Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

lags72 wrote:Having read through the whole thread (147 posts and counting .... ) just this morning, I feel it's fair to say that the reaction to Federer's withdrawal has fallen broadly into two camps.

Let's call them camps A and B, viz :

A. Those who are satisfied that Federer was indeed carrying a painful & debilitating injury which, quite simply, rendered him unfit to play.

To be in camp A, you would need only to accept that Federer gave an honest & wholly truthful explanation when he presented himself at the 02 to announce his withdrawal in person to the disappointed crowd.

B.  Those who are NOT satisfied that he was telling the truth ; and it follows that anyone unwilling to accept that Federer was being honest must -  by definition - believe that he had other, ulterior reasons for withdrawing.

To be in camp B, you would therefore need to speculate on what those 'other reasons' might be.

Some people have speculated that he was saving himself for the DC ; some have suggested that he did not like the idea of facing Djokovic. And some have suggested it was a combination of both.

In reality, there is of course no factual evidence for the theory that he was 'saving himself'. However, on the face of things, this would seem unlikely, given his uniquely low number of historic withdrawals. But of course that in itself will not stop speculation, assumption and conjecture.

As to the other main theory (ie that he specifically did not want to face Djokovic) : this too seems very improbable, if only because we know that Federer has almost always been a serious challenge for ANY player, has never pulled out of a Final before, and - perhaps most significantly - he had (even at 33) already proved too strong for Novak in the majority of their meetings this year.

Turning now to the matter of the different interpretations placed on Federer's comments whilst making his apologies to the crowd : Some have chosen to accept his comments at face value, whilst others have read a lot more into things. There is a view that he should have played, even if injured, and thus even in the knowledge that a loss was a near certainty (and in fact a potentially very heavy loss too).

And then there is an alternative view that all Federer was trying to say when addressing the 02 crowd (and I paraphrase here of course) something along the lines of .....
"the thing is folks, I could probably struggle on to the court and perform like a park player, barely able to hit a respectable serve or ground stroke ; and after about forty minutes, maybe much less, you would see Novak (or any other ATP standard player) win a Final without conceding a single game. BUT a) I don't think that's what you're all here for and b) I don't believe it's right that at this stage of my career I risk potentially long-term serious physical damage, whilst going against all specialist medical advice I've been given"

None of us can know for sure whether he WAS physically capable of playing, regardless of what level. And any opinions either way merely reflect a wish to believe what we wish to believe - accompanied in many cases by speculation.

One thing IS pretty clear : the fact that socal is in camp B.

I mention socal because he has been amongst the most vociferous and critical of the non-believers. He said earlier that "if the shoe was on the other foot we would certainly see howls of outrage at Novak the chronic MTO/Withdrawal guy disrespecting the fans and the game by not showing up to play in a final ....."

In many ways, that one comment above by socal encapsulates the very essence of this long-running debate, and the extent to which some people's views are so often informed not so much by the acceptance of a player's own words when addressing a crowd in person, but more by personal bias. And nothing new there, as they say.

Or .....to put it another way : if it HAD been Djokovic who had withdrawn, we may, or may not, have seen a good deal of flak and general criticism thrown at him, perhaps even including accusations of downright dishonesty and disrespect for the crowd etc etc. But at least socal would not have objected to anyone's right to make such negative comment, because of course those are exactly the sort of criticisms and accusations he has levelled at Federer.

In fact .... who knows ... if we had witnessed a Djovokic withdrawal in similar circumstances, then socal might well have speculated about Novak's 'true' motives in the same way that he has speculated about Federer's.  And - on the back of such groundless speculation and supposition -  he might very well have convinced himself that Djokovic was being every bit as disingenuous, unsporting, deceitful, and disrespectful as he believes Federer was.

socal1976 wrote:

Blue Moon wrote:SoCal, no, your post is purely speculative, mine is not. It is based on official reports amongst which I only referred to the NYTimes and Djokovich's statement. You never checked these out, did you? Pls don't resort to a blanket statement to dismiss my view as speculative while you conveniently and repeatedly ignore my sources. Why?

Secondly, no one need to examine Federer to have a clue. If he was good enough to play the London final and he really didn't have ANY injury issues, why on earth would he have waited until Wednesday to hit the practice court and then only spent 20 minutes there not being able to do much because of his impaired movement??Many took one look at the first video taken at the practice court and could immediately tell they saw an injured Federer (ask IMBL). All you need is just to open your eyes to let in some common sense. And to go back to London, regardless of how you interpret his withdrawl speech, fact of the matter is that he probably couldn't even play you, socal, as he was in such bad shape it took 4 days for him to be able to hit for 20 minutes in Lille the next week.

The fact is that going by what Djokovic says about Federer's injury is simply not evidence of anything. You are simply repeating Djokovic's speculation of something that he doesn't know anything about other than what he has been told. Hearsay at its best. Federer's statement, which is direct evidence alludes directly to what I am saying. Further evidence is provided by the fact that he shows up and plays pretty damn well with no hindered movement and practices with his teammate even before the said match. This is not speculation, the guy not only showed up and played a few days later he practiced in the window before that.

Blue Moon wrote:
Again, you're all over yourself sounding rather incoherent here and still not pay attention to a single point I made. I give up, but before that I want to give you something to think about:

http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/en/news-and-media/tennis/finals-2014-djokovic-crowned-champion

Djokovich: ""I [then] spoke to him – as I understand, he retired a match maybe three times in his career in over a thousand matches. YOU CANNOT BLAME HIM...."

Yeah, but Nole is a blatant liar and a speculating scumbag with no credibility! No question. Don't believe a word he said. SoCal, while only blowing hot air and refusing to even acknowledge news reports supportive of Federer's injury is sure he knows much better. How can anyone argue with that? 

lags72 wrote:Having read through the whole thread (147 posts and counting .... ) just this morning, I feel it's fair to say that the reaction to Federer's withdrawal has fallen broadly into two camps.

Let's call them camps A and B, viz :

A. Those who are satisfied that Federer was indeed carrying a painful & debilitating injury which, quite simply, rendered him unfit to play.

To be in camp A, you would need only to accept that Federer gave an honest & wholly truthful explanation when he presented himself at the 02 to announce his withdrawal in person to the disappointed crowd.

B.  Those who are NOT satisfied that he was telling the truth ; and it follows that anyone unwilling to accept that Federer was being honest must -  by definition - believe that he had other, ulterior reasons for withdrawing.

To be in camp B, you would therefore need to speculate on what those 'other reasons' might be.

Some people have speculated that he was saving himself for the DC ; some have suggested that he did not like the idea of facing Djokovic. And some have suggested it was a combination of both.

In reality, there is of course no factual evidence for the theory that he was 'saving himself'. However, on the face of things, this would seem unlikely, given his uniquely low number of historic withdrawals. But of course that in itself will not stop speculation, assumption and conjecture.

As to the other main theory (ie that he specifically did not want to face Djokovic) : this too seems very improbable, if only because we know that Federer has almost always been a serious challenge for ANY player, has never pulled out of a Final before, and - perhaps most significantly - he had (even at 33) already proved too strong for Novak in the majority of their meetings this year.

Turning now to the matter of the different interpretations placed on Federer's comments whilst making his apologies to the crowd : Some have chosen to accept his comments at face value, whilst others have read a lot more into things. There is a view that he should have played, even if injured, and thus even in the knowledge that a loss was a near certainty (and in fact a potentially very heavy loss too).

And then there is an alternative view that all Federer was trying to say when addressing the 02 crowd (and I paraphrase here of course) something along the lines of .....
"the thing is folks, I could probably struggle on to the court and perform like a park player, barely able to hit a respectable serve or ground stroke ; and after about forty minutes, maybe much less, you would see Novak (or any other ATP standard player) win a Final without conceding a single game. BUT a) I don't think that's what you're all here for and b) I don't believe it's right that at this stage of my career I risk potentially long-term serious physical damage, whilst going against all specialist medical advice I've been given"

None of us can know for sure whether he WAS physically capable of playing, regardless of what level. And any opinions either way merely reflect a wish to believe what we wish to believe - accompanied in many cases by speculation.

One thing IS pretty clear : the fact that socal is in camp B.

I mention socal because he has been amongst the most vociferous and critical of the non-believers. He said earlier that "if the shoe was on the other foot we would certainly see howls of outrage at Novak the chronic MTO/Withdrawal guy disrespecting the fans and the game by not showing up to play in a final ....."

In many ways, that one comment above by socal encapsulates the very essence of this long-running debate, and the extent to which some people's views are so often informed not so much by the acceptance of a player's own words when addressing a crowd in person, but more by personal bias. And nothing new there, as they say.

Or .....to put it another way : if it HAD been Djokovic who had withdrawn, we may, or may not, have seen a good deal of flak and general criticism thrown at him, perhaps even including accusations of downright dishonesty and disrespect for the crowd etc etc. But at least socal would not have objected to anyone's right to make such negative comment, because of course those are exactly the sort of criticisms and accusations he has levelled at Federer.

In fact .... who knows ... if we had witnessed a Djovokic withdrawal in similar circumstances, then socal might well have speculated about Novak's 'true' motives in the same way that he has speculated about Federer's.  And - on the back of such groundless speculation and supposition -  he might very well have convinced himself that Djokovic was being every bit as disingenuous, unsporting, deceitful, and disrespectful as he believes Federer was.