I'm not sure you understand what a 'straw man' argument is, or you misunderstand me. Ricardo is talking about historical records of each, as are you and Broken, but he's using it as a reason to disbelieve Novak's sincerity in retiring injured, which he did in a prior post, so that was what I was responding to. We ARE primarily talking about this match. And I didn't really want to bring it to the Djokovic fans thread that people have problems with some of the retirements. As Broken says above, Novak often seemed to suffer no after affects. Memorably, Novak retired out of a final v. Murray in Cincy in 2011 when Andy was 3 games away from the win, then went on to win the US Open a few weeks later, right after he was "too injured" to go on in a final. Obviously, he feels differently about Majors.
The discussion began, and I was talking about the injuries of Fed and Novak at this tournament.
No worries, I understand strawman very well. Let's state it here, just for a handy reference: Strawman Fallacy. Description: Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument. Person 2 restates person 1's claim (in a distorted way). Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
I agree with your initial part of your first sentence, as I think most do. But the last part of that sentence is "unless the injury is going to aggravate your situation." This is the critical part of the decision: will you do more damage by continuing to play? This answer is not something we're necessarily going to be privy to. But I think some benefit of the doubt can be given, when the stakes are so high.
I appreciate your post. And I understand the argument. I'm still saying that Ricardo DID state earlier that he was doubting Novak's motives for retiring in this particular match, so I don't think I was missing the discussion or deliberately going for a Straw Man. These threads are a moveable feast, so I don't think one's feet need be held to the fire if the conversation is still in the same vein. I appreciate your saying that Ricardo's personal jab was "abusive and disgusting," but it didn't distract me from the argument. As I said, we're discussing the retirement at hand, and yes, some have also taken it to the wider conversation about Fed and Novak vis-a-vis histories of retirements, but it doesn't mean that we stopped talking about one on Tuesday. As you can see above. And some tool being an idiot doesn't put me off my game. I'm used to his crap.
Thanks for the re-iteration of your point. We have slightly different opinions and perceptions but we should stop here.
When it’s 100% to 0 over a span of 15 to 20 years, you have to admit they show different commitment to finish a match when injured, there is just no way around it. It’s got nothing to do with what made him retire, obviously you couldn’t see the point because that sudden orgasm blocked your head
Nah I specifically compared their difference career wise, playing dumb or just plain dumb? Btw I don’t recall even once Djoker retired when he was winning, while Fed never retired, full stop.
You definitely digested what I said earlier well, who’s your daddy?
Diagnostic procedure in Swiss at the moment.
Well, let us know what you hear, Bonaca. A little too much skepticism around here about motivations behind withdrawals, or not believing a player is injured, when s/he is.
