

I hope that is not the case.

If a customer walked into a restaurant and some of the waiters talked in tones similar to some posts here, I am pretty certain the customer would never come back, but I will keep hoping.

Hope you do not get disheartened and continue posting.

Dunno if you were asking me, in your last comment - but I can assure you at nearly 50 and having a high pressured Sales job for the last 20 years and having visited several colleries in the South Yorkshire area, as a black man with ensuing 'comments' ("smile, otherwise we can't see you, because it's too black"!!!) it will take a lot more than Tenez and Raiders to dent my enthusiasm

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:59 am

banbrotam wrote:
laverfan wrote:
banbrotam wrote:The poor lamb has probably written his last article

I hope that is not the case.

If a customer walked into a restaurant and some of the waiters talked in tones similar to some posts here, I am pretty certain the customer would never come back, but I will keep hoping.

Hope you do not get disheartened and continue posting.

Dunno if you were asking me, in your last comment - but I can assure you at nearly 50 and having a high pressured Sales job for the last 20 years and having visited several colleries in the South Yorkshire area, as a black man with ensuing 'comments' ("smile, otherwise we can't see you, because it's too black"!!!) it will take a lot more than Tenez and Raiders to dent my enthusiasm

I am absolutely thrilled to hear your enthusiasm is not waning in any way. If I can apologize on someone's behalf, you have my apologies.

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:30 am

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Tenez, let me cast your mind back.

Do you remember when we had the discussion about MTO's? I am sure you do. When you suggested a Tariff for MTO's did LF criticise it? No. Did she criticise your view on tennis? No. So this leads to the thread on where she asked simply should a rule be changed? It was an opinion. Yet yourself and ROTLA saw fit to criticise her views as a poster and questioned her merits. This was utterly disgusting conduct. She has never criticised you, your views or that of ROTLA. Both of your behaviour was 'bullying' in my view.

ROTLA demands respect, but has lost mine completely.

And I have to say that you went down in my estimation too.

The thing is Tenez I admit I sometimes don't like the posters attitude towards you.

A lot of their frustration is what is mine, you can be a knowledgable poster when you want to be. The thing I can't quite grasp is the utter dislike for Nadal you have. It is borderline obsessive hatred. It is almost you want to discredit his entire career. It could well be that his style of play is something that angers you, I don't know. What it does do is waste energy that you could use to a much more creative debate.

All posters here granted agree that physicality and fitness have come a long way in tennis, but is not the sole factor in ones success because a certain Federer defies that logic you imply.

Take F1, I am not a fan of Michael Schumacher, I don't like the guy, yet he is the most successful driver in the sport. I can't change that and my views can't change that. Nadal was win Slams and beaten Federer. May not have done it in the fashion you admire, but he has done it.

There needs to be a line drawn under it. Apply your knowledge to other areas in the game. If fans want to praise Nadal, let them. They allow Federer to be praised in the way he deserves, I think it is only fair that Nadal is too.

by luciusmann Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:48 am

I think the tone of some posters in the last few months can come across as aggressive and a tad confrontational and like fair minded posters, I ask do we need this?

It's no secret I'm quite a fan of Federer but I've stayed clear from trashing Nadal needlessly and I wasn't a fan of when there were more Nadal fans doing similar of Fed around the French Open.

As for the USO Final 2011, I can only say I saw the highlights and it looked good. I'm not sure I'd say it was the best (but I admit, it's hard for me to judge as I didn't watch it but I am honest about it). Wimbledon '08 is by far the best for me but I did watch the whole of that match so am in a better position to comment!

by **laverfan** Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:15 am

luciusmann wrote:I think the tone of some posters in the last few months can come across as aggressive and a tad confrontational and like fair minded posters, I ask do we need this?

We do not need this at all.

luciusmann wrote:It's no secret I'm quite a fan of Federer but I've stayed clear from trashing Nadal needlessly and I wasn't a fan of when there were more Nadal fans doing similar of Fed around the French Open.

My dilemma is that I am a fan of Nadal and Federer, both. I dislike trashing either, to make the other look like a better player.

Edit: I have a lot of respect for any professional tennis player of either gender, no matter what their ranking or level.

luciusmann wrote:As for the USO Final 2011, I can only say I saw the highlights and it looked good. I'm not sure I'd say it was the best (but I admit, it's hard for me to judge as I didn't watch it but I am honest about it). Wimbledon '08 is by far the best for me but I did watch the whole of that match so am in a better position to comment!

I watched the whole match, a couple of times. Djokovic played some very controlled, aggressive tennis, and showed some amazing retrieval skills. Nadal played very well, but could not break down Djokovic. It was a good match. It may not have been to the taste of all spectators, though.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:27 pm

laverfan wrote:

Some people join forums to learn about a sport. No one has Tennis in their DNA, most of it is acquired over a lifetime. Reason is not always a basis for an opinion, but taste can be, or aesthetics, or other illogical/irrational factors. Condescension is a debate killer, and can be destructive in the learning process.

Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder.

1. I asked 2 questions already. Can you tell me why is Macros82 not replying here? Why can't he take trouble of following up his own thread? I'm seeing lot of articles on 606v2 where a random question is thrown to talk about, yet the author never bothers to put his own opinion or the reason behind it. If some posters reply to them, they don't bother about it and start a whole new thread. What does it tell about how much they are interested in learning? How seriously they put their points?

2. If "Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder" is a reasoning enough for you, then this will apply to every single post here. We need no more debates at all. Nobody needs to write anything else other than "Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder and so its like this". "I'm a huge Monfils fan thats why he is the GOAT". "I saw the USopen live at the stadium, thats why its the greatest final played ever". These are the e.g. of this kind of reasoning whose sole basis is "Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder". This may be enough for you, but I chose to differ.

laverfan wrote:
banbrotam wrote:The poor lamb has probably written his last article

I hope that is not the case.

If a customer walked into a restaurant and some of the waiters talked in tones similar to some posts here, I am pretty certain the customer would never come back, but I will keep hoping.

Hope you do not get disheartened and continue posting.

I don't think discussion forums, debate portals are for weak hearts. Internet forums can be very very nasty, 606v2 is hardly anything. Read comments on Youtube. If Macros82 is getting disheartened just because I put straight fwd questions to him, then I think its in his best interest not to join any internet forum. A lot of posters don't remember how I had to deal with posters ( one in particular) here on 606v2 when I joined this forum after a break from 606. https://www.606v2.com/t12073-worst-masters-ever . Not a great welcome I would say. Also rea the comments and see how many times I missed on researching before saying anything.

Now compare this with what I said to Macros82. But still I didn't run away being disheartened. This is because 1. I am passionate about the sport. 2. I write what I believe and always "ALWAYS" mention why I think so. 3. I am interested in learning and always follow-up my posts.
4. My reasoning never constitute any examples of "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder". This is what I normally expect from other posters as well.
5. I make my points clear as they can. Some posters at times leave it for interpretations. I just ask ask them to explain. What's wrong in that. Only I'm not very soft and mushy with them.

I never thrash or criticize any poster. I just talk straight. There is never an example like this where I've criticized a poster. I agree I've exposed their denials, and I don't do it gently. Like I said internet forums are never for weak hearted. If a poster posts things which I do not agree to, I think I have the right to put my point even if its against his/her. People can have their opinion, I just ask them why they have it. My opinions are based on reasoning which I can always explain. If a poster's reasoning are examples of " "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" then for me its not enough.

"beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" is no reasoning for me. In fact its no reasoning at all, its more like an excuse for having no reasoning. If I express my clear straight opinion on this kind of reasoning, I can't be branded as criticizing him/her for nothing.

Lots of people exhibit complete 'fanboy' behavior. Anyone with an opinion based on ""beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder", "no matter what" is essentially a fanboy/fangirl. What else it is if not this? Lots of fans behave like this but that only they deny it and call it criticism and attacks. I never said being a fanboy/fangirl is wrong. What will it matter even if they are. They enjoy watching their player which is good for them. But the fact is no one wants to be a fanboy/fangirl.Why?? We all know why. Because a fanboy has no reasoning for his opinion. And reasoning is a very valuable trait.

I ask posters to explain their point. Make it clear, and not leave anything for interpretations. This is what I do in all my posts ( including this). Most of my posts are long and I take trouble to put things clearly. Nothing wrong in expecting it even from others.

I've never "NEVER" posted anything without reasons behind it. If someone thinks otherwise, kindly bring it to my and everyone's notice. I don't dismiss anyone questions ever. Give examples when I dismissed any sensible question put by any poster. I'll give you examples how many time I keep asking posters to answer the questions I put and yet they continue to trash my points.

I know my tennis very well I'm very clear on anything I say. I don't need anyone's testimonial on this.

I never did any undue criticism of any player. If a player does things which I think are wrong, then this criticism is bound to happen. But fanboys totally hate to see anything but praises for their player. But it won't be certainly without the reasoning behind why I think it was wrong. It never is anything like " this player is a total crap". I not for once, did I. If someone thinks I did it, please bring it to my and everyone's notice.

I don't demand any respect. Its not something one can demand and get. No one gets respect of everyone in the world. I see some posters even saying " I don't like Fed personally". How much do they know him personally to draw out this conclusion. If a person like Fed doesn't get respect from all tennis fans, why should I hope for it. I have no intentions like this.

But I face attacks with abusive language from a poster right from the days when I joined this forum. And this poster at those times was a moderator. He keeps doing it again and again.

I choose not to talk to him now. Still I get constant attacks. Now talk about behavior.

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:50 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
laverfan wrote:

Some people join forums to learn about a sport. No one has Tennis in their DNA, most of it is acquired over a lifetime. Reason is not always a basis for an opinion, but taste can be, or aesthetics, or other illogical/irrational factors. Condescension is a debate killer, and can be destructive in the learning process.

Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder.

1. I asked 2 questions already. Can you tell me why is Macros82 not replying here? Why can't he take trouble of following up his own thread? I'm seeing lot of articles on 606v2 where a random question is thrown to talk about, yet the author never bothers to put his own opinion or the reason behind it. If some posters reply to them, they don't bother about it and start a whole new thread. What does it tell about how much they are interested in learning? How seriously they put their points?

2. If "Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder" is a reasoning enough for you, then this will apply to every single post here. We need no more debates at all. Nobody needs to write anything else other than "Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder and so its like this". "I'm a huge Monfils fan thats why he is the GOAT". "I saw the USopen live at the stadium, thats why its the greatest final played ever". These are the e.g. of this kind of reasoning whose sole basis is "Beauty lies in the eye of the Beholder". This may be enough for you, but I chose to differ.

laverfan wrote:
banbrotam wrote:The poor lamb has probably written his last article

I hope that is not the case.

If a customer walked into a restaurant and some of the waiters talked in tones similar to some posts here, I am pretty certain the customer would never come back, but I will keep hoping.

Hope you do not get disheartened and continue posting.

I don't think discussion forums, debate portals are for weak hearts. Internet forums can be very very nasty, 606v2 is hardly anything. Read comments on Youtube. If Macros82 is getting disheartened just because I put straight fwd questions to him, then I think its in his best interest not to join any internet forum. A lot of posters don't remember how I had to deal with posters ( one in particular) here on 606v2 when I joined this forum after a break from 606. https://www.606v2.com/t12073-worst-masters-ever . Not a great welcome I would say. Also rea the comments and see how many times I missed on researching before saying anything.

Now compare this with what I said to Macros82. But still I didn't run away being disheartened. This is because 1. I am passionate about the sport. 2. I write what I believe and always "ALWAYS" mention why I think so. 3. I am interested in learning and always follow-up my posts.
4. My reasoning never constitute any examples of "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder". This is what I normally expect from other posters as well.
5. I make my points clear as they can. Some posters at times leave it for interpretations. I just ask ask them to explain. What's wrong in that. Only I'm not very soft and mushy with them.

I never thrash or criticize any poster. I just talk straight. There is never an example like this where I've criticized a poster. I agree I've exposed their denials, and I don't do it gently. Like I said internet forums are never for weak hearted. If a poster posts things which I do not agree to, I think I have the right to put my point even if its against his/her. People can have their opinion, I just ask them why they have it. My opinions are based on reasoning which I can always explain. If a poster's reasoning are examples of " "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" then for me its not enough.

"beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" is no reasoning for me. In fact its no reasoning at all, its more like an excuse for having no reasoning. If I express my clear straight opinion on this kind of reasoning, I can't be branded as criticizing him/her for nothing.

Lots of people exhibit complete 'fanboy' behavior. Anyone with an opinion based on ""beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder", "no matter what" is essentially a fanboy/fangirl. What else it is if not this? Lots of fans behave like this but that only they deny it and call it criticism and attacks. I never said being a fanboy/fangirl is wrong. What will it matter even if they are. They enjoy watching their player which is good for them. But the fact is no one wants to be a fanboy/fangirl.Why?? We all know why. Because a fanboy has no reasoning for his opinion. And reasoning is a very valuable trait.

I ask posters to explain their point. Make it clear, and not leave anything for interpretations. This is what I do in all my posts ( including this). Most of my posts are long and I take trouble to put things clearly. Nothing wrong in expecting it even from others.

I've never "NEVER" posted anything without reasons behind it. If someone thinks otherwise, kindly bring it to my and everyone's notice. I don't dismiss anyone questions ever. Give examples when I dismissed any sensible question put by any poster. I'll give you examples how many time I keep asking posters to answer the questions I put and yet they continue to trash my points.

I know my tennis very well I'm very clear on anything I say. I don't need anyone's testimonial on this.

I never did any undue criticism of any player. If a player does things which I think are wrong, then this criticism is bound to happen. But fanboys totally hate to see anything but praises for their player. But it won't be certainly without the reasoning behind why I think it was wrong. It never is anything like " this player is a total crap". I not for once, did I. If someone thinks I did it, please bring it to my and everyone's notice.

I don't demand any respect. Its not something one can demand and get. No one gets respect of everyone in the world. I see some posters even saying " I don't like Fed personally". How much do they know him personally to draw out this conclusion. If a person like Fed doesn't get respect from all tennis fans, why should I hope for it. I have no intentions like this.

But I face attacks with abusive language from a poster right from the days when I joined this forum. And this poster at those times was a moderator. He keeps doing it again and again.

I choose not to talk to him now. Still I get constant attacks. Now talk about behavior.

So tell me why you feel it is ok to 'label' posters???

All because they have a favourite player? Does that make LF a fangirl because she likes Laver?

Labels are a pathetic excuse not treat posters as individuals.

You come on here and talk about 'exposing' denials, yet when your's are exposed you either:

1 - Change the subject entirely or move the 'goalposts' from the subject at hand.

2 - Go on the attack and further criticise the poster's view and knowledge for exposing it.

So you want to talk about debates and all you do is cherry pick ones you deem 'weak' or lacking in content and then pursue to 'dismantle' their beliefs. I am sorry but that is the work of a mentally 'weak' individual.

I have exposed your views and yet all it is met with is 'denial'

I have seen posters of your 'ilk' before come and go, so don't try painting this 'victim' picture you keep trying to portray because it won't wash with me.

Remember your Murray number 3 thread and how you asked what people thought and then it turned into a 'Murray is contradictive and talking crap' bashing thread all started by whom? Yourself!!!!!

So you talk about people not knowing Federer personally and yet you criticise Murray 'personally'? Get a grip!!

So you know Murray all by one or two press cuttings. Genius. Maybe you can tell me this week's winning lottery numbers?

They say Imitation is a form of flattery and yet if you are trying to 'portray' a neutral poster then I am insulted.

by bogbrush Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:10 pm

When I have a dispute with another poster I just destroy his position with flawless logic until he accepts the error of his ways. Always works.

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:21 pm

Why does it need to be 'dispute'? Right away you are taking an aggressive stance.

Debate yes. Least that uses logic.

I think compromise is missing. Some do accept all viewpoints whether they agree or not.

But there is a pattern when you guarantee that a poster guns for the other.

There isn't need for 'destroying'

I prefer the Clough method.

'We sit down and talk things through and then agree I am right'

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:23 pm

legendkillar wrote:
When he/she has been asked questions, they are either dismissed or he/she rambles on about something different.

My first point here on this thread had 2 questions posted since yesterday which no one answered. The first time I posted on 606v2 I had put many questions. https://www.606v2.com/t12073p100-worst-masters-ever . I repeatedly asked to answer those. How many were answered. How many were called trash and crap and dismissed by whom?

legendkillar wrote:
So tell me why you feel it is ok to 'label' posters???

All because they have a favourite player?

I don't want to label anyone. What is my fault when they themselves chose to be labelled by showing fanboy/fangirl traits. This is indirectly labeling themselves. People's love for their favorite player is sometime so deep that they don't see any reasoning for liking them. Their only reasoning is based on "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder". Its not my fault that they chose this reasoning as their basis for liking their favorite player. Even I have some favourite players. But my reasoning is not based on fanboy/fangirl lines like "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder". I can take criticism for my favorite players every time they do wrong. I don't have any "no matter what" kind of logic.

legendkillar wrote: Does that make LF a fangirl because she likes Laver?

No, liking is fine. I had no problems ever with liking. But if there is debate about GOAT and if she put Laver for it and her reasons are like " Laver is GOAT because he is my favourite player", "he is the GOAT no matter what", "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and hence my GOAT is Laver" etc etc. then she will have to be a fangirl. If there is a debate about Laver's lack of success in the year 1963 immediately in the following year after his calender slam and she say "You talk crap, 1963 doesn't matter. Laver is GOAT.. because he has a calender slam that no other player has", then bring out a list of what all he achieved in his career, then this all is a fangirl trait.

I'm not saying she did it. Smile

People can chose their own reasoning. If their choice makes them a fanboy/fangirl then its not my fault.

legendkillar wrote: Labels are a pathetic excuse not treat posters as individuals.

"Murray hater", "Nadal hater" are also labels. I don't have to give examples who all and how many times posters use these labels for other posters.

legendkillar wrote: I am sorry but that is the work of a mentally 'weak' individual.

This is also a label. This is a personal abuse calling someone mentally weak. Oh I if I start looking I'll have 1000s of abuses posted by you on me.

legendkillar wrote:You come on here and talk about 'exposing' denials, yet when your's are exposed you either:

1 - Change the subject entirely or move the 'goalposts' from the subject at hand.

2 - Go on the attack and further criticise the poster's view and knowledge for exposing it.

Huh.. look whats here. Shocked

1. What is the Original Post here on this tread very thread? Is this about raiders_of_the_lost_ark? I just wanted the new guy to explain the reasons for his views on USopen final 2011. Who completely turned it into a raiders-bashing-thread?

https://www.606v2.com/t16459-where-are-the-moderators-now

Who turned this thread into from being a lack of moderation on posts recently to chicken-eggs thread?

https://www.606v2.com/t16671-is-nadal-the-weakest-of-the-10-slam-winners

Who is trying to turn it into a Nadal-Fed h2h thread?

2. Attacks? My first post on 606v2 itself says who is attacking me constantly. I asked him not to use abusive language yet he never stops. Who is constantly trying to always have a go at me when I don't even reply to him?

And how many times I've shown any attack on this poster. I don't even reply to him normally.

Criticize views and knowledge? Read below please.

legendkiller wrote:I don't think he/she is knowledgable.

legendkiller wrote: Remember your Murray number 3 thread and how you asked what people thought and then it turned into a 'Murray is contradictive and talking crap' bashing thread all started by whom? Yourself!!!!!

https://www.606v2.com/t15173-murray-targets-top-3-finish-to-year

Where did I say Murray is talking crap? I never use such language. I explained why I thought Murray's aim for #3 now shows contradictory and opportunistic decision to me. I didn't trash or bash Murray. Anything against Murray isn't necessarily bashing?

legendkiller wrote:I have exposed your views and yet all it is met with is 'denial'

.

If anything you've exposed, its just about yourself. Your own hatred for a poster, your own aims to attack and abuse him, your own level of manners to talk in a discussion, your own incompetence to be a moderator of a tennis forum. In all these month you have exposed nothing but yourself. Thats why I stopped replying to you.

This forum isn't getting any better even when moderators who preach about respecting what you have until its gone, yet they themselves turn a thread to bring out use of abusive behavior into a joke. This forum is getting no better for me. I've been facing attacks and abuse since the day I joined this forum. Now threads are being hijacked to bash me. There is only so much I would want to take.

Thank you all the good posters. Tenez, emancipator, JM, BB, CC, calder, laverfan, lydian lucius, banbro and most of the others. Thank you for the great times.

-Raiders_of_the_lost_ark
Very Happy

by Tenez Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:40 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:This forum isn't getting any ...

Don't worry, it's gonna get better when proper tennis resumes..with the next tms, Paris on a fast surface!....

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:41 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
When he/she has been asked questions, they are either dismissed or he/she rambles on about something different.

My first point here on this thread had 2 questions posted since yesterday which no one answered. The first time I posted on 606v2 I had put many questions. https://www.606v2.com/t12073p100-worst-masters-ever . I repeatedly asked to answer those. How many were answered. How many were called trash and crap and dismissed by whom?

So when I provided 'valid' points to the argument of how Nalbandian was not better than Murray, you got peeved about 'fans' and 'neutral' tennis fans used 2008 US Semi-Final as an example and you lashed them for it and then proceeded to use a match to demonstrate Nalbandian's ability from 6 years? So tell me what's the difference or is your nickname double standards??

legendkillar wrote:
So tell me why you feel it is ok to 'label' posters???

All because they have a favourite player?

I don't want to label anyone. What is my fault when they themselves chose to be labelled by showing fanboy/fangirl traits. This is indirectly labeling themselves. People's love for their favorite player is sometime so deep that they don't see any reasoning for liking them. Their only reasoning is based on "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder". Its not my fault that they chose this reasoning as their basis for liking their favorite player. Even I have some favourite players. But my reasoning is not based on fanboy/fangirl lines like "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder". I can take criticism for my favorite players every time they do wrong. I don't have any "no matter what" kind of logic.

Again your not answering the question. This is you assigning blame elsewhere and not taking responsibility for what is 'labelling' by you. Peter Mandelson would be impressed with your spin.

legendkillar wrote: Does that make LF a fangirl because she likes Laver?

No, liking is fine. I had no problems ever with liking. But if there is debate about GOAT and if she put Laver for it and her reasons are like " Laver is GOAT because he is my favourite player", "he is the GOAT no matter what", "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and hence my GOAT is Laver" etc etc. then she will have to be a fangirl. If there is a debate about Laver's lack of success in the year 1963 immediately in the following year after his calender slam and she say "You talk crap, 1963 doesn't matter. Laver is GOAT.. because he has a calender slam that no other player has", then bring out a list of what all he achieved in his career, then this all is a fangirl trait.

I'm not saying she did it.

People can chose their own reasoning. If their choice makes them a fanboy/fangirl then its not my fault.

Again show me a post where someone has said 'such and such' is the best ever because I like them? I remember CC being called a 'fanboy' by yourself. So accomplishments have no standards in the base of an argument unless your Federer? Gee Whizzz.

legendkillar wrote: Labels are a pathetic excuse not treat posters as individuals.

"Murray hater", "Nadal hater" are also labels. I don't have to give examples who all and how many times posters use these labels for other posters.

When have I said I don't label posters?

legendkillar wrote: I am sorry but that is the work of a mentally 'weak' individual.

This is also a label. This is a personal abuse calling someone mentally weak. Oh I if I start looking I'll have 1000s of abuses posted by you on me.

I have not denied any abuse or labelling. You can call me what you like, or anyone here for that matter.

legendkillar wrote:You come on here and talk about 'exposing' denials, yet when your's are exposed you either:

1 - Change the subject entirely or move the 'goalposts' from the subject at hand.

2 - Go on the attack and further criticise the poster's view and knowledge for exposing it.

Huh.. look whats here.

1. What is the Original Post here on this tread very thread? Is this about raiders_of_the_lost_ark? I just wanted the new guy to explain the reasons for his views on USopen final 2011. Who completely turned it into a raiders-bashing-thread?

So again your not owning up to doing something which I stated about a different thread. Like I said I am not denying any of the claims you make. You like to deflect. Your showing yourself up here a treat.

https://www.606v2.com/t16459-where-are-the-moderators-now

Who turned this thread into from being a lack of moderation on posts recently to chicken-eggs thread?

Did my first post mention chicken?

https://www.606v2.com/t16671-is-nadal-the-weakest-of-the-10-slam-winners

Who is trying to turn it into a Nadal-Fed h2h thread?

2. Attacks? My first post on 606v2 itself says who is attacking me constantly. I asked him not to use abusive language yet he never stops. Who is constantly trying to always have a go at me when I don't even reply to him?

And how many times I've shown any attack on this poster. I don't even reply to him normally.

Criticize views and knowledge? Read below please.

legendkiller wrote:I don't think he/she is knowledgable.

legendkiller wrote: Remember your Murray number 3 thread and how you asked what people thought and then it turned into a 'Murray is contradictive and talking crap' bashing thread all started by whom? Yourself!!!!!

https://www.606v2.com/t15173-murray-targets-top-3-finish-to-year

Where did I say Murray is talking crap? I never use such language. I explained why I thought Murray's aim for #3 now shows contradictory and opportunistic decision to me. I didn't trash or bash Murray. Anything against Murray isn't necessarily bashing?

But I again like I posted, you question how people know nothing about Federer personally, yet you feel inclined to make a personal opinion on Murray. Double Standards?

legendkiller wrote:I have exposed your views and yet all it is met with is 'denial'
.

If anything you've exposed, its just about yourself. Your own hatred for a poster, your own aims to attack and abuse him, your own level of manners to talk in a discussion, your own incompetence to be a moderator of a tennis forum. In all these month you have exposed nothing but yourself. Thats why I stopped replying to you.

This forum isn't getting any better even when moderators who preach about respecting what you have until its gone, yet they themselves turn a thread to bring out use of abusive behavior into a joke. This forum is getting no better for me. I've been facing attacks and abuse since the day I joined this forum. Now threads are being hijacked to bash me. There is only so much I would want to take.

Thank you all the good posters. Tenez, emancipator, JM, BB, CC, calder, laverfan, lydian lucius, banbro and most of the others. Thank you for the great times.

Do you want a tissue to wipe the crap from your lips?

Don't let the door hit you on the backside on the way out

-Raiders_of_the_lost_ark

by bogbrush Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:27 pm

legendkillar wrote:Why does it need to be 'dispute'? Right away you are taking an aggressive stance.

Debate yes. Least that uses logic.

I think compromise is missing. Some do accept all viewpoints whether they agree or not.

But there is a pattern when you guarantee that a poster guns for the other.

There isn't need for 'destroying'

I prefer the Clough method.

'We sit down and talk things through and then agree I am right'

lk, I was being ironic to point out that this thread is really boring and silly. If anyone has an argument settle it, whittering on about how people can be naughty is stupid.

That that point of view is correct and anyone disagreeing will be put straight. Wink

by legendkillar Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:33 pm

bogbrush wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Why does it need to be 'dispute'? Right away you are taking an aggressive stance.

Debate yes. Least that uses logic.

I think compromise is missing. Some do accept all viewpoints whether they agree or not.

But there is a pattern when you guarantee that a poster guns for the other.

There isn't need for 'destroying'

I prefer the Clough method.

'We sit down and talk things through and then agree I am right'

lk, I was being ironic to point out that this thread is really boring and silly. If anyone has an argument settle it, whittering on about how people can be naughty is stupid.

That that point of view is correct and anyone disagreeing will be put straight.

I concur

by Sponsored content