Can we have an era worse than 2020-2023 where Finalists are Casper Ruud, Berettini, Kyrgios , Stefanos ?
- Thread starter NeutralFan
- Start date
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
(@mike danny) This would be a reasonable point if it was made by a genuine Djokovic GOAT believer but I haven't found many yet. I have only ever known Djokovic fans that blame Nadal for being a freakish child prodigy that wanted to take on peak Federer. It would be special to find one that contradicts me.
Apparently they think Nadal made an obviously poor judgement call. He should have kicked back and delayed his prime while Federer wins multiple calendar grand slams. Nadal should have known better and let Federer become the Donald Bradman of tennis who managed to become the impossible: The immortal GOAT (or God) of their sport (cricket).
They must believe Federer is even greater than Djokovic than most Federer fans. These people are committed to the cause to spend so much time acting in a way that must be repulsive for them. We should tip our hat as a show of respect.
These guys are like Federer's own secret service that we didn't know even existed. It's just like Men in Black but more of them (and much harder working). It all makes completely perfect sense to me now.
I have more to say about some of these "arguments" very soon.
Last edited:
Z.Qinwen is my hero
New User
'Merely 7 slams' dude.... can you actually reread that and then say it out loud slowly to yourself. Then add before he turned 29. Goodness me, people these days have no sense of perspective.
Z.Qinwen is my hero
New User
this one had me laughing for ages
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
My good friend @Fedrev
son, 7 out of 24 and that too when you were supposed to be in your absolute prime is merely when you win 17 after turning 28 lol
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
I intended this post to come before my last to you. That is the order I still intend the posts to be read. Unfortunately I got distracted making a joke and ran out of time to finish this post at the time.
Do you really believe what you wrote here? I will start with a compliment you should be really proud of before i begin with my harsh critique of some of your arguments.
The compliment (can not use plural here unfortunately):
There is so much misinformation/bias etc packed into your posts that you should be commended for your ability to be so concise.
The criticisms:
There are so many problems with your arguments that I could write a book about it if I had the ability to be as concise as you. Unfortunately I do not have your super powers and this would have to be a mini series of books about 600 pages long each instead.
To address all of your faulty arguments in this thread I would need to earn income from from doing so. For various reasons this would be unpractical for me at this stage of my life. The interest and the patience is simply not high enough to spend so much time debunking this many faulty arguments either.
This post along with others you have written have confirmed my view that "benefit of the doubt" is almost as unrealistic as hoping you will correct your falsehoods in this thread and stop spreading misinformation lol.
These posts stem from a level of bias that shows me you are completely detached from reality. A level of bias that would even force you to tell people that 1+1=3 if it suited your agenda. Giant cats, ancient aliens that live in a tunnel colony 500km below sea level that control us telepathically and yeti tribes with invisibility cloaks they stole from Harry Potter (so we can't see them) must be child play for you as well. To me this is the more logical conclusion than those you have made in this thread with your faulty arguments.
I went a bit far with the jokes at your expense but that is what happens when you are this unbelievably inconsistent/illogical with your arguments. If there was ever a time for banter I think this is the appropriate context. Hopefully you can take a joke like most people. If you don't like it you can always improve the quality of your debating skills and become a smaller target.
I am going to point out some examples of your faulty logic to try and improve the quality of the discussion. If that is unreasonable to you, consider moving to a country with a totalitarian dictatorship for its political system if you haven't already. If you can handle the criticism that needn't apply.
My first example is exactly what I am talking about. You apply an argument yourself when it supports your biased opinion. You will also dismiss the exact same type of argument you just made a few posts before or later when it contradicts your biased views. My following post (men in black joke i posted before this in the wrong order) is a great example of what I am talking about.
More on this later when I have more time to decide the next example I will choose to spend my time to critique...
Last edited:
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
Top talent that did well in an ultra strong era. He lost the final in straight sets to Djokovic instead of getting match points in the 5th set. He was definitely a greater competitor than Federer during this epic era that was the greatest in tennis history.
junior74
Bionic Poster
Who wasn't?
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
He was so insignificant I don't even know why I mentioned him. What were we discussing again?
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Kevin Anderson has a better grass resume than Stef will ever have lol. Before 2020 we have had one such finalist but 2020-2023 produced so many gems like Kyrgios, Berettini, Stef , Ruud in span of 3-4 years.
Kandyman took Novak to 5 set at Wimbledon, don't see mugs of 2020-2023 era doing that, Novak is the second most successful player at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
junior74
Bionic Poster
He was still Bambi on Ice and an extremely limited player. I kinda liked Kandy, though. He was a very nice guy
Steffi, Denis and FAA haven't improved since they were teenagers. Berrettini's backhand is on level with Karlovic and Johnson - and Paire's fh. It's strange how top athletes are unable to improve on a quite simple stroke like the two handed backhand.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
He was still Bambi on Ice and an extremely limited player. I kinda liked Kandy, though. He was a very nice guy
Steffi, Denis and FAA haven't improved since they were teenagers. Berrettini's backhand is on level with Karlovic and Johnson - and Paire's fh. It's strange how top athletes are unable to improve on a quite simple stroke like the two handed backhand.
True but how many mugs of 2020-2023 you see pushing Novak to 5 set at Wimbledon?
junior74
Bionic Poster
Novak also lost to Querrey at Wimbledon. Fed lost to Stakhovsky. Rafa to Muller (twice). When good servers/ volleyers have a great day in the office, they can beat anyone on grass.
Kyrgios could have potentially won if Novak hadn't trolled him. Novak's level has not been great in Wimbledon since 2015. I agree his opposition has been dreadful.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
He’s been on mine for a long time lol
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
The post you replied to was pretty bad but man I was looking forward to a genuine rebuttal here. Feel a bit cheated after reading this.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
He's a crazy fanatic, I am just stating what is there.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Sinner was outclassed because he was not in his prime, don't you understand the notion of late bloomer?if Sinner gets beaten by Djokovic in his prime then i will concede your point but if he makes Djokovic his bunny then your point is irrelevant. Field was weak but with Prime Sinner and Alcaraz it's not as weak as 2020-2023.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Yet you cared to post in my thread, son! Not that I mind lol, please keep contributing.
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
I was focussing my efforts elsewhere (back to work after holidays/taking care of kids and being ridiculous in another thread by testing posters illogical lines of argumentation and I got carried away lol). I didn't have the time/patience to tackle everything at once so please don't feel cheated. I just need a good block of time and I will be back. There is a lot to choose from here and can be difficult to know where to start. An example proving inconsistency with the lines of argumentation due to bias I feel is a good start for now (especially when these inconsistencies are in the same post or a few posts apart). This proves there is detachment from reality/dishonesty/lack of reading comprehension always present and the poster has no credibility. People will know not to take them very seriously and never trust anything they have to say (which was my goal, until the posts improve in their quality). There isn't much need for a rebuttal of everything, if it is all likely nonsense anyway.
A few examples are enough, but there are many more than that in this thread lol. Yes I got carried away with the intro, but I wanted to get my feelings down at the time (which was the best time to do it). Now I have done a great job expressing my feelings after I quickly finished reading the posts! If you think I am a credible poster, people can trust my instinctive feelings anyway. (sorry, i can't do paragraphs atm)
Last edited:
The Guru
Legend
Lol you were expecting sanity and cogency from that dude?
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
Aren't you the proven blatant hypocrite that was telling me I was misrepresenting what you wrote, when it was actually you misrepresenting me? No arguments. No self awareness, living in a fantasy world/no reading comprehension skills/dishonest. Maybe all three options? No credibility is a certainty at the very least. I only had to critique two of your posts for that to be blatantly obvious to everyone and you ran away to stop the losses. lol
Last edited:
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I had my hopes since the post was a long one
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
Continued... To add to the Men in Black joke in my first example, I addressed with the joke why it is ridiculous for this poster to suggest it is Nadal's fault he was an early developer compared to Djokovic. They have implied that this is something within the control of the player that they can judge them on. Even if this was something within the control of the player, or something that makes them inferior in their judgement, taking from one simply gives to the other. They could never say Nadal's judgement was poor because of the consequences. They would know (if they were trying to be honest with themselves) that Nadal should always play to the best of his ability, at the right time (as i proved in the post I quoted in my MIB joke post), just as they believe about their favourite player Djokovic.
Last edited:
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
If they were being honest with themselves, Nadal is not inferior because he was an early developer, they just want him to be so their favourite seems greater to themselves! "They are only separated by a year by age". They know deep down it matters a lot.
Examples include (lol): The 6 year difference between Federer and Djokovic, Federer was at his peak at 2015 Wimbledon, stats don’t need meaningful context to be useful, stats are useful with meaningful context only when people want them to be, tennis players do not decline until they retire, Djokovic is the GOAT and had GOAT competition, you can't judge a player’s level by watching them play 
, Federer's competition was weak, hypotheticals are useless, words can have opposite meanings, logic is illogical like Guru thinks (let's run away and stop reading in case the truth is something we don't want to know, let's try to get the thread deleted so i can pretend my biased views were not called into question, etc ), etc.
This type of thinking is not grounded by reality. This is why I made the fantasy land jokes in my introduction. I also needed to say why I thought it was appropriate to do this given the context.
Dishonesty should never be tolerated or otherwise we can say whatever we want when it suits our biased beliefs and opinions. A debate conducted in this way has no standards at all. The poster should be told to not make illogical arguments. What they call "arguments", I call spreading misinformation. A few jokes is a good wake up call I think.
Examples include (lol): The 6 year difference between Federer and Djokovic, Federer was at his peak at 2015 Wimbledon, stats don’t need meaningful context to be useful, stats are useful with meaningful context only when people want them to be, tennis players do not decline until they retire, Djokovic is the GOAT and had GOAT competition
, you can't judge a player’s level by watching them play , Federer's competition was weak, hypotheticals are useless, words can have opposite meanings, logic is illogical like Guru thinks (let's run away and stop reading in case the truth is something we don't want to know, let's try to get the thread deleted so i can pretend my biased views were not called into question, etc ), etc.This type of thinking is not grounded by reality. This is why I made the fantasy land jokes in my introduction. I also needed to say why I thought it was appropriate to do this given the context.
Dishonesty should never be tolerated or otherwise we can say whatever we want when it suits our biased beliefs and opinions. A debate conducted in this way has no standards at all. The poster should be told to not make illogical arguments. What they call "arguments", I call spreading misinformation. A few jokes is a good wake up call I think.
Last edited:
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
Hopefully you don't feel as cheated now @Third Serve (even if while distracted I proved Federer is the real (i think?) GOAT/tried to explain the meaning of greatness to people/the consequences of using illogical arguments when I do it also lol). It's funny that someone called me crazy when I conducted a thought experiment proving the consequences of using faulty logic, that was used by other posters, that are also fans of his favourite player! One conclusion was: Greater = More Insignificant! They don't seem to notice when it supports their own bias regarding their favourite player! (can't use paragraphs at the moment)
Last edited:
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
@Phenomenal I have something more to add:
The cut off is usually when it would begin to hurt this category of posters agenda. There is nothing in between. Maximum impact when needed and totally irrelevant if someone that disagrees with you goes over/under the cutoff by the distance of an electron (or vice versa when appropriate). Both variations can apply in the same post when needed or any other time it suits.
It's tough to argue with someone who can do magic tricks every time so they are always correct about everything, everytime. It could be the GOAT argument that someone could win against somebody with these magical powers (impossible even?).
Not even sure I need to critique anything else? When there are no standards set by the poster everything they say will be not worth debating anyway. It comes from a fantasy land. It's not real! They need to use an unequal argument. They are trying to convince themselves of something deep down inside, something that they don't believe (I wonder what it is?).
There are many more examples, but why invest my time? I could end up as the MIOAT (Most Insignificant Of All Time) because I failed to achieve the impossible: win a logical argument against an extremely biased poster who has no debating standards! The GOAT waste of time (if there ever was one).
I still have not had one credible poster make a good rebuttal to my post early in the thread about Federer's competition/early era compared with Djokovic. Guru disqualified himself multiple times already, so I don't need to add anything to what I responded to him with already. I might take a break for now...
Last edited:
Phenomenal
Hall of Fame
All of us have some bias in this forum. Some have so much that they reflect to their arguments all the time. I try to be as fair as possible most of the time. When they don't like or nothing to say they don't even respond anymore.
I learnt over the years here that %95-99 of the people are not even discussing with little bias. I'm bit stat based usually, maybe bit too much. Probably because of how world see sports these days(for 20 years or so) like in football, all other sports.
I like stats and i think they are important but i also believe they are not everything anymore. Context is also important but here comes subjectivity. IMO most things we debate are subjective.
Phenomenal
Hall of Fame
Comparing years, competition is obviously not fully but bit subjective. i have different logic idk how people feel when comparing years.
IMO for example in 2015 most important player is Djokovic and Nadal to me based on their success in 2012-2014.
So Nadal having a bad year in 2015 makes the competition hugely worse for me unless other players having insane year. Federer in 2015 is not the most important player to judge the competition. You also see from AO/RG he didn't have great year not comparable to his best years. What i mean is expectations, success before the year is important.
So Federer is 3rd player for me when judging the competition in 2015 since he wasn't the man to beat prior years.
In this context Federer is the important player from 2007-2010 and very close in 2009 with Nadal etc.
Djokovic's success is less important judging competition. Altough he had great year in 2008 so 2009 can be seen less competitive also with Nadal since RG.
2017 is relativly weaker due to Djokovic having bad year and so on.
Big3 are obviously dominant players in last 20 years. Competition of the tour is also important but for me top players(2-4) performance relative to each other is atleast as important.
IMO for example in 2015 most important player is Djokovic and Nadal to me based on their success in 2012-2014.
So Nadal having a bad year in 2015 makes the competition hugely worse for me unless other players having insane year. Federer in 2015 is not the most important player to judge the competition. You also see from AO/RG he didn't have great year not comparable to his best years. What i mean is expectations, success before the year is important.
So Federer is 3rd player for me when judging the competition in 2015 since he wasn't the man to beat prior years.
In this context Federer is the important player from 2007-2010 and very close in 2009 with Nadal etc.
Djokovic's success is less important judging competition. Altough he had great year in 2008 so 2009 can be seen less competitive also with Nadal since RG.
2017 is relativly weaker due to Djokovic having bad year and so on.
Big3 are obviously dominant players in last 20 years. Competition of the tour is also important but for me top players(2-4) performance relative to each other is atleast as important.
Last edited:
So what, even if Federer made it to Wimbledon Final instead of Kyrgios, he would have lost to Djokovic again. Djokovic was just too good.
Phenomenal
Hall of Fame
Altough this is only for slams another logic i like is comparing the slams competition seperate based on success of players. Nadal at RG Djokovic at AO Federer at Wimbledon are most important players. For example during Federer's career 2003 to 2015 or 2019. when these players having bad results it can be considered weaker in general. For Djokovic AO from 2008 to now for Nadal all of his career.
Idk why am i debating with people about Sampras and Nadal in other FPT. Stats atleast should be somewhat important isn't it. Big 3 are clearly the best players in the OE(Borg has some cases overall big 3 are better stat wise atleast).
Last edited:
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
To add just a little... I didn't mean to imply that standards should be unreasonably high. Obviously nobody is ever going to be perfect. Nobody ever will be (or even close). The main point is that we need to be able to challenge our bias. We can not have a meaningful debate when we are consistently using faulty logic.
Last edited:
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
On average, was he better than when he was 6 years younger over the last 5 or so years as well? Or do players never decline until they retire?
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Some Djokovic fans unironically believe that Djokovic winning 2 three slams a a year in his mid 30s was playing best tennis of his career.
Silentchimera
Semi-Pro
Yes. Those people also think they can draw conclusions from statistics without context (living in a fantasy land). The definition of words can be changed to confirm their biased opinions and beliefs.