Is Federer safe for London (WTF)?

[Iona16]

Gasquet and Tsonga are on track to meet in the 3rd round in Paris. Jo-Wil is behind Richard by 65 points, so they could fight it out directly. (I picked Tsonga, btw.)

I think Tsonga is a safer bet. He seems to thrive in front of a home crowd. Gasquet feels the pressure.

I dunno. I watched the FO semi with Tsonga and Ferrer and it was the most yella-bellied show I'd seen in years. Tsonga actually made me feel like puking he was so afraid...

To be fair that was a very poor crowd. When Tsonga walked out for his match the stadium was empty. He needs a crowd to feed off and they didn't deliver for him. I've seen Tsonga 4 times in Paris and the crowds for those matches were amazing. The best one was against Roddick at the Paris masters. The atmosphere was electric.

It was a French Open semi - he shouldn't need the crowd to deliver for him. He ducked it. But I fancy him to do well this week, ideal conditions. He might even upset a big name!

I know what match it was - thanks. Of course he shouldn't need the crowd to deliver for him but it does help. My original point was that Tsonga seems to benefit more from a home crowd than Gasquet. In general Gasquet seems to feel the pressure more. A vocal, passionate home crowd is great for any player. Between the 2 players I think it lifts Tsonga more.

 

[Moxie]

^ I agree with you, Iona. Rightly or wrongly, some players feed off the energy more than others, and Tsonga is one. Monfils is another, and frankly, so is Djokovic.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I know what match it was - thanks. Of course he shouldn't need the crowd to deliver for him but it does help. My original point was that Tsonga seems to benefit more from a home crowd than Gasquet. In general Gasquet seems to feel the pressure more. A vocal, passionate home crowd is great for any player. Between the 2 players I think it lifts Tsonga more.

Great for "any player"?

 

[Moxie]

I know what match it was - thanks. Of course he shouldn't need the crowd to deliver for him but it does help. My original point was that Tsonga seems to benefit more from a home crowd than Gasquet. In general Gasquet seems to feel the pressure more. A vocal, passionate home crowd is great for any player. Between the 2 players I think it lifts Tsonga more.

Great for "any player"?

That is a pointless goad. What you quote means nothing. Either make a point or leave off, but don't pretend to prod posters when you, yourself have no actual point to make. It's a cheap tactic.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Facts are suddenly cheap are they? You are a laugh a minute little one.

I don't see how a vocal, passionate home crowd is great for any player. It really appears to be an unsupported claim.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Facts are suddenly cheap are they? You are a laugh a minute little one.

I don't see how a vocal, passionate home crowd is great for any player. It really appears to be an unsupported claim.

Did you start watching sports yesterday?

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I see players fall short of their best tennis at their home events, all the time. Even top players like Rafter, Hewitt and Scud. All 3 of them were more successful at the US Open and Wimbledon.

 

[BalaryKar]

Did you start watching sports yesterday?

The assumption that one needs to watch sport to comment on it is unfair :lolz:

 

[Kieran]

Actually, I agree with NADAL2005RG here. A passionate home crowd can also be a hindrance to a player, an unnecessary distraction if they're overly anxious. It's not always that a roar of way-hey, go on, kill 'im is helpful and of course, the ensuing silence can be crushing if things aren't going well. Some players don't need it or want it, they prefer to get on with things.

And conversely, some players are inspired by having the whole crowd against them, and obviously there are sportsmen who need to feed off the crowd.

There isn't a law on this one.

For the record, I been watching sports for almost 40 years...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Actually, I agree with NADAL2005RG here. A passionate home crowd can also be a hindrance to a player, an unnecessary distraction if they're overly anxious. It's not always that a roar of way-hey, go on, kill 'im is helpful and of course, the ensuing silence can be crushing if things aren't going well. Some players don't need it or want it, they prefer to get on with things.

And conversely, some players are inspired by having the whole crowd against them, and obviously there are sportsmen who need to feed off the crowd.

There isn't a law on this one.

For the record, I been watching sports for almost 40 years...

He stated that the statement is unfounded (or not backed by data or something like that). I think we'll both agree that the instances in which sports teams, players, athletes, win at home are numerous enough to warrant the suggestion that crowd support is a huge factor.

I don't disagree with your post at all, and we have quite a few examples to back your claim, but they remain exceptions (ie most players prefer crowd support, over using the crowd being against them to get motivated).

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

If home court was not an advantage, the term "home court advantage" would be ..uhm...silly.

By the way, it is not just about the crowd supporting you...It is also about the crowd intimidating your opponents, even the refs and umpires, putting them under pressure , maybe making them feel like they have to give you the benefit of the doubt. I see it every single day in pro sports.

 

[tented]

Actually, I agree with NADAL2005RG here. A passionate home crowd can also be a hindrance to a player, an unnecessary distraction if they're overly anxious. It's not always that a roar of way-hey, go on, kill 'im is helpful and of course, the ensuing silence can be crushing if things aren't going well. Some players don't need it or want it, they prefer to get on with things.

And conversely, some players are inspired by having the whole crowd against them, and obviously there are sportsmen who need to feed off the crowd.

There isn't a law on this one.

For the record, I been watching sports for almost 40 years...

He stated that the statement is unfounded (or not backed by data or something like that). I think we'll both agree that the instances in which sports teams, players, athletes, win at home are numerous enough to warrant the suggestion that crowd support is a huge factor.

I don't disagree with your post at all, and we have quite a few examples to back your claim, but they remain exceptions (ie most players prefer crowd support, over using the crowd being against them to get motivated).

The key is Kieran's statement "there isn't a law on this one," which (I think) you also agree with, Broken.

However, without a doubt, crowd support can be a critical factor for many players. This is why I often pick guys who are playing in their home country to win in the draw challenges, i.e. Isner in Cincinnati, Raonic in Canada, Almagro in Madrid, etc.

Tangentially, crowds can also serve as a motivator for the players to please them. It goes both ways: the crowds can boost the players, and the players want to please the crowds.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, I agree with NADAL2005RG here. A passionate home crowd can also be a hindrance to a player, an unnecessary distraction if they're overly anxious. It's not always that a roar of way-hey, go on, kill 'im is helpful and of course, the ensuing silence can be crushing if things aren't going well. Some players don't need it or want it, they prefer to get on with things.

And conversely, some players are inspired by having the whole crowd against them, and obviously there are sportsmen who need to feed off the crowd.

There isn't a law on this one.

For the record, I been watching sports for almost 40 years...

He stated that the statement is unfounded (or not backed by data or something like that). I think we'll both agree that the instances in which sports teams, players, athletes, win at home are numerous enough to warrant the suggestion that crowd support is a huge factor.

I don't disagree with your post at all, and we have quite a few examples to back your claim, but they remain exceptions (ie most players prefer crowd support, over using the crowd being against them to get motivated).

Well, we misunderstood his point then, which I took to be well illustrated by examples of players who had more success away from home. My understanding is that he was saying there's no support for the claim that home support is always an advantage. This is correct. Especially in individual sports where the pressure can become more internalised and personal. Sure, most probably thrive in it but it was a fair comment by NADAL2005RG: not everyone does...

 

[Denis]

Actually, I agree with NADAL2005RG here. A passionate home crowd can also be a hindrance to a player, an unnecessary distraction if they're overly anxious. It's not always that a roar of way-hey, go on, kill 'im is helpful and of course, the ensuing silence can be crushing if things aren't going well. Some players don't need it or want it, they prefer to get on with things.

And conversely, some players are inspired by having the whole crowd against them, and obviously there are sportsmen who need to feed off the crowd.

There isn't a law on this one.

For the record, I been watching sports for almost 40 years...

He stated that the statement is unfounded (or not backed by data or something like that). I think we'll both agree that the instances in which sports teams, players, athletes, win at home are numerous enough to warrant the suggestion that crowd support is a huge factor.

I don't disagree with your post at all, and we have quite a few examples to back your claim, but they remain exceptions (ie most players prefer crowd support, over using the crowd being against them to get motivated).

Well, we misunderstood his point then, which I took to be well illustrated by examples of players who had more success away from home. My understanding is that he was saying there's no support for the claim that home support is always an advantage. This is correct. Especially in individual sports where the pressure can become more internalised and personal. Sure, most probably thrive in it but it was a fair comment by NADAL2005RG: not everyone does...

This is what he wrote:

'I don't see how a vocal, passionate home crowd is great for any player.'

Your interpretation is a stretch at best. He says that crowd support is not great for ANY player. :nono

 

[Kieran]

To you, it might. Read further up. He's questioning the claim that home support is an advantage for "any player."

There are players to whom home support is obviously not an advantage. Would you agree with this?

If so, you agree with me. And NADALRG2005. What's seldom is wonderful!

 

[britbox]

I see players fall short of their best tennis at their home events, all the time. Even top players like Rafter, Hewitt and Scud. All 3 of them were more successful at the US Open and Wimbledon.

I think you've got to take surfaces into account more than home advantage. Rafter and Scud would be more naturally suited to the US Open and Wimbledon than the slower Rebound Ace in place at the AO back then.

 

[Denis]

Crowd support helps. Generally. There are exceptions of course, and those exceptions are a bit more frequent in individual sports. So your buddy is making a fool out of himself by saying that crowd support never helps.

 

[Kieran]

Crowd support helps. Generally. There are exceptions of course, and those exceptions are a bit more frequent in individual sports. So your buddy is making a fool out of himself by saying that crowd support never helps.

First off, he didn't say it "never helps." Secondly, I don't know why everyone is attacking him on this. It's actually an interesting topic in itself. I remember at the last Olympics the British swimmer Rebecca Adlington said she felt too much pressure in the home pool, and she got bronzes this time whereas in Beijing she nabbed two gold in the same events.

Then there are guys like Rafa and Roger who you'd expect don't mind a crowd being against them, they get on with the business anyway. I don't think Nole likes to be cast in the role of villain, and I imagine home advantage is great for him in DC. These things are arbitrary, I suppose, and even more so in individual sports...

 

[britbox]

Crowd support helps. Generally. There are exceptions of course, and those exceptions are a bit more frequent in individual sports. So your buddy is making a fool out of himself by saying that crowd support never helps.

First off, he didn't say it "never helps." Secondly, I don't know why everyone is attacking him on this. It's actually an interesting topic in itself. I remember at the last Olympics the British swimmer Rebecca Adlington said she felt too much pressure in the home pool, and she got bronzes this time whereas in Beijing she nabbed two gold in the same events.

Then there are guys like Rafa and Roger who you'd expect don't mind a crowd being against them, they get on with the business anyway. I don't think Nole likes to be cast in the role of villain, and I imagine home advantage is great for him in DC. These things are arbitrary, I suppose, and even more so in individual sports...

She swam faster to get the Bronze than she did to get the gold though.

 

[Denis]

He did say that crowd support never helps: 'I don't see how a vocal, passionate home crowd is great for ANY player.'

In other words, not for one single player is crowd support great.

Anyway, good luck with spinning it.

The topic crowd support is of course interesting. That is: you need people to debate it with. Your friend is not open to reason, only to Nadal-worshipping in a distasteful way.