Really controversial thread including words Federer and Nadal- *Caution* *Warning*

[It Must Be Love]

This forum has seemed not very busy lately, I realised why when I observed I haven't seen many posts as I usually do complaining that the thread they're posting on is not worth posting on.

Anyway so I went into the underworld of the ATP website specifically to find something that everyone would berate and rage at me for- and quite incredibly I think I've found it.
Now before we continue I must warn that the gold-dust I've discovered is not suited to anger everyone. There may be some people who read this and calmly get back to watching cat videos on youtube and commenting 'FREE US FROM THE EUUSSR' on the Daily Mail comments section, or whatever people do in their free time these days. If that's the case, just imagine this article is written by Hawkeye, these statistics are simply part of a greater article that seems really irritating but you can't fully read (and then berate) as it's behind a PPV wall, and Hawkeye's smiley faces are littered over this article.

Right, swiftly moving on:
NADAL AND FEDERER HAVE EQUAL NUMBER OF SLAMS IF YOU HAVE EQUAL SURFACES

'Has IMBL lost her mind ?' people must be thinking at this stage. Firstly the weird introduction and then this nonsense in capital letters. Well first things first I'm a boy ffs, I don't know why people keep referring to me as a girl.
Anyway, secondly:

Currently the slam breakdown is weighted towards hard courts (clearly), as it has 50% of the slams, while clay has 25% and grass has 25%.

Now let's say I create a fairer situation, where every Slam has 33.3% (1/3) slams; so there are 4/3 slams on each surface- and see how each player does.
(Obviously this calculation is only possible mathematically... I'm not actually suggesting we have 4/3 slams per year on a certain surface).

Nadal-
9 clay slams= on 25%(1/4) of slams on clay
12 clay slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on clay
2 grass slams= on 25%(1/4) of slams on grass
8/3 grass slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on grass
3 hard court slams= 50%(1/2) of slams on hard court
2 hard court slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on hard court

Federer-
1 clay slam= 25%(1/4) of slams on clay
4/3 clay slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on clay
7 grass slams= 25%(1/4) of slams on grass
28/3 grass slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on grass
9 hard court slams= 50%(1/2) of slams on hard court
6 hard court slams= 33.3%(1/3) of slams on hard court

So added up:
Nadal= 12+8/3+2= 16 2/3
Federer= 4/3+28/3+6= 16 2/3

[socal1976]

Interesting, analysis IMBL, not much going on in tennis right now but really think there are enough big tournaments on clay. I don't think we will have to be doing to many hypos for or against Nadal in the future because I think he will get to 17 slams as long as he can keep making come backs from injury. I will be interested to see how he does in the indoor season as he has always been weak this time of year and he still has a shot albeit an outside one of finishing the year as world #1.

[Born Slippy]

Wouldn't an easier way to do this just be to divide their hard court totals in half? Puts both on 12.5 I believe.

[socal1976]

If clay courts were the dominant surface then obviously Nadal would be head and shoulders the GOAT. But I don't know if I buy this hypothetical view of the tennis schedule anymore than I buy it when Fed fans come along and claim that if the surfacers were faster and if the courts and balls were different like they were in some bygone era Roger would have 20 plus slams etc. The tour is the way the tour is. It has been pretty stable in terms of being a hardcourt dominant tour really since the 80s. If you want to be an all time great you have to win a lot on the surface. And for the most part Nadal has done that. 3 slams on HC and 2 on grass shows that he is certainly no slouch off his favorite surface.

[Born Slippy]

Hard is also the most balanced surface. It should be the court on which all styles of players have the best chance of success.

[It Must Be Love]

Wouldn't an easier way to do this just be to divide their hard court totals in half? Puts both on 12.5 I believe.

True, but my one shows it with 4 slams remaining in the calendar year.

[It Must Be Love]

If clay courts were the dominant surface then obviously Nadal would be head and shoulders the GOAT.  

Statistically he would be a lot more competitive; anyway I'm not suggesting clay courts dominate- I'm saying mathematically if we had balance between the three different surfaces across the calendar year, this is what we would get.

[TRuffin]

smh.....

if we're going to play pretend world that benefits our favorite players stats, then I'd like to have 2 or 3 Masters on Grass like clay gets.

The whole thing is stupid. Sports are set up a certain way. People train and aspire to be in that sport knowing full well what they need to do. How well you do is how well you do. end of story.

If you want to go hypothetical and start changing when majors are played, what surfaces, how many times on a surface... then the players would be training differently, the new majors might fall during a period where the player would have been hurt, in a slump- in other words- the whole reality changes and percentages of what they win now the way the tour is set up get thrown out the window. We have no idea how titles would look if everything was changed.

[It Must Be Love]

How well you do is how well you do. end of story.

Well yes, but imbalances can still exist alongside that.

the new majors might fall during a period where the player would have been hurt, in a slump- in other words- the whole reality changes and percentages of what they win now the way the tour is set up

Come on now... I'm obviously not literally suggesting that we have 4/3 slams on each surface. I've never said that in the OP, and it's obviously not technically or practically possible.

What I'm arguing is more about the interpretation of specific data for further analysis; and it's pretty clear given the imbalances on tour that adjusting to take into account the imbalances is the fairest way of considering further analysis.

[JuliusHMarx]

How well you do is how well you do. end of story.

Well yes, but imbalances can still exist alongside that.

the new majors might fall during a period where the player would have been hurt, in a slump- in other words- the whole reality changes and percentages of what they win now the way the tour is set up

Come on now... I'm obviously not literally suggesting that we have 4/3 slams on each surface. I've never said that in the OP, and it's obviously not technically or practically possible.

What I'm arguing is more about the interpretation of specific data for further analysis; and it's pretty clear given the imbalances on tour that adjusting to take into account the imbalances is the fairest way of considering further analysis.

But that's a subjective fairness, so it's not fairness at all - why not just add this to the previous topic, which was essentially the same debate (again!) rather than create yet another thread?

[TRuffin]

How well you do is how well you do. end of story.

Well yes, but imbalances can still exist alongside that.

the new majors might fall during a period where the player would have been hurt, in a slump- in other words- the whole reality changes and percentages of what they win now the way the tour is set up

Come on now... I'm obviously not literally suggesting that we have 4/3 slams on each surface. I've never said that in the OP, and it's obviously not technically or practically possible.

What I'm arguing is more about the interpretation of specific data for further analysis; and it's pretty clear given the imbalances on tour that adjusting to take into account the imbalances is the fairest way of considering further analysis.

Adjust for the imbalance of Masters on grass then.. if it's so important to being fair and needs further analysis... but you don't look at that angle because adding more grass would not take you to lala land where Nadal fanatics desperately scrounge for any toehold into goat hood.

There is no imbalance because two majors are played on hard-- both Majors play completely different from each other.. If anything- AO surface should be Nadals best hard court but he's only won it 1 time. If we want to go fair- then one of the hards could be made to be indoor carpet-- but that wouldn't fit your needs to help nadal either.

[It Must Be Love]

There is no imbalance because two majors are played on hard-- both Majors play completely different from each other.

Interesting observation

Adjust for the imbalance of Masters on grass then..

Well this calculation was done for slams, not Masters.

Nadal fanatics..

No real need to use personal insults unprovoked here

[summerblues]

it's pretty clear given the imbalances on tour that adjusting to take into account the imbalances is the fairest way of considering further analysis.

But of course

[TRuffin]

There is no imbalance because two majors are played on hard-- both Majors play completely different from each other.

Interesting observation

Adjust for the imbalance of Masters on grass then..

Well this calculation was done for slams, not Masters.

Nadal fanatics..

No real need to use personal insults unprovoked here

I'm not sure Nadal fanatic is an insult... it's what you are-- Definition of Fanatic: 1. a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal"  

I've watched you appear and disappear from 4 different forums using multiple ids'- all the time posting constantly in an attempt to prove something that can't be proven about Nadal, arguing endlessly against any negative sentiment towards Nadal, on and on....surely you recognize that by definition you are a Nadal fanatic.  nothing wrong with that though so how can it be an insult?

[It Must Be Love]

I'm not sure Nadal fanatic is an insult

I don't know whether it's meant to come across as an insult, but I perceive it as one.

Yes it is clear that I am a big fan of Nadal, and many of the debates I'm involved in are when I feel he's being unfairly presented or people are being selectively biased against him with specific accusations. There are many people who have a raging hatred of Nadal, as he has beaten their favourite player very often, and in big matches too. I understand that.
In terms of what I actually believe, I think if you took my most controversial opinions and put it to polling across all tennis fans- you would probably get 50%-80% of tennis fans who agree with me.

What are the most controversial opinions I hold ? Nadal being in the top tier of ATGs? I think if people were making tiers were all the GOATS, then most would have Nadal in the top tier (along with Fed, Sampras, Borg etc.)
That the generation that was younger than Federer provided greater challenger and harder competition than players Federer's age ? Again I think most would agree there, if they were being honest.
That I think GOAT debates can't be subjectively concluded ? Once again, I think vast majority of people would agree there.

OK of course I say what I think, some people I feel don't express their opinion in the fear that others may disagree, obviously I'm not one of those people. Also it's true that I always think I'm right, quite stubborn.

I've watched you appear and disappear from 4 different forums

Oh gosh you're making me seem like some sort of magician, appearing and disappearing. At the moment I only really use one forum actively (this one), and in the past 5 years or so I've probably regularly used 3-4 forums at some point or another, including BBC 606.


But alas, this thread was meant to be about tennis, and your unnecessary label/insult has made it now all about me. I'm fine with that, but perhaps if you want to continue you can do so via PM, rather than this thread.

[JuliusHMarx]

But alas, this thread was meant to be about tennis.

Surely it was meant to be a GOAT debate?

[TRuffin]

But alas, this thread was meant to be about tennis.

Surely it was meant to be a GOAT debate?

lol... if you dress up a pig, it's still...............

Amri just doesn't get it...

[TRuffin]

"Yes it is clear that I am a big fan of Nadal....Also it's true that I always think I'm right, quite stubborn."

lol- my point is proven- a FAN that ALWAYS thinks they are RIGHT is by very definition a Fanatic.   Take it any way you want- but you even admit to it.

[/b][/b]

I've watched you appear and disappear from 4 different forums

Oh gosh you're making me seem like some sort of magician, appearing and disappearing. At the moment I only really use one forum actively (this one), and in the past 5 years or so I've probably regularly used 3-4 forums at some point or another, including BBC 606.

Not sure why you would just repeat exactly what I just said as if you were disputing it.   You admit to using then obviously leaving 3-4 forums since you are now only using this one-- which is exactly what I said you have done.  Show up (appear)  leave (disappear).  Now we could dive further into it about the different id's you use on each forum, why you suddenly leave one after being exposed of making up false "inside sources" that would tell you about court conditions ahead of time (always conveniently the conditions would give you an excuse for a Nadal defeat) or who has failed drug tests...  but like you said- this thread is about tennis, not you or a veiled attempt to get into a goat debate.[/quote]

[It Must Be Love]

But alas, this thread was meant to be about tennis.

Surely it was meant to be a GOAT debate?

Well it's not about who's better at golf is it

[It Must Be Love]

lol- my point is proven- a FAN that ALWAYS thinks they are RIGHT is by very definition a Fanatic.

I do not see that as being a fanatic, but human nature.
There are many topics which I either am not interested in, or am not sure what I think either way. However on some things I do form an opinion, and of course on those opinions I believe I am right.
Let's say I held an opinion, and then thought it was wrong, why would I still hold that opinion ? I would either change to 'not sure' or the opposing opinion.
The difference perhaps between me and some other is I'm prepared to defend my own opinion.

why you suddenly leave one after being exposed of making up false "inside sources" that would tell you about court conditions ahead of time (always conveniently the conditions would give you an excuse for a Nadal defeat)

Hmmm, 3 points to make here.
a) That is absolutely not why I left the forum in question. You are make an assumption and it a false one; if you are unsure you can check with the owner of that forum as I made it very clear at the time what my position was- and nothing to do with what you've assumed here.

b) You seem to have misinterpreted me in colossal proportions. Not that I blame you; but posters who know me well enough would probably be able to guess that I was being light hearted there.
The idea I would leave the forum because one guy misinterpreted my light hearted post for something serious is beyond the pale.

c) I don't quite see why you've brought in the activities of another forum here, especially considering I specifically said if you want to continue a debate about me- do so via PM. Even ignoring the fact you've made inaccurate assumptions and misinterpretations; I think negative posts about a poster from another forum should be avoided- as unless we both provide photos it is difficult for people reading on here to see the context and verify whether what you're saying is true or not.
I suspect you brought it up perhaps to continue your attacks on me; rather than actually discuss what I wrote on the article.

And to reiterate again, if you want to continue the tirade against me either PM; or if you want create a new thread for that in particular.

[Henman Bill]

As they're currently level, I say we initiate playground rules.

Next slam the winner.

[Henman Bill]

If there were 2 clay slams Rafa would statistically be the open era GOAT already. Then again, if clay had never been conceived as a surface, he would not even be considered a great. If he had played the peak of his career in 1980s -2006, he might also not have done as well.

[It Must Be Love]

Anyway to get back on tennis discussion, I want to pick out something Born Slippy said:

Hard is also the most balanced surface. It should be the court on which all styles of players have the best chance of success.

At first I was unsure, but now thinking about I think that's pretty much right. Most people are moderately comfortable playing on the surface, so if there's any surface the imbalance should lie towards, I think it is hard courts.
The argument against that maybe is the fact it's not a natural surface and can cause injury; but I still think it is the right choice for the surface to have 2 slams on.

[JuliusHMarx]

As they're currently level, I say we initiate playground rules.

Next slam the winner.

GOAT debates are best left to the playground and those who play there.

[It Must Be Love]

As they're currently level, I say we initiate playground rules.

Next slam the winner.

'Next Goal Wins !'

If he had played the peak of his career in 1980s -2006, he might also not have done as well.

This is something I've thought about at real length, and I yet haven't been able to convince myself of either point of view.

2 opposing opinions would be:
a) A great is a great- he would if needed be able to adjust to a specific set of conditions. For example if Nadal was told the courts would dramatically change one way or another from 2015, it may be with his skills and talents he could go out on court, change his game, and still come out with effective gameplay adjusting for that dramatic change.
So despite him with his current style struggling on 1990's grass, the question is not whether that would be the case (it is palpably true), but whether he would be able to adjust accordingly.
(Also I would like to note, Nadal seems to be used in this hypothetical very often with people trying to further their agenda; in reality with the huge racket and surface changes it could actually apply to any top tennis player)

b) A player is great, but he is also fortunate that the current conditions have played out in the way which suited their DNA/coaching setup/ technique etc.
So it could be if you transferred the whole top 1000 back in time to 1980's with totally different rackets, the whole top 1000 would be in unrecognisable order.

Which of these two opinions seem more convincing ?

[JuliusHMarx]

Also I would like to note, Nadal seems to be used in this hypothetical very often with people trying to further their agenda

Surely you would allow them that - you yourself spend ages using hypotheticals to further your agenda. This OP being another example of that.

[It Must Be Love]

My point was it's not just Nadal that would be impacted if he was to time travel to another decade, others would face similar challenges.

[bogbrush]

I've never been able to take Amri seriously since he spent an afternoon trying to convince me that doubles was a comparable physical challenge to singles.

The article is well up there with normal standard, which is to say its fanatical rubbish. One could just as easily want carpet or wood built into the analysis, it's just piffle.

[It Must Be Love]

I've never been able to take Amri seriously since he spent an afternoon trying to convince me that doubles was a comparable physical challenge to singles.

That is simply a lie, I have never done such a thing. Either take back this lie, or find some evidence. I play both singles and doubles; I'm always sweating after singles, rarely after doubles.

As for the surfaces, I've used the three surfaces used on the ATP tour today; those are the only ones we have significant data on.

Edit:
I do remember btw, the debate you are referring to, with clarity and precision. It was in late 2011/ early 2012; I said I had been impressed by Federer's 2008 Olympics display with the exception of his loss to Blake. He hadn't dropped a set in the first 3 rounds of singles (lost to Blake after that), and won the doubles.
My theory was he losses to Blake as a) Blake played out of his skin and b) Federer's performance level was more inconsistent.
Your theory was it was due to the after effects of mononucleosis, which I disagreed with as I felt even though it was statistically possible, it was unlikely.
You then twisted my words, first implying I was saying his doubles performance itself was enough to convince me he didn't have the effects of mono, and then twisting it further to say I thought the physical effort in singles and doubles are similar. Even a 9 year old who has never played tennis probably could guess singles takes much more efforts than doubles in tennis, please.

There's 'twisting', but after a certain line is crossed it's not longer twisting but just a lie.

[socal1976]

I've never been able to take Amri seriously since he spent an afternoon trying to convince me that doubles was a comparable physical challenge to singles.

The article is well up there with normal standard, which is to say its fanatical rubbish. One could just as easily want carpet or wood built into the analysis, it's just piffle.

Is piffle a word, if so I like it and will use it from now on. It sounds so Dickensian.

[TRuffin]

And to reiterate again, if you want to continue the tirade against me either PM; or if you want create a new thread for that in particular.[/quote]

Amri:
Just because you started a thread doesn't mean you get to tell me what I can and can't say and where I get to say it.  Nearly every response on here from all the posters is either laughing at the absurdity of your theory, saying the word fanatic or fanatical, talking about your using twisted logic and hypotheticals to further your agenda, or recounting past stories of your ridiculous opinions (which as always you remember differently than anyone else). I've said nothing different than the others.
I will refrain from furthering commenting on this thread to make you happy though. It's not worth my time and certainly no one needs my help in seeing it as a typical desperate fanatical hypothetical theory trying to turn Nadal- the greatest clay courter and great player all around into something that he is not- the greatest all around player.[/quote]

[lags72]

Well after an extended absence I just happened to drop by the forum today -  only to see that the same old nonsense is being trotted out by IBML about Federer and Nadal. How depressing.

The only difference of note is that the tired (and of course totally pointless) hypotheticals are from time to time dressed up in supposedly fresh theories along with more statistics and convoluted analysis ; although, I'm fairly certain that we heard long ago all there is to hear in terms of wacky, irrational conjecture as to what might have happened if Slams were played on surfaces other than the ones they ARE played on. But IMBL is seemingly more attracted by idle speculation and the could have/would have/should have/if only line of argument than what actually took place for real.

Like all sport, tennis offers great and often fascinating opportunities, away from the on-court action itself for spirited, healthy debate. That's why vehicles such as 606 develop in the first place. The problem arises when posters enter a bizarre parallel world in which hypothesis allied to fanaticism creates scenarios where logic and fact are removed from the equation. This then manifests itself in articles such as the one at the start of this thread.

Just as an aside .... yes, socal, there is indeed such a word as 'piffle' (not sure whether it owes its origin to Dickens or not !) It's tricky to define precisely - but let's just say that its application in reference to this bizarre and quite absurd article by IMBL (and the OP's subsequent attempts to defend the stance taken) is about as appropriate a use of the word as you can get !

Meanwhile  - back in the real world - I've been enjoying the tennis in recent weeks, am pleased to see Rafa back in action, and am very much looking forward to the remainder of the season - not least the battle for those remaining London spots.

[It Must Be Love]

Well after an extended absence I just happened to drop by the forum today

Read the first 2 paragraphs of the OP Lags

irrational conjecture as to what might have happened if Slams were played on surfaces other than the ones they ARE played on. But IMBL is seemingly more attracted by idle speculation

If you're going to lambast something, at least read it first perhaps ?
It is obvious that I'm not suggesting that there should be 4/3 slams per surface. I am fully aware by the way, that this would be technically impossible. Nor am I speculating that this would happen if there was a 4/3 slams per surface- as I just said it's not physically possible.
Furthermore, I am not saying we should not have an imbalance on hard courts. If you read my comments above, I said out of all surfaces used on the tour at the moment, hard courts would actually be the best suited to have an imbalance on- as many players are comfortable on that.
However what my point was- is that just because the imbalance is best suited to hard courts; it does not mean an imbalance is not there. So it's pretty fair that adjusting for the imbalance is actually the best thing to do if doing further analysis of the statistics. (Note, I am not calling for, or hypothetically speculating that, we actually have 4/3 slams per surface).

I do not mind at all people disagreeing with me, but if people are arguing against something Im not saying it is not fair.

[It Must Be Love]

Just because you started a thread doesn't mean you get to tell me what I can and can't say and where I get to say it.

True, only moderators can order things- I was simply politely asking for you to stop pretending to be my judge, and instead discuss the topic raised.
Of course if you don't want to discuss the topic, then you don't have to- no one is forcing you to.

[bogbrush]

I've never been able to take Amri seriously since he spent an afternoon trying to convince me that doubles was a comparable physical challenge to singles.

That is simply a lie, I have never done such a thing. Either take back this lie, or find some evidence. I play both singles and doubles; I'm always sweating after singles, rarely after doubles.

As for the surfaces, I've used the three surfaces used on the ATP tour today; those are the only ones we have significant data on.

Edit:
I do remember btw, the debate you are referring to, with clarity and precision. It was in late 2011/ early 2012; I said I had been impressed by Federer's 2008 Olympics display with the exception of his loss to Blake. He hadn't dropped a set in the first 3 rounds of singles (lost to Blake after that), and won the doubles.
My theory was he losses to Blake as a) Blake played out of his skin and b) Federer's performance level was more inconsistent.
Your theory was it was due to the after effects of mononucleosis, which I disagreed with as I felt even though it was statistically possible, it was unlikely.
You then twisted my words, first implying I was saying his doubles performance itself was enough to convince me he didn't have the effects of mono, and then twisting it further to say I thought the physical effort in singles and doubles are similar. Even a 9 year old who has never played tennis probably could guess singles takes much more efforts than doubles in tennis, please.

There's 'twisting', but after a certain line is crossed it's not longer twisting but just a lie.

I don't lie, you did as I said. In fact it went on for quite some time after which you had the good grace to accept the error.

Incidentally, if I don't produce evidence do you slap me across the face with your gauntlet?

[bogbrush]

I've never been able to take Amri seriously since he spent an afternoon trying to convince me that doubles was a comparable physical challenge to singles.

The article is well up there with normal standard, which is to say its fanatical rubbish. One could just as easily want carpet or wood built into the analysis, it's just piffle.

Is  piffle a word, if so I like it and will use it from now on. It sounds so Dickensian.

Indeed.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/piffle

I think it's 19th century in origin, it does have that quality.

[It Must Be Love]

Incidentally, if I don't produce evidence do you slap me across the face with your gauntlet?

You did not just twist what I said, you took it past the boundaries of twisting on purpose to try and present something that is obviously not true. Not only that, I remember there was a sustained period where you constantly brought it up in every debate I was involved in that the time, even though it was totally irrelevant to the discussions you were bringing it up on (and not even true in the first place).

It is obvious that playing doubles is less effort than singles, I mean the clue is on the fact there are 4 people covering the court (ok +trams) rather than 2.

[temporary21]

I would imagine that doubles is more short sharp bursts of energy, as you go to the net a lot more and a lot of quick jerky movements to reach volleys. Theres probably a bit more endurance in singles involved.
To be frank, the arguments going nowhere unless you define what you really mean by "effort"

[It Must Be Love]

I would imagine that doubles is more short sharp bursts of energy, as you go to the net a lot more and a lot of quick jerky movements to reach volleys. Theres probably a bit more endurance in singles involved.
To be frank, the arguments going nowhere unless you define what you really mean by "effort"

There's no argument here, over the long term singles is more tiring and takes more stamina than doubles.

[It Must Be Love]

Anyway;

I think the response to my article is what I expected, and many missed my points in the article.

2 things I was implying:
-firstly read my first 2 paragraphs, and then read Lag's comment on the thread above. Is it just me who notices this theme on the forum ? If you don't like a topic, then don't comment- fine. Why not make other threads that do interest you ?
Now I've just had a look at my recent articles, at comments, but more importantly: views. And it shows, the ones most viewed (as well as most commented on) are the ones which are more controversial and to do with analysis of top players. And my threads are not the special exception, that is in general what happens. I post quite a few articles, as do others, that get barely any attention and maybe a few comments, not even getting to half of one page usually (<25 comments).
People are so eager to pass negative comments on why a thread they're commenting on is not worth commenting on, maybe to be smug I don't know why, but don't comment on others sorts of articles or start threads. Why not ?

The second point I was trying to make is one I've made before- on the data I've presented itself. All I'll reiterate is that it is not a hypothetical- because the situation I've described is not physically possible. But it is fairer as it adjusts for the imbalances. Of course it is not totally perfect, as the ATP tour doesn't use every single surface used across the world- but it has picked the three most common surfaces.

[laverfan]

http://archivo.marca.com/edicion/marca/tenis/es/desarrollo/1179715.html

@IMBL... can you help translate the comments from the various persons mentioned in this article. Your Spanish is better than what I can muster.

[hawkeye]

^ Be careful laverfan. My Spanish is appalling but I can still see that the article you have linked to contains the names of both a certain Swiss player and a certain Spanish player in close proximation. You might not be aware but by linking that article here you are in danger of being banned and labeled a troll...

[laverfan]

^ Be careful laverfan. My Spanish is appalling but I can still see that the article you have linked to contains the names of both a certain Swiss player and a certain Spanish player in close proximation. You might not be aware but by linking that article here you are in danger of being banned and labeled a troll...

I have been labelled a Troll, a Fed Worshipper, a Nadal fanatic, a Tree Hugger, ...

Labels are classifications that mean nothing to me. As in Tennis, if variety is the spice of life, let there be variety, including variety of threads on 606v2. Any one watching Shanghai these days? Perhaps I need to start a new thread.

[It Must Be Love]

http://archivo.marca.com/edicion/marca/tenis/es/desarrollo/1179715.html

@IMBL... can you help translate the comments from the various persons mentioned in this article. Your Spanish is better than what I can muster.

Well they took carpets away from the tour, and Mario Ancic seemed pretty annoyed saying the change will go towards making play very boring.

[hawkeye]

I have been labelled a Troll, a Fed Worshipper, a Nadal fanatic, a Tree Hugger, ...

You and me both laverfan Well apart from being called a tree hugger... and at least you have never been banned

Labels are classifications that mean nothing to me. As in Tennis, if variety is the spice of life, let there be variety, including variety of threads on 606v2

Cheers to that

[laverfan]

There is now a sticky for GOAT debates that Adam has created - https://www.606v2.com/t55930-goat-debate

Please use that for any debates where you want your player be nominated an ATG. I would suggest making logical arguments on that thread, and less emotional ones. Hypothesize as you like, pontificate as you choose.

Let other debates live. No matter what your affiliations are, please be civilized to fellow posters. JHM and I and our esteemed founders will be grateful for your cooperation.

[hawkeye]

laverfan. I'm emotional and passionate and have no interest in dry debates. I don't want to hang out in places were humor and satire are not allowed. I'm all for a bit of logic and like to throw numbers about in a fun way but not in a place were everyone is serious. Also I think that ultimately the GOAT debate has little worth but it's fun to ponder questions like who is more like Turner Federer or Nadal? Maybe if someone gave an answer that differed from my own and they couldn't back it up with water tight logic I might even find myself being dismissive. So even if I wanted to say something in that other cold dark isolated place I'm not sure I'd be welcome. Not that I'd want to anyway because I could have more fun being banned. But if you do venture there yourself maybe you could explain my absence? It says that any posters who don't go there will be judged as having no interest in the GOAT debate and of course that's not true.

Now I have another question. I was going to post in the Shanghai thread who I thought would win. But I suppose that's not going to be allowed...

[JuliusHMarx]

The first post on the GOAT debate thread was a humorous, satirical one. And was promptly reported by a poster who thought it was not appropriate and would derail the thread.

Hence a decision had to be made and I went with the person who reported it - because I know they are interested in that thread and did not want them to feel it was spoiled before it was started. Obviously not everyone has the same view, but I was attempting to keep the GOAT debaters happy by removing it.

[Guest]

I guess I will post here given the GOAT Debate is actually going to be 'serious'

In terms of the GOAT Debate, I pose this question to all posters. What is it you are actually going to achieve from this sticky? LF commented on that thread saying they are going to dissuade tribalism, when in fact that very thread will do the opposite and encourage it. This section absolutely learns nothing from others on this forum. Check them all out. Cricket, Boxing, Golf all have what I would call 'unique' posters that post in a way in that does rub others up the wrong way, however it's driven largely by subject matter. I visit the Golf section quite frequently and there is a particular poster (I won't mention names) who has a style that is quite brash. Some have found it offensive and others not.

There are some posters on here that have a 'unique' style and my fear is that these posters are being driven away by the pandering to the minority who in all fairness actually contribute nothing to this section over it's existence.

GOAT Debates are purely for ego inflation elevation. It becomes a contest. There is no need for it. Take the Cricket section and Boxing section. They have HOF sticky's that celebrate all individuals that have contributed to their respective sport. That is what I feel the tennis section needs to do. Past greats and champions are swept aside. A footnote in history. I do wish I was around earlier to see most of these greats. Unfortunately Youtube doesn't have an extensive library where we can enjoy past matches and witness where tennis was many moons ago. I almost feel that posters who have seen past era's are discouraged to post about it because of the euphoria of the current era. Like anything linked to the past causes us to discredit achievements of today. It's not like that at all.

Take the Golf GOAT Debate. You have Nicklaus and Woods. The Golf section doesn't get sucked into such ongoing debates. Helped by the fact probably that they are era's apart. In the Fedal case because they play in the same era, I think it only intensifies the views of supporters and becomes one upmanship.

I recall a thread about the state of the forum. It did generate a wide range of views. For me what the forum lacks is new blood. The new breed of fan. I would hazard a bet that the regular posters on here have lived through the 80's/90's/00's/10's, some even earlier. If we had posters completely invested in all players of this era, we could have some compelling debates. I think I have only seen one poster who is not past his 20's yet. Doesn't that show the lack of interest in tennis from the younger generation?

I am an 80's man. Nothing compares. That for me was tennis was great. That's not saying the current game isn't great. Just I was more invested in the players back then than I am now. If, however I was in the company of fans who are invested in this era, the debates could be interesting.

This section doesn't have anyone who really has the time and passion to start threads on the 250/500 events like other forums. I wish we had a Cogen-esq poster who done the points and everything. Just little things like that which keep the section ticking over. We don't have any posters who follow or enjoy the WTA or the doubles of events. So we are quite limited.

In terms of posters, I do think we lack a bit of banter. I see glimpses from JHM/Murdoch/BB/socal/kingraf and I wish there were more like it. It gets quashed because some take offense and others just don't get it. I do find it amusing and it brings light relief to the section. That is slowly being erroded.

I could contribute more and I can't escape the criticism of the forum without criticising myself. My views on the game do limit me from contributing more regularly. I could purr about the past, but as I do that equally that makes me one dimensional if all I do is harp on about how great the 80's were and how crap the 00's are. Tennis is not creating new stars or champions. I feel youngsters are truly suffocated by the demands of the current game. You have to go back to Delpo I think for any real excitement or buzz about a young player which in itself is quite sad. I hope Kyrgios can have a successful 2015, but for young players to make an impact at Masters events or Slams is becoming the more difficult.

That's my two pence anyway. Apologies.

[It Must Be Love]

Start up threads on non-big players topic, perhaps, if you feel that way.

In 2012 I did relatively extensive coverage of 250 & 500 events in TWS, if you want we can do more analysis on that.
As for threads people don't want to comment on, don't comment then Lol

[Sponsored content]