[barbadosan]

Originally Posted by shelley76

this is an example of what i am talking about. he would seem as if he is complimenting rafa and saying how good he is but the beginning of the sentence negates what follows. he is telling everyone that there are people out there who think rafa is rubbish and that they do not respect his game.

he was not defending rafa in his statement.he was simply planting the seed of the negative thought and letting it settle in people's minds(much like lawyers do with juries). what people is he talking about? this was when the rafa bandwagon was in full swing, he had been beaten a few times by him and most journalist and fans were going on about how good this kid is and were amazed at how he was beating fed.

the last part is even worse. instead of saying how good he is which compliments his game now. he said can be which was kind of a subtle dig at rafa. suggesting that he is not good yet. this when the kid was already 3/4:1 up on him in their HtoH.

this is an example of him damning rafa with faint praise. keeping him subordinate to him where he thinks he belongs. he is good and very subtle so you won't see it even if you are a non-fan and especially if you are a fan.

oh for Pete's sake, stop with this foolishness already. It may shock you but I conveyed the gist of what Federer said.. did he say "can be" or "could be" or "might be", I can't remember since I don't feel the need to quote anyone verbatim after 5 flipping years, so if you want to nitpick your way to glory on that, be my guest.

And you might - or is that "should", check your facts first before flinging crap in the air and hoping it will stick. At the time Rog said it, they had met ONE SINGLE TIME, which Nadal won. Their next meeting would be at Miami 2005, which Fed won, so I dunno where you get off with flinging around statments like the kid was already 3/4:1 up on him. Check your darned facts since apparently you only started following tennis yesterday.

[solowyn]

Originally Posted by oranges

I've got the commentator gig here:

shelley is clearly not happy about her posts being picked apart point by point, blasts a mindless attempt at a winner Korolev would be proud of. People in the stands run for cover.

She should get a warning for time wasting, still stuck on page 7.

[barbadosan]

Originally Posted by solowyn

She should get a warning for time wasting, still stuck on page 7.

[Dextertje]

This thread is full of Rafatards bullshit and you have no CD, Everko, Topspindoctor or rafa_slam_king... can't wait to see where this thread is going to as soon as they take on it

[l_mac]

Originally Posted by shelley76

in 2004 rafa already had a lot of buzz on him because of his amazing defeat of albert costa(reigning french open champion) in monte carlo 2003, his amazing play while losing to leyton hewitt in aus open in 2004 and his outstanding defeat of the reigning number one player in miami 2004. by 2005, there was no one who "didn't realise" what a good player he was or "how good he can be". since by this time his bandwagon was actually speeding along the track and veering out of control. people were instead saying how great he will be .

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by shelley76

WOW i picked your post apart and carefully explained, again, to you what i was saying and you still return with the misinterpretation that is in your head.

i give up. i don't know how else to explain it to you. i really don't.

Probably because you don't actually understand what I'm saying, even though it's incredibly simple.

What i said has nothing to do with federer playing badly as federer did NOT SAY he lost because he played badly. please re-read the article in the OP.

He said " sometimes i lose because the opponent played better than me." my posts have been about this "sometimes". in my opinion, federer is implying that there are other reasons or excuses for his other losses. you know the ones that are not covered by this "sometimes." these are the discredited players i'm talking about.

Yes, I know that. I guess I have to spell everything out to you, using as simple terms as possible:

1.) Federer said he sometimes loses simply because his opponent plays well, i.e plays at a level above Federer's 'normal' level.
2.) This implies that at other times he loses because he plays below his normal level, i.e plays badly: for example when he doesn't make enough first serves or makes too many errors with his forehand.

Conclusion: Federer is claiming (or implying) that sometimes he has lost because he has played badly.

And the question I've asked several times, which you haven't yet answered, is what's wrong with that? What's wrong with admitting that you're sometimes below your best (for whatever reason) and sometimes lose as a result?

i then pointed out the double standars which would allow people like you to defend such choice of words when MTFers don't seem to like it when players try to make excuses for their loss. they simply just want them to say the other guy played better than me and move on. Not only "SOMETIMES"but "ALL" the time.

In a technical sense, a player always loses because his opponent played better. That's why he lost! The question is why were they the better player, and Federer is indicating that at least sometimes this is because the other player is below par. That's what the "sometimes" indicates.

From that it doesn't follow that the reason was injury. In any case, MTFers object to Nadal's injury 'excuses' because they believe they're fake, and attempts to 'justify' Nadal's poor form. They don't deny that Nadal sometimes is in poor form.

By the way, saying you lost because you played badly is discrediting the other player. ask serena, she has come into a lot of hate for saying exactly this. this is because you are saying the other guy didn't really win because he played really good or better than you instead he only won because you were crap. if you beat someone would you want them to say it was because they played badly why you won?

If it's true then it's just a fact you have to live with, or you're only deluding yourself. Note that Federer never singled out any specific players, though, and his whole point was to emphasize those times when his opponent plays well, and the press don't pick up on it.

[habibko]

Originally Posted by l_mac

I don't think I would class it a strong friendship, but I do think it's more than just being civil to each other. They seem to genuinely get on well.

Originally Posted by l_mac

On court.

you are a Fedal now?

[Commander Data]

Originally Posted by habibko

you are a Fedal now?

She has put Djokovic in her sig so she is clearly being ironic.

[fast_clay]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

we really do need a mid year ACC masters tournament, imo

i've always argued for a Masters Series ACC on grass just after wimbledon... and one around miami and IW...

i've always seen the acc calendar this way

[shelley76]

Originally Posted by MTwEeZi

good posting Shelley dont let these clowns get to you

thank you? i am actually ROTFLMAO at how riduculous these fed fans are.

i've gone from being a simple poster, stating their honest opinion, to being a rafaturd, a nadal tard and finally a troll. i'm now being recommended for something called ACC.

why? because from the article in the OP, I took objection to the great one's obviously condescending use of the word sometimes in one of his statements and then committed the cardinal sin of saying i didn't like him while declaring i was a rafa fan .

hence started the campaign of hate and intimidation against me. if they knew me they'd know i don't do intimidated so they were not actually chasing me off with my head bent in shame and dejection.

if i have an opinion i will state it. if i am a fan of someone i will proudly say so. none of you own this board!

one thing i have come to realise though...federer fans take their cue on how to behave from him. they are obnoxious, superior, condescending and arrogant. they have learnt from their master well. as a result i have come to regard them the same way i regard him- with disdain

sorry for the long post. just wanted to say thanks for the support.

[habibko]

so you are taking your cue on how to behave from Nadal shelley76?

I'm sure Rafa is proud of you.

[Apemant]

Originally Posted by Singularity

In a technical sense, a player always loses because his opponent played better. That's why he lost!

Actually, in a technical sense, even THAT is not true, because of the ad-scoring and all this stuff with sets/games.

It's a ludicrous idea that someone 'played better' only because he played, say, 2 points 'better'. And even that could in theory be a DF or an ace. For the remainder of the match, the losing player could've been clearly better, while the other one could play a lot worse but drag himself somehow, to the deciding tiebreak, where he can string 2 lucky points and win.

To me, it is an obvious bullshit to call that player 'better on the day' - simply because he won. People need to drop that strange notion that the better player ALWAYS wins. It's simply not true. Life isn't always fair, in fact, I'd say it's unfair more often than not. Lucky people prefer to think that 'they make their own luck' - which is true TO SOME EXTENT, but not all the way. Not even close to all the way.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Apemant

Actually, in a technical sense, even THAT is not true, because of the ad-scoring and all this stuff with sets/games.

It's a ludicrous idea that someone 'played better' only because he played, say, 2 points 'better'. And even that could in theory be a DF or an ace. For the remainder of the match, the losing player could've been clearly better, while the other one could play a lot worse but drag himself somehow, to the deciding tiebreak, where he can string 2 lucky points and win.

To me, it is an obvious bullshit to call that player 'better on the day' - simply because he won. People need to drop that strange notion that the better player ALWAYS wins. It's simply not true. Life isn't always fair, in fact, I'd say it's unfair more often than not. Lucky people prefer to think that 'they make their own luck' - which is true TO SOME EXTENT, but not all the way. Not even close to all the way.

I agree with that actually, I just didn't want to over-complicate things. Though in some sense, I think we have to believe that the outcome of even a couple of points means something, otherwise the whole system seems rather arbitrary in the first place.

[junkdelux]

I thought this was going to be a 9 page discussion of Fedal! Dammit.

[kinski76]

Originally Posted by shelley76

this is an example of what i am talking about. he would seem as if he is complimenting rafa and saying how good he is but the beginning of the sentence negates what follows. he is telling everyone that there are people out there who think rafa is rubbish and that they do not respect his game.

he was not defending rafa in his statement.he was simply planting the seed of the negative thought and letting it settle in people's minds(much like lawyers do with juries). what people is he talking about? this was when the rafa bandwagon was in full swing, he had been beaten a few times by him and most journalist and fans were going on about how good this kid is and were amazed at how he was beating fed.

the last part is even worse. instead of saying how good he is which compliments his game now. he said can be which was kind of a subtle dig at rafa. suggesting that he is not good yet. this when the kid was already 3/4:1 up on him in their HtoH.

this is an example of him damning rafa with faint praise. keeping him subordinate to him where he thinks he belongs. he is good and very subtle so you won't see it even if you are a non-fan and especially if you are a fan.

Such a sly devil, this Federer. Such a loss to the legal profession as well.