Federer "gamesmanship" and Nadal gamesmanship+cheating were not the same.

[catspaw]

Originally Posted by samboy01

Amount of slams Federer has won without his opponents choking: ZERO.

Originally Posted by casual_fan

Nadal is a choker now? I thought he was a warrior. Which one is it..a choking warrior?

Originally Posted by Bud

There are 7 rounds in each GS tournament

He didn't say finals

Illogical. If Nadal or anyone else didn't choke in the finals, then he won those slams without his opponents choking whatever may have happened in earlier rounds.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

When Fed is losing, if Fed isn't taking bathroom breaks, he is always trying to find something stupid to intimidate the umpire with like his displeasure of the challenge system or whining about his opponent grunting(Bozo match), etc. When Nadal is losing he just focuses on the ball and just gets on with competing versus his opponent and doesn't try to intimidate or influence the umpire in stupid ways like Fed does.

Exactly!

He does it all the time, but people don't seem to see it, or it's different when he does it, LOL!

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by catspaw

IW 07 against Canas. Whether it was gamesmanship/cheating or whether he had blisters on his feet as he said, he went on to lose in straights - 7-5 6-2, I think.

Thank you.

I'm not calling anyone a cheater. I'm just saying I've seen plenty of questionable tactics from Fed for people to be running around here calling Nadal a cheat and ignoring everything Fed does. It's just the double standards that are so irritating.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by catspaw

Illogical. If Nadal or anyone else didn't choke in the finals, then he won those slams without his opponents choking whatever may have happened in earlier rounds.

Come on use your brain. Amazing I have to explain this again...

If his opponent in round 1 chokes the match away (i.e. Falla) and Federer wins that round and then the tournament then he didn't win the tournament without an opponent choking.

Originally Posted by catspaw

IW 07 against Canas. Whether it was gamesmanship/cheating or whether he had blisters on his feet as he said, he went on to lose in straights - 7-5 6-2, I think.

So, according to your statement, gamesmanship is OK as long as you lose... and you have the nerve to call others illogical?

The hypocrisy in this forum by fedfanatics™ is simply unbelievable... and the hypocrites don't even understand why they are hypocrites.

[catspaw]

Originally Posted by catspaw

Illogical. If Nadal or anyone else didn't choke in the finals, then he won those slams without his opponents choking whatever may have happened in earlier rounds.

Originally Posted by Bud

Come on use your brain. Amazing I have to explain this again...

If his opponent in round 1 chokes the match away (i.e. Falla) and Federer wins that round and then the tournament then he didn't win the tournament without an opponent choking.

I AM using my brain, thank you. Are you using yours? If a player wins a final without the opponent choking, all previous chokes are frankly irrelevant. Perhaps you should be a little more precise with your wording. And, if Fed has never won a slam without an opponent choking somewhere along the line, surely that also applies to just about anyone who's won a slam (I grant you that players don't really get the chance to choke against Nadal at RG). So, if Nadal goes on to win Wimbledon this year, would it be fair to say that he only won because at least one opponent choked (let's use Petzchner as an example, shall we, especially as Nadal did absolutely nothing to unsettle him?)?

Originally Posted by catspaw

IW 07 against Canas. Whether it was gamesmanship/cheating or whether he had blisters on his feet as he said, he went on to lose in straights - 7-5 6-2, I think.

So, according to your statement, gamesmanship is OK as long as you lose... and you have the nerve to call others illogical?

How on earth did you draw that conclusion from my statement!!! Somebody asked a question. I answered it and added the circumstances surrounding the match, including what was conjectured at the time and the result. I was simply reporting facts. Where did I say gamesmanship's OK as long as you lose?? For what it's worth, I don't like gamesmanship full stop - from anybody - whatever the end result of the match. I think your own powers of logic are a bit suspect here.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by catspaw

I AM using my brain, thank you. Are you using yours? If a player wins a final without the opponent choking, all previous chokes are frankly irrelevant.

Why are they irrelevant?

If an early round opponent didn't choke Federer would never have played the final.

Again, that was his point.

[catspaw]

Originally Posted by Bud

Why are they irrelevant?

If an early round opponent didn't choke Federer would never have played the final.

Again, that was his point.

They're irrelevant for several reasons:

a) choking happens all the time; it's not something peculiar to Fed's matches so shouldn't be brought into the equation re: Fed - you could say it about just about anyone who's ever won a slam.

b) the word "choke" tends to be thrown at anyone who loses after being in a position to win. It's a very subjective judgement.

c) and probably most importantly, tennis is, more than anything, a mental game. Wasn't it Boris Becker who said that it's 90% mental and only 10% physical? It's part of the package and, if you can't stop yourself getting the yips, then you don't deserve to win, whoever you are and whomever you're playing.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by catspaw

They're irrelevant for several reasons:

a) choking happens all the time; it's not something peculiar to Fed's matches so shouldn't be brought into the equation re: Fed - you could say it about just about anyone who's ever won a slam.

b) the word "choke" tends to be thrown at anyone who loses after being in a position to win. It's a very subjective judgement.

c) and probably most importantly, tennis is, more than anything, a mental game. Wasn't it Boris Becker who said that it's 90% mental and only 10% physical? It's part of the package and, if you can't stop yourself getting the yips, then you don't deserve to win, whoever you are and whomever you're playing.

Some valid points but a choke is a choke... and again that was his point

[Hitman]

Players choke. It is just something that exists, and won't be going away as long as the sport exists.

Both Federer and Nadal have won matches with players choking against them, but so have many other greats in the past. But that is part of the game.

He who has all his weapons by his side will always be in a good position to win, this includes the mind - the most powerful weapon of them all.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

When Fed is losing, if Fed isn't taking bathroom breaks, he is always trying to find something stupid to intimidate the umpire with like his displeasure of the challenge system or whining about his opponent grunting(Bozo match), etc. When Nadal is losing he just focuses on the ball and just gets on with competing versus his opponent and doesn't try to intimidate or influence the umpire in stupid ways like Fed does.

LOOOOOOOOOOOL now Nadal fans are REALLY grasping at straws

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Yeah, I do, and imo, he did. He clearly said it, but the excuse around here is he was only kidding. That's rich.

.

Anyone who follows Roger knows his interviews with Courier aren't serious.And this is further evidenced by the fact that Roger was already there on court when the the umpire called time.And AGAIN where exactly this lovely admission came,you have still not shown us..

[ViscaB]

Rafa is like the German national team. He's a winner.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by ViscaB

Rafa is like the German national team. He's a winner.

Lets see what happens when they face Argentina...

[ViscaB]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Lets see what happens when they face Argentina...

Don't get me wrong. I'm supporting Argentina. Messi.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by ViscaB

Don't get me wrong. I'm supporting Argentina. Messi.

I'm supporting them all the way. Maradona - Messi - red hot combination!

[catspaw]

Originally Posted by Bud

Some valid points but a choke is a choke... and again that was his point

Fair enough. I guess MY point is that the point originally made was a spurious and essentially red-herringy type one. I'm happy to agree a stalemate if you are?

[P_Agony]

Originally Posted by mandy01

LOOOOOOOOOOOL now Nadal fans are REALLY grasping at straws

It's TheNatural, he's just another blind fanboy who thinks everything Nadal touches is gold and everything Fed does is arrogant.

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by ViscaB

Rafa is like the German national team. He's a winner.

If you subtract all Nadal's wins, he's actually a loser.

[muzza123]

Come on Rippy, is there really a need to remind everybody of ViscaB's comedy value everytime you post?

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by muzza123

Come on Rippy, is there really a need to remind everybody of ViscaB's comedy value everytime you post?

That's the only time I did it lol. But fair enough, it shall be the last time.

EDIT: hold on, you've got the comment in your signature, that's even worse...