2014 Davis Cup

[Kieran]

The point is there is no such thing called total recovery from a recurring back issue. There
is only recovery from the current episode of it.

I wonder whether geniuses do take comparisons literally without pausing to think about
the point of the comparison. :nono

Finally, when a new poster was pointing out that Fed had back issues for a long time,
established posters tried to jump on that fellow and suppress him. Until, I provided specific
evidence that he has been having back ache even in 2003, many thought it is a byproduct
of Fed aging up. Now, after accepting it, they try to use it against my argument and that
too improperly.:lolz:

I know Kieran is your buddy. But, that does not mean you should try to defend his bad
logic, especially when you are fully capable of creating your own bad logic (and get
irritated when exposed about it).

Where's the bad logic?

You create a dodgy narrative which suggests that Federer has been chronically struggling with a bad back for 12 years - but bravely played through it, give or take an odd match. And I call that bullsuger, just yet another dodgy narrative you're selling, and nobody is buying..

Then you suggest he's fully fit - a few days after being utterly unable to make the biggest final he's reached since Wimbledon - and I tell you that if he skips any more tennis - either IPTL or early 2015 - we'll know that he hasn't fully recovered, and you...what? Contradict this?

Listen, if Federer has a bad 2015, you and I both know he'll mention his back, and you and I both know that yourself and your buddy Front will declare that it's been troubling him since the WTF.

This is why I was trying to keep you honest by insisting that it couldn't be fully recovered. Try keep up, eh?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Look, both of you took the position that Fed won the last match while still carrying the back injury
and he was able to do so because Gasquet was a bad opponent. Most people who saw the match
agreed with me that Roger showed no signs of carrying back injury in that match and Gasquet
actually gave a decent fight and Roger's win could not be explained just by the name of Gasquet.

Now, to substantitate your theory that Roger had a back injury, you twisted the story to
he did not "fully" recover (remember a post in which you mentioned that was the operative word).
There is no such thing called fully recovering from recurring issues, only recovery from current
episode. My contention was that Roger indeed recovered from the back injury caused at the
Fedmirkastan gate and the main reason he was not able to play well against Monfils was because
he did not have practice on the indoor clay courts out there (of course, that lack of practice was
caused by injury; but, we are not talking about indirect effects here).

Now, you say that you will believe that Roger recovered from the back injury for the last
match of DC only if he never claims back problems in 2015. Anyone, with iota of senses would
say that is asking for too much. Roger has recurring back issues and indeed I expect him
to complain of back problems at some point in 2015. Does that mean he was carrying back
injury during his match against Gasquet? What kind of logic is that?

Any regular poster of this thread know the line of conversation that went on. I don't want
to beat dead horses here and I am willing to let it go. The only reason I brought the topic is because
Roger actually participated in IPTL yesterday and today and it was mentioned by you as one of
the conditions for you to believe.

So, stop attempting putting a different twist to your or my words and attempting to create
a different narrative or projecting your opinion of what others say or do instead of paying
attention to what they actually say or do.

 

[Kieran]

Firstly, you're sure it's a "recurring injury" - albeit one that doesn't recur too often - and not a different injury each time? You're sure on this?

Secondly, he wasn't moving well against Monfils, so it's obvious he wasn't 100% - and this can't be all down to a lack of practice. Why would he not practice if he was recovered? Because he couldn't practice, because he wasn't recovered enough.

Thirdly, I know well that if Federer is injured with his back next year, you'll be the first poster to brag that he's been carrying the injury since the WTF. And your homeboy Front will be second.

And both of you will get this in after Federer himself announces it via the media...