2018 Wimbledon men’s SF: Djokovic v Nadal

[monfed]

Those might be rhetorical questions, to me, but I thought they weren't to you. You think Nadal has no talent and no fans. And you do think he has "lucked" into a lot of his wins. You say it all the time. I'm perfectly happy if you answer.

Quit stalling, it's annoying. Nobody is saying Nadal has no talent so stop acting like that what was said and LEARN TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

When people say Nadal has no talent it is a relative comparison to players who have been as successful. Nadal is probably more talented than me or you(god forbid you play tennis and still spout this nonsense) Are you gonna sit in your couch and argue endlessly about how Nadal has the same amount of talent has Fed? Are you really THAT fucking delusional? No seriously, are you?

God, dulltards are as annoying as dull's moonballing.

 

[monfed]

I believe we've already established that Nadal does get tired. That's an old trope. And the fact that he trains hard escapes your notice. It also escapes your notice that he had no reason to initially start doping, since he was rising well in the ranks since turning pro, at 15, and was the last teenager to win a Major on the men's side. I've asked this question many times with no sufficient answer from either Front or Darth. Perhaps you'll give it a go: why would Nadal have started doping, and when? Darth says early '05, because he has to say that...it fits his agenda. But Nadal was beating past #1's and FO winners at 16. He beat Roger, already #1 at 17. On HCs, and in straights. Nadal needed no bump from his already amazing level even at 16. He won RG at 19 +2 days, and he'd beaten Federer in the SFs. So when did he start doping? And why? Most would admit it's not obvious.

I don't have the proof that Nadull is doping and you don't either to prove that he is not. So what we have are our observations using common sense and logic and that is good enough for me. I don't like to push on doping much because without proof it's incriminating.

 

[Moxie]

Quit stalling, it's annoying. Nobody is saying Nadal has no talent so stop acting like that what was said and LEARN TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES. Don't pretend like you understood differently.

When people say Nadal has no talent it is a relative comparison to players who have been as successful. Nadal is probably more talented than me or you(god forbid you play tennis and still spout this nonsense) Are you gonna sit in your couch and argue endlessly about how Nadal has the same amount of talent has Fed? Are you really THAT fucking delusional? No seriously, are you?

God, dulltards are as annoying as dull's moonballing.

I'm stalling? I haven't failed to respond to anything you've said. I, on the other hand, have asked specific questions. I'll be standing by for your answers.

 

[Moxie]

I don't have the proof that Nadull is doping and you don't either to prove that he is not. So what we have are our observations using common sense and logic and that is good enough for me. I don't like to push on doping much because without proof it's incriminating.

Well, in your post #1124, above, you were perfectly happy to imply doping on Nadal's part. So, just like Front and Darth, when confronted with solid questions about Nadal's history and what makes real sense, you fold like a cheap tent. I have no illusions that you and Front and Darth won't keep taking cheap shots at Nadal, but I'm hoping that folks like @Michael;Kiwi and other reasonable people will read this and see you for the cowardly provocateurs that you are.

 

[monfed]

Well, in your post #1124, above, you were perfectly happy to imply doping on Nadal's part. So, just like Front and Darth, when confronted with solid questions about Nadal's history and what makes real sense, you fold like a cheap tent. I have no illusions that you and Front and Darth won't keep taking cheap shots at Nadal, but I'm hoping that folks like @Michael;Kiwi and other reasonable people will read this and see you for the cowardly provocateurs that you are.

And you can't prove that he is not doping either so what are you on about? If you're gonna tell us we're wrong you better have proof. People will say what they observe. That's how this works.

 

[Moxie]

And you can't prove that he is not doping either so what are you on about? If you're gonna tell us we're wrong you better have proof. People will say what they observe. That's how this works.

Actually, I gave you a very good counter-argument for why he's not doping, chapter and verse, and you ignored it. Sports doctors say that the "tell" for doping is a spike in performance, especially late-career. I've told you why there was none in Nadal's. I asked you directly: given the evidence, when would Rafa have started doping and why? You have no answer. And you say I'd better have proof. Well, actually, it's hard to prove the absence of something, but I've done a pretty good job. What I would say to you is: if you're going to keep slandering Nadal, YOU'D better have proof, if that's your stated standard. One proof I have is he won a libel suit in a French court of law against a woman who claimed on television that he'd served a silent ban. That's better than you've got. Since you're not going to respond to direct questions, why don't we say you should just stop implying that Nadal dopes, ok?

 

[monfed]

Actually, I gave you a very good counter-argument for why he's not doping, chapter and verse, and you ignored it. Sports doctors say that the "tell" for doping is a spike in performance, especially late-career. I've told you why there was none in Nadal's. I asked you directly: given the evidence, when would Rafa have started doping and why? You have no answer. And you say I'd better have proof. Well, actually, it's hard to prove the absence of something, but I've done a pretty good job. What I would say to you is: if you're going to keep slandering Nadal, YOU'D better have proof, if that's your stated standard. One proof I have is he won a libel suit in a French court of law against a woman who claimed on television that he'd served a silent ban. That's better than you've got. Since you're not going to respond to direct questions, why don't we say you should just stop implying that Nadal dopes, ok?

It's impossible to prove or disprove when you don't have proof. So people will go with what they observe. No amount of moral policing is going to change a person's perception so stop trying.

Funny how it's always the morally weak who morally police the world.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Maybe I'm just nieve, but I don't believe any of these players have ever doped at any point. I don't see any evidence that the store tour is doping, like the Tour De France. And once these players got to the top it just seems too risky to their legacies. I also have some faith in the ATP, which seems to be trying.

I can name quite a few Fed fans who must be on “something “that ain’t legal “ in most states besides Colo and California if they actually believe that the World’s # 1 is using PEDs but the world’s #2 who is almost 6 years older is pure as the driven Snow.

 

[the AntiPusher]

80% is being generous given how much pushing he was doing in that semi, especially on the Saturday. Compare that level to when he faced Roger in the finals at 2014 and 2015 and it's night and day. Certainly no passive pushing against Roger and much better court coverage, plus he served much better.

Okay Let me get this one straight..Roger is your tennis God.. Roger got outplayed by the same guy that Novak took to the woodshed and had a cup of tea during the changeovers. If this is true, you are saying that a less than 80 % Djokovic defeated Anderson, Nadal and most likely Roger? I am very curious to see how you wiggle your way out of this One.

 

[Moxie]

It's impossible to prove or disprove when you don't have proof. So people will go with what they observe. No amount of moral policing is going to change a person's perception so stop trying.

Funny how it's always the morally weak who morally police the world.

I've asked you to comment on reasonable facts. You refuse. No one is policing your morals. Only asking you to comment on observable facts. If you choose your "perception of facts" over those that are well-delineated and laid out for debate, then you choose your own La-La Land. Otherwise you would debate. I have not set up a moral construct, merely a series of debatable points.

 

[monfed]

I've asked you to comment on reasonable facts. You refuse. No one is policing your morals. Only asking you to comment on observable facts. If you choose your "perception of facts" over those that are well-delineated and laid out for debate, then you choose your own La-La Land. Otherwise you would debate. I have not set up a moral construct, merely a series of debatable points.

No you just pointed out a series of incidents to prove your theory. It wasn't proof of anything besides projecting your own misguided beliefs.

For Federer you have to dig for actual proof, it's fucking reaching.

What dulltards like you do is if Nadal is doing it so is Fed. It's a childish bickering. For Nadal you have to basically expose him , the proof is already there, the ATP doesn't want to go public with it. That's the difference.

I don't actually blame you, dull's entire legacy is off of Fed's glory. Such a leech Nadal is that's why he's so unlikeable. Can't create anything beautiful, only destroys. Disgusting fellow and his disgusting stubborn cult worshippers who will defend him even if he commits murder.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Okay Let me get this one straight..Roger is your tennis God.. Roger got outplayed by the same guy that Novak took to the woodshed and had a cup of tea during the changeovers. If this is true, you are saying that a less than 80 % Djokovic defeated Anderson, Nadal and most likely Roger? I am very curious to see how you wiggle your way out of this One.

The Novak who played Rafa in SF is almost like 66% of old Novak. The Novak who played Anderson is like 80% of old Novak. Novak was tentative when playing Rafa. But, the confidence gained by beating Rafa, actually improved his game also. If you noticed, Novak was not pushing at all against Anderson, not even in the last set where Nole did not play very well.

The flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that the level of play of Novak against Anderson is the same as the level of play against Rafa. It was not.

Finally, I do believe that Roger would have beat the Novak if he was playing the way he played against Rafa, if Novak encountered Roger before before beating a big time player. However, I think it is probably 50/50 if Novak would be facing Roger after beating Rafa (which would have been the case if Roger reached the finals).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Maybe I'm just nieve, but I don't believe any of these players have ever doped at any point. I don't see any evidence that the store tour is doping, like the Tour De France. And once these players got to the top it just seems too risky to their legacies. I also have some faith in the ATP, which seems to be trying.

I would consider giving the players some benefit of doubt. However, I would never believe ATP and/or other tennis agencies. It has been well documented that ATP proactively helped Agassi conceal his drugging (although not PED in his case). Agassi even writes about it in his autobiography.

Further ATP got all the publicity for cleaning up when they claimed that the will get rid of "silent ban business". But, they talked the talk, but did not walk the walk. A basic tenet of getting rid of silent ban is immediate public announcement the moment a player tested positive, of course without presumption of guilt, without waiting for the case to be over which takes long time. They said they will do so, but did not do so when it happened the next time (I forgot the name of the player involved as he was a low profile player).

 

[Front242]

Okay Let me get this one straight..Roger is your tennis God.. Roger got outplayed by the same guy that Novak took to the woodshed and had a cup of tea during the changeovers. If this is true, you are saying that a less than 80 % Djokovic defeated Anderson, Nadal and most likely Roger? I am very curious to see how you wiggle your way out of this One.

That's the most illogical post I've read in quite some time (and that's saying a lot!). You do realize Anderson played a long match against Roger and then played 6 hours 36 minutes against Isner. Maybe, just maybe THAT might be why he was easy for Novak to beat.

His first serve was down 15-20 mph in the final, he visibly couldn't push up on weary legs to serve properly till he got a second wind when it was too late in set 3 and needed an arm massage cos of discomfort from all the long matches beforehand. Without his serve, Anderson is hopeless. A fit Anderson last time they played at Wimbledon won the first 2 sets against Novak and only lost the match cos it was postponed to the following day. There's no way he wins only 2 games per set when 100% physically fit and you know it.

Think before posting nonsense like this please next time.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What, in your opinion, is my delusion? That Nadal has talent? That he has actual fans, and loads of them, that like him for the way he plays tennis? That somehow he didn't just "luck" into 17 Majors?

Sure he does.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

No you just pointed out a series of incidents to prove your theory. It wasn't proof of anything besides projecting your own misguided beliefs.

For Federer you have to dig for actual proof, it's fucking reaching.

What dulltards like you do is if Nadal is doing it so is Fed. It's a childish bickering. For Nadal you have to basically expose him , the proof is already there, the ATP doesn't want to go public with it. That's the difference.

I don't actually blame you, dull's entire legacy is off of Fed's glory. Such a leech Nadal is that's why he's so unlikeable. Can't create anything beautiful, only destroys. Disgusting fellow and his disgusting stubborn cult worshippers who will defend him even if he commits murder.

Actually, your understanding of "childish bickering" (my first emphasis) is different than as described by the English dictionary:
bicker /ˈbɪkə/ argue about petty and trivial matters.
The fact that Moxie refuted your arguments downgrading Nadal, by pointing the same arguments also downgrade Federer, is a valid debating technique, involving so called "counter argumentation". On the other hand, your argument (my second emphasis) is simply a non-sequitur in the discussion, because no one has been talking about murder on this thread so far. The purpose of raising such non-sequitur argument is clear to me: an emotional appeal by the disputant who tries to win the audience by emotive empathy rather than by logical argumentation. As such, your argument falls into the "Appeal to Pity" category of logical fallacies, read about it e.g. here:
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
In likely case that you don't care about logical fallacies in your discourse (you've proven it many times in this forum), maybe one thing you can learn herein is: with a proper understanding of the term "childish bickering" as cited by me above, the term in question is more applicable to your latest "murder" (my second emphasis) argument, rather than any argument raised beforehand by Moxie. Arguments having no logical meaning but carrying heavy emotive weight, are common among squabbling children.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

O.K. I'm very sorry. I might have been wrong. Can we say mis-calculation? All that name-calling, whinging & whining made me under-estimate the amount of times he actually had something reasonable to say, was fantasising or seeking approval for his views. I escape from reality a bit myself when I read fiction, read or write poetry or stories. I used to act too but haven't done any acting for ages. Who says when women are saying things that Monfed doesn't understand that it's nonsense? Some women are just book-worms with good vocabs & memories.

Oops, I haven't seen your post until a moment ago, hence my delayed response herein.
You do not need to feel sorry: you expressed what you wanted to say precisely & clearly & logically. If the realities you & others are reporting do not match sometimes, that's because you and others don't pay attention to the same aspects. And that's fine. We always need to confront our subjective realities, in order for the objective reality consensus to emerge.
On the other hand, I need to give an apology for my imprecise comment about women talking "nonsense". My imprecise comment was misunderstood by yourself, per my emphasis above. By enclosing the word "nonsense" in quotes, I meant that said "nonsense" comes from monfed. In other words, I wanted to say that monfed thinks women talk nonsense because monfed often does not understand their talk. I hope my intentions are clear now and sorry again for the confusion.

 

[Horsa]

Oops, I haven't seen your post until a moment ago, hence my delayed response herein.
You do not need to feel sorry: you expressed what you wanted to say precisely & clearly & logically. If the realities you & others are reporting do not match sometimes, that's because you and others don't pay attention to the same aspects. And that's fine. We always need to confront our subjective realities, in order for the objective reality consensus to emerge.
On the other hand, I need to give an apology for my imprecise comment about women talking "nonsense". My imprecise comment was misunderstood by yourself, per my emphasis above. By enclosing the word "nonsense" in quotes, I meant that said "nonsense" comes from monfed. In other words, I wanted to say that monfed thinks women talk nonsense because monfed often does not understand their talk. I hope my intentions are clear now and sorry again for the confusion.

It's o.k. A lot was said. Things get missed. Some people exaggerate. Sometimes when a lot is said we tend to look at the majority of what is said by 1 person to build up a picture of what someone is normally like. This colours the way that the person is seen & means that if a person normally just whinges, whines & name-calls & doesn't say much else what else they do say is normally disregarded. Of course, everyone has minds of their own which means people are going to disagree sometimes but not always, everyone also has different experiences which affect the way they see things not to mention education, culture & skills, strengths, weaknesses, likes & dislikes. Although everyone reads the same way on a basic level there are many different ways of reading on a not so basic level & even the simplest sentence can be ambiguous as it could be written sarcastically or to mean what it actually says, then there's critical reading etc. Sometimes I seem to pick up on people's moods when reading & try to work out their intentions but that's a defence mechanism because I've often played victim to other people's moods. I try not to leave myself open to comment & work out possible comebacks so I'm ready for them though I'm spontaneous most of the time & don't have an agenda. Sometimes I read things in all ways they could be meant & have a range of different answers in mind & just have to pick 1. Sometimes I pick the right 1. Sometimes I don't. (Don't forget, I've had Monfed on ignore for about a month now so don't see what he says directly only other people's responses to him.) I agree with you.

It's o.k. I understand. I thought you were saying that we both spoke nonsense. (Well I do at times, normally before a cup of coffee or peppermint tea on a morning, when I haven't been able to sleep properly or I'm tired, when I'm flustered or get too angry, when it gets too hot for me or when I've got so much going on in my head at once that I've got to slow myself down & separate everything out as I've had an ideas surge & know what I want to say but have at least 3 different ways of saying it going around my head at times. I guess everyone's like that though.) I understand you now & agree with what you say. Monfed thinks women talk nonsense for 3 reasons. 1. He doesn't understand them. 2. He doesn't listen. 3. He only listens to opinions & beliefs that coincide with his own disregarding the others. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought that you were also trying to say that about women & women have had a raw deal in the past. I've discussed how women have been treated in history a few times so won't reiterate.

*Edited because I answered you originally before I had coffee so wasn't thinking straight.

 

[DarthFed]

Sure he does.

Is that you @Moxie @Carol?

Anyways I suddenly have the urge to attend that crappy clay tournament next year

 

[monfed]

Actually, your understanding of "childish bickering" (my first emphasis) is different than as described by the English dictionary:
bicker /ˈbɪkə/ argue about petty and trivial matters.
The fact that Moxie refuted your arguments downgrading Nadal, by pointing the same arguments also downgrade Federer, is a valid debating technique, involving so called "counter argumentation". On the other hand, your argument (my second emphasis) is simply a non-sequitur in the discussion, because no one has been talking about murder on this thread so far. The purpose of raising such non-sequitur argument is clear to me: an emotional appeal by the disputant who tries to win the audience by emotive empathy rather than by logical argumentation. As such, your argument falls into the "Appeal to Pity" category of logical fallacies, read about it e.g. here:
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
In likely case that you don't care about logical fallacies in your discourse (you've proven it many times in this forum), maybe one thing you can learn herein is: with a proper understanding of the term "childish bickering" as cited by me above, the term in question is more applicable to your latest "murder" (my second emphasis) argument, rather than any argument raised beforehand by Moxie. Arguments having no logical meaning but carrying heavy emotive weight, are common among squabbling children.

Damn. Are you done with your thesis? It's called tit for tat which is standard dulltard arguments. No need to be defensive.