What I like about 2014

[Moxie]

One man's pouty is another woman's game-face. That's too subjective to debate. It's the same as those who are offended by Novak's shirt-rending. Or Roger's remarks that seem arrogant to some, and appropriately self-reflexive to others. It really does depend on who you root for, as to how they appear, in extremis.

 

[Front242]

I'll be the first to admit Roger's made arrogant remarks in the past but a facial expression of grumpiness isn't really up for debate lol! And there's no game left for a game-face when you've lost. That was one of the main pouts being discussed. The less than gracious greeting at the net. They all look grumpy at times but as I said earlier and Nadal isn't being singled out here, but he does look extremely pouty and grumpy at times as if to say how dare you beat me. Watch the Rosol clip on the previous page I posted and tell me he doesn't look pouty and ungracious.

Now compare Nadal's face against Rosol on the previous page to Roger's against Stakhovsky for a similar huge upset. He even has a small slight smile of respect at the start when they greet at the net at the end of the match. Certainly appears more gracious after a huge upset to me.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMgXktpnRvY&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ I actually prefer Nadal's "losing face" over Federer or Novak. Part of being competitive.

 

[Federberg]

As for the slams, if Rafa is at his best, he takes Paris. At his best, nobody can stop him there, no matter what version of themselves they channel..

Except Robin Soderling I guess. Ah, but then you'll say Rafa wasn't playing his best. Tell that to Hewitt who lost 6-1 6-3 6-1 just prior to the 4th round loss Nadal was handed by Soderling. And Hewitt was actually in very good form prior to that loss as was Rafa. He just met an even more in form opponent.

And to back that up if you really need it, supposing you counter with ah but Rafa was definitely 100% in RG 2010. Well then, explain how Hewitt actually fared better against a "reportedly" 100% Nadal the following year when he lost 6-3 6-4 6-3. That's a world of difference score wise and it shows Nadal was playing better in 2009 before losing to Soderling. So, sorry but at his best he was stopped. The shorts ball he was hitting were as a result of Soderling destroying him in many rallies. That's why he lost.

Yup Nadal played his best tennis against Soderling at the FO...Now I've heard it all. Injury or not, he DIDN'T play his best tennis. Beating Hewitt just means...he played good in a different match.

Here, I'll use the same logic: Roger played his best tennis against Nadal at the AO. After all, look at how good he played against Tsonga/Murray.

The forums have been awful lately. No offense Front, I like you, but I don't know what's going on with everyone.

It's just the notion that no one beats Nadal at 100% that annoys the hell out of me. Talk about exaggeration and it's the main reason for so much dislike between the fanbases.

Seconded!

 

[brokenshoelace]

I just want to say that Federer fans bringing up the "nobody beats Nadal when he plays at his best" line is hilarious considering that's exactly the mentality they've had for Federer until father time caught up to him.

I'm not criticizing, but maybe it's about time people realize that these things are human, and as fans, no matter how hard we try, we're going to be biased. I wish people would see that instead of being unknowingly hypocritical with their criticism. I mean seriously, Federer has every match on his racket, has never lost a match without being pathetic, garbage, or a combination (please, Front, Darth, or anyone else...just read your comments about his matches). It's Ok, there's nothing wrong with it, we're all going to see things from the perspective of our player, but stop the double standards, it's irritating.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not sure how this became an argument. There is nothing wrong with being a bad/pissed off loser. The only thing I ever take issue with are excuses. And all of these guys have had enough losses that they are bound to make excuses for some here and there. It must be said that I see it way more from Rafa and Fed than Novak and Murray. Regardless, the last thing I want is a tour full of James Blake's.

I love the attitude where a player feels the match/game is all about how he plays. That is the attitude competitors are supposed to have. I imagine Nole, Rafa and Murray have it as well they just aren't as quick to proclaim it like Roger has in the past.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^^ Agreed with the above. There's nothing with showing a sore loser face after a loss. Give me that over all smiles any day of the week. It's so odd to see fans criticizing this. Do we accept that players are pissed when they lose? I would assume yes. So why do we want them to put on a happy face? Then when someone like Nadal acts like he has to play at his best every match to stand a chance people accuse him of being fake (which he is in this instance), yet we're demanding that players BE fake after they lose. I've yet to see a sport where fans want players to act exactly like they for them to act in every little instance, and give such conflicting opinions about it too. Jesus, just let them play and compete...

Also, regarding the "at his best thing," it's an abstract concept. Realistically, if any of the top 10 players in the world play a full match at their absolute best, they're not losing. Now apply that to the top 4, 3 of whom happen to be all time greats, and you get something even worse.

Let's actually apply it with concrete examples: Roger Federer.

Playing at his best means that Fed is: Serving very well to hit aces, cheap points, and set up one-two punches. Hitting forehand winners almost at will, using his backhand to spread the court and construct the points, breaking rhythm with the slice, gliding effortlessly around the court, have great success at the net, neutralize points on the return of serve, and turn defense into attack when need be.

Uh, if he's playing like this, how the hell is he going to lose?

Now let's apply the same to Nadal. Playing at his best means: Moving better than anyone in history. Dominating points with the forehand. Running opponents around the court with the forehand. Firing off huge inside out winners. Flattening out the backhand cross court with great power. Tracking down impossible balls and putting them back with interest. Hitting unreal passing shots. Neutralizing points with the return. Serving effectively to set up points and get a forehand on the next shot + free points. Make almost no unforced errors, ever. Dominate your opponent physically. Outlast your opponent. Win all the big points.

Again, how on earth do you beat that?

Now, let's try to apply BOTH at the same time when Federer and Nadal play each other. What do you notice? They're incompatible. Because if Federer is hitting forehand winners at will, Nadal isn't dictating with the forehand. Likewise, if Nadal is tracking down impossible balls, Federer isn't hitting forehand winners at will. If Nadal gets on top of the point after serving effectively, Federer isn't playing first strike tennis.

So one player being at his best automatically means the other one IS NOT. What can and often does happen (not necessarily in Fedal matches, but in general), is that two players take turns playing great tennis during a match, and it really boils down to what the other guy does when someone is playing his best, who can sustain it for longer, who makes crucial adjustments, etc... Because guess what, if one of these players is at his best for an entire match, it will be a blowout. We've seen it in Nadal/Federer matches, in Djokovic/Nadal matches, Nadal/Murray matches, etc...

What often happens is say, for example, Federer plays a great first set against Nadal and wins it. Then Nadal makes small adjustments that make Federer start going for more, missing more, etc... Suddenly, Federer is no longer playing at his best and people go: See, when he did play his best, Nadal stood no chance. Well, duh, nobody does. But it's not as simple as "he couldn't maintain it." The other player does something to bring his level down. There are so many ways to win a tennis match.

 

[El Dude]

One man's pouty is another woman's game-face. That's too subjective to debate. It's the same as those who are offended by Novak's shirt-rending. Or Roger's remarks that seem arrogant to some, and appropriately self-reflexive to others. It really does depend on who you root for, as to how they appear, in extremis.

Here's the other part. I think we can be blind to the foibles, or at least more tolerant, of our favorite player, while seeing them in other players more starkly. In other words, my liking of Federer doesn't mean I necessarily over-exaggerate Novak's shirt-rending and Nadal's poutiness, but that I don't have an automatic defensive mechanism about them, thereby can actually see it and find it irritating. Roger's arrogant remarks don't bother me as much because he's my favorite player, but I still recognize that they're there (although again, as you say, how we interpret them differs).

So I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't seem you're including the other part, how its difficult to be objective about one's favorite player (of course we can never be truly "objective," but you know what I mean).

To put it more concretely, what I hear you saying is that those we see Rafa as pouty are seeing him thusly solely because of competitiveness towards him, and in defense of one's favorite player; what I don't hear you saying is that you might be missing the poutiness - or at least writing it off as "subjective" - because you're biased towards him and forgiving of, or don't see, his foibles.

Hey, we're biased - we're human beings, after all. I'd even argue that a lot of how we choose our favorite players - which is pretty much an unconscious process that we have no control over - is based more on personality and style than anything else. In other words, I like Roger because I like how he carries himself, his grace and dignity; Rafa's style (and personality) isn't as appealing to me. I have no choice in the matter, really. I respect Rafa as a player - he is amazing, after all - and I wouldn't say I dislike or am offended by him or any player, but I just don't have that special resonance for him that I do with Federer, and a bit with Dimitrov and maybe one or two others. That "special resonance" is something you can't choose; its like falling in love - it just happens.

 

[Federberg]

One point about the "arrogant" remarks from Fed. I speak not as a fan, but as someone who's spent some time in Zurich. Quite often, what comes across as arrogant isn't meant to be so at all. They just have a way of phrasing which can make the listener wince. Hingis was similar in this regard actually. But I understand how Roger has been misunderstood I guess the lesson is..no matter how well you speak another language, you often don't completely let go of the intonation in your first!

 

[brokenshoelace]

One point about the "arrogant" remarks from Fed. I speak not as a fan, but as someone who's spent some time in Zurich. Quite often, what comes across as arrogant isn't meant to be so at all. They just have a way of phrasing which can make the listener wince. Hingis was similar in this regard actually. But I understand how Roger has been misunderstood I guess the lesson is..no matter how well you speak another language, you often don't completely let go of the intonation in your first!

Roger does often come off as arrogant. Some remarks can't be misunderstood, and just are what they are....


...except he has every right to. He's won 17 majors. There would be something wrong with him if he weren't arrogant. Never bothered me, really.

 

[Moxie]

One man's pouty is another woman's game-face. That's too subjective to debate. It's the same as those who are offended by Novak's shirt-rending. Or Roger's remarks that seem arrogant to some, and appropriately self-reflexive to others. It really does depend on who you root for, as to how they appear, in extremis.

Here's the other part. I think we can be blind to the foibles, or at least more tolerant, of our favorite player, while seeing them in other players more starkly. In other words, my liking of Federer doesn't mean I necessarily over-exaggerate Novak's shirt-rending and Nadal's poutiness, but that I don't have an automatic defensive mechanism about them, thereby can actually see it and find it irritating. Roger's arrogant remarks don't bother me as much because he's my favorite player, but I still recognize that they're there (although again, as you say, how we interpret them differs).

So I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't seem you're including the other part, how its difficult to be objective about one's favorite player (of course we can never be truly "objective," but you know what I mean).

To put it more concretely, what I hear you saying is that those we see Rafa as pouty are seeing him thusly solely because of competitiveness towards him, and in defense of one's favorite player; what I don't hear you saying is that you might be missing the poutiness - or at least writing it off as "subjective" - because you're biased towards him and forgiving of, or don't see, his foibles.

Hey, we're biased - we're human beings, after all. I'd even argue that a lot of how we choose our favorite players - which is pretty much an unconscious process that we have no control over - is based more on personality and style than anything else. In other words, I like Roger because I like how he carries himself, his grace and dignity; Rafa's style (and personality) isn't as appealing to me. I have no choice in the matter, really. I respect Rafa as a player - he is amazing, after all - and I wouldn't say I dislike or am offended by him or any player, but I just don't have that special resonance for him that I do with Federer, and a bit with Dimitrov and maybe one or two others. That "special resonance" is something you can't choose; its like falling in love - it just happens.

Perhaps you missed on the previous page where I asked you to define "pouty," and spoke about his complaining. You have to admit "pouty" is a pretty subjective term. I'm sure you can get closer to what you mean, if you're going to profess to speak for the opinions of so many. I did speak to somethings I was guessing you were talking about, but I'm still maybe not clear.

 

[El Dude]

One point about the "arrogant" remarks from Fed. I speak not as a fan, but as someone who's spent some time in Zurich. Quite often, what comes across as arrogant isn't meant to be so at all. They just have a way of phrasing which can make the listener wince. Hingis was similar in this regard actually. But I understand how Roger has been misunderstood I guess the lesson is..no matter how well you speak another language, you often don't completely let go of the intonation in your first!

This could apply to Nadal, Djokovic, and any player - that there is always a cultural element. Who knows, maybe Spaniards are pouty! (or seem pouty to us 'Mericans)

Perhaps you missed on the previous page where I asked you to define "pouty," and spoke about his complaining. You have to admit "pouty" is a pretty subjective term. I'm sure you can get closer to what you mean, if you're going to profess to speak for the opinions of so many. I did speak to somethings I was guessing you were talking about, but I'm still maybe not clear.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't think it was necessary - its a common enough word. Of course its subjective - all of this is subjective! I don't "profess to speak for the opinions of so many," but I have heard a number of folks independently call him pouty or sulky, from members here to my non-tennis-fan wife. Yes, its subjective, but its a common subjective opinion!

 

[Iona16]

There's a sense of unknowing that it seems hasn't been there in years. I mean, there's always unknowing - but for a few years its been fairly clear who would win the Slams, or at least be serious contenders. But now it seems that every Slam is up-for-grabs. For instance...

Wimbledon seems completely up for grabs. One could argue that Andy Murray has the right game for it, plus home-field advantage. But he seemed to return to his pre-2012 US Open form after last year's victory, and before he got injuried. If he's healthy he might be the favorite, but certainly by only a hair over Djokovic and Nadal, and maybe not even then. Also, if Roger is going to win #18, this would be his best bet. Of all the Slams, Wimbledon is most prone for upsets, so we have to take other players seriously, as well - Wawrinka, del Potro, maybe even Berdych or Tsonga. Ferrer? Can't see it, but you never know.

I think it's very clear that Andy has the right game for grass. It has been his most consistent slam and he has 4 grass court titles + an Olympic gold and silver (doubles) medal on the surface. He has been the best grass court player these past few years.

Andy was struggling with his back for 18 months or so. It was only after a poor showing in the masters events running up to (and including) the US Open last year that he decided to finally sort out the back problems. I never get caught up in the favourite tag as it really means sod all. If Murray is back to his best come Wimbledon I see no reason he can't defend his title. I'd be quite happy with Nadal or Djokovic having the favourite tag for SW19.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There's a sense of unknowing that it seems hasn't been there in years. I mean, there's always unknowing - but for a few years its been fairly clear who would win the Slams, or at least be serious contenders. But now it seems that every Slam is up-for-grabs. For instance...

Wimbledon seems completely up for grabs. One could argue that Andy Murray has the right game for it, plus home-field advantage. But he seemed to return to his pre-2012 US Open form after last year's victory, and before he got injuried. If he's healthy he might be the favorite, but certainly by only a hair over Djokovic and Nadal, and maybe not even then. Also, if Roger is going to win #18, this would be his best bet. Of all the Slams, Wimbledon is most prone for upsets, so we have to take other players seriously, as well - Wawrinka, del Potro, maybe even Berdych or Tsonga. Ferrer? Can't see it, but you never know.

I think it's very clear that Andy has the right game for grass. It has been his most consistent slam and he has 4 grass court titles + an Olympic gold and silver (doubles) medal on the surface. He has been the best grass court player these past few years.

Andy was struggling with his back for 18 months or so. It was only after a poor showing in the masters events running up to (and including) the US Open last year that he decided to finally sort out the back problems. I never get caught up in the favourite tag as it really means sod all. If Murray is back to his best come Wimbledon I see no reason he can't defend his title. I'd be quite happy with Nadal or Djokovic having the favourite tag for SW19.

Even though Andy is out of top 4, due to Wimbledon's seeding formula, he will be
in top 4 (as he won it last year and was a finalist the year before), if not in top 2.
So, he will have a good advantage over Fed who will be seeded outside 4 in Wimbledon.
But, they may draw each other in a QF battle.

 

[Moxie]

Perhaps you missed on the previous page where I asked you to define "pouty," and spoke about his complaining. You have to admit "pouty" is a pretty subjective term. I'm sure you can get closer to what you mean, if you're going to profess to speak for the opinions of so many. I did speak to somethings I was guessing you were talking about, but I'm still maybe not clear.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't think it was necessary - its a common enough word. Of course its subjective - all of this is subjective! I don't "profess to speak for the opinions of so many," but I have heard a number of folks independently call him pouty or sulky, from members here to my non-tennis-fan wife. Yes, its subjective, but its a common subjective opinion!

Dude, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't know exactly when you mean, then. Personally, I have not read 'pouty' on these forums, or 'sulky,' even. Several other choice ones, like 'cheater,' and rude remarks about his habits, but not those. Do you mean when he loses, or in general? If it's when he loses, you can see BS and Darth's comments above…why should he be/look happy? At this point I'm just curious, because I won't change your impression, as those things are matters of individual taste. Additionally, I just wanted to defend myself against your earlier, that I don't see flaws in Rafa. As I've said, I see the complaining about the schedule, and then playing exhos in the off-season. Not his most attractive feature. We choose our favorites for their tennis, and accept their foibles more readily, as you said before.

However, since the loss in AO, there has been a lot of unattractive piling-on against Rafa. (Not you, of course.) Some trollish threads, sure, but then folks taking the opportunity to air old grievances, and promote a narrative about him that I see as unfair. Nadal took a MTO in the AO final, and, while folks can see and will admit it was legit, they take the opportunity to complain about a few old ones, and thereby blur the lines. Willfully, IMO. ('Rafa always does that.' 'Rafa is always injured when he loses.') These are unfair story lines that some people like to buy into. They'll hold onto a few examples and try to knit it into a Standard Operating Procedure. So, yes, I will attempt to defend against that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

pout 1 (pout)
v. pout·ed, pout·ing, pouts

v.intr.
1. To exhibit displeasure or disappointment; sulk.

2. To protrude the lips in an expression of displeasure or sulkiness.

3. To project or protrude.

v.tr.
1. To push out or protrude (the lips).

2. To utter or express with a pout.

n.
1. A protrusion of the lips, especially as an expression of sullen discontent.

2. A fit of petulant sulkiness. Often used in the plural with the.

 

[Front242]

Sounds apout right

 

[Moxie]

pout 1 (pout)
v. pout·ed, pout·ing, pouts

v.intr.
1. To exhibit displeasure or disappointment; sulk.

2. To protrude the lips in an expression of displeasure or sulkiness.

3. To project or protrude.

v.tr.
1. To push out or protrude (the lips).

2. To utter or express with a pout.

n.
1. A protrusion of the lips, especially as an expression of sullen discontent.

2. A fit of petulant sulkiness. Often used in the plural with the.

That's a bit rude, wouldn't you say? I know the definition. This does nothing to clarify how El Dude was using it in the context of Nadal. In a debate, it's fair to discuss terms. I don't need the OED, I need to know what he meant. Or, if you're a person who agrees perhaps YOU could put it into context, rather than just giving me the dictionary.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Oh. No. Just trying to be helpful.

I think they can add the photo of the US Gymnast Girl (forgot her name) receiving her
silver medal in Olympics to illustrate the definition.

 

[Moxie]

Frankly, I'm not impressed by your answer.