Mayonnaise
Banned
I can and I will, thank you very much. Did you even read the second paragraph of my post?
Wimbledon 2014 R64: Lukas Rosol vs Rafael Nadal [2]
- Thread starter aldeayeah
- Start date
I can and I will, thank you very much. Did you even read the second paragraph of my post?
Mayonnaise
Banned
So we shouldn't criticize your favorite player for breaking the rules? Okay
objectivity
Banned
i did not say the 22-24 average was for this match. this match i had most of his points right around 24 and 25 seconds -- i hadn't computed the average. there were a few maybe just slightly more than 25. the 3 i noted were those which were significantly longer than 25... upwards of 27, 28 seconds.
as i said he plays right to the very very edge of the timing rule. no doubt about that.
objectivity
Banned
yes i did. and all i am saying is that the logic does not flow because the units of analysis are not consistent -- research method 101. you can say for example, that just as we regard Richard Krajicek's single match win against Sampras at Wimbledon as a fluke, we can regard Rosol's single match win against Nadal at wimbledon as a fluke. i will agree with that statement.
Ralph
Hall of Fame
It IS fact that he plays slowly in between points, and tries to disrupt his opponent by doing this. Note it tends to be the lower ranked opponents he plays. There are examples of it in this match, and also the last time they played.
Is it fact that he admits to it? No.
Mutually exclusive?
Mayonnaise
Banned
They showed during the match that he was taking an average of 25 seconds. You don't average 25 seconds if you're doing 22-23 between every point, except on three occasions where you do 27-28. Your math is terribly off on that one.
The rule is 20. Nadal does 25. He's well past the edge to anyone "objective".
objectivity
Banned
So we shouldn't criticize your favorite player for breaking the rules? Okay
if he kept to 25 seconds, how will he be breaking the rules?
It's 20 seconds at slams though; 25 is for ATP events.
I wish I knew. Umpire's discretion again no doubt. Sharapova's staring into space should not count as continuous play...
objectivity
Banned
Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97].
Mayonnaise
Banned
Krajicek's win wasn't a fluke. Did you see him that tournament? The more you post, the more I realize that I'm talking to a blind fan of Nadal. Rosol's win wasn't a fluke. Nor was Stakhovsky's over Federer. The sooner you admit that, the more "objective" you will seem.
Either way, like I said, The_Order said Rosol's win against Nadal was a fluke because it only happened once. I am using the same line of reasoning to say Nadal's AO win was a fluke. Because it only happened once. Either we're both right, or we're both wrong. You can't eat the cake and have it, too.
Mayonnaise
Banned
The rule at Slams is 20 seconds. Don't tell me you didn't know that.
Mayonnaise
Banned
That's at ATP tournamants. At Slams, it's 20 seconds. Now that you know the rules, will you admit that Nadal is cheating?
objectivity
Banned
do you see that i don't know (nor care) whether Krajicek's win or Rosol's win is a fluke? i really don't know. i only said that the comparison should be of a common unit of analysis, that's all.
Last edited:
Just like Nadal fluked his 2009 Australian Open win. He hasn't been able to back it up in 4 tries since. Rosol has only had 1 try so far
And Nadal 2013 WTF win over Federer was a fluke even though Fed was way past his prime.
objectivity
Banned
Down_the_line
Legend
Why is this thread still active? The match is over, move on. There are other great matches happening!
aldeayeah
G.O.A.T.
You can't serve faster than the returner can get ready, either.
Mayonnaise
Banned
According to the rules, the server sets the pace. But yeah, he's not supposed to serve before the returner is ready. And Nadal was ready each time Rosol served, so he didn't break any rules. Nadal, however, did. He did 25 seconds on average when the rule says 20 is the maximum. That's a fact.
Now, who cheated? Rosol or Nadal?
DRII
G.O.A.T.
objectivity
Banned
well, nevertheless, the same set of ITF rules states very clearly that the umpire has leeway to interpret the rules.
"Make the first determination on all Questions of Law arising during the match,subject to the right of a player to appeal to the ITF Supervisor/Referee"
http://www.itftennis.com/media/107082/107082.pdf
ruerooo
Legend
Um ... no.
I don't even know in what direction this ... "discussion" ... has developed - but you can't set that up like that because it's a false equivalence. In order to beat Rafa that one time, Rosol only had to beat one person. In order to win an entire tournament, Rafa had to beat seven people.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make (to be frank, it's not terribly clear), but your analogy won't hold up.
Mayonnaise
Banned
I am far too mature to measure the worth of a man by the size of his wallet, and the respectability of a player by the trophies on his cabinet
Mayonnaise
Banned
Nadal had to beat seven people? Well, Rosol had to win over a 100 points. Are you saying he fluked 139 points? Like I said, where do you draw the line? If it were so easy to fluke a win against professional Tennis players, I'd like to see you do it.
objectivity
Banned
thank you. at least somebody understands the need for consistency in unit of analysis.
objectivity
Banned
... do you see that the issue isn't whether it is a fluke or not? the issue is your logic. you have to be tighter with it. rosol's win could very well be a fluke, but your comparison case shouldn't be that of a tournament win. it should be another comparable match win. do you see what we are trying to say?
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
69 pages of love and hate, keep it up guys.
Mayonnaise
Banned
The_Order said the Rosol win was a fluke because it only happened once. I am saying the same of Nadal's AO win. It only happened once. I am being very consistent with the brilliant reasoning of The_Order.
I ask again: did Rosol fluke 139 points? Can you fluke even 20 points against Nadal?
Mayonnaise
Banned
this mayo fellow often tends to set up "false equivalencies" in his posts
Did you put that in quotes because you don't understand what it means?
objectivity
Banned
the MATCH win happened only once. the TOURNAMENT win happened only once.
one is a MATCH. the other is a TOURNAMENT.
do you see the difference?
Mayonnaise
Banned
No. According to The_Order, anything that happens only once is a fluke. Ask him
And I see you're avoiding my question. Did Rosol fluke 139 points? Can you fluke 20 points against Nadal?
objectivity
Banned
for example, you can say that Nadal's AO title was a fluke TOURNAMENT win because he only won it once. that would be consistent if the measurement for a fluke title win is only ever winning it once and never again.
you can also say Rosol's match win over Nadal was a fluke MATCH win, because he only ever did it once. that would again be consistent if the measurement for a fluke match win is only ever winning it once and never again.
is this clear enough? you have to qualify and be precise. always.
Mayonnaise
Banned
It is The_Order that needed to qualify and be precise. I'm only reiterating his brilliant logic and reasoning. He said anything that happens only once is a fluke. If it weren't a fluke, it would happen again. That's what he said. I don't agree with his logic. I'm only applying it to Nadal
objectivity
Banned
No. According to The_Order, anything that happens only once is a fluke. Ask him
And I see you're avoiding my question. Did Rosol fluke 139 points? Can you fluke 20 points against Nadal?
well first of all, how do we define fluke? is it winning once and never winning again?
and second, i am not avoiding your question. i did not answer it because 1) it was not addressed to me. and 2) i don't really care. But if you press me for an answer, i would say this. By my definition of a fluke, which is that it suggests that the result was undeserved and happened only by luck:
1) Rosol's win over Nadal was not a fluke.
2) Rosol's 139 points won over Nadal in that match were not flukes.
2) Nadal's AO 2009 title win was not a fluke.
Rosol defeated Nadal and he fully deserved it. He was the better player than Nadal because he won the match. Simple.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Google defines it as an "unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck." Rosol displayed great skill and level of play in that match. It's not a "chance occurrence" because he could have beaten almost anybody in that match, and was pretty much unbeatable in that 5th set. That is not chance, that is a brilliant match. And I don't see how he was lucky, especially given that he lost the first set in a very tight tiebreak.
I don't think Rosol's win was a fluke. And today's match proved it. He had a set point to go 2 sets up. I don't think Stakhovsky's win against Federer was a fluke, either. And nor is Nadal's Australian Open win. They were all earned. I was simply refuting The_Order's brilliant logic.
objectivity
Banned
why did you call me names then?
Mayonnaise
Banned
When did I call you names? I was refuting The_Order's claim with his own logic. You interfered and started attacking my claim, without attacking his, even though you disagreed with both of us. You were obviously biased.
dudeski
Hall of Fame
Just like Federer's 17 slams, 6 WTFs, 302 weeks at number 1 etc. Right?
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Please collect your Madden Fanboy '14 door prize on the way out....and thanks for playing.
objectivity
Banned
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=8500856&postcount=1361
you called me blind.
i pointed out the deficiencies in your comparison logic. that the cases you brought up aren't comparable. as i have said time and again, i did not care whether they were flukes or not. so i do not care who (you or The_Order) was correct. i only care about intellectual honesty.
objectivity
Banned
of course.
cronus
Professional
Mayonnaise
Banned
You were prepared to call Krajicek's win over Sampras a fluke, which is ridiculous. I'm sure you didn't see that match or the tournament or you wouldn't have said anything of the sort. And I don't need lectures on intellectual honesty from someone who knows so little of the facts, including The_Order's original claims. If you were better informed on what you were talking about (in other words, not blind), we wouldn't even be having the arguments about Nadal's obvious cheating and Rosol's supposed fluke. You know the time rules now, maybe it's time you look for The_Order's original claim?
objectivity
Banned
i DID NOT call Krajicek's win a fluke. i said if that match was used as the comparison case, then the comparison is fine.
Mayonnaise
Banned
This is what you said: "you can say for example, that just as we regard Richard Krajicek's single match win against Sampras at Wimbledon as a fluke, we can regard Rosol's single match win against Nadal at wimbledon as a fluke. i will agree with that statement."
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
