PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon - Boring without Nadal


Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 06:52 PM
That's all I can say....it lacks excitement without Nadal.

filphil
07-04-2012, 06:58 PM
I had/am having fun.

dudeski
07-04-2012, 07:01 PM
It's an amazing feeling knowing that Nadal is out. Feels so good!

Jay_The_Nomad
07-04-2012, 07:03 PM
It's an amazing feeling knowing that Nadal is out. Feels so good!

Why? Because Rogi has a better chance Of winning?:confused:

El Diablo
07-04-2012, 07:07 PM
Not boring at all. Loved the Murray/Ferrer match, great to see Tsonga go deep, four very athletic women in the ladies' semis, plenty of good tennis.

dudeski
07-04-2012, 07:10 PM
Why? Because Rogi has a better chance Of winning?:confused:

Because Nadal is guaranteed to lose over 1000 points and stay at 11 for a while.

Nostradamus
07-04-2012, 07:10 PM
Much more exciting without him. Murray vs Tsonga semi will be blockbuster match, perhaps match of the tournament. if Nadal was here, it would be boring.

Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 07:11 PM
Murray is the most boring player I've ever seen...no charisma whatsoever...no redeeming qualities...a complete bore to watch.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 07:12 PM
I thought the Tsonga-Kohlschreiber QF was more exciting and fun to watch than any Nadal match I have ever seen.

Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 07:12 PM
I liked the Murray/Ferrer match....if Ferrer had won.

Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 07:12 PM
Tsonga and Kohlschreiber was a good match....

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Why? Because Rogi has a better chance Of winning?:confused:
No, because Nadal is a bore to watch.

Aeropax
07-04-2012, 07:14 PM
Why? Tsonga/Murray should be good... It will be a real damn shame if Murray loses though. Tsonga will lay down and die against Federer/Djokovic.


Federer will win Wimby unless Djoker takes him out. I sincerely only think Murray can beat Djokovic in the final. Let's face it, Djokovic is good, but not THAT good on grass.

He had extreme confidence against Rafa and that's the only reason he won. I still think Federer, Rafa, and Murray are better than him on grass.

Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 07:16 PM
Murray chokes against Fed and/or Djokovic...and Nadal....he is a guy who is in a tier below the top 3 guys.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 07:20 PM
The Brits (and everyone everywhere else around the world) love Federer. So a Federer-Murray final will have an amazing atmosphere. There will be a lot of cheering for both players.

Towser83
07-04-2012, 07:23 PM
well one of the top 3 going out is going to be a bit of loss (no offence to Murray, but he has gone out early in slams more than the other 3)

TheTruth
07-04-2012, 07:30 PM
Pretty boring for me too. Although I have enjoyed watching the WTA. The Quarters (ATP) were a bit of a dud for me.

TopFH
07-04-2012, 07:31 PM
It has been only boring for *******s.

Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 07:35 PM
Butt - he is exciting to watch...

Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 07:36 PM
You think Murray is exciting to watch? Watching the grass grow is more exciting.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 07:41 PM
You think Murray is exciting to watch? Watching the grass grow is more exciting.
Yes, I do find Murray exciting to watch. But he's boring to listen to because he has such a boring voice.

Atherton2003
07-04-2012, 07:43 PM
Lol................

Sentinel
07-04-2012, 07:50 PM
The Rosol match was the match of the year. Match de dingo

Seriously, though, we still have the top 5 players in the final four, so you cannot call it bad. The semi-final lineup looks good. Most likely the final will be Joker vs Tsonga and that should be great.

Raging Buddha
07-04-2012, 07:57 PM
I'd say it's infinitely better.

tlm
07-04-2012, 08:02 PM
Murray chokes against Fed and/or Djokovic...and Nadal....he is a guy who is in a tier below the top 3 guys.

He seems that way at times but he can play very good and be a factor and is playing very good right now.

TopFH
07-04-2012, 08:05 PM
He seems that way at times but he can play very good and be a factor and is playing very good right now.

Good thing you edited before someone caught you and your reading comprehensions skills.

tlm
07-04-2012, 08:12 PM
Good thing you edited before someone caught you and your reading comprehensions skills.

Okay there Mr reading comprehension professor.

cc0509
07-04-2012, 08:18 PM
The Rosol match was the match of the year. Match de dingo

Seriously, though, we still have the top 5 players in the final four, so you cannot call it bad. The semi-final lineup looks good. Most likely the final will be Joker vs Tsonga and that should be great.

Nope, I don't think Tsonga will beat Murray in the SF.

Defcon
07-04-2012, 08:27 PM
Nadal sucks any excitement out of a tournament with his boring game. It's much better without him.

Tenez101
07-04-2012, 08:28 PM
On the contrary, it's a lot more exciting with Nadal out, as it opens up one of the spots in the finals. Plus, Djokodal finals were starting to get boring.

MichaelNadal
07-04-2012, 08:36 PM
Can't lie, it's been more boring for me bc there's less tennis that im watching.

Boomgoesthedynamite
07-04-2012, 08:37 PM
Actually, there hasn't been much discussion/excitement regarding this Wimbledon this year at my tennis club. In the past, we organized parties for weekend matches, but this year I didn't see anything posted. There were sign-up sheets at the beginning of the tournament, but were taken down due to lack of participants.

augustobt
07-04-2012, 08:39 PM
Rosol/Nadal was a nice match to watch. Tsonga vs Kohl, Murray vs Ferrer, Federer vs the angry russian...

everything is better without a buttpicker.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 08:41 PM
Can't lie, it's been more boring for me bc there's less tennis that im watching.



Yeah,me too. I've been less interested in Wimby this year no doubt. When the winner is pre-determined already,what's the point of watching it?

THESEXPISTOL
07-04-2012, 08:50 PM
Never understood why some people actually enjoy watching Nadal's matches.

Sentinel
07-04-2012, 08:54 PM
Yeah,me too. I've been less interested in Wimby this year no doubt. When the winner is pre-determined already,what's the point of watching it?
You've obviously not watched the French Open for a long time, except for 2009.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 08:58 PM
You've obviously not watched the French Open for a long time, except for 2009.


Rolaids is dominating everywhere,not just one tournament. It's not even remotely the same thing at all.

Sentinel
07-04-2012, 08:58 PM
Can't lie, it's been more boring for me bc there's less tennis that im watching.
At least I can say this with some certainty, never heard of the Fed fan base saying that WO was boring for them since Roger got out in the QF. :)

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 08:59 PM
All the commentators on both ESPN and Tennis Channel have been saying that this has been one of the best Wimbledons in recent memory. I've got to attribute that to Nadal losing early, and of course, the Nadal-Rosol match is one of the reasons they've been saying that this has been one of the most extraordinary Wimbledons in a long time. :)

TopFH
07-04-2012, 09:00 PM
Okay there Mr.Reading Comprehension professor.
Fixed it.

The post was talking about Murray and then you went on ranting about Nadal not being a top player, etc...

I was going to call you on that one, but when I clicked on the "Quote" button, you had already changed it. Fast reflexes.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:00 PM
At least I can say this with some certainty, never heard of the Fed fan base saying that WO was boring for them since Roger got out in the QF. :)


No,but some of them have said they will stop watching tennis when he retires. That's worse than skipping one pre-determined tournament.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:03 PM
All the commentators on both ESPN and Tennis Channel have been saying that this has been one of the best Wimbledons in recent memory. I've got to attribute that to Nadal losing early, and of course, the Nadal-Rosol match is one of the reasons they've been saying that this has been one of the most extraordinary Wimbledons in a long time. :)



Yep,I take everything the bandwagoning talking heads on either one of those channels say as the gospel. :roll: I would love to see the ratings for this tournament I know that much.

FlashFlare11
07-04-2012, 09:03 PM
Well I've thoroughly enjoyed this year's Wimbledon so far (besides the panic attacks Roger gave me in the 3R and 4R). Rosol and Benneteau played fantastic grass-court matches (Rosol, especially. He was going to beat the guy across the net that day, no matter who it was. Unlucky that it had to be Nadal). Nadal going out allowed a player like Kohlschreiber to move through to the quarters and he played a fantastic match against Tsonga. Before that, we had Cilic and Querry going the distance in the fifth, as well as Youzhny and Istomin, both of which were high-quality matches. Now we get Djokovic/Federer (not much needs to be said here) and Murray/Tsonga (two great grass-courters) in the semis.

I can't speak for everyone but I've really enjoyed Wimbledon this year!

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:05 PM
Well I've thoroughly enjoyed this year's Wimbledon so far (besides the panic attacks Roger gave me in the 3R and 4R). Nadal going out allowed a player like Kohlschreiber to move through to the quarters and he played a fantastic match against Tsonga. Before that, we had Cilic and Querry going the distance in the fifth, as well as Youzhny and Istomin, both of which were high-quality matches. Now we get Djokovic/Federer (not much needs to be said here) and Murray/Tsonga (two great grass-courters) in the semis.

I can't speak for everyone but I've really enjoyed Wimbledon this year!


Yep,and if Benny hadn't choked his two set lead he would have done the same. I am also sure you would have just adored Wimby this year had Fed lost that match,huh? I mean,some lower ranked player would have been allowed to go through the draw further than he normally would have,so it would have been just great for the tournament,right?

MichaelNadal
07-04-2012, 09:06 PM
Never understood why some people actually enjoy watching Nadal's matches.

Never understood why it bothers people so much. He's DIFFERENT. Don't know why that's so hard to understand. Nadal was something completely new and different when he came on the scene. Maybe some of you don't remember how ridiculously boring and monotone tennis had gotten during Federer's domination.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 09:08 PM
Yep,I take everything the bandwagoning talking heads on either one of those channels say as the gospel. :roll: I would love to see the ratings for this tournament I know that much.
What does being the best or the most extraordinary Wimbledon have anything at all to do with ratings? :confused: Nobody knows a match is going to be great until AFTER it's happened and by then, it's too late to add to the ratings.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:10 PM
Never understood why it bothers people so much. He's DIFFERENT. Don't know why that's so hard to understand. Nadal was something completely new and different when he came on the scene. Maybe some of you don't remember how ridiculously boring and monotone tennis had gotten during Federer's domination.


No way. These people loved it when Fed was winning every single tournament he entered,and had no opposition to challenge him. Nadal threw a wrench into that set-up,and they have hated his mere existence ever since.

courtking
07-04-2012, 09:10 PM
That's all I can say....it lacks excitement without Nadal.

yeah.. we all missed the moon balling..

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:11 PM
What does being the best or the most extraordinary Wimbledon have anything at all to do with ratings? :confused: Nobody knows a match is going to be great until AFTER it's happened and by then, it's too late to add to the ratings.


Ratings matter a whole lot to Fed fans it seems,so why not bring them up? I can almost bet the ratings have dropped,and I woud like to know what they are.

FlashFlare11
07-04-2012, 09:11 PM
Yep,and if Benny hadn't choked his two set lead he would have done the same. I am also sure you would have just adored Wimby this year had Fed lost that match,huh? I mean,some lower ranked player would have been allowed to go through the draw further than he normally would have,so it would have been just great for the tournament,right?

Clarky, respectfully, I'm not a Nadal-hater. My enjoyment of the tournament may have gone down a bit if Federer had been knocked out, but in no way do I find it more enjoyable simply because Nadal was eliminated. All I'm saying is that I enjoyed the Kohlschreiber/Tsonga match.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:13 PM
yeah.. we all missed the moon balling..



I bet you would have a whole lot of trouble returning any of Nadal's so-called "moonballs".

Logan71
07-04-2012, 09:13 PM
I don't actually like Nadal's game at all and will turn him off when he is playing anyone outside the top 8.Also an exception to that would Ferrer as well as it's 4 hours and then Nadal wins.

Here's the thing he is the antithesis to the other more creative players like Federer,Tsonga,Murray etc...
His game puts him as an anti-hero for me. Great bloke btw but his approach to the game makes him seem like a baddie,all aggression and muscular ripping up the technical traditions of the game.

He's someone you need around at this point in a tournament but it does make a change not to have him there.

brickner_damage
07-04-2012, 09:17 PM
Round 2 was a good loss. Losing so early will probably make Nadal 100 times more eager at the US open than he usually is...

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 09:17 PM
Never understood why it bothers people so much. He's DIFFERENT. Don't know why that's so hard to understand. Nadal was something completely new and different when he came on the scene. Maybe some of you don't remember how ridiculously boring and monotone tennis had gotten during Federer's domination.
Nope, not boring nor monotone at all. Wouldn't have minded watching Federer continuing to win everything. As they say - "Watching him play is a religious experience". :)

TeflonTom
07-04-2012, 09:19 PM
there's two ways u can look at the nadz upset

1st is that the final will be lot less competitive n more borin than if he was still in

2nd is that the match he lost was v exciting and the 4R, QF & SF in his section of the draw were/will be much better matches cos the competitors will b more even

i take the second view. i dont really care who wins the trophy. i just wanna see as many matches of good tennis as possible. nadz out set up some interestin second week scenarios we dont usually see at GSs coz he steamrollin every1

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 09:22 PM
Ratings matter a whole lot to Fed fans it seems,so why not bring them up? I can almost bet the ratings have dropped,and I woud like to know what they are.
If they have, it's only because Wimbledon is no longer on NBC, a channel that everyone with a TV has access to.

I enjoy watching good, interesting, and entertaining tennis regardless of who's playing. It's just that Federer almost always play good, interesting, entertaining tennis. :)

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:22 PM
Nope, not boring nor monotone at all. Wouldn't have minded watching Federer continuing to win everything. As they say - "Watching him play is a religious experience". :)



Yeah,and the dude who wrote that was a lunatic sycophant who killed himself. Not someone I would be taking too seriously,that's for sure.

Sid_Vicious
07-04-2012, 09:27 PM
Yeah,and the dude who wrote that was a lunatic sycophant who killed himself. Not someone I would be taking too seriously,that's for sure.

That is quite harsh. He was a pretty darn good writer though.

MichaelNadal
07-04-2012, 09:27 PM
Nope, not boring nor monotone at all. Wouldn't have minded watching Federer continuing to win everything. As they say - "Watching him play is a religious experience". :)

Or being a **** more than a tennis fan clearly. I don't care how much I like someone, seeing them win EVERYTHING or lose 4 matches a year is ridiculous.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:29 PM
That is quite harsh. He was a pretty darn good writer though.



Maybe a little harsh,but it's the truth. He had issues he needed to get help with instead of writing bizarre Federer articles like he was writing a bible for him. That article was a look into the mind of someone sick. It was creepy,imo.

Feather
07-04-2012, 09:31 PM
I don't understand why people can't accept different views. Is it harder for them to understand that it's tough for someone to appreciate something that they don't like. I feel bored watching Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray etc. I don't find the Wimbledon boring. I like Novak, Tsonga apart from Roger. I loved the Tsonga - Roger match and though I was really hurt, I just wanted Tsonga to win the tournament.

For me this Wimbledon is very exciting. I don't care Roger loses in next round or not but I am sure at least one of my fave players will be there in final. Three players that I like are in the semi finals and one player I don't like is out in second round, what more should I need? I love this Wimbledon

rafafan20
07-04-2012, 09:38 PM
Pretty simple, when you're on top of a sport there will be haters. The only exception is Federer because of his dominance & class. Yankees, red wings, steelers, etc. all hated. I really don't get why people are so extreme with their fandom on this site, real tennis fans don't act like whiney fanboys (many of the fans here).

DeShaun
07-04-2012, 09:38 PM
More like relaxing without him. Relaxing like the very best of summer days as a child: soothing and mellow, moist and warm, enveloping with a sense timelessness, certainly neither strident nor hurried. Responsibility, anxiety in any form. . .what are these? No drama is good drama, all the more so regarding any drama intentionally created.

Clarky21
07-04-2012, 09:38 PM
I don't understand why people can't accept different views. Is it harder for them to understand that it's tough for someone to appreciate something that they don't like. I feel bored watching Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray etc. I don't find the Wimbledon boring. I like Novak, Tsonga apart from Roger. I loved the Tsonga - Roger match and though I was really hurt, I just wanted Tsonga to win the tournament.

For me this Wimbledon is very exciting. I don't care Roger loses in next round or not but I am sure at least one of my fave players will be there in final. Three players that I like are in the semi finals and one player I don't like is out in second round, what more should I need? I love this Wimbledon


For me,it's a total drag with a pre-determined winner. There is absolutely nothing exciting about any of that,imo.

Sri
07-04-2012, 09:38 PM
Best Wimbledon since 2009!

rommil
07-04-2012, 09:39 PM
Without Rafa it is very boring, so I just watch the Rosol- Nadal match repeatedly and it is indeed entertaining with Rafa in it.

zagor
07-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Not boring for me, but then again I never found Wimbledon boring, even in the recent years when my favourite player of all time Fed played like absolute crap in it.

The best Wimbledon I've ever seen was 2001 by a mile.

Feather
07-04-2012, 09:49 PM
For me,it's a total drag with a pre-determined winner. There is absolutely nothing exciting about any of that,imo.

Nothing is pre determined Clarky. Nothing is pre determined. Did anyone expect Rosol to beat Rafa? There is uncertainty in every sports. You never know how a particular player play a particular day. Roger may beat Novak and go down against Murray. Djokovich may beat Roger and lose to Tsonga. You never know, seriously.

Tsonga was on match points against Djokovich on clay and you think that he can't win on grass where his serve would be more rewarded and it would be tough for Novak to return compared to clay? Anyone can win, it's just that Novak has an edge over all

zagor
07-04-2012, 09:50 PM
Pretty simple, when you're on top of a sport there will be haters. The only exception is Federer because of his dominance & class. Yankees, red wings, steelers, etc. all hated. I really don't get why people are so extreme with their fandom on this site, real tennis fans don't act like whiney fanboys (many of the fans here).

Oh make no mistake, on this forum Fed is no exception, not by a longshot.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 09:51 PM
Yeah,and the dude who wrote that was a lunatic sycophant who killed himself. Not someone I would be taking too seriously,that's for sure.
Doesn't matter who wrote it. Most people feel the same way. I know I do. Doesn't even really matter if Federer wins or loses. Just watching him move and how he hits tennis balls is quite religious. :)

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 09:53 PM
Or being a **** more than a tennis fan clearly. I don't care how much I like someone, seeing them win EVERYTHING or lose 4 matches a year is ridiculous.
It's not about winning or losing, it's about watching Federer PLAY. That's all I care about.

And the more Federer wins in a tournament, the more I get to watch him play again. :)

rafan
07-04-2012, 09:53 PM
More like relaxing without him. Relaxing like the very best of summer days as a child: soothing and mellow, moist and warm, enveloping with a sense timelessness, certainly neither strident nor hurried. In a cocoon of the essence of childhood. Responsibility, anxiety in any form. . .what are these? No drama is good drama in sport, all the more so regarding any drama intentionally created.

What! We look for drama in sport rather than in our every day lives. It takes our minds off our worries and for some people it is a loophole to vent off pent up anger (look at the soccer fans ) If we have a consistent Wimbledon winner then it becomes boring and eventually we stop watching and that is why Rafa was such a success amongst many of us who did just that.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 09:58 PM
For me,it's a total drag with a pre-determined winner. There is absolutely nothing exciting about any of that,imo.
So then I assume you can't stand to watch the French Open every year, right?

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 10:02 PM
What! We look for drama in sport rather than in our every day lives. It takes our minds off our worries and for some people it is a loophole to vent off pent up anger (look at the soccer fans ) If we have a consistent Wimbledon winner then it becomes boring and eventually we stop watching and that is why Rafa was such a success amongst many of us who did just that.
So have you stopped watching the French Open because Nadal wins every year? :oops:

Feather
07-04-2012, 10:03 PM
Not boring for me, but then again I never found Wimbledon boring, even in the recent years when my favourite player of all time Fed played like absolute crap in it.

The best Wimbledon I've ever seen was 2001 by a mile.

I would say that about the final. I missed most of the matches, exams, not much coverage. I didn't even see the Roger Sampras match, I didn't even know who Roger Federer was, lolz.. I became a fan of him only in 2005. After Sampras retired I stayed a bit away from Tennis. For me, Wimbledon was never the same without him.

I always wanted Ivanisevic to win one Wimbledon. It's always like this when I like a player I always want him to Wimbledon, lolz now I want Milos Raonic to win Wimbledon. I thought Ivanisevic wouldn't win Wimbledon after 1998 0r 1997 when he lost that final to Sampras. I thought he won't win again. And he comes and win that tournament in 2001. Patrick Rafter was another player I liked a lot. I thought he would win Wimbledon later, sad he didn't win.

I think Ivanisevic's win was the victory that I enjoyed the most untill 2009 French Open. Rafa gave Roger Federer the Ivanisevic moment in 2009. It's when something is denied for long that you crave a lot for that. I think if Roger win's this Wimbledon I would be very happy. Sorry for the rant, couldn't control hehe Well, as of now am basking in the anticipatory delight of Roger Federer winning Wimbledon, without caring about what may happen ultimately...

Feather
07-04-2012, 10:06 PM
It's not about winning or losing, it's about watching Federer PLAY. That's all I care about.

And the more Federer wins in a tournament, the more I get to watch him play again. :)

Seriously, feelings mutual. I just think this way, I can watch him play one more match if he wins this..

I mean who counts the number of letters in a poem to judge it, who bothers about the number of colors to judge a painting. I don't care Roger Federer wins or not, I just want to watch him play.

merlinpinpin
07-04-2012, 10:11 PM
Butt - he is exciting to watch...

At least now we know which side of his "game" you're attracted to... :lol:

merlinpinpin
07-04-2012, 10:16 PM
It's not about winning or losing, it's about watching Federer PLAY. That's all I care about.

And the more Federer wins in a tournament, the more I get to watch him play again. :)

Same here, and I'd much rather watch him *lose* a match such as the AO 2005 semi against Safin than win a routine match in which he is playing subpar and the guy on the other side of the net is playing like crap.

Just like I'd rather watch a good movie with the hero dying at the end (who cares if the plot is good) than a total stinker with a "favorite" actor. In the end, it's all about enjoyment. ;)

merlinpinpin
07-04-2012, 10:17 PM
So then I assume you can't stand to watch the French Open every year, right?

So have you stopped watching the French Open because Nadal wins every year? :oops:

Please don't use too much logic with the Vamos Brigade. Their heads might just explode... :-?

Numenor
07-04-2012, 10:27 PM
For me,it's a total drag with a pre-determined winner. There is absolutely nothing exciting about any of that,imo.

I fully agree, that is why I generally skip the French Open on principle.

BullDogTennis
07-04-2012, 10:29 PM
Murray is the most boring player I've ever seen...no charisma whatsoever...no redeeming qualities...a complete bore to watch.

so nadal is? you enjoy watching him pick his butt for 45 seconds before every serve? to make odd noises when he hits the ball? to whine every time something doesn't go his way or play at his speed?

namelessone
07-04-2012, 10:58 PM
WB was never awfully boring to me, even in the times of the servefests, just because of the prestige of the tourney.

I didn't see much of this tourney but what I've seen wasn't overtly impressive(outside of the Nadal upset). However, the pace really started to pick up in the QF.

TomT
07-04-2012, 11:02 PM
That's all I can say....it lacks excitement without Nadal.I disagree. I very much enjoyed the quarterfinal matches.

ThoughtCrime
07-04-2012, 11:09 PM
I like that one of the top guys fell out, it opens up the draw and gives other players an opportunity to advance. Besides, some of the matches at this Wimbledon have been fantastic.

filphil
07-04-2012, 11:19 PM
Nadal or not. Still fun to watch. Don't care who plays because it's not me up there.

6-1 6-3 6-0
07-04-2012, 11:23 PM
I agree. But Nadal will be well-rested for the Olympics and the hard-court season. Remember that Nadal is going for an even more impressive record than a 6th consecutive Wimbledon final (in 6 consecutive attempts); if he can win the Olympic singles gold medal in 2012 and in 2016, Nadal will have won 3 Olympic singles gold medals on 3 different surfaces, in 3 consecutive events, on 3 different continents. Possibly one of the most prestigious longevity records in world history (that combined with the fact that Nadal could break the Borg/Sampras/Nadal/Federer tie of winning 1 major per year for 8 consecutive years, which Nadal will be the favourite to break at Roland Garros 2013).

joeri888
07-04-2012, 11:30 PM
WB was never awfully boring to me, even in the times of the servefests, just because of the prestige of the tourney.

I didn't see much of this tourney but what I've seen wasn't overtly impressive(outside of the Nadal upset). However, the pace really started to pick up in the QF.

Thoughtful post. Not on the edge of your seat for Rog-Julien btw? That one was tense

namelessone
07-04-2012, 11:48 PM
Thoughtful post. Not on the edge of your seed for Rog-Julien btw? That one was tense

Didn't have time to watch it live. Only saw highlights afterwards.

Tennis_Hands
07-05-2012, 12:09 AM
Murray chokes against Fed and/or Djokovic...and Nadal....he is a guy who is in a tier below the top 3 guys.

If that is your real concern, you shouldn't want to see Nadal vs. Federer, since Federer often is choking badly against Nadal, due to his mental block, when he plays him. Why do I have the feeling, that that is not the case? Hmmmm?

Oh, and by the way, whenever the top dogs are playing with inferior players it looks boring to an extend (well except when Federer plays them). You should really start supporting Tsonga and Murray, since their levels are much closer and promise more competitive matches. :D

No, not boring at all. Au contraire mon ami.

namelessone
07-05-2012, 01:48 AM
If that is your real concern, you shouldn't want to see Nadal vs. Federer, since Federer often is choking badly against Nadal, due to his mental block, when he plays him. Why do I have the feeling, that that is not the case? Hmmmm?

Oh, and by the way, whenever the top dogs are playing with inferior players it looks boring to an extend (well except when Federer plays them). You should really start supporting Tsonga and Murray, since their levels are much closer and promise more competitive matches. :D

No, not boring at all. Au contraire mon ami.

Bingo.

Federer/Djoko have WB whereas Murray/Tsonga have been unfulfilled promises so far. Any non Fed/Djoko fan should be rooting for these guys in this WB(and maybe not only).

valiant
07-05-2012, 02:04 AM
Though I am rooting for Federer to win his 7th. I would love to see a new champion this year. Then it would be 4 different champions since 2009.

DM07
07-05-2012, 02:24 AM
I think it's been a great Wimbledon. It's a shame Rafa's out, but it gave us a match that will live in history (short of a Murray win, it's what this Wimbledon will be remembered for, as with Isner-Mahut in 2010), and we had those three exciting night-matches in a row last week. Federer-Djokovic on grass is a fascinating match-up, and we're guaranteed a new Wimbledon finalist. All good.

Monsieur_DeLarge
07-05-2012, 02:43 AM
What does being the best or the most extraordinary Wimbledon have anything at all to do with ratings? :confused: Nobody knows a match is going to be great until AFTER it's happened and by then, it's too late to add to the ratings.

I have Clarky on ignore, but via your quote I saw his/her/its speculation about ratings for the tournament. Here's the answer:

ESPNís Wimbledon Television Ratings Up Eight Percent In 2012 (http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/7103)
"The audiences for the key male demos are all seeing an advantage over last year ó M18-34 is up 13 percent, M18-49 is up 20 percent, and M25-54 is up 11 percent."

Looks like the audience as a whole disagrees with Clarky and the OP...


Regards,
MDL

TheTruth
07-05-2012, 02:56 AM
Butt - he is exciting to watch...

Ha ha ha. Too funny. Great play on words.

SLD76
07-05-2012, 03:07 AM
It has been only boring for *******s.

In other news, water is wet.

Rocky89
07-05-2012, 03:21 AM
Doesn't matter who wrote it. Most people feel the same way. I know I do. Doesn't even really matter if Federer wins or loses. Just watching him move and how he hits tennis balls is quite religious. :)

That is slightly disturbing.

Sentinel
07-05-2012, 03:29 AM
Without Rafa it is very boring, so I just watch the Rosol- Nadal match repeatedly and it is indeed entertaining with Rafa in it.
Can you ship me the DVD/CD of it. My telly isn't showing it enough, and they show only highlights. I can send you the Soderling match if you don't have it :D :D

rommil
07-05-2012, 05:36 AM
Can you ship me the DVD/CD of it. My telly isn't showing it enough, and they show only highlights. I can send you the Soderling match if you don't have it :D :D

You want one with Al Jazeera commentary with very accurate sub titles? :)

skip1969
07-05-2012, 06:28 AM
i've had a wonderful two weeks. and if fed or djoko would have gone out early, i'd feel exactly the same.

a slam is bigger than any individual player. and i'm stoked that some other guys have gotten a look-in. i hope that trend continues.

primetennis
07-05-2012, 06:29 AM
No,but some of them have said they will stop watching tennis when he retires. That's worse than skipping one pre-determined tournament.

there's nothing wrong if sum1 stops watching tennis after his/her favorite player retires..but it is wrong if sum1 says a particular tournament is boring just coz his/her fav. player lost..try to enjoy the game and its beauty rather than watching just 1 player..being a fed fan i enjoyed wimby 2011 eventhough fed lost..that fed-tsonga match was very exciting..

Start da Game
07-05-2012, 06:38 AM
the entire tournament has been weird.......i think we will see a weird winner this time as well.......stay tuned.......

Clarky21
07-05-2012, 06:38 AM
there's nothing wrong if sum1 stops watching tennis after his/her favorite player retires..but it is wrong if sum1 says a particular tournament is boring just coz his/her fav. player lost..try to enjoy the game and its beauty rather than watching just 1 player..being a fed fan i enjoyed wimby 2011 eventhough fed lost..that fed-tsonga match was very exciting..



This entire post is one big contradiction.

primetennis
07-05-2012, 07:17 AM
This entire post is one big contradiction.

no it isn't..i was saying watching the sport bcoz of sum1 as a choice is okay..upto them..but labelling a grandslam boring altogether just bcoz sum1 lost is just insane!!

absurdo
07-05-2012, 07:20 AM
Yeah,and the dude who wrote that was a lunatic sycophant who killed himself. Not someone I would be taking too seriously,that's for sure.

you are talking about one of the greatest writers of human history. stop talking nonsense.

Clarky21
07-05-2012, 07:23 AM
you are talking about one of the greatest writers of human history. stop talking nonsense.



Sure. If you're a raging *******.

Clarky21
07-05-2012, 07:24 AM
no it isn't..i was saying watching the sport bcoz of sum1 as a choice is okay..upto them..but labelling a grandslam boring altogether just bcoz sum1 lost is just insane!!


It's still a contradiction. And it's a person's choice if they want to watch a certain tournament or not,so what's your point?

absurdo
07-05-2012, 07:27 AM
I agree. But Nadal will be well-rested for the Olympics and the hard-court season. Remember that Nadal is going for an even more impressive record than a 6th consecutive Wimbledon final (in 6 consecutive attempts); if he can win the Olympic singles gold medal in 2012 and in 2016, Nadal will have won 3 Olympic singles gold medals on 3 different surfaces, in 3 consecutive events, on 3 different continents. Possibly one of the most prestigious longevity records in world history (that combined with the fact that Nadal could break the Borg/Sampras/Nadal/Federer tie of winning 1 major per year for 8 consecutive years, which Nadal will be the favourite to break at Roland Garros 2013).


except that 6 consecutive wimbledon finals would not be a record. and you are counting on nadal winning the olympics in 2016? are you ********?

absurdo
07-05-2012, 07:32 AM
Sure. If you're a raging *******.

please, dont be silly. do you realize that the guy, named david foster wallace, wrote more than just articles on federer? do you even know who he is? this is not about federer, this is about respect.

dudeski
07-05-2012, 07:44 AM
Clarky21 is the biggest troll around here since jackson vile. Everyone will save a lot of their valuable time just completely ignoring her. She intentionally makes no logical sense in everything she says. Arguing with her is completely hopeless because she will never admit that she is wrong.

absurdo
07-05-2012, 07:53 AM
oh, thanks for making things clear. ;)

joeri888
07-05-2012, 08:01 AM
This entire post is one big contradiction.

No it's not. Tennis is not boring without your favourite player. You are a player fan and not a tennis fan. So get the f out, instead of blaming it on tennis. The fan of the person is the boring one, not the sport of tennis.

joeri888
07-05-2012, 08:03 AM
I agree. But Nadal will be well-rested for the Olympics and the hard-court season. Remember that Nadal is going for an even more impressive record than a 6th consecutive Wimbledon final (in 6 consecutive attempts); if he can win the Olympic singles gold medal in 2012 and in 2016, Nadal will have won 3 Olympic singles gold medals on 3 different surfaces, in 3 consecutive events, on 3 different continents. Possibly one of the most prestigious longevity records in world history (that combined with the fact that Nadal could break the Borg/Sampras/Nadal/Federer tie of winning 1 major per year for 8 consecutive years, which Nadal will be the favourite to break at Roland Garros 2013).


LOL, Nadal currently stands on 1/3 of that achievement. Roger's going for an even bigger achievement as early as 2014, namely winning every grandslam at least 3 times. Nobody has ever done that, but Roger's gonna win the FO in 2013 and 2014. Who knows, maybe I'm right.

Clarky21
07-05-2012, 08:04 AM
No it's not. Tennis is not boring without your favourite player. You are a player fan and not a tennis fan. So get the f out, instead of blaming it on tennis. The fan of the person is the boring one, not the sport of tennis.



Ok,so Fed fans who say they will stop watching tennis altogether when he retires aren't doing exactly what you describe here?

rommil
07-05-2012, 09:22 AM
I am looking forward to the men's semis tomorrow!!!

joeri888
07-05-2012, 09:25 AM
Ok,so Fed fans who say they will stop watching tennis altogether when he retires aren't doing exactly what you describe here?

They are not fans of the game, no. The game will live on without Federer. It's not like tennis will be boring. Unless they have a reason to criticize tennis in general. I for one, will not stop watching, but think the game could do with more quick courts and attacking all court or S&V games. That's criticism of the game. This might make me stop watching if Federer retires, but that would make me no fan of current game of tennis, which i indeed might not be. That's mostly my fault though.

TigerTim
07-05-2012, 09:25 AM
lol @ Nadal being "exciting to watch", no he is not, he is boring. As for Wimby, its been fun, Tsonga Muzzah and Fed Djoker have the potential to be great and a brit in the final would be amzing, even Jo in the final would be really nice. And today the 2nd set of Williams Vika was even for me very good (and I don't often say that about the womens game today)

BreakPoint
07-05-2012, 10:27 AM
Ok,so Fed fans who say they will stop watching tennis altogether when he retires aren't doing exactly what you describe here?
That's because Federer is only one of a few left that is still playing real tennis. Most of the other pros I have no idea what they are doing on the court but it certainly isn't tennis.

alex_phan_84
07-05-2012, 10:45 AM
Boring... don't think so. I felt asleep when I was watching Nadal in Centre Court first round because of his defensive style...

reversef
07-05-2012, 12:02 PM
That's because Federer is only one of a few left that is still playing real tennis. Most of the other pros I have no idea what they are doing on the court but it certainly isn't tennis.
And what is real tennis? The one that was played at the end of the 19th century? That must be real tennis, I guess, it's how it was supposed to be played!
Or is it the one of the 60's, 70's? On grass? Or is real tennis the one that was played at the FO between Borg and Vilas? Or between Vilas and Wilander? Or the serve fests you watched in the nineties involving Sampras/Ivanisevic/Becker/Krajicek? Is real tennis the way Chang won his first and only slam?
Diversity is everything in tennis. That's what makes tennis great. It's funny that the posters who want more diversity are the ones who refuse to take into consideration the styles that are not their favourites. What Nadal gives you is a pretty unique style. You can say he's closer to this or that, but he's sui generis. And because of that, he's a major contribution to the game. And a fascinating player. And his style is very attractive for many people. Maybe it's something you can't understand. A lack of tennis perspective, I guess.

TigerTim
07-05-2012, 12:03 PM
And what is real tennis?

this

http://www.oratory.co.uk/images/Real_Tennis/photo_RealT_court%20shot2.jpg

namelessone
07-05-2012, 12:22 PM
this

http://www.oratory.co.uk/images/Real_Tennis/photo_RealT_court%20shot2.jpg

Exactly.

People don't seem to realize that we are watching a fake version of the game. :)

JustBob
07-05-2012, 12:57 PM
That's all I can say....it lacks excitement without Nadal.

Then don't watch. Or alternatively, watch this, you'll recognize some of the behavioral patterns which make Nadal so exciting to watch:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/26/One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo's_Nest_poster.jpg/220px-One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo's_Nest_poster.jpg

merwy
07-05-2012, 01:28 PM
Then don't watch. Or alternatively, watch this, you'll recognize some of the behavioral patterns which make Nadal so exciting to watch:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/26/One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo's_Nest_poster.jpg/220px-One_Flew_Over_the_Cuckoo's_Nest_poster.jpg

Hahaha Nadal reminds me of the big Indian guy that throws the drinking fountain through the window

kishnabe
07-05-2012, 02:04 PM
I have Clarky on ignore, but via your quote I saw his/her/its speculation about ratings for the tournament. Here's the answer:

ESPNís Wimbledon Television Ratings Up Eight Percent In 2012 (http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/7103)
"The audiences for the key male demos are all seeing an advantage over last year ó M18-34 is up 13 percent, M18-49 is up 20 percent, and M25-54 is up 11 percent."

Looks like the audience as a whole disagrees with Clarky and the OP...


Regards,
MDL

Obviously.....Nadal gone means chances for Agressive Tennis players to win which is way more enjoyable than the brand of tennis Nadal, Murray produce.

Magnus
07-05-2012, 02:18 PM
Its better without Nadal. Finally I enjoy a non-cheating tennis event.

billnepill
07-05-2012, 02:21 PM
Expect to be bored until clay next year lolZzz

Magnus
07-05-2012, 02:27 PM
That is slightly disturbing.

The Game Of Thrones is boring.

BreakPoint
07-05-2012, 02:31 PM
And what is real tennis?
Real tennis is when the ENTIRE court is used.

You only have to look at the worn out grass around the baseline in the 2nd week of Wimbledon to know that real tennis is now rarely played.

zagor
07-05-2012, 02:39 PM
Real tennis is when the ENTIRE court is used.

You only have to look at the worn out grass around the baseline in the 2nd week of Wimbledon to know that real tennis is now rarely played.

Federer played mostly from the baseline at Wimbledon ever since 2004.

CCNM
07-05-2012, 02:44 PM
At least this year's winner won't be biting the trophy (we hope). Seriously Rafa, that's getting old.

10is
07-05-2012, 02:54 PM
Federer played mostly from the baseline at Wimbledon ever since 2004.

Breakpoint was alluding to using the "whole" court and Federer still does this immeasurably more than most players (even now in his dotage, case in point being Madrid) -- and he still S&Ved quite a bit in 2004. Federer, in his prime, had the best transition game bar none. He still S&Ved often and only started baselining "relatively" more frequently because he rarely ever needed S&V tactis to defeat his opponents, most (if not all) of whom were baseliners. From 2002 onwards, with the slowing of courts, and the prominent use next-gen poly strings etc baseline players like Hewitt and Safin had already started successfully demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the S&V strategy.

TheTruth
07-05-2012, 03:02 PM
And what is real tennis? The one that was played at the end of the 19th century? That must be real tennis, I guess, it's how it was supposed to be played!
Or is it the one of the 60's, 70's? On grass? Or is real tennis the one that was played at the FO between Borg and Vilas? Or between Vilas and Wilander? Or the serve fests you watched in the nineties involving Sampras/Ivanisevic/Becker/Krajicek? Is real tennis the way Chang won his first and only slam?
Diversity is everything in tennis. That's what makes tennis great. It's funny that the posters who want more diversity are the ones who refuse to take into consideration the styles that are not their favourites. What Nadal gives you is a pretty unique style. You can say he's closer to this or that, but he's sui generis. And because of that, he's a major contribution to the game. And a fascinating player. And his style is very attractive for many people. Maybe it's something you can't understand. A lack of tennis perspective, I guess.

Great points.

I don't understand people who think that only one style of player plays the "right way."

What many of these people fail to realize is that's why Rafa immediately became so popular when he first came on the scene. He shook up the tried and true establishment and offered those of us who respect uniqueness and diversity a creative outlet.

I have a wide assortment of friends from one end of the spectrum to the other, because I respect diversity of thought, culture, and religious affiliations. I find it fascinating how we all think different and act accordingly. That just gives me new experiences that help to broaden me.

I can't imagine being so closed off, or "particular" that only one thing pleases my fastidious tastes. You miss out on so many new and rich experiences.

I am silk, cotton, denim, wool, and linen. Each serves a particular purpose and fit in with my eclectic lifestyle. I can't imagine life any other way.

Then again, tradition doesn't appeal to me greatly, since rather than conjuring up images of prestige and the upper class, it comes off as snobby, pretentious, and inflexible.

That said, I marvel at how people can only appreciate one type of thing. I find that fascinating as well.

End of rant.

MichaelNadal
07-05-2012, 03:15 PM
Federer played mostly from the baseline at Wimbledon ever since 2004.

Exactly. Federer doesn't get to the net these days much more than anyone else.

joeri888
07-05-2012, 03:19 PM
Exactly. Federer doesn't get to the net these days much more than anyone else.

Uhm, he doesn't get to net a lot, but he has S&V'd 44 times this tournament, to Novak's 11. That's both ridiculously little, but still 4 times as many! And that's only S&V. Roger clearly doesn't get to net easily, because of the circumstances, but I'm pretty sure at least AT THIS STAGE of his career he'd like it to play more like 2000. Roger would stand a good chance with S&V on the first.

joeri888
07-05-2012, 03:22 PM
Great points.

I don't understand people who think that only one style of player plays the "right way."

What many of these people fail to realize is that's why Rafa immediately became so popular when he first came on the scene. He shook up the tried and true establishment and offered those of us who respect uniqueness and diversity a creative outlet.

I have a wide assortment of friends from one end of the spectrum to the other, because I respect diversity of thought, culture, and religious affiliations. I find it fascinating how we all think different and act accordingly. That just gives me new experiences that help to broaden me.

I can't imagine being so closed off, or "particular" that only one thing pleases my fastidious tastes. You miss out on so many new and rich experiences.

I am silk, cotton, denim, wool, and linen. Each serves a particular purpose and fit in with my eclectic lifestyle. I can't imagine life any other way.

Then again, tradition doesn't appeal to me greatly, since rather than conjuring up images of prestige and the upper class, it comes off as snobby, pretentious, and inflexible.

That said, I marvel at how people can only appreciate one type of thing. I find that fascinating as well.

End of rant.

Not a rant, great post. I dislike Nadal because he now seems to be what all players are. Slow, baseline grinders, making all returns, making little mistakes, bashing from behind the baseline. But I understand that Rafa was the rebellion when he was younger and indeed offered something different. His weak serve, his quick feet, his crazy forehand, his open stance on the BH, they were very new.I just think tennis heads the wrong way, only focusing on what 1 most attractive way of tennis is and favouring that style by slowing down courts at all cost. In the end, they'll see that it doesn't work either.

firepanda
07-05-2012, 03:33 PM
I agree, the tournament is worse off without him: one Rafa is a thousand Tsongas. I'm not shedding tears though. Djokovic is virtually guaranteed the title now.

TheTruth
07-05-2012, 03:43 PM
Not a rant, great post. I dislike Nadal because he now seems to be what all players are. Slow, baseline grinders, making all returns, making little mistakes, bashing from behind the baseline. But I understand that Rafa was the rebellion when he was younger and indeed offered something different. His weak serve, his quick feet, his crazy forehand, his open stance on the BH, they were very new.I just think tennis heads the wrong way, only focusing on what 1 most attractive way of tennis is and favouring that style by slowing down courts at all cost. In the end, they'll see that it doesn't work either.

Thanks.

I like seeing the evolution of tennis. I can't imagine watching the old style of play anymore. It looks so slow and unevolved. I tried to watch Laver play some guy on ESPN Classics and almost died. Five minutes was all I could take. Old footage of Evert and Martina? Spare me. Today's speed and athleticism are to die for.

I must admit that I do enjoy Federer and Nadal matches because of the contrast of styles. There is magic in those matches and no other rivalry approaches the same kind of intensity that those two bring when something valuable is on the line.

JustBob
07-05-2012, 04:26 PM
I agree, the tournament is worse off without him: one Rafa is a thousand Tsongas.

That's a terribly silly "fanboyish" statement. It's even sillier when you consider that Tsonga is one of the most entertaining players to watch.

Atherton2003
07-05-2012, 05:01 PM
Where is Monfils? He is entertaining to watch.

Atherton2003
07-05-2012, 05:01 PM
Murray is about the least entertaining to watch.

BreakPoint
07-05-2012, 05:12 PM
Federer played mostly from the baseline at Wimbledon ever since 2004.
Did you see the Federer-Raonic match at Madrid this year?

How many times A YEAR does Nadal serve and volley or return and volley?

Atherton2003
07-05-2012, 05:14 PM
For those who have no interest in the Final of Wimbledon..you can always pop in the 2008 men's Final between Nadal/Federer....that was the most exciting tennis match I ever saw...nothing compares to that rivalry.

Tennis_Hands
07-05-2012, 06:46 PM
Not a rant, great post. I dislike Nadal because he now seems to be what all players are. Slow, baseline grinders, making all returns, making little mistakes, bashing from behind the baseline. But I understand that Rafa was the rebellion when he was younger and indeed offered something different. His weak serve, his quick feet, his crazy forehand, his open stance on the BH, they were very new.I just think tennis heads the wrong way, only focusing on what 1 most attractive way of tennis is and favouring that style by slowing down courts at all cost. In the end, they'll see that it doesn't work either.

It would have been a great post, if she believed in what she writes. And if she believes in what she writes, there is no a SINGLE reason, why she wouldn't like Federer at least as much as Nadal. He is more versatile and rounded player than Nadal overall. And she subscribes to diversity as her bread and butter.

Let us be honest here. What she writes is not BS, because diversity is a bad thing. What she writes is a BS, because it is a hypocracy, aimed to picture her as open minded, in an effort to fit her crush for Nadal as part of the said diversity, without coming across as feminine ******* of the worse kind, that she is.

I am laughing my *** out, reading, how Nadal was a rebellion in the tennis world. This is a myth, that *******s are fueling in order to receive acknowledgment and give them cofidence to defend their crush for Nadal. He was/is part of the establishment ever since he stepped on court for the first time. He benefitted largely from the said establishment, just like everry other player on tour (actually, because of his high profile he benefitted more than the supermajority :roll: of the players) and throughout his career he pushed :lol: for even more advantages. Agassi was a rebellion, Nadal is as traditional as it gets. Another laughing is on its way, when people perceive him as a rebel, because of his "pirate" look, that was an image, created by the Nike's marketing specialists. Again, the real deal in that regard was Moya.

Mustard
07-05-2012, 06:48 PM
That's all I can say....it lacks excitement without Nadal.

I miss Nadal, but he's out, and that's that.

Lsmkenpo
07-05-2012, 06:53 PM
Oh look, another racist.

Funny, how do you feel about the Romany people again?

Lsmkenpo
07-05-2012, 06:59 PM
Nadal is the most boring player to watch on tour, not a damn thing about his game that is exciting, unless you are a moron that finds ignorant celebrations of UEs and *** scratching as good entertainment.

Mustard
07-05-2012, 07:21 PM
Nadal is the most boring player to watch on tour, not a damn thing about his game that is exciting, unless you are a moron that finds ignorant celebrations of UEs and *** scratching as good entertainment.

Nope. Nadal has been the most exciting player in tennis for many years.

Lsmkenpo
07-05-2012, 07:45 PM
..........................

Lsmkenpo
07-05-2012, 07:49 PM
Nope. Nadal has been the most exciting player in tennis for many years.

Nadal is the most boring player to watch on tour, not a damn thing about his game that is exciting, unless you are a moron that finds ignorant celebrations of UEs and *** scratching as good entertainment.

As I said in the post above, you fit the description, no doubt.

MichaelNadal
07-05-2012, 07:51 PM
That is your opinion, an opinion from some clown with zero technical knowledge of the sport, tell me Mustard what racquet do you play with and what grip do you use on your forehand? Please show us what you know about the game other than what you can google up and pass along as a pathetic veiled propaganda campaign against Federer.

Mustard, the poster who still thinks courts haven't been slowed down, what a twit.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/mikeynitro/2900725620_8e08a14d1c.jpg

Lsmkenpo
07-05-2012, 07:59 PM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/mikeynitro/2900725620_8e08a14d1c.jpg

There is no match, he will run away, he probably spent a few days curled up in the fetal position whimpering on the floor after his hero was upset. Pathetic.

firepanda
07-05-2012, 08:11 PM
That's a terribly silly "fanboyish" statement. It's even sillier when you consider that Tsonga is one of the most entertaining players to watch.

Really? I wouldn't consider myself a Nadal fan, although I've ended up defending him an awful lot on TTW. I'd much rather see a match with Nadal with rallies, rather than Tsonga's serve-heavy, ball-bashing style. Can you imagine the tour where 90% of players play like him and the average rally length in 3.000 shots? That's what the WTA is like.

Not so much a love of Nadal as a dislike of Tsonga.

Mustard
07-05-2012, 08:12 PM
There is no match, he will run away, he probably spent a few days curled up in the fetal position whimpering on the floor after his hero was upset. Pathetic.

You should be a comedian, my friend :)

By the way, I use a Head racquet and have a western forehand.

TheTruth
07-05-2012, 09:36 PM
It would have been a great post, if she believed in what she writes. And if she believes in what she writes, there is no a SINGLE reason, why she wouldn't like Federer at least as much as Nadal. He is more versatile and rounded player than Nadal overall. And she subscribes to diversity as her bread and butter.

Let us be honest here. What she writes is not BS, because diversity is a bad thing. What she writes is a BS, because it is a hypocracy, aimed to picture her as open minded, in an effort to fit her crush for Nadal as part of the said diversity, without coming across as feminine ******* of the worse kind, that she is.

I am laughing my *** out, reading, how Nadal was a rebellion in the tennis world. This is a myth, that *******s are fueling in order to receive acknowledgment and give them cofidence to defend their crush for Nadal. He was/is part of the establishment ever since he stepped on court for the first time. He benefitted largely from the said establishment, just like everry other player on tour (actually, because of his high profile he benefitted more than the supermajority :roll: of the players) and throughout his career he pushed :lol: for even more advantages. Agassi was a rebellion, Nadal is as traditional as it gets. Another laughing is on its way, when people perceive him as a rebel, because of his "pirate" look, that was an image, created by the Nike's marketing specialists. Again, the real deal in that regard was Moya.

YOU ARE CRAZY! I laugh whenever I see one of your posts and your constant attacks on Nadal fans.

Matter of fact, as far as I can see, that's all you do. Have a fun time living in your tunnel vision. At least I hope it's happy since hopefully the ignore function will not let me down and no one will quote your ridiculous and unwarranted posting history.

Quit trying to play Kreskin, you are no mind reader, lol!

joeri888
07-05-2012, 10:01 PM
I do believe you can like Nadal better than Federer, even if you like variety. However, I don't think you can consider Federer boring, bad for the game, or really be against him if variety is the thing you are looking for. I'd also not expect you to be really content with the development of the men's game over the last 10 years. I agree it's faster and more physical, but shouldn't there be a bit more variety in skills on display as well. Bit more net play etc?

Mick
07-05-2012, 10:06 PM
Nadal often says Murray deserve to win a GS. To win a GS, Murray needs to get to the final of a GS tournament first and IMO, his chance of getting to the final is better when playing against Tsonga than Nadal.

Soderling helped out Federer at the FO. Maybe this time, Rosol will help out Murray :)

TheTruth
07-05-2012, 10:14 PM
I do believe you can like Nadal better than Federer, even if you like variety. However, I don't think you can consider Federer boring, bad for the game, or really be against him if variety is the thing you are looking for. I'd also not expect you to be really content with the development of the men's game over the last 10 years. I agree it's faster and more physical, but shouldn't there be a bit more variety in skills on display as well. Bit more net play etc?

That's what people seem not to understand though, we don't all judge players based on the same merits. Who can explain why we gravitate towards one player over another? I enjoy watching Haas play more than I enjoy Federer even though their styles are similar. There are intangibles than cannot always be explained in black and white.

Similarly, I don't find Tsonga an exciting player to watch because I don't think he plays smart in the big moments.

I understand how some people like Federer, what I don't understand is how people think you cannot possibly like Federer. That totally blows my mind.

JustBob
07-05-2012, 11:12 PM
I understand how some people like Federer, what I don't understand is how people think you cannot possibly like Federer. That totally blows my mind.

As I reminded someone on a movie forum, you might not like some of the classics, but that has absolutely no bearing on their status as classics.

Similarly, you have every right to dislike Federer, but that doesn't change the fact that he's arguably the most skilled tennis player to have ever graced a tennis court, and that nobody in the history of tennis has ever made (playing) the sport look so easy. If you can't acknowledge that, then you cannot possibly call yourself a tennis fan, and you're most likely just a fanboy for player X, Y, or Z.

SystemicAnomaly
07-05-2012, 11:16 PM
While the absence of Nadal left something of a hole, it has not resulted in a boring Wimbledon. There have been some very good singles matches on both the men's and women's side. There have probably been some good doubles matches but, sadly, not very much doubles is showing up on TV/ESPN.

There has been some very exciting Wimbledons prior to 2006 (when Rafa first made it to the finals) and Wimby 2009 was also outstanding w/o Rafa. While the finals this year may or may not be exciting, the SFs will, most likely, be quite good.

joeri888
07-05-2012, 11:26 PM
That's what people seem not to understand though, we don't all judge players based on the same merits. Who can explain why we gravitate towards one player over another? I enjoy watching Haas play more than I enjoy Federer even though their styles are similar. There are intangibles than cannot always be explained in black and white.

Similarly, I don't find Tsonga an exciting player to watch because I don't think he plays smart in the big moments.

I understand how some people like Federer, what I don't understand is how people think you cannot possibly like Federer. That totally blows my mind.

I think you meant to say dislike in the sentence before the last?

Well, I think that if you don't like Tsonga and Federer, there is not much left at least in the top 10, to stake your claim that you like different styles. It's all baseline at the moment, with little variety most of the time. I can understand that you would dislike Federer, but not really his game. Even though you are entitled to your opinion, I'd be curious to find out what is the kind of variety you like in the game. Do you like Stepanek, or Llodra? Karlovic or Isner maybe? Florian Mayer? Tommy Haas? To me, there's a lot of the same out there atm. Federer isn't even THAT different from most others, but at least he is together with Tsonga the only top 10 player who occassionally tries to force it to the net. Not even freaking Isner plays a serve and volley point.

Hitman
07-06-2012, 02:07 AM
As I reminded someone on a movie forum, you might not like some of the classics, but that has absolutely no bearing on their status as classics.

Similarly, you have every right to dislike Federer, but that doesn't change the fact that he's arguably the most skilled tennis player to have ever graced a tennis court, and that nobody in the history of tennis has ever made (playing) the sport look so easy. If you can't acknowledge that, then you cannot possibly call yourself a tennis fan, and you're most likely just a fanboy for player X, Y, or Z.

Excellent post!

reversef
07-06-2012, 06:29 AM
Real tennis is when the ENTIRE court is used.

You only have to look at the worn out grass around the baseline in the 2nd week of Wimbledon to know that real tennis is now rarely played.
And Nadal is not even there..... Mmmh, good point! :)

Purostaff
07-06-2012, 06:34 AM
there's only 2 things that makes tennis not worth watching:

1. no federer
2. federer playing like ****

SystemicAnomaly
07-06-2012, 06:41 AM
Real tennis is when the ENTIRE court is used.

You only have to look at the worn out grass around the baseline in the 2nd week of Wimbledon to know that real tennis is now rarely played.

There you have it .. we need more doubles (real tennis).

TeflonTom
07-06-2012, 06:44 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_tennis

SystemicAnomaly
07-06-2012, 06:46 AM
^ Good response.

mellowyellow
07-06-2012, 06:49 AM
That's what people seem not to understand though, we don't all judge players based on the same merits. Who can explain why we gravitate towards one player over another? I enjoy watching Haas play more than I enjoy Federer even though their styles are similar. There are intangibles than cannot always be explained in black and white.

Similarly, I don't find Tsonga an exciting player to watch because I don't think he plays smart in the big moments.

I understand how some people like Federer, what I don't understand is how people think you cannot possibly like Federer. That totally blows my mind.

This clearly needs to be articulated better. You did not use the correct words or are using an extreme to try to prove your point it is coming off like bs, that example is laughable. Is like saying Monfils matches are boring and dull because he doesn't use his head in shot selection. They (excitement & shot selection) do not go hand in hand in that regard...

SQA333
07-06-2012, 06:52 AM
For someone named TheTruth, the truth could not be further.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 07:00 AM
As I reminded someone on a movie forum, you might not like some of the classics, but that has absolutely no bearing on their status as classics.

Similarly, you have every right to dislike Federer, but that doesn't change the fact that he's arguably the most skilled tennis player to have ever graced a tennis court, and that nobody in the history of tennis has ever made (playing) the sport look so easy. If you can't acknowledge that, then you cannot possibly call yourself a tennis fan, and you're most likely just a fanboy for player X, Y, or Z.

And who determines what is a classic? The people in charge of promotion? The bigwigs? Sorry, but I get my opinions based on my own observations, not on someone defining what is a classic, so can't say I agree with you there.

Secondly, I have never questioned Federer's skills. He's just not one of my favorite players. That doesn't make me a fanboy, people just have to deal with the fact that everyone doesn't love and admire him. It happens. I've never gotten bent out of shape because someone doesn't like my favorite player. It's too immature and irrational IMO.

Gorecki
07-06-2012, 07:02 AM
YOU ARE CRAZY! I laugh whenever I see one of your posts and your constant attacks on Nadal fans.

Matter of fact, as far as I can see, that's all you do. Have a fun time living in your tunnel vision. At least I hope it's happy since hopefully the ignore function will not let me down and no one will quote your ridiculous and unwarranted posting history.

Quit trying to play Kreskin, you are no mind reader, lol!

you should quit whatever eufemiano is giving you....

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 07:12 AM
I think you meant to say dislike in the sentence before the last?

Well, I think that if you don't like Tsonga and Federer, there is not much left at least in the top 10, to stake your claim that you like different styles. It's all baseline at the moment, with little variety most of the time. I can understand that you would dislike Federer, but not really his game. Even though you are entitled to your opinion, I'd be curious to find out what is the kind of variety you like in the game. Do you like Stepanek, or Llodra? Karlovic or Isner maybe? Florian Mayer? Tommy Haas? To me, there's a lot of the same out there atm. Federer isn't even THAT different from most others, but at least he is together with Tsonga the only top 10 player who occassionally tries to force it to the net. Not even freaking Isner plays a serve and volley point.

I like Nadal, Murray, Monaco, Sampras, Berdych, (but not del Potro, another weird one that I can't explain), Rafter, Ivanesevic, but not Isner, to me they all play differently so that's why I like different styles.

When I say different styles I'm not only talking about current players, but players that I have liked over the years.

But, thank you for asking instead of trying to tell me what I mean or how I feel. If you have any questions about what I think, I've always appreciated that you've always asked me instead of assumed or overstepped your bounds. That to me is the purpose of having a discussion and it beats trying to ride roughshod over other posters by a country mile. I have zero respect for posters who use those tactics.

Also, I have given Federer credit for his skills since 2008 and have acknowledged many times his contributions to the game. He's just not someone I root for. That's all.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 07:14 AM
This clearly needs to be articulated better. You did not use the correct words or are using an extreme to try to prove your point it is coming off like bs, that example is laughable. Is like saying Monfils matches are boring and dull because he doesn't use his head in shot selection. They (excitement & shot selection) do not go hand in hand in that regard...

Bingo! Can't stand Monfils either. He doesn't play smart tennis. I don't even bother watching him anymore. Exciting? Making trick shots at important junctures of a match instead of trying to win a match. You think that's exciting? Oh well.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 07:16 AM
^^^
Nope. It's just that some people can't handle the truth. They have their own altered reality and struggle when others don't jump on their bandwagon.

JustBob
07-06-2012, 07:30 AM
And who determines what is a classic? The people in charge of promotion? The bigwigs? Sorry, but I get my opinions based on my own observations, not on someone defining what is a classic, so can't say I agree with you there.

Pertaining to film? Obviously, critics, (film) experts/historians, peers (other filmmakers), certainly not the average moviegoer which I believe would include you. Oh, and time of course, as in "standing the test of".


Secondly, I have never questioned Federer's skills. He's just not one of my favorite players. That doesn't make me a fanboy, people just have to deal with the fact that everyone doesn't love and admire him. It happens. I've never gotten bent out of shape because someone doesn't like my favorite player. It's too immature and irrational IMO.

Fair enough, as I stated, nobody has to like any player.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 07:40 AM
Pertaining to film? Obviously, critics, (film) experts/historians, peers (other filmmakers), certainly not the average moviegoer which I believe would include you. Oh, and time of course, as in "standing the test of".



Fair enough, as I stated, nobody has to like any player.

Yeah, but many of the films considered classics to the critics, historians, etc. aren't classics to me.

I hate when others set a standard and I'm supposed to just fall in line. I try to judge movies, art, tennis, etc. based on what I think. Someone else setting a standard does not mean I have to go along with it, after all it's only their opinion, isn't it? I can choose to agree or disagree. No harm, no foul.

Just interested, what do you view as a classic? Because many of the "classics" are duds to me.

TeflonTom
07-06-2012, 07:45 AM
Yeah, but many of the films considered classics to the critics, historians, etc. aren't classics to me.
thats coz u a philistine wit no taste brah

JustBob
07-06-2012, 07:58 AM
Yeah, but many of the films considered classics to the critics, historians, etc. aren't classics to me.

I hate when others set a standard and I'm supposed to just fall in line. I try to judge movies, art, tennis, etc. based on what I think. Someone else setting a standard does not mean I have to go along with it, after all it's only their opinion, isn't it? I can choose to agree or disagree. No harm, no foul.

Just interested, what do you view as a classic? Because many of the "classics" are duds to me.

As I said, you can dislike classics all you want, that has absolutely no bearing on their status as classics. What credentials do you have which would make me take your opinion as seriously as the opinions of those I mentioned? Like most average moviegoers, you seem to confuse "like/dislike" with "good/bad". The former is merely a matter of preference, the later involves evaluation of film as art. If you are unable to understand the difference, I can not possibly take your opinion seriously.

Classics: Citizen Kane, The Rules of the Game, 8 1/2, L'Atalante, La Strada, Godfather Part II, Rashomon, Bicycle Thieves, etc...

Regardless, this is off topic.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 08:02 AM
As I said, you can dislike classics all you want, that has absolutely no bearing on their status as classics. What credentials do you have which would make me take your opinion as seriously as the opinions of those I mentioned? Like most average moviegoers, you seem to confuse "like/dislike" with "good/bad". The former is merely a matter of preference, the later involves evaluation of film as art. If you are unable to understand the difference, I can not possibly take your opinion seriously.

Classics: Citizen Kane, The Rules of the Game, 8 1/2, L'Atalante, La Strada, Godfather Part II, Rashomon, Bicycle Thieves, etc...

Regardless, this is off topic.

I agree...and there is no reason for you to care about my opinion anyway.

paulorenzo
07-06-2012, 08:15 AM
I like Nadal, Murray, Monaco, Sampras, Berdych, (but not del Potro, another weird one that I can't explain), Rafter, Ivanesevic, but not Isner, to me they all play differently so that's why I like different styles.

When I say different styles I'm not only talking about current players, but players that I have liked over the years.

But, thank you for asking instead of trying to tell me what I mean or how I feel. If you have any questions about what I think, I've always appreciated that you've always asked me instead of assumed or overstepped your bounds. That to me is the purpose of having a discussion and it beats trying to ride roughshod over other posters by a country mile. I have zero respect for posters who use those tactics.

Also, I have given Federer credit for his skills since 2008 and have acknowledged many times his contributions to the game. He's just not someone I root for. That's all.

i'm a big delpo fan, but i never really found berdych interesting. they play similarly enough, but i just favor delpo's game for some reason. aesthetics maybe.

cknobman
07-06-2012, 10:48 AM
I dont see how anyone can like Berdych (personality wise) as the guy is a total ahole.

BreakPoint
07-06-2012, 10:50 AM
Thanks to the absence of Nadal, this will be the most amazing Wimbledon final in a long time. :)

Cesc Fabregas
07-06-2012, 10:51 AM
Thanks to the absence of Nadal, this will be the most amazing Wimbledon final in a long time. :)

Since the 2008 final with Nadal playing. :oops:

SQA333
07-06-2012, 10:52 AM
Thanks to the absence of Nadal, this will be the most amazing Wimbledon final in a long time. :)

Agreed. Well, the tournament really took off last Thursday when Rosol served that ace out wide on match point. Since then it's been enjoyable match after enjoyable match.

mellowyellow
07-06-2012, 11:01 AM
Bingo! Can't stand Monfils either. He doesn't play smart tennis. I don't even bother watching him anymore. Exciting? Making trick shots at important junctures of a match instead of trying to win a match. You think that's exciting? Oh well. If that is all you see him do in his matches then you are blind, same with Tsonga. You could throw Kiefer, Safin, Arazi, ElAnayoui, Andrew Illie and others to that group....

BreakPoint
07-06-2012, 11:25 AM
Since the 2008 final with Nadal playing. :oops:
I think this year's final has the potential to be even more amazing.

Nadal was already a 4-time Slam winner in 2008 and Federer was already #1.

Here, we have Murray trying to win his first Slam EVER and Federer trying to become #1 again for the first time in a long time and to break the weeks at #1 record at the same time.

namelessone
07-06-2012, 11:57 AM
Funny, how do you feel about the Romany people again?

Yes, because the two things can be compared... :oops:

Live near gypsies and then we'll talk. They don't get their reputation for nothing.

On a side note, do you think it's right to call Nadal a monkey just because you don't like his game?

Gorecki
07-06-2012, 01:00 PM
Yes, because the two things can be compared... :oops:

Live near gypsies and then we'll talk. They don't get their reputation for nothing.

On a side note, do you think it's right to call Nadal a monkey just because you don't like his game?

yes. totally diferent to use adjectives to define a multi millionaire who can defend himself very well or generalize a whole race.

ChanceEncounter
07-06-2012, 01:25 PM
Or being a **** more than a tennis fan clearly. I don't care how much I like someone, seeing them win EVERYTHING or lose 4 matches a year is ridiculous.

I doubt you'd complain if Nadal only lost 4 matches a year. I'm guessing you don't boycott the French Open either.

I understand how some people like Federer, what I don't understand is how people think you cannot possibly like Federer. That totally blows my mind.
You're free to dislike whoever you like. It's your choice, your prerogative. However, it's pretty hypocritical for you to laud diversity and then dislike Federer in the same stroke. Federer's game is far more diverse than Djokovic, Nadal, Murray's, etc.

If you simply like Nadal and don't like Federer, that's fine. But trying to whitewash yourself as liking Nadal and disliking Federer because you like diversity, you run into logical inconsistencies.

Yeah, but many of the films considered classics to the critics, historians, etc. aren't classics to me.
So? They're still classics because, by objective analysis about their quality and contribution towards art and culture, they rank up there. Your opinion does not have preeminence.

As mentioned, you can like whatever you like, so long as you recognize that many of your preferences are irrational. Trying to explain a way irrational preferences with faulty logic is going to just get you laughed at, such as the person(s) who claimed to prefer Nadal over Federer because they "liked diversity." Why? Because any objective analysis of the game shows that Federer plays with more diversity than Nadal. It's a nonsensical statement that does not agree with objective analysis.

okdude1992
07-06-2012, 02:16 PM
whelp the quarters werent the best, but both semis were awesome. this wimbledon is already bretter than 2011 imo. hopefully the final lives up to the billing

Atherton2003
07-06-2012, 02:18 PM
Nadal, Fed, Tsonga and Djokovic...all better looking and more interesting players than Murray.

Boomgoesthedynamite
07-06-2012, 02:36 PM
Nadal, Fed, Tsonga and Djokovic...all better looking and more interesting players than Murray.

I agree. I'm hoping that the final will be at least competitive. In my opinion, having Djoko and Nadal playing Federer will guarantee competitive/fantastic match. With Murray, it's ???? I've seen him play in real life and I didn't like his "tude" on court (3 Indian Well, 3 US Open, Rogers Cup, and 2 Cincinnati). He can produce brilliant shots, don't get me wrong as I saw practice...however, when it comes to game time, he's not a very pleasant player to watch (always tearing his clothes and always look so constipated).

In any event, I really want a competitive match though with some great long rallies. I hate those points that ended w/ an ace, no rallies, no point construction ... but that's me.

Atherton2003
07-06-2012, 02:38 PM
I so agree with you. Fantastic post!

Tennis_Hands
07-06-2012, 02:54 PM
I doubt you'd complain if Nadal only lost 4 matches a year. I'm guessing you don't boycott the French Open either.


You're free to dislike whoever you like. It's your choice, your prerogative. However, it's pretty hypocritical for you to laud diversity and then dislike Federer in the same stroke. Federer's game is far more diverse than Djokovic, Nadal, Murray's, etc.

If you simply like Nadal and don't like Federer, that's fine. But trying to whitewash yourself as liking Nadal and disliking Federer because you like diversity, you run into logical inconsistencies.


So? They're still classics because, by objective analysis about their quality and contribution towards art and culture, they rank up there. Your opinion does not have preeminence.

As mentioned, you can like whatever you like, so long as you recognize that many of your preferences are irrational. Trying to explain a way irrational preferences with faulty logic is going to just get you laughed at, such as the person(s) who claimed to prefer Nadal over Federer because they "liked diversity." Why? Because any objective analysis of the game shows that Federer plays with more diversity than Nadal. It's a nonsensical statement that does not agree with objective analysis.

Exactly. But, would she pay attention? I wouldn't bet on it.

ubermeyer
07-06-2012, 03:00 PM
I actually think the matches have been more exciting without Nadal. He's a good guy, but I don't find him fun to watch most of the time.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 07:57 PM
If that is all you see him do in his matches then you are blind, same with Tsonga. You could throw Kiefer, Safin, Arazi, ElAnayoui, Andrew Illie and others to that group....

I'm not blind. I just happen to disagree with you. That's not a reason to insult me. I like who I like. That's my perogative. I'm fine with you having a different opinion too.

TeflonTom
07-06-2012, 08:14 PM
I'm not blind. I just happen to disagree with you. That's not a reason to insult me. I like who I like. That's my perogative. I'm fine with you having a different opinion too.
well i guess in a world where some ppl think that a canvas someone smeared with their own faeces is good art, who am i 2 judge

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 08:18 PM
I doubt you'd complain if Nadal only lost 4 matches a year. I'm guessing you don't boycott the French Open either.


You're free to dislike whoever you like. It's your choice, your prerogative. However, it's pretty hypocritical for you to laud diversity and then dislike Federer in the same stroke. Federer's game is far more diverse than Djokovic, Nadal, Murray's, etc.

You guys amaze me with your line of thinking. I already outlined the different styles that I liked and even highlighted those that were similar and yet I didn't particularly like both players, for example: Berdych and del Potro. According to you, if I say I like diversity that means I must like every player that plays a similar style. That's ridiculous, because in the mix you have to consider other attributes, for me it's more than just liking a style, but also liking the person playing that style. So, it doesn't matter how much diversity Federer has, I don't like his personality, snide remarks, and disrespect for his opponents. So Federer can break every record in the book and I still would not be a fan. It seems you cannot understand someone not liking Federer. You should, because people get to choose who they like on their own merits not on yours.

If you simply like Nadal and don't like Federer, that's fine. But trying to whitewash yourself as liking Nadal and disliking Federer because you like diversity, you run into logical inconsistencies.

Again, you missed the point, but maybe because you didn't understand that I don't like Federer's persona. Here's an example: Maria and Vika are both ball bashers. Some people like Maria and don't like Vika for their own reasons. It's that simple, because that's where the other intangibles enter the picture. I like who I like and I don't understand many people's insistence on analyzing who I like. Why is that so important to so many people on TT? I don't even know who you support because I don't care.

So? They're still classics because, by objective analysis about their quality and contribution towards art and culture, they rank up there. Your opinion does not have preeminence.

Hogwash! My opinion matters to me. Should I look up what historians, experts, etc. say in order to get my opinion? I choose what I consider a classic or a dud and no one outside of me gets to decide that. You must understand I think in terms of me, not in terms of what others thinks or say. You can call them classics until the cows come home. It means nothing to me.

As mentioned, you can like whatever you like, so long as you recognize that many of your preferences are irrational. Trying to explain a way irrational preferences with faulty logic is going to just get you laughed at, such as the person(s) who claimed to prefer Nadal over Federer because they "liked diversity." Why? Because any objective analysis of the game shows that Federer plays with more diversity than Nadal. It's a nonsensical statement that does not agree with objective analysis.

No. What's irrational is that you care this much about what I think enough to go into detailed analysis. While you may think my logic is faulty I think you were not open to actually reading or comprehending what I've said twice in this thread (see examples of Maria/Vika and Berdych/del Potro).

I don't mind getting laughed at by many of these posters because since I'm on the other side of the fence, common sense says that I consider their thought processes illogical and faulty.

Other examples: I don't like tomatoes, but I like ketchup. Although both are derivative of tomatoes, it is the state in which they are prepared that appeals or doesn't appeal to me. See, it's simple.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 08:22 PM
i'm a big delpo fan, but i never really found berdych interesting. they play similarly enough, but i just favor delpo's game for some reason. aesthetics maybe.

Great post!

Exactly. Two players can play very similar games and you'll still prefer one over the other. That's just the way it works. No psychoanalysis needed.

DeShaun
07-06-2012, 08:24 PM
I actually think the matches have been more exciting without Nadal. He's a good guy, but I don't find him fun to watch most of the time.

I feel the same way. I think he is a good guy but his tennis doesn't turn me on because he seems so fixated on winning that I feel he's rarely having a good time on court, and the sort of misery that he seems to exude when he is playing is not a fun thing to be a spectator of IMO. Also, power power and more power with lefty bolo forehands bolstered by game-improvement-stick enhanced defense lacks surprise and is a boring formula for tennis IMO but of course it is ruthlessly effective.

TheTruth
07-06-2012, 09:04 PM
well i guess in a world where some ppl think that a canvas someone smeared with their own faeces is good art,who am i 2 judge

Yeah. Judging is bad. People need to learn how to respect differences.

TeflonTom
07-06-2012, 09:17 PM
Yeah. Judging is bad. People need to learn how to respect differences.
i was thinkin more along the lines that some ppl r mentally disabled n there's no helpin them, but ok

Sentinel
07-07-2012, 09:21 PM
Yeah,me too. I've been less interested in Wimby this year no doubt. When the winner is pre-determined already,what's the point of watching it?

Rolaids is dominating everywhere,not just one tournament. It's not even remotely the same thing at all.

Is there still no point in watching since the winner is predetermined (Rolaids/Possum etc). ??? :):twisted:

Wolfman Jack
07-07-2012, 10:36 PM
Is there still no point in watching since the winner is predetermined (Rolaids/Possum etc). ??? :):twisted:
He's called Shapeshifter now. His impression of Federer is remarkable in its accuracy. Don't ask me who the guy who pretended to be Shapeshifter during the Semi is. It's definitely not Shapeshifter (which explains why he lost.)

Wolfman Jack
07-07-2012, 10:38 PM
i was thinkin more along the lines that some ppl r mentally disabled n there's no helpin them, but ok
Yes, some people seem to have a special coating in their frontal lobes that prevents them from acquiring information properly.

TeflonTom
07-07-2012, 10:55 PM
man wolfy, u a subtle guy

wen u done with that baseball bat, can i borrow it?

Wolfman Jack
07-07-2012, 10:58 PM
man wolfy, u a subtle guy

wen u done with that baseball bat, can i borrow it?
You have been sitting on it for the past few weeks. Didn't you notice?

merlinpinpin
07-07-2012, 10:58 PM
I don't like tomatoes, but I like ketchup.

Oh dear, now I understand. Talk about doing everything wrong.

Tomatoes are wonderful, and the guy who invented ketchup should be shot for doing them (and humanity) such a disservice.

If liking ketchup is a prerequisite to loving the "diversity" of Nadal's game, I guess my application to the Vamos Brigade would have been rejected, then. :oops: Glad I never sent it! Federer and tomatoes all the way! :mrgreen:

Wolfman Jack
07-07-2012, 11:00 PM
Oh dear, now I understand. Talk about doing everything wrong.

Tomatoes are wonderful, and the guy who invented ketchup should be shot for doing them (and humanity) such a disservice.

If liking ketchup is a prerequisite to loving the "diversity" of Nadal's game, I guess my application to the Vamos Brigade would have been rejected, then. :oops: Glad I never sent it! Federer and tomatoes all the way! :mrgreen:
Actually, ketchup is made with non-prime tomatoes (tomatoes which are near its expiration date, and far from their peak.)

I hope you enjoyed the above philosophical reflection.

merlinpinpin
07-07-2012, 11:03 PM
Actually, ketchup is made with non-prime tomatoes (tomatoes which are near its expiration date, and far from their peak.)

I hope you enjoyed the above philosophical reflection.

If you're trying to infer that it's why TheTruth loves it, I thought it was more to do with the added sugar. Or vinegar, because of the sourness. But hey, if it's because he likes declining tomatoes better, that's fine with me, too! To each his own, I guess.

DeShaun
07-07-2012, 11:04 PM
I won't miss Nadal's tennis when he is done playing, but his personality will not be missed either. His personality is boring just like his tennis.

TeflonTom
07-07-2012, 11:06 PM
You have been sitting on it for the past few weeks. Didn't you notice?
cmon brah, u can do better than this

Wolfman Jack
07-07-2012, 11:08 PM
cmon brah, u can do better than this
I know I can, but I'm not even trying. It's like 2008 RG Final all over again.

Alright, brah. I'm a Dawg the Bounty Hunter fan too. Go with Christ brah.

Wolfman Jack
07-07-2012, 11:10 PM
If you're trying to infer that it's why TheTruth loves it, I thought it was more to do with the added sugar. Or vinegar, because of the sourness. But hey, if it's because he likes declining tomatoes better, that's fine with me, too! To each his own, I guess.
TheTruth is a damsel, and one fine poster too. One of the few fans which you can't accuse of having crossed the line into tardom, and definitely not a hater.

TeflonTom
07-07-2012, 11:10 PM
I know I can, but I'm not even trying.
cmon dood, now u just embarrassin urself

Wolfman Jack
07-07-2012, 11:13 PM
I won't miss Nadal's tennis when he is done playing, but his personality will not be missed either. His personality is boring just like his tennis.
And Fed's personality is so fascinating...

What's the number in your Nadal Hater's Club ID, chief?

DeShaun
07-07-2012, 11:19 PM
And Fed's personality is so fascinating...

What's the number in your Nadal Hater's Club ID, chief?

More effortless seeming than accentuated humility. My ID number goes higher than ten, and I wish not to confuse you.

6-1 6-3 6-0
07-07-2012, 11:27 PM
Not to worry, the last time we had a Federer-Murray final, Nadal or Djokovic made the finals of every grand slam up until Wimbledon 2012. :D

ViscaB
07-07-2012, 11:33 PM
With Nadal you just know it's not going to be a 3 set beat down. He has given that to the game. That sense of tennis being a battle.

Together with Federer he has made tennis a much bigger sport than the elite sport is mainly was in most parts of the world.

TheTruth
07-07-2012, 11:56 PM
Oh dear, now I understand. Talk about doing everything wrong.

Tomatoes are wonderful, and the guy who invented ketchup should be shot for doing them (and humanity) such a disservice.

If liking ketchup is a prerequisite to loving the "diversity" of Nadal's game, I guess my application to the Vamos Brigade would have been rejected, then. :oops:

Glad I never sent it! Federer and tomatoes all the way! :mrgreen:

Ha ha ha. You think only your opinion matters?

Talk about not understanding an analogy. This post is priceless.

Like who you like. It doesn't bother me at all. I think your response is hilarious:).

TheTruth
07-08-2012, 12:01 AM
TheTruth is a damsel, and one fine poster too. One of the few fans which you can't accuse of having crossed the line into tardom, and definitely not a hater.

Thank you. It's nice that there are many who recognize that. I appreciate it. Some people are always trying to pick on me, but I know why:twisted:.

Wolfman Jack
07-08-2012, 12:01 AM
More effortless seeming than accentuated humility. My ID number goes higher than ten, and I wish not to confuse you.
Well played! :)

TheTruth
07-08-2012, 12:03 AM
With Nadal you just know it's not going to be a 3 set beat down. He has given that to the game. That sense of tennis being a battle.

Together with Federer he has made tennis a much bigger sport than the elite sport is mainly was in most parts of the world.

That's what I admire the most about him. I can't stand lackluster, only-one- player-wanting-it matches.

Wolfman Jack
07-08-2012, 12:04 AM
Thank you. It's nice that there are many who recognize that. I appreciate it. Some people are always trying to pick on me, but I know why:twisted:.
Don't let them get to you, you're better than that.

Leave the poo-slinging fests to less sublime posters (such as yours truly.) :)

Murrayfan31
07-08-2012, 12:04 AM
This has been one of the best Wimbledon's ever. This thread equals fail.

ViscaB
07-08-2012, 12:06 AM
This has been one of the best Wimbledon's ever. This thread equals fail.

Name a few epic matches in the latter stages? It just has been an average Wimbledon so far. Not bad and not overly exciting either.

TheTruth
07-08-2012, 12:10 AM
Don't let them get to you, you're better than that.Leave the poo-slinging fests to less sublime posters (such as yours truly.) :)

I don't. That's what infuriates them. Six years and still going strong.

6-1 6-3 6-0
07-08-2012, 12:10 AM
Name a few epic matches in the latter stages? It just has been an average Wimbledon so far. Not bad and not overly exciting either.

I liked Murray-Ferrer. There was more thinking involved, longer rallies, better than first-strike tennis and trying to end the rally as quick as possible. :mad:

Murrayfan31
07-08-2012, 12:10 AM
They don't have to be epic 5 setters to be enjoyable. Basically all of Murray's matches have been enjoyable. Federer/Djokovic finally on grass was interesting. Rosol beating Nadal was epic. Just good vibes this Wimbledon

ViscaB
07-08-2012, 12:13 AM
That's what I admire the most about him. I can't stand lackluster, only-one- player-wanting-it matches.

Same here. He almost always gives the people in the stadium their money's worth. When Nadal is playing you just have to cancel any plans for the day:).

ViscaB
07-08-2012, 12:14 AM
I liked Murray-Ferrer. There was more thinking involved, longer rallies, better than first-strike tennis and trying to end the rally as quick as possible. :mad:

That was a good match. Still for a tournament to be truly "great" you need a few matches that people still remember a decade from now.

TheTruth
07-08-2012, 12:18 AM
That was a good match. Still for a tournament to be truly "great" you need a few matches that people still remember a decade from now.

I agree. Outside of Rosol's shocking upset and that phenomenal fifth set. There haven't been any matches I would keep on my DVR. That's how I judge the quality of a tournament, by the matches that I save. This year, zero.

TeflonTom
07-08-2012, 12:18 AM
strong whiteknighting itt

Murrayfan31
07-08-2012, 12:20 AM
Djokovic/Federer has got to be a keeper. Though Djokovic was disappointing that match. Just seeing that matchup on different surfaces is very interesting. Murray/Federer will be incredibly interesting as well. I think the amount of matches you keep on your DVR are decided by the winner.

TheTruth
07-08-2012, 12:32 AM
Djokovic/Federer has got to be a keeper. Though Djokovic was disappointing that match. Just seeing that matchup on different surfaces is very interesting. Murray/Federer will be incredibly interesting as well. I think the amount of matches you keep on your DVR are decided by the winner.

I guess you didn't understand my previous post. I don't like only-one-player-wanting-to-win matches. Djokovic was lackluster and in no way resembled the player he's been over the last year. Why would I go against myself and keep a match like that?

And since you don't know what I keep on my DVR...this conversation is over, lol.

joeri888
07-08-2012, 12:46 AM
Name a few epic matches in the latter stages? It just has been an average Wimbledon so far. Not bad and not overly exciting either.

Federer Djokovic was epic enough for me. But i Am biased. At rg there was not a single epic the whole tourney except for maybe Tsonga djokovic

Hitman
07-08-2012, 12:57 AM
I think tennis has shown that it can put on a slam quite well without Nadal. The excitment in this tournament has been unreal, with the incredible sense of unpredictability, especially that first week! One of the best first weeks in recent slam history.

Players really stood up for this one, wanting to make their mark. Some sensational upsets, epic showdowns, and a climax that truly has the word Main Event attached to it.

Tennis has been fun these past two weeks, and gave the stagnant sport the injection of adrenaline it needed. I hope we get more great slams like this in the future.

Boring? Hardly...I think Tennis has shone through.

mistik
07-08-2012, 01:30 AM
No one is above the sport neither Fed nor Nadal.I still prefer to watch Murray Nadal semi instead of Tsonga do or die brainless match with Murray though.This Wimbledon didnt create great matches though this is a fact but there is still final so you never know.

paulorenzo
07-08-2012, 01:57 AM
Name a few epic matches in the latter stages? It just has been an average Wimbledon so far. Not bad and not overly exciting either.

most of the quarters were great aside from the beatdown from federer. even the djokovic match against mayer was good even though it was a straight set win for djoko.

paulorenzo
07-08-2012, 02:06 AM
No one is above the sport neither Fed nor Nadal.I still prefer to watch Murray Nadal semi instead of Tsonga do or die brainless match with Murray though.This Wimbledon didnt create great matches though this is a fact but there is still final so you never know.

murray seems to be involved in high quality late tournament matches more often than not. murray djoko at AO12 and murray nadal at USO11 come to mind. even when it's a one sided win it's still pretty exciting like murray nadal AO2010

merlinpinpin
07-08-2012, 04:06 AM
TheTruth is a damsel, and one fine poster too. One of the few fans which you can't accuse of having crossed the line into tardom, and definitely not a hater.

Bolded part: my bad, didn't know that--although I should have guessed, considering the law of averages.

As for the rest, I'm not taking sides in this debate (which I only just skimmed anyway), so "tardom" and "hating" aren't really an issue. I'm just defending the good name of tomatoes everywhere... :mrgreen:

merlinpinpin
07-08-2012, 04:09 AM
I don't. That's what infuriates them. Six years and still going strong.

Congratulations, really. The way you write, you sure come across as much more mature. ;)



(Yes, I guess I'm in a teasing mood today. I'm probably a bit drunk on tomato juice... :mrgreen:)

billnepill
07-08-2012, 04:12 AM
Yeah it should be kind of boring for some who watch nadal matches only

merlinpinpin
07-08-2012, 04:13 AM
Federer Djokovic was epic enough for me. But i Am biased. At rg there was not a single epic the whole tourney except for maybe Tsonga djokovic

Yes, this was good, no question. And it's really been hard to ask for more than one good match per year at Roland Garros over the last 20/25 years or so. Some years we don't even get it... :-?

Tennis_Hands
07-08-2012, 04:16 AM
Name a few epic matches in the latter stages? It just has been an average Wimbledon so far. Not bad and not overly exciting either.

Why only in the latter stages? You do not enjoy watching Nadal playing Rosol at Wimbledon or what?

Tennis_Hands
07-08-2012, 04:19 AM
That was a good match. Still for a tournament to be truly "great" you need a few matches that people still remember a decade from now.

Like Nadal vs. Berdych at Wimbledon. Or Nadal's entire run that year.

absurdo
07-08-2012, 04:23 AM
last year's final didnīt seem to me like a battle... and yet nadal was there, wasn't he?

rommil
07-08-2012, 04:41 AM
This has got to be one of the most anticipated finals, and Rafa is........ Oh wait:(

zagor
07-08-2012, 04:47 AM
This has got to be one of the most anticipated finals, and Rafa is........ Oh wait:(

What? You don't think he'll win?

giggc
07-08-2012, 09:22 AM
rafa will regret it and feel very disappointed because he will definitely win it if he plays against fed.
if murray looks having a chance to win it, rafa can win it