Rafa v The Hypocrites

First topic message reminder :

"Is there anyone left still buying the 'humble champion' act?" Quips one of our regular contributors, when talking about the much maligned Nadal. Worryingly this is from one of our more cerebral members - who can't even see the irony in that statement

It's great to see that the magnificent hypocrisy on these boards, but I think it's time it was challenged

When (admittedly in the past) Roger has actually moaned about players (and usually when they've beaten him) this was OK. "Roger giving good advise" was one comment "At least Roger talks honestly in press conferences rather than pretending he doesn't understand the questions, like a certain Spaniard" was the other (I paraphrase of course).

Even at last years O2, Roger was suggesting that his rivals need to manage their schedules better (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/8913499/ATP-World-Tour-Finals-2011-Roger-Federer-has-health-warning-for-rivals-as-he-cruises-past-Mardy-Fish.html) - in a hilarious rush of blood to the head as he pointed out how fit he was, compared to the others

Only to, er, have an injury leading up to the Australian Open )

This is of course was the cumulating of his non-support for the schedule reduction, suggested by his three rivals. Even if Roger and we disagree with a reduction (and I do too) it was amazing how anxious the great Swiss was emphasise that he totally disagreed.

Personally, I couldn't care less, both are great and McEnroe (my all time favourite) was far more 'outspoken'. That is not the issue. For instance I prefer Roger's Tennis to Rafa's any day of the week (for those who tirelessly assume that I'm some kind of Roger hater)

The issue is, why is it OK for Roger to speak his mind but not Rafa, given that they've both got enough Slams to be allowed to speak their minds?

If I am honest I am interested in the whole Rafa thing. Just seen both men's interviews and given Tiriacs position the tournament is whole mess.

If anything the players as well as the tournament have not conducted themselves with the greatest respect.

I agree - but if they had any class they'd have dealt with the situation in a better way, imvho.

They're all playing on the same (apparently crappy) surface after all.

I do implore people to have seen what Petchy said earlier:

He wants the 20/25 second rule enforced. Feels it would help curb the number of 40-45 shot rallies. Also for the time on change of ends during TB's to be enforced too. He feels the suggestion of 8 game sets is ridiculous and also that increasing the time between points would not solve the problem of reducing the times of matches that involve the baseline slugger. I thought he spoke sensibly and more importantly he put the lack of rule enforcement squarely at the ITF/ATP's door and the chair umpires too.

If all the players agree not to go over 20/25 secs between points and not play 40-45 shot rallies do you think they will change the courts back to red?

Banbro, lets be clear here, both Rafa and Fed gets stick from Tennis fans for their comments even if there is nothing serious about it. How many threads where opened in old 606 to slang Fed off for no reason?

The fact is both of them are humble and both of them have said something was not the need of the hour.

Lets either put it this way both of them are humble or neither of them is, to say Nadal is a humble warrior and Fed not is and the vice-versa is just a plain joke.

For me they have proved to be humble and talented player than their previous generation. People dont follow Roger just coz he plays tennis, some of the non-tennis fans follow him coz of the great human being he is, Fed has raised the bar both in the quality of tennis as well as sportive behaviour and Nadal , Djoko are products of it.

reckoner wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

reckoner wrote:
I'm afraid there is way too much in the way of misplaced punctuation in your posts - as I said before rather than calling me a Daily Sport reader or whatever other insult you came up with above perhaps you should concentrate on writing a bit more clearly?

Kindly don't get away from the point. Writing correctly is not my strong point - nor is it needed on message boards

It is clear this is your misunderstanding as there is a full stop.

i.e. point made - end sentence - go onto the new point

Erm you're the one that implied I got it wrong remember? "Hilariously"? And it turns out your terrible punctuation was the cause of the misunderstanding, Yet you are quite happy to throw as many insults as you could my way... tell me who is the bully again?

There was no "terrible punctuation" from me, for what you are talking about. A full stop ends a sentence. Most people then pause, before reading the next sentence - knowing full well that whilst it will be related in context to the previous one, it cannot be read as a continuation to the previous sentence. That's why we have full stops

If my abrupt summation of you being "hilarious" for not knowing the difference between a comma and a full stop is a bit too harsh - then don't be so rude in the first place

i.e. don't make your first post on a subject the following "I suppose the only way for some Murray fans to be part of the conversation is by slating Federer, rather sad really" when the person you are directing it at has already bothered to made it clear, in the last paragraph of their article (which you clearly didn't read!!) that they are not stating that

I have staff like you, that read the first line of an e-mail and then get themselves in hot water as the relevant information is on the last line!! Fortunately, your well being is not as important - but I will advise you as I advise them. Always read all the article / e-mail, take a deep breath and then reply

invisiblecoolers wrote:Banbro, lets be clear here, both Rafa and Fed gets stick from Tennis fans for their comments even if there is nothing serious about it. How many threads where opened in old 606 to slang Fed off for no reason?

The fact is both of them are humble and both of them have said something was not the need of the hour.

Lets either put it this way both of them are humble or neither of them is, to say Nadal is a humble warrior and Fed not is and the vice-versa is just a plain joke.

For me they have proved to be humble and talented player than their previous generation. People dont follow Roger just coz he plays tennis, some of the non-tennis fans follow him coz of the great human being he is, Fed has raised the bar both in the quality of tennis as well as sportive behaviour and Nadal , Djoko are products of it.

I have no issue with this and agree thoroughly. You are one of those who sticks to the Tennis or at least any personal criticism is related to the court demeanour of those players who sometimes lose it mentally and lose, i.e. Murray

No issue with this

And there is no issue with players spicing it up a bit - we will all then make judgements as fair minded people. Unfortunately there are some who are almost more political on here, than a Republican party convention!!

@BanBro

What I enjoyed in this thread is difference of opinion exchanged in cultured manner, eventhough opinions are vastly different of most posters here everybody presented it in a neat manner.

I gonna predict the upset of the tournament, i.e Del Potro to win it

The best chance for Del Boy to get his confidence back, there is a good out of everybad, let this be it.

banbrotam wrote:

reckoner wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

reckoner wrote:
I'm afraid there is way too much in the way of misplaced punctuation in your posts - as I said before rather than calling me a Daily Sport reader or whatever other insult you came up with above perhaps you should concentrate on writing a bit more clearly?

Kindly don't get away from the point. Writing correctly is not my strong point - nor is it needed on message boards

It is clear this is your misunderstanding as there is a full stop.

i.e. point made - end sentence - go onto the new point

Erm you're the one that implied I got it wrong remember? "Hilariously"? And it turns out your terrible punctuation was the cause of the misunderstanding, Yet you are quite happy to throw as many insults as you could my way... tell me who is the bully again?

There was no "terrible punctuation" from me, for what you are talking about. A full stop ends a sentence. Most people then pause, before reading the next sentence - knowing full well that whilst it will be related in context to the previous one, it cannot be read as a continuation to the previous sentence. That's why we have full stops

If my abrupt summation of you being "hilarious" for not knowing the difference between a comma and a full stop is a bit too harsh - then don't be so rude in the first place

i.e. don't make your first post on a subject the following "I suppose the only way for some Murray fans to be part of the conversation is by slating Federer, rather sad really" when the person you are directing it at has already bothered to made it clear, in the last paragraph of their article (which you clearly didn't read!!) that they are not stating that

I have staff like you, that read the first line of an e-mail and then get themselves in hot water as the relevant information is on the last line!! Fortunately, your well being is not as important - but I will advise you as I advise them. Always read all the article / e-mail, take a deep breath and then reply

I have staff like YOU who can't master the basics of writing an email and expect people to somehow understand what they mean.

I shan't bother with your tiresome posts in future, semi legible garbled messes that they are. Consider yourself blocked.

reckoner wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

reckoner wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

reckoner wrote:
I'm afraid there is way too much in the way of misplaced punctuation in your posts - as I said before rather than calling me a Daily Sport reader or whatever other insult you came up with above perhaps you should concentrate on writing a bit more clearly?

Kindly don't get away from the point. Writing correctly is not my strong point - nor is it needed on message boards

It is clear this is your misunderstanding as there is a full stop.

i.e. point made - end sentence - go onto the new point

Erm you're the one that implied I got it wrong remember? "Hilariously"? And it turns out your terrible punctuation was the cause of the misunderstanding, Yet you are quite happy to throw as many insults as you could my way... tell me who is the bully again?

There was no "terrible punctuation" from me, for what you are talking about. A full stop ends a sentence. Most people then pause, before reading the next sentence - knowing full well that whilst it will be related in context to the previous one, it cannot be read as a continuation to the previous sentence. That's why we have full stops

If my abrupt summation of you being "hilarious" for not knowing the difference between a comma and a full stop is a bit too harsh - then don't be so rude in the first place

i.e. don't make your first post on a subject the following "I suppose the only way for some Murray fans to be part of the conversation is by slating Federer, rather sad really" when the person you are directing it at has already bothered to made it clear, in the last paragraph of their article (which you clearly didn't read!!) that they are not stating that

I have staff like you, that read the first line of an e-mail and then get themselves in hot water as the relevant information is on the last line!! Fortunately, your well being is not as important - but I will advise you as I advise them. Always read all the article / e-mail, take a deep breath and then reply

I have staff like YOU who can't master the basics of writing an email and expect people to somehow understand what they mean.

I shan't bother with your triresome posts in future, semi legible garbled messes that they are. Consider yourself blocked.

Strange that, communication is seen as one of my strong points. I don't get your holier than though attitude. You start with making wrong assumptions based on either not reading an article correctly or simply not understanding it

You then fail to understand what is meant by a full stop. I mean please tell me why no-one else thinks I was attributing that quote to Fed. Or at least tell me what you think the problem is. Did you want two full stops

It isn't as though I don't apologies if I've made an obvious error - I did just that to 'lags'. No. It's obvious what's happened here, rather than have the grace to realise that you'd misread the first one you then decided to moan about first Murray fans and then their grammar. That's what's hilarious!!!!

Reckoner. It will be a pleasure not to have you respond to any of my comments

legendkillarV2 wrote:I do implore people to have seen what Petchy said earlier:

He wants the 20/25 second rule enforced. Feels it would help curb the number of 40-45 shot rallies. Also for the time on change of ends during TB's to be enforced too. He feels the suggestion of 8 game sets is ridiculous and also that increasing the time between points would not solve the problem of reducing the times of matches that involve the baseline slugger. I thought he spoke sensibly and more importantly he put the lack of rule enforcement squarely at the ITF/ATP's door and the chair umpires too.

When was that? It seems finally people are catching on.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I do implore people to have seen what Petchy said earlier:

He wants the 20/25 second rule enforced. Feels it would help curb the number of 40-45 shot rallies. Also for the time on change of ends during TB's to be enforced too. He feels the suggestion of 8 game sets is ridiculous and also that increasing the time between points would not solve the problem of reducing the times of matches that involve the baseline slugger. I thought he spoke sensibly and more importantly he put the lack of rule enforcement squarely at the ITF/ATP's door and the chair umpires too.

When was that? It seems finally people are catching on.

I'd back that too. For me both the Top 2, take a little bit too long and in the often marginal matches they have with the likes of Fed, it could make the difference. It is ridiculous, that it is not enforced

Its worst when Berdych does not shake hand to his opponent, when Wawrinka spits on the court, when Dolgopolov, Melzer and Baghdatis put those arrogant, provocative smiles on their faces…

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I do implore people to have seen what Petchy said earlier:

He wants the 20/25 second rule enforced. Feels it would help curb the number of 40-45 shot rallies. Also for the time on change of ends during TB's to be enforced too. He feels the suggestion of 8 game sets is ridiculous and also that increasing the time between points would not solve the problem of reducing the times of matches that involve the baseline slugger. I thought he spoke sensibly and more importantly he put the lack of rule enforcement squarely at the ITF/ATP's door and the chair umpires too.

When was that? It seems finally people are catching on.

It was during the break after the Delpo/Dolgo match.

It was a good piece by Petchy as they discussed the interviews of Djokovic/Nadal and also comments made by people within the tournament set up. I think the most informative part was that they had to press the court which made it more or less like a Hardcourt to accomodate the blue clay. Petchers in a sense was saying that speed wise it didn't seem effective. What also was telling was when he picked up in Djokovic's interview that the 'player who remains the fittest' will win Madrid despite the fact there were more injuries at Monte Carlo than Madrid. Also the amount of bad bounces during this year's is far less than last year's. It seems despite the criticism the blue clay has come under, there is some postitives that have come from the change.

Petchy wants to see change in the game and he felt just a simple thing like enforcing the rules of the game could make such a big difference. He is of the belief that tennis fans are turning off because of the match lengths. I feel he was spot on with most of his views.

Personally I have no issue with Nadal saying what he said about the blue clay, or Federer's comments about Murray's tactics a few years ago, or any player making excuses or trying to explain defeats.

This is top level sport, and the players are ultra competitive. Sure, some of it could be construed as some players being bad losers.... But a lot of top sportsman are bad losers, it what drives them to the success that they have.

When any of the top 4 say anything it gets analysed for hidden meanings, and fans of other players will claim it's evidence of hypocrisy or bad morals... I personally think that it's inevitable, they are competing against each other at the very top of tennis. They aren't supposed to be angels and sucking up to each other.

Sure, it's nice when a player comes out and says 'he just played better than me' but their competitive instinct is probably very tough to suppress. People make excuses for things every day in every walk of life, why do we expect tennis players to be any different? I don't.

touch(A)parabola wrote:Its worst when Berdych does not shake hand to his opponent, when Wawrinka spits on the court, when Dolgopolov, Melzer and Baghdatis put those arrogant, provocative smiles on their faces…

Wrong.. none of those things actually influence the result of a match. Besides, Nadal picking his butt between each and every point is at least as bad as any of those 'offences'.

As for the OP.

Nadal gets flack because he deserves it.

He is a serial moaner who wants all conditions to be made perfect for him and his brand of tennis.

The irony of it doesn't escape me. The guy who has broken and bended the rules throughout his career (dubious time-outs, on court coaching, extra time between points, a tirade of injury excuses - remember 'heat stroke' anyone?), who advocates changes to the tour that will only benefit the top players.. should now be allowed to moan and complain about all and sundry, without any criticism. Let's not forget, this is the guy who publicly criticised Federer for not taking a more vocal approach to endorse his (Nadal's) ill-thought out views on the tour schedule and rankings. What was Roger's response - a dignified dampening of the affair; that's maturity. Nadal needs to learn some. If he is going to make public outbursts and threaten to withdraw from tournaments, then he deserves to be called out on his opinions.

I see no double standards in any of this. If Federer, Murray or anyone else, had the same repetitive inclination to make such outbursts, on a backdrop of abusing and manipulating the rules ON COURT, then they too would be criticised - and rightly so.



emancipator

touch(A)parabola wrote:Its worst when Berdych does not shake hand to his opponent, when Wawrinka spits on the court, when Dolgopolov, Melzer and Baghdatis put those arrogant, provocative smiles on their faces…

i still have yet to agree with any point you have made so far

Why do you bring Federer into it? and everyone begins the Federer vs. Nadal nonsense again. There are more players than those two- Just becasue people don't like what Nadal said, and you disagree-- don't turn it into Federer said something in the past, so that absolves Nadal. Federer has nothig to do with Nadals good or bad sportsmanship.

have to agree with banbro on this one the media, the fans, everyone has the biggest double standard when it comes to fed and his behavior as compared to every other tennis champion. By the way generally, I feel like fed has been a very good guy and astonshing blessing for the game of tennis. But the guy does have some foibles and does have his divaish moments especially in press conferences. He has had some ungracious moments that anyone else would get called on by the media and by posters. Generally, I think we are blessed that the top guys in tennis are all pretty exemplary as far as behavior on or off the court. But for some reason Nadal can't say or do anything even remotely controversial while fed could call his opponent lucky after the signature shot of 2011 and ask "how could he play that way" on global TV and everyone just smiles it off.

I remember how rude & ungracious Federer was last year when he lost in straight sets at the Monte Carlo QFs to Melzer. He explicitly stated that many of Melzer's shots were flukey winners. That's one of many rude comments by him that I've hard but somehow the media & his fans don't seem to acknowledge this.

Fed having a good laugh about adaptability at the expense of the others.

Like a stiletto.

graf_the_greatest wrote:I remember how rude & ungracious Federer was last year when he lost in straight sets at the Monte Carlo QFs to Melzer. He explicitly stated that many of Melzer's shots were flukey winners. That's one of many rude comments by him that I've hard but somehow the media & his fans don't seem to acknowledge this.

stop placing every single federer fan into that bracket! We aren't all like that damn it!

OK, so then how do you personally feel, as a Federer fan. about his comments on Melzer at least year's MC Masters?

We're they accurate and truthful?

I don't understand what you said bogbrush.

The comments. Were they accurate and truthful?

It doesn't matter whether they were accurate or truthful, they were rude comments & not becoming of someone who is supposed to be a top tennis professional.

As a matter of fact no they weren't accurate or truthful comments & I watched the entire match.

However, what is revealing is that you haven't even acknowledged that Federer's comments were extremely impolite. Even if he was right he shouldn't have said those things.

I mean if someone is fat & you say that they are it is a truthful statement but is it the right thing to do? No, of course it isn't.

graf_the_greatest wrote:OK, so then how do you personally feel, as a Federer fan. about his comments on Melzer at least year's MC Masters?

firstly i have just watched the interview and this is what he said:

- he played well
- he thought he should of got a set
- he shanks them they stay in play
- he hits the line, he played aggressive, he did well and played the right way he supposed to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ouPkagJMQs

at which point does he say he hit loads of shanked winners???
You made it out like he was saying he was very lucky to win and thats the only way he beat me.

You said ' remember how rude & ungracious Federer was last year when he lost in straight sets at the Monte Carlo QFs to Melzer. He explicitly stated that many of Melzer's shots were flukey winners.'

so that is just not true you are just hating on federer for the sake of it.
in answer to your question if he had said something like this of course i would be against it.
I didn't like his comments post us open 2011 about novak i thought he lacked class there and didnt give novak enough credit.
He has said some rash things from time to time but you are just making this up and taking it out of context without saying what he actually said and i believe he said nothing wrong here.

He didnt allude to the fact like you said he hit flukey winners, dont lie about this stuff man whats the point.

I didn't lie. Your 3rd point '- he shanks them they stay in play' was what i was referring to. He basically said Malzer was lucky to make those winners with shanky shots.

Obviously you think his comments were perfectly fine, which proves my point. He is beyond criticism.

that is how you see it? because it seems you have a bias against feds. You have misconstrued it.
You said something different from what you said before.
'he explicity stated many of melzer's shots were flukey winners'
he did not say that at all. He basically said his shanks stayed in play not that they were then winners.
Did you ignore the rest of my comment? clearly you did as i said i thought he showed a lack of class after the novak match and in other instances, so no it doesnt prove your point he is beyond criticism.
It seems you have a vendetta against this man. perhaps you should quote, or as you have done misquote, another of his comments you feel were 'extremely impolite'

By saying that his shanky shots stayed in play or were winners the point is that it was still a rude & disrespectful comment & smacked of sour grapes. And you're right it isn't the only time he's overstepped the mark.

I don't have a 'vendetta' against Federer, or any other player for that matter. I just don't like bad manners.

Why demonise me just because I don't agree with you?

graf_the_greatest wrote:I didn't lie. Your 3rd point '- he shanks them they stay in play' was what i was referring to. He basically said Malzer was lucky to make those winners with shanky shots.

Obviously you think his comments were perfectly fine, which proves my point. He is beyond criticism.

GTG, your hatred on player is beyond reality, do you complain of snow in Canada coz of Federer?

again you are assuming those shanks were winners when there is no proof that he meant that, so basically the next bit you said is irrelevant.

demonise? seriously?
i dont agree with you because i don't feel it was 'rude and disrespectful and smacked of sour grapes' in the slightest. He didn't say the shanks went for winners you are making that assumption and using your argument to back that up when in fact it isn't there.

i just feel you are venting your animosity towards him for a quote that isn't disrespectful, maybe just choose more wisely because with this one i feel you are clutching at straws to make your point.

Okay LuvSports how would you react if a player came out in a press conference after playing Federer and bemoaned how many of his shanks were going in? Be honest.

graf_the_greatest wrote:By saying that his shanky shots stayed in play or were winners the point is that it was still a rude & disrespectful comment & smacked of sour grapes. And you're right it isn't the only time he's overstepped the mark.

I don't have a 'vendetta' against Federer, or any other player for that matter. I just don't like bad manners.

Why demonise me just because I don't agree with you?

What a laugh!

You spent half your time on the old 606 saying how much you detested Federer. Some of us have memory.

Even Tiriac himself has apologised and agrees that the court is too slippery. So many of Nadal's comments were accurate. If the bone of contention is his proposed boycott next year, well he has paid his dues in the sense that he has played 600+ matches, and if he feels that Madrid is nothing like RG then I can see the sense in not wanting to play there.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

graf_the_greatest wrote:I didn't lie. Your 3rd point '- he shanks them they stay in play' was what i was referring to. He basically said Malzer was lucky to make those winners with shanky shots.

Obviously you think his comments were perfectly fine, which proves my point. He is beyond criticism.

GTG, your hatred on player is beyond reality, do you complain of snow in Canada coz of Federer?

Erm, sure, whatever you say!

bogbrush wrote:

graf_the_greatest wrote:By saying that his shanky shots stayed in play or were winners the point is that it was still a rude & disrespectful comment & smacked of sour grapes. And you're right it isn't the only time he's overstepped the mark.

I don't have a 'vendetta' against Federer, or any other player for that matter. I just don't like bad manners.

Why demonise me just because I don't agree with you?

What a laugh!

You spent half your time on the old 606 saying how much you detested Federer. Some of us have memory.

Indeed..

This guy is obviously unable to contain himself.. just looking to stir the pot.

LuvSports! wrote:

touch(A)parabola wrote:Its worst when Berdych does not shake hand to his opponent, when Wawrinka spits on the court, when Dolgopolov, Melzer and Baghdatis put those arrogant, provocative smiles on their faces…

i still have yet to agree with any point you have made so far

Obviously, you are a fan of a completely different player. I do not see your point either.
And not everyone is annoyed with the same stuff. If I was a professional player, these things would disturb me the most.

I slide with Hippocrates, although he was a bit of an oaf (oath?).

banbrotam wrote:... It's great to see that the magnificent hypocrisy on these boards ...

Thank you, it's complements like these that makes it all worthwhile

memo to socal

In 10 years you could become graf_the_greatest

heed these warnings oh padowan.

graf_the_greatest wrote:I remember how rude & ungracious Federer was last year when he lost in straight sets at the Monte Carlo QFs to Melzer. He explicitly stated that many of Melzer's shots were flukey winners. That's one of many rude comments by him that I've hard but somehow the media & his fans don't seem to acknowledge this.

The exact quote graf is the greatest, was something like this when asked about the reason he lost, "My opponent shanked a lot of balls that went in" was one of the reasons he gave for his loss. Of course in general, I actually think all of the top 4 do a pretty good job on and off the court, I am not as negative on this count as I know you are. Not everyone can be the nervy teutonic steel tennis goddess like steffi graf.

LuvSports! wrote:again you are assuming those shanks were winners when there is no proof that he meant that, so basically the next bit you said is irrelevant.

demonise? seriously?
i dont agree with you because i don't feel it was 'rude and disrespectful and smacked of sour grapes' in the slightest. He didn't say the shanks went for winners you are making that assumption and using your argument to back that up when in fact it isn't there.

i just feel you are venting your animosity towards him for a quote that isn't disrespectful, maybe just choose more wisely because with this one i feel you are clutching at straws to make your point.

Luv sports to be honest I posted the exact quote right after the match and criticized fed for it because it really was mind boggling. He actually when asked why he lost the first thing out of his mouth when listing reasons was that his opponent shanked a lot of balls that went in. Which was mindboggling if you watched the match melzer out hit fed and played inspired tennis. Neither me nor anyone else who watched that match would have seen an epidemic of melzer shanks going in.

Apparently, more than two shanks and you go blind.

socal you are wrong it was not the first thing out of his mouth, please rewatch the interview.
He briefly touched on the fact that 'his shanks were going in' that is it, nothing more. Is that really mind boggling?
I think he shouldn't have brought it up even though it may have been true but still i feel you guys are making mountains out of molehills.

And trying to hide Djkovc's immature declarations behind them.