Federer US bid sabotaged by Fish withdrawal

by bogbrush Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:09 pm

Federer was building very nicely in this tournament but his hopes have been destroyed because of the bye over Fish.

Clearly he has no chance versus Berdych, who he would otherwise have beaten comfortably.

Curses!

by Guest Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:14 pm

I know.

I blame Fognini for the trend in withdrawals in key matches!

by Guest Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:30 pm

If Berdych withdraws then Federer may as well take the first plane back to Federerstan.

by Tropicalfruiter Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:34 pm

Hopefully Fed will be so peed off he will go into huddle with his coach before having a simulated 'match' at the exact time the Fish match was scheduled in the form of a super intense training section with the 'Eye of the Tiger' cranked to 11, and a backing track of a roaring crowed. 500 press-ups, and sit-ups in a pvc suit should sort him out.

Actually, I am very pessimistic, too. Damn, damn, damn. steam

by Tropicalfruiter Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:40 pm

They will have prepared for this eventuality. A great chance for Fed to go shopping with his familyd, change a mental gear, and return with a mentality that he is entering a Masters tourno, which has even greater chance in wrapping up on Sunday. Go Fed, Go!

by Josiah Maiestas Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:50 pm

Could be something with his heart. No doubt a certain Noletroll will use this a way to pick at Roger and not bother about Mardy's well being. Rolling Eyes

by barrystar Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:53 pm

Fed now has to win 3 matches in 7 days to win the USO, whereas Djoko will face 3 matches in 4 days as from Thursday morning.

Fed said that his rythmn was a bit disrupted at Wimbledon 2007 when Haas's R16 withdrawal meant he had a lengthy period without a match - and there is something in the Fognini effect for all our leg-pulling, but at the USO it must be an advantage to have the chance of going fresh into Stupid Saturday - especially if Murray manages to make a meal of Raonic and/or his QF match.

by bogbrush Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:53 pm

Sadly Djokovic showed in 2011 that it's impossible to come back from this sort of setback.

I understand emergency plans are being developed to hypnotise Fed into thinking he had El Mugro in the 4th round. Nicolas is prepared to play a match on the day and I also understand Mats Wilander has been able to help by tipping Nic to spring an upset win.

by Josiah Maiestas Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:00 pm

This keeps going the GS Quarter Final Streak.

by barrystar Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:33 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:This keeps going the GS Quarter Final Streak.

Aye - 34 consecutive and counting. Non-consecutive he's on 38 vs. Connors's 41 so he has a chance of overhauling that in 2013. During the consecutive run Fed has had the benefit of 4 walkovers in slams (including Fish), of which 2 have been in 2012. He had one vs. Beck at this year's AO, and before that Haas at Wimbledon 2007 and Pavel at USO 2004. Outside slams he's had the benefit of 5 other walkovers and he's given up two himself, famously having never retired in the 1050+ matches he's played. It's extraordinary how injury-free he's managed to keep himself in such a long career.

by lags72 Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Connors' QF record is mightily impressive (as indeed is his total career titles tally of course).

Mind you, Jimbo was still playing on the main tour at around 40 years of age, so for the Fed to be so close on Slam QF's having just turned 31 is pretty good going. To say the least..... Erm

by socal1976 Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:42 pm

Yes, yes BB continue to misrepresent my positions. I guess you don't get tired of it. What I said in 2011 for the one hundredth time and you can keep distorting it all you like, dishonestly so I may say, is as follows: The streak situation completely unique to Djokovic in 2011 was the biggest impact the layoff was part of it as well. If Foggy plays Djoko would tie the record against Foggy and not have to worry about the added pressure in an already pressure filled situation. The 4 day layoff and the building pressure of the streak impacted his play in the first two sets, BUT FEDERER played great and even if Djoko hadn't had the mid tourney layoff and the streak he might of still lost the match. For example, outside of the tiebreak I though he played a great 4th set and still lost it. First two sets you could tell the pressure and the layoff had broke up his timing a bit.

I did not ever say that all layoffs are necessarily bad, but that particular one with the other things going on did make Novak rusty and bit tight early on. I also did not say he would of won the match if not for the layoff. But that is your favorite lie that you keep repeating for yourself to get laughs out of the peanut gallery.

So after I clarified it for the 100th time lets see how long it will take you to lie again about me BB. In another few days you will do another thread claiming that I said Djoko would have beat fed if not for Foggy, which I never did. And saying that layoff alone was the reason the pressure built up when the streak was also involved. To bad you can't actually honestly debate someone without lying and playing the fool which you are so adept at.

by bogbrush Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:25 pm

Oh irony, you will never be lost when friend socal is with us Laugh

by FedsFan Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:11 pm

I too think this might be a big setback as he would not have played since Saturday when he meets Berdych. Lack of match practice maybe come into it. Also, Berdych has finally got his game together and seems to be playing to a very high level again. In Madrid he did have the upper hand in the final and he was not playing so well either. I think Fed has his work cut out for him in the QF.

I would not be too surprised if Berdych wins the QF just as he did at Wimbledon. On the other hand Fish may have played maybe a set and decided to quit if he thought he was not well enough so we will never know how the match would have panned out.

Lets hope Annacone and Co have a good strategy going. I think the finalists will be Murray/Djoko.

by socal1976 Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:23 pm

FedsFan wrote:I too think this might be a big setback as he would not have played since Saturday when he meets Berdych. Lack of match practice maybe come into it. Also, Berdych has finally got his game together and seems to be playing to a very high level again. In Madrid he did have the upper hand in the final and he was not playing so well either. I think Fed has his work cut out for him in the QF.

I would not be too surprised if Berdych wins the QF just as he did at Wimbledon. On the other hand Fish may have played maybe a set and decided to quit if he thought he was not well enough so we will never know how the match would have panned out.

Lets hope Annacone and Co have a good strategy going. I think the finalists will be Murray/Djoko.

Thank you Feds fan it is a break in the routine during a crucial period of play, tennis players are creatures of habit. They love to be rested, but there is always a fine line between a loss of timing and being fresh. So when in the middle of a tournament while you are one match away from tying an all time record to have that 4 and half day break come about can knock you off your stride. Lets remember the other pertinent fact left out of this distortion of my position. If Foggy plays Djoko ties the all time match wins record with mac against foggy, since foggy couldn't play he had to tie that record against fed who was in inspired form. Also he was playing for a berth in the finals and the number 1 ranking on the day. The cumulative pressure and that gap caused him to not be that sharp early in the match. That is all I said, now that you seem to be agreeing with your logic I hope BB doesn't hound you and create threads about your quote "too much rest excuse" for the next 18 months. But that historical context never finds its way into his attempts at poor sophmoric humor. I also think that it will be a bit tricky for fed but the one thing is that fed is so experienced and always has that serve in his back pocket so he maybe a little bit better equipped to deal with it.

by Josiah Maiestas Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 pm

Difference is we Fed fans won't play the victim card if Berdych is able to win it like you had been, i'd rather berate my own player than pretend somehow the loss was down more to a guy who pulled out than his own poor performance. Djokovic played better against Fed in that semi final, than he would have played with the extra win over Fognini imho. Just on the day Federer played one of his best 5 set matches on clay. What will your excuse be if Federer does the job over Berdych? Rolling Eyes

by socal1976 Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:39 pm

What are you talking about JM. I don't care one way or the other who wins. What excuse would I need the circumstances are not the same as for the 1000th time I explained but like your buddy BB you have purposeful blindness when it suits your desire to attack my positions.

No fed fans never make excuses, that is pretty funny Josiah. MAYBE THE MOST HILARIOUS DELUSION I HAVE EVER HEARD. Fed fans on this 606 and the old one have chronicled an entire encyclopedia of weak and lame excuses for why a certain spaniard whips up on him in grandslams. BB is one of the kings of such conduct, having him use my excuse making to joke about me is like a the whoore of Babylon question your promiscuity.

by kemet Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:55 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Difference is we Fed fans won't play the victim card if Berdych is able to win it like you had been, i'd rather berate my own player than pretend somehow the loss was down more to a guy who pulled out than his own poor performance. Djokovic played better against Fed in that semi final, than he would have played with the extra win over Fognini imho. Just on the day Federer played one of his best 5 set matches on clay. What will your excuse be if Federer does the job over Berdych?

Thank you!

clap

by bogbrush Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:58 pm

Oh so now it does matter? I thought you just got through saying it was a minor thing lol

I must keep updated with the latest position on this crucial subject.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:12 pm

If I can add an impartial view.

It makes no difference. Federer would have beaten Fish in any case and instead of having a two or two and a half match Roger instead gets to put his feet up. He'll be thankful of that before getting back down to business.

by Josiah Maiestas Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:17 pm

bogbrush wrote:Oh so now it does matter? I thought you just got through saying it was a minor thing lol

I must keep updated with the latest position on this crucial subject.

He will tell us all he was being sarcastic. Or in other words, just trolling for replies.

by barrystar Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:18 pm

There's a balance to be struck - Fed has already played 3 matches and is due to play on Wednesday so I suspect missing this match will not disrupt his routine and given that there's the potential of Super Saturday with two matches in two days he'll not be too bothered. He is probably too professoinal to look beyond Berdych and I suspect he gave himself a real workout today in lieu of the match.

by bogbrush Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:05 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:If I can add an impartial view.

It makes no difference. Federer would have beaten Fish in any case and instead of having a two or two and a half match Roger instead gets to put his feet up. He'll be thankful of that before getting back down to business.

But.. But..... I thought this was what cost Djokovic the 2011 French?

by CaledonianCraig Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:08 am

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:If I can add an impartial view.

It makes no difference. Federer would have beaten Fish in any case and instead of having a two or two and a half match Roger instead gets to put his feet up. He'll be thankful of that before getting back down to business.
But.. But..... I thought this was what cost Djokovic the 2011 French?

Who said that? Not me for a start. Roger will be delighted with a day or two off - no two ways about it. Keeps him fresh.

by bogbrush Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:13 am

Blimey Craig, where've you been for 16 months? Smile

No, it's not you. And, yes,the rest is no handicap for sure.

by socal1976 Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:39 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:If I can add an impartial view.

It makes no difference. Federer would have beaten Fish in any case and instead of having a two or two and a half match Roger instead gets to put his feet up. He'll be thankful of that before getting back down to business.
But.. But..... I thought this was what cost Djokovic the 2011 French?

Who said that? Not me for a start. Roger will be delighted with a day or two off - no two ways about it. Keeps him fresh.

Not me either, eventhough BB likes to lie and say that I stated if not for Foggy then Novak would have won the french open. Again more BB, making up things that I have supposedly said and then attacking those positions. Plus again you glaringly omit the streak, like federer facing berdych is analogous to what was going in the spring of 2011. BB I have tried being polite to you, but frankly I just won't have discussions with people who purposely repeat a lie, if you were mistaken in your belief about my position I have cleared it up but you carry on with the same lie and just keep repeating it and exaggerating and distorting my position. Frankly, you have again proven that you are just not worth my time, back to ignoring you. I don't converse with known liars.

by bogbrush Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:00 am

You don't converse with known liars? But you're a lawyer, surely you must have colleagues?

by barrystar Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:14 am

I am not sure that the streak is such a big point as you make out. He could only have matched McEnroe's start to 1984 if he'd beaten Fognini, he would still have needed to beat Federer to overtake McEnroe's run. In either event the more important overall streak record would still not have been achievable at Roland Garros. In other words, there would not have been any less riding on the Federer match had he played and beaten Fognini. Streaks always build up pressure - eveyone knows that they will end one day - and Djoko was in his first RG SF vs. Federer with the prospect of a final against a man over whom Djoko had established quite a hold. If he let the occasion get the better of him it was understandable, but almost certainly not because of Fognini's withdrawal.

by FedsFan Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:20 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Difference is we Fed fans won't play the victim card if Berdych is able to win it like you had been, i'd rather berate my own player than pretend somehow the loss was down more to a guy who pulled out than his own poor performance. Djokovic played better against Fed in that semi final, than he would have played with the extra win over Fognini imho. Just on the day Federer played one of his best 5 set matches on clay. What will your excuse be if Federer does the job over Berdych?

JM,

I totally agree. I am one of Fed's biggest fans but also like to think of myself as his harshest critic too! Maybe the lay off could have an effect on him, maybe at 31 he can do with a w/o which would allow him to conserve energy now that the business end of the tournament has arrived. If Fed loses I won't be using the w/o as an excuse because it simply does not apply. What could let Fed down is poor timing/execution and the serve suddenly disappearing which has happened before which did happen vs Berdych in Madrid when he was serving for the match at 5-4.

by socal1976 Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:18 pm

barrystar wrote:I am not sure that the streak is such a big point as you make out. He could only have matched McEnroe's start to 1984 if he'd beaten Fognini, he would still have needed to beat Federer to overtake McEnroe's run. In either event the more important overall streak record would still not have been achievable at Roland Garros. In other words, there would not have been any less riding on the Federer match had he played and beaten Fognini. Streaks always build up pressure - eveyone knows that they will end one day - and Djoko was in his first RG SF vs. Federer with the prospect of a final against a man over whom Djoko had established quite a hold. If he let the occasion get the better of him it was understandable, but almost certainly not because of Fognini's withdrawal.

Again barry it was a number of factors playing a role. But the streak was the big one in my mind. Plus it kept building and building the hype surrounding it. Either way I think Fed played a great match and deserved to win, Novak got a big unlucky with the scheduling. Think about working on a record that everyone is talking about for 4 months thinking you are going to play fogi to tie Mac and then finding out no you are going to play the GOAT to tie the record and then all of sudden Roger comes out and starts playing that way. Plus He had more time off between his semi and 4th round match then he did between The final in madrid and his first match in Rome.

I don't know if you guys have watched basketball or American football. There is a lot more stoppages in those American sports. And often before a big game winning field goal or a pair of free throws to decide the game with no time left the opposing coach starts taking time outs to ice the shooter and make him think about it. This is a similar concept, those coaches get paid millions they understand that pressure has a tendency to build so give your opponent some time to think about it. Somehow this argument I made strikes some as wildly controversial.

But here is what I never did say despite the sophmoric lies of certain people:

1. That Djokovic would have won if not for foggy
2. Fed didn't deserve the win
3. It wasn't too much rest per se but the context of what was taking place that was unique to djoko playing fed, playing for the #1, and the streak all at once

Now lets see how long it takes before another foggy thread claiming that I stated Djoko lost the french because of foggy and too much rest pops up. This is the last I will ever address the issue having an honest debate with people who take pleasure in distorting you words and dishonestly attacking you is not my idea of something I want to do with my free time. PS of course not talking about Barry or fedsfan, you guys are enjoyable to speak with.

by bogbrush Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:04 pm

So all that stuff about conspiracy and accusing Fognini of bad will and faking injury... all that didn't happen, right?

by User 774433 Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:12 pm

bogbrush wrote:So all that stuff about conspiracy and accusing Fognini of bad will and faking injury... all that didn't happen, right?

Nope he didn't.
Socal never said it was a conspiracy, which anyone else was behind.
I think he indicated Fognini should have played, rather than just W/O and surrender, but I never recall him saying the injury was faked.

by socal1976 Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:32 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So all that stuff about conspiracy and accusing Fognini of bad will and faking injury... all that didn't happen, right?
Nope he didn't.
Socal never said it was a conspiracy, which anyone else was behind.
I think he indicated Fognini should have played, rather than just W/O and surrender, but I never recall him saying the injury was faked.

Thank you IMBL, I did not claim that Foggy was part of some conspiracy or that french open there was some conspiracy. I did do a joke thread once about the evil conspiracy of freemasons and uncle toni to give Nadal the french open through an easier draw. But I said it was a joke. Do I believe grandslam draws get tinkered with around the edges yes. I did not say he faked an injury just that he could give it a go in the quarter possibly. Why would he fake an injury to get out of playing in a grandslam quarter. I did for a couple of weeks say not so nice things about foggy, when I was peed when I mistakenly believed he had played in queens the week after, but when someone on the site showed me he had pulled out and that I was wrong I apologized that was about 15 months ago. But I never claimed he faked an injury, never. I haven't brought up foggy since instead to goad people because some segments seem obsessed with that thread.

by bogbrush Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:40 pm

So you didn't do any of that except for the threads where you did say it, but didn't mean it.

Ok, that's cleared that up then.

by socal1976 Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:14 pm

My last post had a typo in it, i never said he faked an injury I questioned if he could of given it a go when I thought he had played in queens the next week, mistakenly it turns out.

by Tennisanorak Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:31 am

I'm also really worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal will have on Federer, just as I was worried for Djokovic when I saw a possible clash with Fognini at the FO this year. That withdrawal of his in 2011 FO is now probably the most famous withdrawal of all time. Tell me another withdrawal that had such bearing on a calendar slam!

by Josiah Maiestas Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:30 am

It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So all that stuff about conspiracy and accusing Fognini of bad will and faking injury... all that didn't happen, right?
Nope he didn't.
Socal never said it was a conspiracy, which anyone else was behind.
I think he indicated Fognini should have played, rather than just W/O and surrender, but I never recall him saying the injury was faked.

And of course you read through every one of his posts to form this opinion, yes. The pair of you probably live together in the basement.

by User 774433 Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:12 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So all that stuff about conspiracy and accusing Fognini of bad will and faking injury... all that didn't happen, right?
Nope he didn't.
Socal never said it was a conspiracy, which anyone else was behind.
I think he indicated Fognini should have played, rather than just W/O and surrender, but I never recall him saying the injury was faked.
And of course you read through every one of his posts to form this opinion, yes. The pair of you probably live together in the basement.

by FedsFan Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:18 pm

Tennisanorak wrote:I'm also really worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal will have on Federer, just as I was worried for Djokovic when I saw a possible clash with Fognini at the FO this year. That withdrawal of his in 2011 FO is now probably the most famous withdrawal of all time. Tell me another withdrawal that had such bearing on a calendar slam!

Can anyone say for certain that Fognini withdrawing was the cause of Djoko's loss? If you think about it, Fed was playing some of his best tennis that year at the FO, even better that 2009 when he won. He lost his first set of the event in the 3rd set of the semi. The balls were harder and faster as were the courts I think that year probably due to the weather too. Remember it was 2 tiebreaks which can go either way as its a point here or there that decides the winner. At two sets up to love I remember Djoko saying its hard to make a comeback vs Fed and at that point he had never lost being in that position before. I think he lost to someone playing really well and thats it. Remember, Fed almost won the first set vs Nadal in the final and won the third. He troubled Nadal for the first time in FO final that year too.

Djokovic I don't think has enjoyed match ups with Federer, just as Federer does not enjoy match ups with Nadal. Djokovic lost and I don't think the time off between matches was that much of a factor.

by lydian Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:26 pm

Tennisanorak wrote:I'm also really worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal will have on Federer

Personally I'm worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal has on Fish given his 2 month absence due to heart issues...

by socal1976 Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:58 pm

Tennisanorak wrote:I'm also really worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal will have on Federer, just as I was worried for Djokovic when I saw a possible clash with Fognini at the FO this year. That withdrawal of his in 2011 FO is now probably the most famous withdrawal of all time. Tell me another withdrawal that had such bearing on a calendar slam!

Thank you due to me saying this 15 months ago I have been attacked relentlessly. By the way I am not the only one who said something at the time I read similar arguments on Espn and a number of the british columists as well that it came at an inopportune time.

by socal1976 Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:02 pm

FedsFan wrote:
Tennisanorak wrote:I'm also really worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal will have on Federer, just as I was worried for Djokovic when I saw a possible clash with Fognini at the FO this year. That withdrawal of his in 2011 FO is now probably the most famous withdrawal of all time. Tell me another withdrawal that had such bearing on a calendar slam!

Can anyone say for certain that Fognini withdrawing was the cause of Djoko's loss? If you think about it, Fed was playing some of his best tennis that year at the FO, even better that 2009 when he won. He lost his first set of the event in the 3rd set of the semi. The balls were harder and faster as were the courts I think that year probably due to the weather too. Remember it was 2 tiebreaks which can go either way as its a point here or there that decides the winner. At two sets up to love I remember Djoko saying its hard to make a comeback vs Fed and at that point he had never lost being in that position before. I think he lost to someone playing really well and thats it. Remember, Fed almost won the first set vs Nadal in the final and won the third. He troubled Nadal for the first time in FO final that year too.

Djokovic I don't think has enjoyed match ups with Federer, just as Federer does not enjoy match ups with Nadal. Djokovic lost and I don't think the time off between matches was that much of a factor.

Of course no one can say for certain that Djoko lost because of foggy, on this very site I stated that Roger played so well that even when Novak was playing well at the end of the match he still lost the 4th set at the very end because Roger turned it up again. I for the record have never said the reason Novak lost that match was due to foggy's withdrawal. It came at inopportune time with Novak playing for #1 for the first time, in semi of RG, and now instead of playing foggy for the record he plays fed. The pressure built up on him and the occassion got to him a bit early on it that match. Roger played great either way and Novak did play really well in sets 3 and 4, well in set 4 until he made some bonehead errors but still for the majority of the 4th set he played great and Rog still took it from him. He served lights out that day.

by time please Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:09 pm

lydian wrote:
Tennisanorak wrote:I'm also really worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal will have on Federer
Personally I'm worried about the effect Fish's withdrawal has on Fish given his 2 month absence due to heart issues...

If it is atrial fibrillation, which I think it is, it is not a big deal in terms of his general day to day health. In fact most of us will end up with it as we age. It is more unusual at Fish's age, but it does happen - I've had incidences since I was 25 - at first only once a year, but now I am older every month or so. It is an electrical fault really and tends to happen only at rest after exertion. Basically as one chamber of the heart slows after exercise, the other chamber stays elevated and so the heart is pushed out of sinus rhythm. It is only dangerous if ignored because of the risk of a blot clot developing. Drugs work very quickly to slow down heartbeat and allow one chamber to catch up with the other, and if not a short stay in hospital for intravenous drugs or shock treatment to reboot heart (luckily never had to resort to very last option but did have spell in hospital after ignored for 24 hours while skiing and then got stuck in funny rhythm). I suppose any stent that was put in for Fish was to try and prevent it happening but it is not usually something that is offered for AF. All ECGs show that my heart is extremely healthy - AF is a strange sporadic mechanical fault that is easily controlled. Some families are just more likely to have incidences earlier in life - mine is a good example, but also of a family with pretty impressive longevity!

Of course because it happens after strenuous exercise when you let down, I can see that it is an issue that probably will force him to leave top class professional tennis, but it won't affect him (if this is what it is) in terms of being active - I don't play sports as such anymore really because of time issues but I am a regular gym bunny, a once a year ski bunny and walk miles at weekends.

by lydian Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:36 pm

My understanding is that Fish has another arrhythmia, SVT, and his tx was radio-ablation rather than stenting.
Agree AF can be innocuous if non-valve related.
Like you TP I have paroxysmal, idiopathic AF. Likewise had all the usual tests (echo, stress, Holter, etc) Wink

Latest OACs as you say can be prophylactic if stroke risk is felt to be an issue using CHADS-VASC ratings.
Fish might need another radio-freq. ablation if rogue circuits are still causing re-entry.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:44 pm

Fair enough lydian, but did you re-route the phase inducers to bypass the quantum displacer and boost the Heisenberg pattern ratios?

by time please Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:51 pm

hi lydian, so good to have you back from hols Hug

You do know that nearly everything you have typed above has just gone waaay over my head Laugh

I now remember you have medical background, don't you?

I could google SVT, but perhaps you could explain what that arrhythmia is? I presume that it is manageable because Fish wouldn't be messing with his health so recklessly, but of course managing a condition and a professional top class career is entirely different to managing an active healthy average existence with said condition.

Just about to post and saw yours JHM Laugh

was beginning to think I was very, very dense!

by lydian Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:37 pm

Sorry went outside to play footie for a little while!
Cheers TP and lol JHM. Aye medical... Wink

SVT is pretty much a collective noun covering a spectrum of arrhythmias. Unlike A-Fib SVT on ECG looks generally regular, just tachycardic (>100bpm). AF causes irregularity but can also be rapid too. SVT tends to happen when patients are resting and all of a sudden the heart starts racing and won't slow down. It's often due to AV node dysfunction (your pacemaker)...where the impulses rather than travelling down from the atria to the ventricles find a way of re-entry back into the atria so they pump quicker and quicker, causing the ventricles to go quickly too. With AF, it's just the atria that go fast and irregular, and because the atria and ventricles are out of sync with AF then you have the stroke risk. A simple ploy for anyone with common AF is to take around 50 mg aspirin per day to thin the blood a little. Better than going onto warfarin (urghhhh) or one of the newer oral anticoagulants such as dabigatran than are effective but carry a haemorrhaging risk. SVT is manageable depending on what the ECG shows to prevent recurrence. If it's a single isolated episode, or infrequent and minimally symptomatic, then the episodes dont usually warrant any treatment except ongoing observation. Patients with more frequent or disabling symptoms from their episodes need some form of preventive therapy, e.g. AV nodal blocking agents like beta-blockers or verapamil, usually with good effect, although the benefit-risk ratio of any drug needs to be assessed in this setting. Some arrhythmia drugs are plain nasty. Ablation has revolutionized the treatment of SVT caused by a re-entrant pathway and is a low risk procedure. Basically involves placing a catheter inside the heart (gets there usually by slicing into the femoral artery in your leg and working your way up) to deliver radio frequency energy to locate and destroy the abnormal electrical pathways. Ablation has been shown to be highly effective: radio is around 90% effective in eliminating SVTs. Other forms of ablation are even better - e.g. newer treatments targetting the AV node directly such as cryoablation as radiofrequency ablation has a small risk of damaging the AV node resulting in need for a permanent pacemaker. With cryoablation, a supercooled catheter is used to freeze tissue down to around -10C. It provides the same result as radiofrequency ablation but does not carry the same risk. You can freeze the tissue and halt if the frozen part is seen to be detrimental on ECG, allowing it to spontaneously rewarm and return to normal. If the frozen tisstheology to give the desired result the tissue is super frozen down to -70C until the tissue is permanently killed, hopefully blocking the re-entrant signalling. This treatment has led to a much broader curative % for young patients like Mardy with relatively mild but still troublesome symptoms. Ablation is becoming more commonplace for troubling AF too but it's riskier...and where the heart is concerned you don't want risky side effects as you can't go back once tissue has been killed off! So Mardy's first ablation may have not worked or excessive exercise has caused another circuit to flare and become re-entrant, for which he could undergo another round of ablation....or sadly if he doesn't want to do that, retire. Hopefully his withdrawal isn't due to any of this.

Anyway, that's enough quackery, sorry if reply is OTT but was surprised there was little concern for Fish in an amongst all the Fognini-type stuff.

by time please Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:22 pm

not OTT at all - I did ask Laugh

No seriously, very interesting - thanks.

Wish him well.

by lydian Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:41 pm

You're welcome.
Ditto.

by Guest Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:40 am

Bogbrush whether you meant this as a joke it doesn't really matter now, as you were spot on with the result.

by Sponsored content