The v2 Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

+19
socal1976
JuliusHMarx
summerblues
Calder106
Jahu
touch(A)parabola
biugo
Josiah Maiestas
kingraf
greengoblin
coolpixel
laverfan
CAS
Silver
Haddie-nuff
temporary21
It Must Be Love
LuvSports!
Henman Bill
23 posters

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Henman Bill Mon 17 Nov 2014, 7:39 pm

First topic message reminder :

I don't know whether Federer really could or should have played in the final. I had a few suspicions but I suppose we have to give him the benefit of the doubt with his record of so few retirements and withdrawals in his whole career and no solid evidence to the contrary. Likewise, I don't know how fit he is going to be for the final of the Davis Cup. I have no idea.

But what really annoys me is people saying that if he plays in the DC final that will show that his withdrawal was fake/not really necessary, on the grounds that if he really is injured, he surely can't be fit to play two 5 sets matches a week later. I have seen this argument a few times in the last 24 hours or so from a few people who should know better.

Of course it's quite possible that he was completely unfit to play, literally would have been painful to play out a 6-0 6-1 defeat for the crowd, and then be fully fit less than a week later. OF COURSE that's quite possible. It's blatantly wrong to suggest otherwise. There is a mountain of evidence about tennis recovery time, and injuries in general, that suggest that it is quite possible to be in poor condition one day and fine the next. Recovery from physical exercise within a week is HUGELY different to recovery within a day. It is also documented fact that there are injuries and pains that can heal in less than a week.

A few weeks ago I spent 15 hours walking and running in the mountains. The day after, I could barely walk. I mean, seriously, I was hobbling around the house and I certainly wouldn't have gone out for say a few hundred yards walk. 3 days later and I was at 99% fitness. Once, I was completely paralyzed in a bizarre incident and felt 100% the next day. I have been severely ill like in unbelievable pain and 1-2 days later at 100% again. When I trained for a marathon, I was running like 20 miles every Sunday at one stage. After running 20 miles the next day I was hobbling around with aches and pains all over the shop in various places and couldn't have run a mile. But a week later and I can easily run 20 miles again.

I don't care if Federer this week wins both matches 20-18 in the 5th with 100-shot rallies, then does 20 victory laps of the court, then runs 5 miles to a Parisian nightclub, then break dances on his back all night, even if he does, that will not be a strong or conclusive argument in favour of the fact that his injury at the WTF argument was false. It would be at best a small supporting argument and certainly not prove anything.

Now if he pulls out of the Davis Cup, you could use that as the reverse argument that "aha, he is injured after all then". That makes relatively more sense, since injuries are more likely to heal/improve over time than get worse, assuming you are resting. Although it would still not be conclusive.

That is all.

Henman Bill

Posts : 5258
Join date : 2011-12-04

Back to top Go down


Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 2:27 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Granted his timing and paraphrasing wasn't the best. However, it's good to see someone put a premium on a national team event rather than self serving spectacles at the close season. I will give him that much.
Look I don't particularly think 'timing' or 'paraphrasing' matters.

To cut to the chase it's a case of making a judgement: Was Federer's decision to quit on the whole a decision taken out of force, i.e. he simply could not compete at all in the final due to injury; or was it one he took as a preventative choice- i.e. he could have played to an ok  level but probably would have lost anyway and wanted to stay fit for the Davis Cup.
Given the evidence I've seen that my judgement lies closer to the first option (i.e. he simply could not play the final), while Socal disagrees and forms a different judgement, which he is entitled to do so.
I can see where Socal is coming from, and making insults towards him such as 'mentally retarded' etc. is unnecessarily crude and offensive (Edit: OK I notice the admin have deleted Bogbrush's post already); but I still think Socal's judgement of events is unlikely.

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by laverfan Mon 24 Nov 2014, 2:28 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:To cut to the chase it's a case of making a judgement: Was Federer's decision to quit on the whole a decision taken out of force, i.e. he simply could not compete at all in the final due to injury; or was it one he took as a preventative choice- i.e. he could have played to an ok  level but probably would have lost anyway and wanted to stay fit for the Davis Cup.
Given the evidence I've seen that my judgement lies closer to the first option (i.e. he simply could not play the final), while Socal disagrees and forms a different judgement, which he is entitled to do so.

Were you in Lille?

It Must Be Love wrote:I can see where Socal is coming from, [...] but I still think Socal's judgement of events is unlikely.

Even if Federer intentionally and knowingly skipped WTF and chose to prioritize DC to fill his trophy cabinet, why is there such a storm-in-a-tea-cup? It is his prerogative. Is it arrogant, as has been shown, given the same event, there are two or more different judgements are possible, including an injury. BM's anecdotal evidence supports his personal specific judgement, Socal has his own.

As Lydian would say Vive La Difference.


Last edited by laverfan on Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Edited - Typo - LF.)

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11252
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 2:47 pm

Silver wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Granted his timing and paraphrasing wasn't the best. However, it's good to see someone put a premium on a national team event rather than self serving spectacles at the close season. I will give him that much.

Broadly agree, LK. Unfortunately, it can easily be spun the other way by people who choose to.

'Federer chased personal glory by targeting the only thing he hadn't won yet - the DC. It was all about adding to his legacy, not the team competition. And he devalued Novak's achievement by doing so and withdrawing from the WTF. Just proves he thinks he's bigger than the top events.'

And so forth. That's not to say that he shouldn't be criticised, but some of it is pretty personal. Naturally that line of thought skates over literally everything Federer has said since he withdrew from the WTF ('this is for the boys', 'DC not that important in my career', 'Stan Wawrinka walks on water', etc).

Objectively speaking, he was wrong to withdraw from the WTF, in my view. But his heart is in the right place and I don't believe he meant to devalue anything or deliberately cause unrest. He seems to buy quite heavily into the team ethic, and is pretty patriotic. The DC win appeared to mean a lot to him for the right reasons.

Ok!

Indeed.

His reaction post victory spoke volumes. It was for the team, not himself. In his book it's not a legacy enhancer (Though I think it should be) and being part of that team success meant more to him at that point than individual success.

It should be applauded.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Matchpoint Mon 24 Nov 2014, 2:55 pm

To be sure, I believe Federer was injured NOT only due to my own experience, but based on two primary external factors: 1) the NYT report that he wasn't walking normally on Sunday due to injury and 2) Djoko himself reported that when Roger called him about the withdrawal the Swiss also indicated he didn't know if he could even play in Lille. If Djoko believed Federer and seemed it have shown sympathy towards his rival, who am I to question him? 
Of course, anyone is free to believe what they want. To me it's just a matter of respecting the most substantiated scenario.thumbsup

Matchpoint

Posts : 299
Join date : 2014-11-17
Location : Shangri-La

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:16 pm

Blue Moon Smile

Have you named yourself after the legendary beer namesake?

Or the crap songs by Americans of the namesake?

Please tell me it is the former so I can hold you in high esteem OK

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Jahu Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:27 pm

LK doing a bit of Jahu talk there Laugh
Jahu
Jahu

Posts : 6747
Join date : 2011-03-29
Location : Egg am Faaker See

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by It Must Be Love Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:28 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2691
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by JuliusHMarx Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:33 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Blue Moon Smile

Have you named yourself after the legendary beer namesake?

Or the crap songs by Americans of the namesake?

Please tell me it is the former so I can hold you in high esteem OK

I think you'll find that the Cowboy Junkies version of Blue Moon is very good.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 22351
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by It Must Be Love Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:35 pm

Silver wrote:Objectively speaking, he was wrong to withdraw from the WTF, in my view. But his heart is in the right place and I don't believe he meant to devalue anything or deliberately cause unrest. He seems to buy quite heavily into the team ethic, and is pretty patriotic. The DC win appeared to mean a lot to him for the right reasons.
From this paragraph Silver it appears to me that your position is in essence closer to Socal's and LK's than it is to mine.
Of course you and Socal will phrase it differently, Socal likes using colourful metaphors etc.

laverfan wrote:Even if Federer intentionally and knowingly skipped WTF and chose to prioritize DC to fill his trophy cabinet, why is there such a storm-in-a-tea-cup? It is his prerogative.
If that was the case, it would be disgraceful professionalism.

Blue Moon wrote:Djoko himself reported that when Roger called him about the withdrawal the Swiss also indicated he didn't know if he could even play in Lille. If Djoko believed Federer and seemed it have shown sympathy towards his rival, who am I to question him?
No, I don't think this has any real significance either way. Djokovic would never publicly say he doesn't believe Federer.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2691
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Haddie-nuff Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:45 pm

Whilst it is the "job" of this forum to discuss this kind of topic it surely will always remain an imponderable...
Who will ever REALLY know. It is left to the individual what they suspect is the truth.. unless Federer ever reveals it in his autobiography in years to come.. we will only have a massive ?? Wink

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6936
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:45 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

If it was an injury why not say that and leave it at that? Why all the talk about levels of play? That to me said he 'could' play and entertained that idea. What he done was a simple risk assessment of the situation. Which was in his current physical state (at the time), he couldn't beat Djokovic. There's no problem in admitting that. It's the smart play. When he looked ahead to an event he had a better chance of winning, he chose it. It proved to be the right call.

My issue is this. Pull out the night before. Save yourself for the DC and the season ahead. Point in case, he didn't need to be in that position he found himself in on the Sunday.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by bogbrush Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:46 pm

temporary21 wrote:Just a quick word, calling someones post or them "mentally retarded" isnt received well by the forum and isnt acceptable by the standards of the moderators. Please keep your disagreements with each others posts on topic, and respectful.

Imagine if Novak had pulled out of that final? The W/o was always going to attract some flak in some form, please bear that in mind
I didn't call him that, I said either that or trolling were the only logical explanations for such a ridiculous post.

It was on topic, it's wasn't disrespectful, unless you think identifying a clearly absurd post as such qualifies.

If you're going to moderate at least read the posts properly. With respect.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:47 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Blue Moon Smile

Have you named yourself after the legendary beer namesake?

Or the crap songs by Americans of the namesake?

Please tell me it is the former so I can hold you in high esteem OK

I think you'll find that the Cowboy Junkies version of Blue Moon is very good.

tomato raspberry

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by bogbrush Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:49 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

If it was an injury why not say that and leave it at that? Why all the talk about levels of play? That to me said he 'could' play and entertained that idea. What he done was a simple risk assessment of the situation. Which was in his current physical state (at the time), he couldn't beat Djokovic. There's no problem in admitting that. It's the smart play. When he looked ahead to an event he had a better chance of winning, he chose it. It proved to be the right call.

My issue is this. Pull out the night before. Save yourself for the DC and the season ahead. Point in case, he didn't need to be in that position he found himself in on the Sunday.
I thought he covered that in his address to the crowd.

He had taken pain killers through the day, tried to get looser, and only gave up an hour or so before the match. Now are you suggesting a better idea was to have not bothered giving it everything and calling off the night before? After all, you don't know how an injury such as that will react until the next morning.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 3:53 pm

bogbrush wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

If it was an injury why not say that and leave it at that? Why all the talk about levels of play? That to me said he 'could' play and entertained that idea. What he done was a simple risk assessment of the situation. Which was in his current physical state (at the time), he couldn't beat Djokovic. There's no problem in admitting that. It's the smart play. When he looked ahead to an event he had a better chance of winning, he chose it. It proved to be the right call.

My issue is this. Pull out the night before. Save yourself for the DC and the season ahead. Point in case, he didn't need to be in that position he found himself in on the Sunday.
I thought he covered that in his address to the crowd.

He had taken pain killers through the day, tried to get looser, and only gave up an hour or so before the match. Now are you suggesting a better idea was to have not bothered giving it everything and calling off the night before? After all, you don't know how an injury such as that will react until the next morning.

Indeed. The old lark of taking Paracetamol/Ibuprofen wasn't really going to have an effect to the point he would run out like a spring chicken. If he on the other hand did, I would question what a 'bad back' constitutes with my experience of them and the people I know with them.

In fairness when he plays with it fans are queing up to hand him a Purple Heart!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Matchpoint Mon 24 Nov 2014, 4:27 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Blue Moon Smile

Have you named yourself after the legendary beer namesake?

Or the crap songs by Americans of the namesake?

Please tell me it is the former so I can hold you in high esteem OK
Neither, sorry to disappoint.

When I signed up I only intended to post once in a blue moon, that's where it comes from. Think "rarity". But alas, I'm finding myself posting way more than I wanted to. Anyway, thanks for the goodwill Hug.

Matchpoint

Posts : 299
Join date : 2014-11-17
Location : Shangri-La

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Matchpoint Mon 24 Nov 2014, 4:29 pm

IMBL:
I agree with your view that Federer was injured based simply on unmistakable visual evidence of his lack of movement in the practice court post-London. I read that as late as Wednesday he could only manage 20 minutes and during this brief period he did not try to slide even once. 

But I'm not inclined to promote a strictly personal view without outside unsupported. Significant or not we'll never know for sure, but Djokovich's statement serves as an external source consistent with my view. That's important for me.

Matchpoint

Posts : 299
Join date : 2014-11-17
Location : Shangri-La

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by laverfan Mon 24 Nov 2014, 4:59 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:Even if Federer intentionally and knowingly skipped WTF and chose to prioritize DC to fill his trophy cabinet, why is there such a storm-in-a-tea-cup? It is his prerogative.
If that was the case, it would be disgraceful professionalism.

1. Do you have a yardstick for disgraceful professionalism ?
2. The DC Video here http://www.daviscup.com/en/news/191216.aspx does support an 'injury' conclusion.
3. Do you want me to dig up non-Federer similar instances? The most disgraceful in my list is Jeff Tarango @W. There is also this gem - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aukuytHEhwQ.

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11252
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by It Must Be Love Mon 24 Nov 2014, 5:18 pm

laverfan wrote:
2. The DC Video here http://www.daviscup.com/en/news/191216.aspx does support an 'injury' conclusion.
As I've made clear, that is my position.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2691
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by bogbrush Mon 24 Nov 2014, 6:03 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

If it was an injury why not say that and leave it at that? Why all the talk about levels of play? That to me said he 'could' play and entertained that idea. What he done was a simple risk assessment of the situation. Which was in his current physical state (at the time), he couldn't beat Djokovic. There's no problem in admitting that. It's the smart play. When he looked ahead to an event he had a better chance of winning, he chose it. It proved to be the right call.

My issue is this. Pull out the night before. Save yourself for the DC and the season ahead. Point in case, he didn't need to be in that position he found himself in on the Sunday.
I thought he covered that in his address to the crowd.

He had taken pain killers through the day, tried to get looser, and only gave up an hour or so before the match. Now are you suggesting a better idea was to have not bothered giving it everything and calling off the night before? After all, you don't know how an injury such as that will react until the next morning.

Indeed. The old lark of taking Paracetamol/Ibuprofen wasn't really going to have an effect to the point he would run out like a spring chicken. If he on the other hand did, I would question what a 'bad back' constitutes with my experience of them and the people I know with them.

In fairness when he plays with it fans are queing up to hand him a Purple Heart!
I'm baffled by that.

The night before was more or less when his match finished, he'd have no idea then whether it would have done together by match time.

If he'd called off then he'd have been pilloried for not even trying. Especially if he then showed up a week later!
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by It Must Be Love Mon 24 Nov 2014, 6:19 pm

Bogbrush, as I identified earlier, LK's position on this is also that he thinks if it was Nishikori in the final, Federer would have played- but it was that Djokovic's level was too much so he thought it wasn't worth it.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2691
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by kingraf Mon 24 Nov 2014, 6:26 pm

Yes Federer was in a lose lose situation. I know he said it wasn't a big deal... but I've never seen him cry winning a 250... then again, he is the emotional sort.

kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16597
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 29
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 6:50 pm

bogbrush wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

If it was an injury why not say that and leave it at that? Why all the talk about levels of play? That to me said he 'could' play and entertained that idea. What he done was a simple risk assessment of the situation. Which was in his current physical state (at the time), he couldn't beat Djokovic. There's no problem in admitting that. It's the smart play. When he looked ahead to an event he had a better chance of winning, he chose it. It proved to be the right call.

My issue is this. Pull out the night before. Save yourself for the DC and the season ahead. Point in case, he didn't need to be in that position he found himself in on the Sunday.
I thought he covered that in his address to the crowd.

He had taken pain killers through the day, tried to get looser, and only gave up an hour or so before the match. Now are you suggesting a better idea was to have not bothered giving it everything and calling off the night before? After all, you don't know how an injury such as that will react until the next morning.

Indeed. The old lark of taking Paracetamol/Ibuprofen wasn't really going to have an effect to the point he would run out like a spring chicken. If he on the other hand did, I would question what a 'bad back' constitutes with my experience of them and the people I know with them.

In fairness when he plays with it fans are queing up to hand him a Purple Heart!
I'm baffled by that.

The night before was more or less when his match finished, he'd have no idea then whether it would have done together by match time.

If he'd called off then he'd have been pilloried for not even trying. Especially if he then showed up a week later!

Why baffled?

I wouldn't slate him for not trying. Far from it. If the guy is injured, I wouldn't see the point of aggravating the injury when you don't 'need' to. Myself I played a lot of sport with nagging injuries and niggles. Not for the prestige of prizes today's athletes play for, however if I was, I would consider more precautionary actions if there was a more lucrative prize around the corner.

I have seen some of the criticism of Roger and in a way made a rod for his own back (no pun intended) playing through injuries and niggles. It will come with the territory. If your hurt and which he was, levels of play don't warrant mentioning. Your hurt and can't play. Keep it simple.

He is vindicated anyhow because they won the Davis Cup. I see no need to escalate the argument.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 6:51 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, as I identified earlier, LK's position on this is also that he thinks if it was Nishikori in the final, Federer would have played- but it was that Djokovic's level was too much so he thought it wasn't worth it.

clap

I don't think my post was that confusing it warranted translating.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by laverfan Mon 24 Nov 2014, 7:02 pm

kingraf wrote:Yes Federer was in a lose lose situation. I know he said it wasn't a big deal... but I've never seen him cry winning a 250... then again, he is the emotional sort.


The miniature DC replica was worth playing for though. Wink

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11252
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Haddie-nuff Mon 24 Nov 2014, 7:14 pm

laverfan wrote:
kingraf wrote:Yes Federer was in a lose lose situation. I know he said it wasn't a big deal... but I've never seen him cry winning a 250... then again, he is the emotional sort.


The miniature DC replica was worth playing for though. Wink

He had a gap in his trophy room waiting to be filled Wink

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6936
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by bogbrush Mon 24 Nov 2014, 7:22 pm

I think it's truly bizarre to say that a top player would ever duck a match. Seems obvious to me he tried not to.

Ok, it means people wasted a trip, I get that, but ultimately he said he tried to make the match and all evidence suggests he did so. I'm struggling to see what's bad about that.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Mon 24 Nov 2014, 7:46 pm

I don't think it's entirely bizarre. I find it more bizarre he referenced not being able to compete against Djokovic's level. To me how he worded it and given the fact the DC was round the corner just to me was a bit of duck.

Yes it was crap for the fans and I totally understand it. I felt the decision should've come earlier. He felt his back go against Wawrinka. He is asking a lot thinking he could make some form of recovery in under 24 hours.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by laverfan Mon 24 Nov 2014, 7:51 pm

bogbrush wrote:I think it's truly bizarre to say that a top player would ever duck a match. Seems obvious to me he tried not to.

Ok, it means people wasted a trip, I get that, but ultimately he said he tried to make the match and all evidence suggests he did so. I'm struggling to see what's bad about that.

The complaint is that he left Djokovic fans high and dry and like Fogninininiiiiii left Djokovic out of the would-be-GOAT debate, if had won the WTF 3-peat beating one of GOTEs. Wink

Foggy did his best to feign cramps v Montanes, only to make Djokovic suffer. Federer is worse than Foggy, a slime ball and pond scum. How dare he want to win a 250 and a stupid wedding cake of a replica? Laugh

In W 2007, IIRC, Federer waited for 3+ days after Safin to play JCF.

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11252
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Haddie-nuff Mon 24 Nov 2014, 7:57 pm

But he didnt want to win a stupid wedding cake of a replica did he ?. not for himself.. after all as he said he has won enough in his career.. he did it for the boys !!  Very commendable I think Smile

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6936
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by laverfan Mon 24 Nov 2014, 10:21 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:But he didnt want to win a stupid wedding cake of a replica did he ?. not for himself.. after all as he said he has won enough in his career.. he did it for the boys !!  Very commendable I think Smile

Personally, I do not think Federer gives a hoot about this v2 tug-o-war. Only the posters who hang out here seem to think this is an interesting topic. Either way, it is interesting to read the description of the White Elephant.

Please tell Nadal to get better soon. rose

Some day perhaps Leo/Lanny will play doubles against Stefan/Nadal Jr. or will it be Stefan/Tipsy Jr.?

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11252
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Jahu Mon 24 Nov 2014, 10:28 pm

Would wifes be ok if Leo dates Alexia?
Jahu
Jahu

Posts : 6747
Join date : 2011-03-29
Location : Egg am Faaker See

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Haddie-nuff Mon 24 Nov 2014, 11:10 pm

laverfan wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:But he didnt want to win a stupid wedding cake of a replica did he ?. not for himself.. after all as he said he has won enough in his career.. he did it for the boys !!  Very commendable I think Smile

Personally, I do not think Federer gives a hoot about this v2 tug-o-war. Only the posters who hang out here seem to think this is an interesting topic. Either way, it is interesting to read the description of the White Elephant.

Please tell Nadal to get better soon. rose

Some day perhaps Leo/Lanny will play doubles against Stefan/Nadal Jr. or will it be Stefan/Tipsy Jr.?[/quo

Just remember LF you mentioned him  I didn't Wink


http://www.marca.com/en/2014/11/22/en/more_sports/1416674259.html

Haddie-nuff

Posts : 6936
Join date : 2011-02-27
Location : Returned to Spain

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by socal1976 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 5:22 am

temporary21 wrote:Just a quick word, calling someones post or them "mentally retarded" isnt received well by the forum and isnt acceptable by the standards of the moderators. Please keep your disagreements with each others posts on topic, and respectful.

Imagine if Novak had pulled out of that final? The W/o was always going to attract some flak in some form, please bear that in mind

Exactly, 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 so he could play two 5 setters in a few days. Federer even mentions it in his comments, he doesn't say I can't play at all or move at all, what he said was he was not at the level to play Novak. A very telling statement. He could have played but not at the optimum level, well guess what players all the time go out there with niggles or fatigue or illness or jet lag. And for the tour finals he should have at least given it a go and if need be taken his beating like a man.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by socal1976 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 5:40 am

Blue Moon wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Blue Moon wrote:My point is, Federer played a week later like nothing happened (injury-wise)in London does NOT prove nothing happened. I mentioned in an earlier post that according to the New York Times, pls go to the sports section, Nov. 16, the article by Christopher Clarey (btw when I pasted the link or quoted stuff from the link on my REPLY, this post won't go thru, can someone tell me why, thanks), it has been reported that Federer was hurting so badly last Sunday he couldn't walk normally!! 

So are we to assume that no one told federer he could use some muscle cream and some Alleve? I am not a doctor either but I have played tennis as well and certainly there is a chance that he was so banged up he couldn't go on Sunday but could have a go for 3 to 5 hour match on Friday. But the likelihood is not that high. Plus if you go back to his quote when he withdraws he says "I could not play Novak", he makes it clear that he could play but not to the level where he would have a good chance of winning. At least it is implied in his quote. It is possible to be injured and make a full recovery in a short period of time. But it is doubtful that injury he withdrew for was serious, and it is doubtful that with treatement and preparation he could not h
ave made a go of it. He obviously wasn't seriously injured, he just wanted to protect himself for Davis cup. If he was seriously hurt he wouldn't have been able to do it on Friday either.

Hmm, let's see, likelihood, implied, doubtful, if.........a string of speculations/allegations with many tentative words but not a single external source in your support. Sounds like you haven't bothered to verify your thinking with the current tennis news reports. Sorry, wishful thinking on your part will remain as such, wishful.

Neither you nor I examined him or are doctors therefore your speculation is as much speculation as my speculation.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by socal1976 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 5:54 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

If it was an injury why not say that and leave it at that? Why all the talk about levels of play? That to me said he 'could' play and entertained that idea. What he done was a simple risk assessment of the situation. Which was in his current physical state (at the time), he couldn't beat Djokovic. There's no problem in admitting that. It's the smart play. When he looked ahead to an event he had a better chance of winning, he chose it. It proved to be the right call.

My issue is this. Pull out the night before. Save yourself for the DC and the season ahead. Point in case, he didn't need to be in that position he found himself in on the Sunday.


Up to that I fully agree, a simple read of Federer's statement regarding he can't play at that level, can't play Novak, is not the same thing as I can't walk, I can't run, I can't swing the racket, I can't play at all. And that is specifically the point I am making. You go on to say that you think it was a wise decision. I think it is a little bit of an F---u, to the fans, Djokovic, and the tour considering it is a major event and the last one of the season. But I agree with the underlying assumption. He didn't say I can't play he said I can't play Novak and talked about level of his play. And I also agree if it was Nishikori who he stands a better chance of beating and who if he is giving up errors you don't have to kill yourself to beat I think he would have given it a go. How much do you want to make a bet that if it was Nish, and he was playing for the year end #1 he would of showed up and fought like the devil for that match?

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by JuliusHMarx Tue 25 Nov 2014, 8:14 am

socal1976 wrote:
temporary21 wrote:Just a quick word, calling someones post or them "mentally retarded" isnt received well by the forum and isnt acceptable by the standards of the moderators. Please keep your disagreements with each others posts on topic, and respectful.

Imagine if Novak had pulled out of that final? The W/o was always going to attract some flak in some form, please bear that in mind

Exactly, 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 .....

If the shoe was on the other foot my belief is that you'd be defending Djoko to the hilt.
What this whole episode shows, as LF alludes to, is that we find fault (or otherwise) to fit our existing ideas. It's the easiest path to choose.
We admit to speculation, but are nevertheless certain we are correct.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 22351
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Jahu Tue 25 Nov 2014, 8:48 am

Also, this "scandal" has been great to let people here empty their rage and show their true/fake colors, that though many here prop the idea that they are all about tennis, a lot of them have a undisputed internal rage to empty their little souls in open, the second something shows up that is worthy of a punch.

Keep it up, best thread/thing this year Laugh
Jahu
Jahu

Posts : 6747
Join date : 2011-03-29
Location : Egg am Faaker See

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by bogbrush Tue 25 Nov 2014, 8:53 am

socal1976 wrote:
temporary21 wrote:Just a quick word, calling someones post or them "mentally retarded" isnt received well by the forum and isnt acceptable by the standards of the moderators. Please keep your disagreements with each others posts on topic, and respectful.

Imagine if Novak had pulled out of that final? The W/o was always going to attract some flak in some form, please bear that in mind

Exactly, 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 so he could play two 5 setters in a few days. Federer even mentions it in his comments, he doesn't say I can't play at all or move at all, what he said was he was not at the level to play Novak. A very telling statement. He could have played but not at the optimum level, well guess what players all the time go out there with niggles or fatigue or illness or jet lag. And for the tour finals he should have at least given it a go and if need be taken his beating like a man.
Yeah, Federer should be criticised for his appalling record of withdrawals and retirement through his career. A player of his experience should have set a better example than ducking and diving all the time and it's reached the point where people just need to speak out.

I mean, if only he'd had a spotless record for>1200 matches over 15 years maybe he could be given the benefit of any doubt but...
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Matchpoint Tue 25 Nov 2014, 9:09 am

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.

Matchpoint

Posts : 299
Join date : 2014-11-17
Location : Shangri-La

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Matchpoint Tue 25 Nov 2014, 9:25 am

LK, pls see my post to SoCal above, I disagree that Federer would have  played in the London final if it had been Nishi. Again, from Sunday in London right after beating Wawrinka, it took him 4 days to be able to hit again, only 20 minutes, the following Wednesday in Lille. So if you acknowledge these 4 consecutive days completely out of action due to injury, how could he have played a match at all that very day on Sunday, vs anyone?

Matchpoint

Posts : 299
Join date : 2014-11-17
Location : Shangri-La

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Tue 25 Nov 2014, 9:30 am

socal1976 wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

I'll be frank. If it was Nishikori in the final and not Djokovic, IMHO Federer would've been on that court in a flash.

Look I don't need to hear waffle like oh my level isn't high enough to match Djokovic.

If your injured just say it. Don't gloss it over with unnecessary waffle.
OK your first sentence is where the real debate is here.

If what you're saying is true (and btw I believe Socal agrees with your opinion here) that's massively disrespectful from Federer towards the fans at the o2 that day. You'd have to be a pretty ardent Federer fan to argue differently (assuming your judgement is correct).
However I disagree with your premise itself, as I've stated before, I don't think Federer would duck Djokovic unless he really couldn't play.

If it was an injury why not say that and leave it at that? Why all the talk about levels of play? That to me said he 'could' play and entertained that idea. What he done was a simple risk assessment of the situation. Which was in his current physical state (at the time), he couldn't beat Djokovic. There's no problem in admitting that. It's the smart play. When he looked ahead to an event he had a better chance of winning, he chose it. It proved to be the right call.

My issue is this. Pull out the night before. Save yourself for the DC and the season ahead. Point in case, he didn't need to be in that position he found himself in on the Sunday.


Up to that I fully agree, a simple read of Federer's statement regarding he can't play at that level, can't play Novak, is not the same thing as I can't walk, I can't run, I can't swing the racket, I can't play at all. And that is specifically the point I am making. You go on to say that you think it was a wise decision. I think it is a little bit of an F---u, to the fans, Djokovic, and the tour considering it is a major event and the last one of the season. But I agree with the underlying assumption. He didn't say I can't play he said I can't play Novak and talked about level of his play. And I also agree if it was Nishikori who he stands a better chance of beating and who if he is giving up errors you don't have to kill yourself to beat I think he would have given it a go. How much do you want to make a bet that if it was Nish, and he was playing for the year end #1 he would of showed up and fought like the devil for that match?

Yes the fans got a raw deal, but hey such is life.

In fairness to Federer the scheduling was crap. Should've allowed at least a week's rest between the 2 events.

Like I said it is good to see someone put a premium on the Davis Cup. It's a great advert for the event.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Calder106 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 9:51 am

A far as I am aware the DC final has been the week after the WTF for at least the last 5 years. So no change this year. As has been proven by Federer playing all three days there was plenty time for recovery.

Calder106

Posts : 1380
Join date : 2011-06-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Guest Tue 25 Nov 2014, 10:10 am

How many players have played the final of the WTF as well as the DC final? Not many.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by It Must Be Love Tue 25 Nov 2014, 10:16 am

Yes but the chance of being eligible to play (reaching) in both of those is quite low.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2691
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Calder106 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 10:33 am

Again if I am correct. Since 2010 Djokovic x2, Ferrer x2, Berdych x2 and Nadal. Then this year Federer and Wawrinka. So it's not that uncommon.

Calder106

Posts : 1380
Join date : 2011-06-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by It Must Be Love Tue 25 Nov 2014, 10:39 am

He said final of the WTF.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2691
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Calder106 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 10:47 am

Apologies thought it was WTF finals. The point was though that the schedule has been the same for a number of years. Blaming the schedule implies that Federer could have played on the Sunday if there had been a break between the WTF and Davis Cup.

Calder106

Posts : 1380
Join date : 2011-06-14

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by lags72 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 12:35 pm

Having read through the whole thread (147 posts and counting .... Shocked ) 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.

lags72

Posts : 5018
Join date : 2011-11-07

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by socal1976 Tue 25 Nov 2014, 12:43 pm

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.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy - Page 3 Empty Re: Federer's Injury: The Logical Fallacy

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum