Roger Federer’s Agent: There Is No Doom And Gloom In Our Camp
by Tom Gainey | July 27th, 2016, 11:00 am
  • 168 Comments

Roger Federer’s announcement that he will miss the remainder of the 2016 season hit fans hard yesterday. But Federer’s agent, Tony Godsick, assured fans it’s not that bad.

“There is no gloom and doom in our camp,” Godsick told ESPN’s Greg Garber. “The decision was unfortunate, on the face, a bummer, but it was encouraging, too. It shows he still wants to get out there and give it a few more years.”

Added Garber in his lede, “If you are a genuine fan of Roger Federer, you should vigorously applaud his decision to bail on the rest of the 2016 tennis season.”

But is it the right decision? Godsick thinks so.

“In the end, I think he realized the competition, as tough as it is, you don’t help yourself by playing less than your best. Now he can manage his schedule and take the steps necessary to get bigger, faster and stronger,” Godsick said.

Federer turns 35 next month. He is ranked No. 3 but will probably fall outside the Top 15 by the end of the year. So when he does comeback, he’ll be faced with a low seeding and his seeding could further plummet with Brisbane finals and Australian Open semifinal points to defend in January.

The specifics of the re-injury haven’t been revealed, so it’s unclear what kind of rehab and treatment awaits Federer.


You Might Like:
Roger Federer’s Wife Gives Birth to Twin Girls
Sharapova Camp Denies Rumor; Behind Serena Losing No. 1
Bernard Tomic: Once The Federers, Nadals, Djokovics Are Gone, I’ll Have A Chance To Dominate
Roger Federer Is A Partner In New Sports Management Agency Team8
Is Roger Federer’s Wife, Mirka, To Blame For The Rift With Stan Wawrinka?

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

168 Comments for Roger Federer’s Agent: There Is No Doom And Gloom In Our Camp

skeezer Says:

“Roger Federer’s Agent: There Is No Doom And Gloom In Our Camp”

All ok Champ. It’s all been gravy since 17.
👍🎾. Rest up and enjoy the good life with the Fam.


MADMAX Says:

What is wonderful, yet slightly puzzling is Boris Becker’s tweet!

Roger, the GOAT of tennis!

Now Becker seems to had too much of Wogboy’s brandy!

The content of the following publication is a different angle, and a positive one as well.

http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/rio/2016/roger-federer-has-saved-his-career-it-could-yet-rescue-his-dream-of-elusive-18th-grand-slam_sto5699723/story.shtml

Boris Becker 
✔@TheBorisBecker
I wish a full and speedy recovery to the GOAT of tennis !@rogerfederer
11:34 PM – 26 Jul 2016


MADMAX Says:

Billie Jean King ✔ @BillieJeanKing
Sorry to hear @rogerfederer is out for the rest of the year but it’s important he get healthy and return stronger and better
9:09 PM – 26 Jul 2016
187 187 Retweets 345 345 likes

Absolutely right BJK!


MADMAX Says:

In Toronto, where the world No.3′s peers are contesting the Masters 1000 event, The New York Times reported Sam Querrey as encapsulating the general disappointment.

“Every tournament is better when Roger’s there,” the American said. “It’s the little things in the locker room; he’s nice to all the guys. When his matches are on TV, everyone watches. He single-handedly draws thousands and thousands of fans and fills up stadiums.

He’s totally a positive influence and I’m personally bummed he’s not going to be there the rest of the year. I like having him around.”

Just wonderful, wonderful comments from the players at Toronto. Thanks to Sam Querrey!


Travis Bickle Says:

Madmax seems to be copying tweets on this thread, so here is another tweet:

Travis Bickle
‏@Bickle_Tennis

Should I wish to Federer what his fans would wish to Djoker in a similar situation?
Nah, I can’t be that evil!
Get well soon @rogerfederer !

7:06 PM – 26 Jul 2016
7 retweets 15 likes


chrisford1 Says:

MADMAX – Hate to rain on your parade, but Becker has been very consistent. Fed is the GOAT for now, but things may change in evaluating Fed and the other 3 when when the careers of the Big 4 are all done. More wins for Djokovic, Nadal, and Andy to come, obviously. A different method may calculate GOAT based on more success criteria than the simplistic Slam Count and – and it will be easier to see when the competition was weak in each guys career arc, and when it was strong.


skeezer Says:

Cf1,
There is no such thing as a weak era in tennis. You can twist that argument 9 ways til Sunday and it still is not a tangible benchmark in Tennis. Titles, records and achievements are. You cannot choose your matchup.


skeezer Says:

As elina says,
BB knows best.


J-Kath Says:

Skeezer:

Why not?
One is able to assess a situation after it happened not as it happens. ??? Hence it is fluid. When was the beginning? When will be the end?


skeezer Says:

J-Kath,
It is simple. When do you say when when you say GOAT? If you say , well, lets wait awhile, then wait when? When its convenient? Its only fluid in your mind because that is what you want to believe.
The greatest is the greatest until someone else comes along to break the established records built by the GOAT.
Simple.


Markus Says:

It’s not really that complicated to figure it out, unless you’re brainless which sadly most people here are. If you say GOAT, the only one that term applies to is Federer. If I have to explain it, that means you are among those brainless dimwits I am referring to.


chrisford1 Says:

The greatest is the greatest until someone else comes along to break the established records built by the GOAT.
Simple.

================
Simple yardsticks for simple people.
Simply, then the two greatest basketball teams ever were the UCLA Bruins (1964-75)and the female UConn Husky (1994-2016) teams. Going by national championships, 11 each, no other basketball team here and abroad, pro or amateur has equalled the GOAT teams and their GOAT coaches, John Wooden and Gino Auriemma.
And if you believe like Skeezer no weak era existed, and competition is just as good and intense each day of any year in sports – it is just amazing how year after year in the amateur era, Australians dominated the Australian nationals!!!!!


Willow Says:

The more we talk about it, the less i care about it, much prefer the idea of GREATs rather than GOATs, too many different caveats, that suit peoples different ideas of what or whom the GOAT should be ….


MADMAX Says:

Interesting comments from the experts of tennis.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/17147781/tennis-roger-federer-see-comes-back

Travis Bickle Says:
Madmax seems to be copying tweets on this thread, so here is another tweet:

Travis Bickle
‏@Bickle_Tennis

Should I wish to Federer what his fans would wish to Djoker in a similar situation?
Nah, I can’t be that evil!
Get well soon @rogerfederer !

7:06 PM – 26 Jul 2016
7 retweets 15 likes

July 27th, 2016 at 2:37 pm

chrisford1 Says:
MADMAX – Hate to rain on your parade, but Becker has been very consistent. Fed is the GOAT for now, but things may change in evaluating Fed and the other 3 when when the careers of the Big 4 are all done. More wins for Djokovic, Nadal, and Andy to come, obviously. A different method may calculate GOAT based on more success criteria than the simplistic Slam Count and – and it will be easier to see when the competition was weak in each guys career arc, and when it was strong.

July 27th, 2016 at 5:34 pm

TB and CF1 (waiting for the others to join in),

Please, continue. This is like a free ticket to a comedy show for me. I love it!

Thanks for the entertainment.

If you knew ANYTHING about Boris Becker, you would know he has been tweeting, (which by the way, was included in the article already, I didn’t specifically go and find BB’s tweets – so twist it all you want), you would know that BB has done nothing but discuss Novak’s GOAT status all year.

It was good to see that Becker had stopped drinking the Brandy for a short while. As it stands it is Fed, then Rafa and Sampras (have some respect here please) Boris.


MMT Says:

“Willow Says: The more we talk about it, the less i care about it, much prefer the idea of GREATs rather than GOATs, too many different caveats, that suit peoples different ideas of what or whom the GOAT should be ….”

A compact reubuttal:

https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-goat-debate.html

And a longer one:

https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-is-everyone-so-afraid-of-goats.html


skeezer Says:

MMT,
Intelligence is one of your many qualities. Spot on 👍

Cf1
Read the links and be educated.


Willow Says:

MMT LOL Your analysis of all things GOAT, is i have to say much more interesting than the never ending stuff that gets rehashed here on tennis-x, and i do accept its one topic that will never go away :-) ….


Giles Says:

Same question applies to fed, is he serving a silent ban?


MMT Says:

Thanks Willow – it just occurred to me the humorous/ironic opening statements of those two GOAT debate pieces:

WHY IS EVERYONE SO AFRAID OF GOATS (2009):

“It seems to me there’s been a awful lot of fear of the GOAT debate running around, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why.”

3 years (and countless GOAT debates later) THE GOAT DEBATE (2012):

“Having said that, I’m not going to pretend I don’t understand why there is so much emotional involvement in something as, in the grand scheme of things, benign as the GOAT.”

Although my position the GOAT debate remained the same, my perspective on the reaction to it completely changed.

So…who says I’m intransigent?!


Humble Rafa Says:

All ok Champ. It’s all been gravy since 17.

Chicken or fish. None of this gravy business.


Willow Says:

MMT I Really enjoy reading your posts, and your blog :) ….


Willow Says:

Giles you have a point, and Wogboy said it a couple of days ago, personally i dont believe for a minute either are / were serving a silent ban, i just remember what Sienna and co said about Rafa, and i hate the double standards that go on here sometimes ….


BBB Says:

MMT, do you accept that you, too, have emotional investment in GOAT?


Wog Boy Says:

“MMT, do you accept that you, too, have emotional investment in GOAT?”

No way BBB, where did you get that one from..


BBB Says:

It’s just odd to spend so much time trying to definitively prove something that can’t be definitively proven…. I find it strange that we can’t just accept that people’s opinions on this vary, and that’s actually cool.


skeezer Says:

^It can , and it is.
Some of the minority who scream about this nonsense want it to be a moving target. Fine. Believe all you want.
I have never claimed that we have to wait for a future to determine a GOAT. Did Laver? Sampras? Tennis continually claimed them both GOAT during there time until someone ( Fed ) unseated them.Why? Slam count. Slams are THE ultimate goal and benchmark for the great players of all time. Ask em.

When your fav gets there, I am sure the same claim will come to pass. Count on it. IF….

Until then. the GOAT has claimed the all time Slam count, know for decades has the prerequisite for GOAT status. Sorry, that is the way it is.

Complain? Contest? Go tell your fav to get 17 Slams, then come back and then chat.


Humble Rafa Says:

Dear Staff,

Can you start a 2017 Australian Open schedule so we can send off the herd to into a closet for the next 6 months?


skeezer Says:

Dear Staff,
Can you start a Fishing blog for Humble Rafa, he is bored. He will not comment on Novaks matches in progress. Why?


BBB Says:

Skeeze, thanks for making my point. It’s all about who people’s favorites are. The facts are just cherrypicked to fit the argument.


skeezer Says:

BBB,
Oh I see. So who Has the most Slams? Who has the most weeks at #1? Who has the most all time records? Who is the best sportsmen? Pick a category, it all doesn’t matter, right? Its whatever you think it is, right? No facts, just an opinion. That is what matters.
So knowing all this, who is the best at all this?
Let me guess for you…” ”
Let me guess otherwise for you,
The records and achievements speak for themselves compared to the field of all time greats.


BBB Says:

Skeeze, honestly, you keep making my point for me.


Travis Bickle Says:

Let me add more questions to the ones cherry-picked by the one half of dumb&dumber Tennis X team:

Who has the Grand Slam (4 in a row)?
Who has most Masters wins?
Who has positive H2H with two other GOAT candidates?

and …. Who is the best sportsman??? Wow, if that is the fact in skeezer’s small mind, OK – but sane folks know that is totally subjective category (read: pure opinion).
However, skeezer, madmax, marcus, et al. have proven to all of us here that logic and sanity are unknown entities for them!


Van Persie Says:

Dear HR,

A very good one :)


skeezer Says:

TB,
That is what I thought. You and BFF CF1 need to add weak era BS also, no? Although Novak is playing(according to CF1 math) a weak era tournament currently, like who is in it? Lol.
Masters and H2H, although a nice achievements, is not in the “class” of the coveted Slams. H2H does not compute in Tennis, you play against a field of players.
Career Slam? Fed already been there done that.
Read and learn. Be educated and rejoice,accept, Yes your fav one day may attain such global recognition and stature. Maybe, one day..

BBB, keep. In a belivein yourself.

Who is ancient Step and why does he deserve so much losing glory?

Ok, here comes the CON, expect a WB post, or VP backlash or a CF1 # 699 weak era rebutall, or the TB insult.
Pork Knuckles? Man…I’m out!!!


BBB Says:

skeeze, your sentence directed at me makes no sense. You seem discombobulated. Sleep well and feel better tomorrow.


Van Persie Says:

No worries Skeezer, I will not post in the next 2 weeks. Am travelling to Santorini and Crete ;)
Sleep well x


Travis Bickle Says:

I don’t think sleeping well will help him make more sense… or be less discombobulated!

After all, this is the guy who was earnestly trying to correct Humble’s statement that Rogers Cup is named after Roger Federer ;-)


Wog Boy Says:

VP,

Don’t forget to do dinner sunset cruise in Santorini, worth every cent, you will be blown away by scenery, it is not cheap (around €120) but it’s worth it, trust me.


skeezer Says:

Thanks CON crew, enjoyed the attention. ;)
BBB,
I am fine, you’re the one who is de goated ;)
VP,
Have fun in Santorini, enjoy the pork knuckles there. Don’t forget to send some to WB before he goes Vegan.
TB,
Re read that, I said it is NOT named after Fed….sorry, YOUR bad.


Travis Bickle Says:

Skeezer,

Hahaha / LOL / XD / ;P / etc…

You just proved my point, and it appears you are even dumber than I thought.

Read my post at 12:20 am, it’s pretty clear. After several tries you may get it!


Wog Boy Says:

skeezer,
Stop trolling me and calling me, you are not worth my time, stick with your Mini-Me (Dumber) and Mad Max, you are all obviously in huge distress, you deserve each other…ohh yes, you wouldn’t have a clue what pork knuckles are, you deserve and know nothing better but fish and chips…cold chips..


Van Persie Says:

WB, thanks for the advice ;) Skeezer, Greeks do not eat much pork meat :D


Margot Says:

Have a lovely holiday VP. Both islands so beautiful. Greeks don’t eat much pork indeedy, but they do eat a lot of goat…..;)


Wog Boy Says:

You know what people, I think the troll from above is actually mazohyst, he always says “I am out” and comes back immediately for more embarrassment, some people just can’t (or don’t want) help themselves.

So, just don’t feed the troll in the future…it for his wellbeing, I am worried that he might end up bashing his cats.


Wog Boy Says:

BBB gave me another one that I have to google “discombobulated”, it was worth it though and you were spot on:)


Van Persie Says:

Thanks Margot :),

hehe, they eat a lot of goat indeed :)
Now I will have to think of Tennis X, when I’ll eat it :D


J-Kath Says:

I can see that us Europeans will have to do something about all this naughtiness that goes on after us civilised people go to bed. For the sake of world peace (and bewildered Tennis X reporters) I propose that each evening one Monitoring European takes up duty. Those who transgress (or discombulate – Wog boy’s newest favourite word) will be named and shamed.


MADMAX Says:

Skeezer and loyal Federer fans. For you.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/07/luthi-federer-rehabbing-has-not-been-practice-court-wimbledon/59735/#.V5s8ypN95E4

MMT, spot on.

Am absolutely loving the Wogboy/Travis Bickle show. Makes me chuckle. Even more so, Wogboy pretending to improve his English, with a long, long word. discombobulated. Good on ya sport! Only dobrý na ya športu for the true patriots, not those who have left the country they profess to love!


MADMAX Says:

http://www.tenniscanada.com/6-reasons-why-federer-will-always-be-the-goat/

and yes, Novak is mentioned there too, in the conversation. Boris Becker! God Love The Boris! (he ties himself up in knots though, doesn’t he?) In 2014, Fed the Goat, in 2015, Novak the Goat, in 2016, Fed the Goat. Boris! Make your mind up!

http://theultimatetennisblog.com/becker-federer-is-the-g-o-a-t-he-showed-it-again/

Becker: “Federer is the G.O.A.T. He Showed it Again”.

Gosh, I have so many statements from Becker, too long to list here, but let’s marvel at the wonder of the Becker, shall we? Going back to 2014. Plenty more besides this, but just to set the record straight for the Travis Bickle show! Go Travis!

According to Becker, the way Roger came back in the fourth set shows clearly why Roger deserves the GOAT status.

“It was incredible to have 4 Wimbledon champions in the locker room at the same time, I think it’s a first!” said Boris to the media referring to the Wimbledon final, as himself and Stefan Edberg were both present for the final in London, “Roger Federer has already won Wimbledon 7 times and has been World No.1 for a very long time. He didn’t really need another title, he is the greatest of all time and I have a lot of respect and admiration for him. With his comeback in the 4th set, he showed clearly why he deserves the G.O.A.T. status. He loves to compete and he is a great ambassador for tennis. Kids should take as an example what he did in his career, and how he managed to overcome complicated situations, as he did against Novak in the final in London”.


MADMAX Says:

Hey Everyone! Here is a GOAT OMETER! Yes! With a full blown chart and co-efficients.

Check out the name at the top! The Mighty Fed!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/tiBxH5i8d26G_gqEg9bqFyQ/edit#gid=0

603 points to Novak’s 493!


MADMAX Says:

J-Kath Says:
I can see that us Europeans will have to do something about all this naughtiness that goes on after us civilised people go to bed. For the sake of world peace (and bewildered Tennis X reporters) I propose that each evening one Monitoring European takes up duty. Those who transgress (or discombulate – Wog boy’s newest favourite word) will be named and shamed.

July 29th, 2016 at 3:28 am

J-Kath I nominate you. Where would tennis.x be without your ‘on the ball’ approach? Our very own roving reporter – we would surely all suffer. withdrawal symptoms .-)


MADMAX Says:

Wog Boy Says:
skeezer,
Stop trolling me and calling me, you are not worth my time, stick with your Mini-Me (Dumber) and Mad Max, you are all obviously in huge distress, you deserve each other…ohh yes, you wouldn’t have a clue what pork knuckles are, you deserve and know nothing better but fish and chips…cold chips..

July 29th, 2016 at 12:46 am

Wogboy, now don’t be mean. It doesn’t become an Australian to be mean. They are pretty laid back people.


J-Kath Says:

Madmax

Thank you for your vote of confidence…..Er..I think that’s what it was.

However, I had thought to review the results on a daily basis with my second cup of coffee…tough job, but someone has to do it.

PS: Not sure of your area of the world….somewhere exotic?


BBB Says:

WB – LOL!

Skeezer – you still don’t make sense. Hopefully today will be better for you. But if you’ve read my posts over the last few months, you’ll see that I’ve actually never taken a position on GOAT. Here’s a phrase I don’t think you’re comfortable uttering, because it takes humility: “I don’t know.” And that’s why I find the obsession with GOAT, and the curious coincidence that GOAT always happens to be so-and-so’s favorite player, to compromise the discussion to the point where it isn’t even interesting. Just another partisan fight dressed up as an objective analysis of GOATness.

J-Kath – I’ve been meaning to chuckle with you about the EU naming Barnier as Brexit negotiator. OMG. That is absolute retaliation for Boris!


skeezer Says:

WB
I know what a pork knuckle is, and wouldn’t touch that cut of meat with a ten foot pole(btw neither would your fav). Disgusting.

BBB,
I have not seen any humility from the other side of the anti GOAT crowd. I only see bias for their fav. Its old news started with the Rafa crowd when he started to make a surge in the Slam count against the GOAT.
There is no humility needed in counting Slams and all time records. It is what is it is. Its not a humility issue, that belongs to Clinton and Trump. ;)


BBB Says:

You’ve just seen it – I’m a Djokovic fan, but I do not argue that he is inarguably GOAT. Rather, I understand the slam-only argument but do not agree that it is the only metric that a reasonable person can use.

This is what I don’t like – someone upstream noted that Djokovic won the Grand Slam. The response was “Federer won the career slam.” Those are not the same thing. There is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge Djokovic’s exceptional achievement. Why? Federer has 17 slams, which is extraordinary, and Djokovic has 4 in a row, which is extraordinary. Some will prioritize the former, others the latter. Which is legitimate.

I understand the appeal of simplicity – 17 slams! Done! But presumably our brains can handle a more complex analysis too.


skeezer Says:

The other metrics strengthen the Slam count. Without the a goat Slam Count it doesn’t carry the weight. Take Lendls’ career as an example. For awhile he dominated the sport, and held weeks @ 1 record, Masters wins record, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl
How many Slams? Has he ever been considered as the GOAT?

I am not, do not put words in my mouth, discrediting Novaks’ accomplishment of winning a non Calendar year Grand Slam ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28tennis%29 )
Those are your words. I only mentioned Fed in rebuttal that he has won all 4 also.
Novak winning four in a row is A great achievement. No one else has that in todays game. Kudos to him.

“You’ve just seen it – I’m a Djokovic fan, but I do not argue that he is inarguably GOAT. ”

The problem here is, you, along with the Djoker few keep trying to post continual false holes or jokes into the argument, even after such a statement,thus the rebuttal. Disingenuous at best.


J-Kath Says:

BBB:

It is An Act of War. Would like to be a fly on the wall as Boris and Michael disguise their mutual dislike and pretend to be professional.


MMT Says:

“BBB Says: MMT, do you accept that you, too, have emotional investment in GOAT?”

No – I have an emotional investment in tennis and tennis history, and as such, I think:

1. There is a GOAT
2. There is a (good) way to determine it
3. There is no (good reason) not to determine it
4. The GOAT can change


skeezer Says:

^sanity once again returns.


BBB Says:

You find the argument disingenuous that determining GOAT is subjective and that there is merit to the arguments of both sides?

Wog Boy, please don’t learn usage of big words from Skeezer. You will be led astray.

Thanks for your reply, MMT.


Okiegal Says:

GOAT status means:
Greatest
Of
All
Time ….The problem I have with that is the ALL TIME wording. All time would be until the end of time and we just don’t know when that would be….50 yrs 100 yrs a thousand years and so on. Maybe it should be GREATEST of their time or their era….the problem with that is, no animal named GOTT but I guess GOTE would still be pronounced GOAT?? Lol🐐🐐🐐🐐 I personally believe GOAT debate at this point is a stretch, especially if our planet is around another 3000 years???? Think about it…….Roger was great in his time but had trouble beating Rafa……and that’s no 🐂🐂🐂🐂!!!!! 😉😉😉😉


BBB Says:

JK – yes. This is not going to smooth out Brexit, where smoothing it out would be the best outcome, regardless of whether you’re remain or leave….


BBB Says:

Okie, I agree with you.

One thing that left an impression on me was Rafa’s statement in February that he’d never seen tennis – I think he may have even said perfect? – like Djokovic was playing. And this is someone who played (and as you say beat) Federer in his prime.

Before the Federer crew get their panties in a wad, I’m not going to say QED, Djokovic is GOAT. Just another interesting discussion point, which we could engage in respectfully if the whole thing hadn’t taken on the tone of the religious wars of the middle ages.


J-Kath Says:

BBB:

I’m torn about PM May: On the one hand she is “Controlling” everything including the Nuclear deal – though that is too big a decision for her not to have it reviewed again. She is also controlling the Brevit-team…but why on earth did she put Boris in-charge given his known diarrhea-tongue? Why did she not include a senior SNP Minister in that team…achieve two goals with one kick? A new referundum could have been less certain (plus the Auld Alliance exists on a certain level) …plus the Scots voted to remain. All these factors lean towards a more sympathetic outcome.


BBB Says:

Interesting points, JK – I get all my info from the FT, so I appreciate your perspective :)


Okiegal Says:

@BBB I remember Rafa saying that…..he was right, Novak playing flawless tennis the majority of the time. He might have a minor wrinkle on a RARE occasion, but not often. He has been amazing during his years at number one. The ranking points he’s attained is OTT! Staying healthy as he continues onward in his career will be the order of the day…..getting older for an athlete sucks. When sports is your livlihood…..lots of worries can abound regarding health. I wish all of them to be healthy, wealthy and wise! TBH…. I am so ignorant about the religious wars abroad. Did not take world history in school…. just American history. As I have gotten older I wished I knew more about the discussions you all have on here about European history. Cheers!


skeezer Says:

BBB,
Did you actually read my post? Whatever.
MMT has basically said what its all about. Totally agree with him. Since you have thanked him for the reply with no rebuttal this case is closed. Thank you. And no need to try to call your cohorts back into the conversation for help with big words.
Current GOAT-Roger Federer.
Move on.


BBB Says:

It’s one thing I very much like about Rafa. I find him to be genuine.

If you’re interested, wiki has a good overview of the wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

Mainly, I think of those wars as a reference for our ability to fight over differences that are, when you step back, very minor. And how easily we choose sides, and then become zealots.

And, in the end, I’m surprised Borg isn’t mentioned more often as GOAT.


J-Kath Says:

BBB

I’m going to post a link to an interesting publication shortly (after I have dined) – it has over 100 writers contributing – many well-known…not tennis related, however. It’s only a link so hopefully no-one will complain.


Travis Bickle Says:

GOAT debate aside for a moment, I have few serious questions:
1. Is Rogers Cup named after the greatest human ever, Roger Federer?
2. If so, is it because he’s the GOAT?
3. When GOAT changes in a couple of years, will they rename the competition?

Skeezer, Marcus, or some other Federer fans, feel free to chime in, please…


BBB Says:

Thanks JK! Honestly, people can complain all they want. I’d rather read interesting articles than slurs.


MMT Says:

BBB – at the risk of “grinding my axe”, I would genuinely encourage you to read those posts above, assuming you haven’t. There are no insults or denigrations in it, but they do largely address your questions.

I would never preclude arguments against the notion of a GOAT. But the arguments given are rarely (If ever, and logically they should be) applied to all other competitive evaluations – i.e. they seem to be restricted to the notion of the GOAT and nothing else, without explanation. If you accept those argument against the notion of the GOAT, then logically you must apply them to all other competitive evaluations, which would render tennis almost meaningless as a sport. That’s something I just can’t abide by.

As to Borg, that too is addressed, but for gits and shiggles: Borg was a GOAT candidate, by majors won, until he was surpassed by Sampras. He did skip Australia, but there’s no guarantee he would have won it. I prefer not to speculate, and deal only in what is known – the actual results.

Finally, to Okiegal’s point, I don’t interpret GOAT to refer to the future – in fact, it would be largely illogical to do so if your assessment is based on what has happened in the past. Not to put too fine a point on it, but eventually, what will happen WILL HAVE HAPPENED, and the assessment would necessarily be re-evaluated.


Margot Says:

@BBB
May hates Boris and is punishing him a) getting him as far away from her and Rudd, she of Boris is great to party with but you wouldn’t want him to drive you home fame, as possible.
b)Boris wanted Brexit so badly he can get on with negotiating it…tee hee
@Kath
There are at least 30 Eurosceptic MPs watching May’s every move and she has a tiny majority. She couldn’t possibly have appointed a Remainer to the negotiating table, the wolves would’ve torn her to pieces.


J-Kath Says:

BBB:

Not sure if this will copy properly. If it does it has lots of links within itself.

Weekly digest for Bella Caledonia, on April 25, 2016


J-Kath Says:

BBB: On a different link. Possibly not the best example…but hey ho….


Travis Bickle Says:

MMT,

As you seem to advertise your tennis posts from another site by linking them here, I have a topic suggestion for you – silent bans in tennis.

I looked at some of the links you’ve provided but did not have time to read the entire posts. From what I was able to see, your posts are quite long and seemingly well researched! However they contain too many SAT terms and schoolmarmish lingo, which I find unnecessary. If that approach is utilized to make you appear smarter than you actually are, or to impress simple folks like Skeezer and Willow here, that is fine. I’m just implying that clarity could be achieved by simple vocabulary, e.g. Hemngway…

So back to suggested topic – it would be interesting to see what you can write about it, now when it is plausible that Federer could be serving one (many people implied that much when Rafa was absent for a while during London olympics 4 years ago). And if you think, the topic is far-fetched, or because of your emotional investment to Federer you think it’s not worth exploring, I remind you that it is happening – see Cilic’s example: he was told that his test was positive and strongly “suggested” to declare “injury” at Wimbledon in July much before it was announced to all of us (16 September that year) that he is serving “a backdated” suspended for doping! The fact is, Cilic is much smaller “fish” than Federer (or Rafa) and his suspension didn’t hurt ATP the way it would hurt if those two would be suspended as dopers. Also, I believe that Olympic testing is more stringent and catches more banned substances than ATP testing, and coincidentally both Rafa before London and Federer before Rio pilled out form competition for longish time (i.e. enough to completely clean all the stuff that could be currently present in the system) – and imagine sponsorship $$ Federer is losing by this absence – and all that BS that in 2017 he is optimistic he would be winning again from low ranking and in late 30s… hard to digest those statement unless one is our own Madmax.

I am not claiming anything, but would sure like to read your take on this. Established media, even Tennis X, wouldn’t dare touch a topic like that, but folks like you have a freedom to explore it at length. So here is your opportunity. That would be one post you linked here that I would be glad to read in detail…


J-Kath Says:

Margot:

For me, it would have been smart to include an SNp in the team. By not doing so, and giving soothing words to Nicola, she threatens more damage to the unity of the UK with a possible internal Referendum, i.e. Scotland out of the UK, than taking a bold action re. leaving Europe.

I accept the question is fraught with difficulty. It is a conundrum. While she is smart by saying Brexit is Brexit – it is far from what she wants. For her it is the frying pan or the fire. Which is most important to her. I believe she is a very clever leader but will be too slow, too careful, takes too long because she is too careful. Ugh…what is the right answer?


BBB Says:

MMT, I’ve read your posts. For the thousandth time, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying “most majors seems like the best measure.” People are so incredibly wrapped up in GOAT as a proxy for their favorite player that they literally cannot process that point.

I have to be honest – I know many here find you to be objective, but I’ve had you use strawman arguments against me in your defense of Federer’s reputation, which has made me less likely to believe you’re as objective as you think you are. That’s why I asked if you, while asserting that others have an emotional investment, believe you do as well. I don’t know you, so perhaps you’re right, but I have my doubts.

IIRC, your reference to Borg is only to compare him to others of his generation. Not to Federer. Borg had 11 majors by the time he retired at 26. Roger had what, 12, at that stage in his career? And that’s when Borg essentially skipped Australia.

I don’t want to be unfair to your argument, but I believe you essentially start with the premise that majors are the most coveted trophy, therefore the most relevant metric. But I don’t think that’s enough. Majors are four tournaments a year under unusual circumstances – two weeks for a tournament. It’s simply not the same competition as the other what, 40 weeks of the year?

I absolutely do not agree with weak era arguments, by the way, and I have said so. So I’m not cherrypicking data to discredit Federer. Those who believe he’s GOAT have a legitimate point. But I am no spring chicken, and I do not believe the obsession with majors as the sole criterion of greatness is age-old. And that, frankly, is what’s revisionist.


skeezer Says:

“Majors are four tournaments a year under unusual circumstances – two weeks for a tournament. It’s simply not the same competition as the other what, 40 weeks of the year?”

You have made the statement. Yes, Majors ARE different, and the most coveted, hardest and most revered Tennis tournaments. Do the other tournaments matter? Of course they do, that is how they earn their living by competing for them. But players covet the title of a Slam the most. Ask them, it is not subjective.


BBB Says:

Skeezer, for goodness sake. “I am not, do not put words in my mouth, discrediting Novaks’ accomplishment of winning a non Calendar year Grand Slam ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28tennis%29 )
Those are your words. I only mentioned Fed in rebuttal that he has won all 4 also.”

When TB says that Novak won the Grand Slam – 4 in a row – and you respond that Federer has 4 also, that is the very essence of disingenuous.

Do you really want to keep this going? Rule #1 of holes – when you’re in one, stop digging.


BBB Says:

Of course they covet them the most. Nobody’s disagreeing.

It does not follow that the number of majors one is therefore the measure of GOAT.


BBB Says:

J-Kath – that works, thank you!


MMT Says:

Schoolmarmish – I’ve never heard that word, but it sounds uppity, and I’ll be sure to employ it in my next post.

It won’t be about silent bans (that never materialize) however, because to my knowledge, they are a conspiracy theory for which the only evidence is the absence thereof. You’ve offered nothing in the way of evidence – not even a link to your quotes. There are silent bans that materialize, but as I understand it, the explanation is that a player whose B sample is negative, or if there is some mistake, would incur all the consequences of a PED cheat. I find that explanation plausible.

Although that is not the point of my blog post, I address silent bans tangentially (and very briefly) here (https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-only-dope-is-anti-doping-believer.html) in the cases of Wayne Odesnik. Agassi’s silent ban was for recreational drugs, and I am of the opinion that they are not performance enhancing, and a player’s own personal business, so it doesn’t interest me.

I do believe tennis has a doping problem, and that it is skirting the responsibility to address it by going after low-hanging fruit (https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2016/03/maria-sharapova-doping-gaffe-low.html). I do express concern here that there is more concern with the letter of the law, than the intent, expressly for tennis to have it’s cake and eat it too: e.g. they ban a bunch of people who obviously aren’t seeking a performance enhancement, so that they look tough and tennis magically looks clean.

Silent bans would figure into that, but I don’t have any information on it – I don’t know if a single case of a silent ban that didn’t materialize into an actual ban (that should have), with the exception of Agassi, and I have no problem with that one, because I don’t think they should be testing for recreational drugs.


Travis Bickle Says:

Is it possible that it sounds uppity to you only because you haven’t heard it before? Just a thought…

In any case, your response to my suggestion does not surprise me. Unlike skeezer, madmax et al. who are obvious Federer worshipers, you are of the “masked” variety – you are trying hard to hide your Federer-bias but some of us could easily see it.

You’re telling me: “You’ve offered nothing in the way of evidence – not even a link to your quotes”
Well, I thought stating Cilic case (anyone could find links easily) is an obvious example of a silent ban:
- July: player is told his sample was positive for doping
- July: player FALSELY declared he is injured and withdraws from a tournament
- September: player receives a backdated suspension for doping
- September: we realize player was not injured but was serving silent ban

This was Cilic case and for me it sure looks more like a silent ban than a conspiracy theory.

But I am not trying to convince you or any other Federer fanatic otherwise. As every fanatic, you will remain obdurate ;-)


Travis Bickle Says:

To all,

Please note that my use of words schoolmarmish, obdurate, etc… is not normal. I would never use, as I said before, “SAT terms and schoolmarmish lingo” to appear smarter than I actually am. Especially not on a tennis web forum! I leave that to folks like MMT.

So only when I am addressing him/her, I use some of those words because I know people who take themselves too seriously/self-important folks like him are impressed by “big” words.


skeezer Says:

“It does not follow that the number of majors one(I think she means “won” here) is therefore the measure of GOAT.”
Of course it does, stupendously so.

“Please note that my use of words schoolmarmish, obdurate, etc… is not normal.”
Got it. Your name is Travis Bickle right?

MMT,
Be warned of engaging questions, it’s a trap! Now your accused of having Fed bias, LOL!!!


Wog Boy Says:

“WB
I know what a pork knuckle is, and wouldn’t touch that cut of meat with a ten foot pole(btw neither would your fav). Disgusting.”

You just proved my point, you don’t know nor you deserve anything better than fish and chips…cold chips. You can’t help yourself but to embarrass yourself and show us how ignorat (dumb) and narrow minded you are. What surprised me is that with so many German and North European settlers, particularly mid west America (to my knowledge German language missed for one vote to became American offical language) you have never heard of traditional German dish “Baked Pork Knuckles” that spread in the other parts of Europe including Serbia. Let me educate yourself, check this link, you are allowed to look at it few times due to comprehensive skills, and I hope it will help you to widen your (very narrow) horizons:

http://www.sbs.com.au/food/recipes/pork-knuckle-potato-dumplings-and-braised-red-cabbage?cid=trending

As for Nole, I can asure you that he has eaten pork knuckles, starting as a kid with his parents, cooked, baked or any other way and they are not cheap in the restaurants since you can have only …how many off them from one pig, this should be easy question…even for you?


Wog Boy Says:

^^^
You don’t have to read, it could be to much for you, just look at two minutes short video, it is meal to die for.


chrisford1 Says:

BBB – “IIRC, your reference to Borg is only to compare him to others of his generation. Not to Federer. Borg had 11 majors by the time he retired at 26. Roger had what, 12, at that stage in his career? And that’s when Borg essentially skipped Australia.”

True, but you also cannot omit Borg played in ferociously competitive times. Connors, Laver until mid 70s, Guillermo Vilas, MacEnroe, early Lendl.
Still, the best of his era 1975-80.
And how can “counting Slams” properly place Laver in a GOAT pantheon??? He won a Grand Slam in 1962, was banned from Slams in his absolute peak years 63-68, won the Grand Slam again in 1969 when allowed to play majors again. Finished with 11. Best of his era, and the competition was intense.
Federer was best in his era 2003-07. No doubt about that. Who would be otherwise? Hewitt? Safin? Nalbandian? But he never beat Nadal in a Slam after 2007, and his rate of winning anything from Djokovic or Murray fell precipitously once they reached full form. Credit Roger with making the most of those 5 years (12 Holy Slams) without anyone dogging him like Mac dogged Borg and Lendl, or as Agassi did to Sampras.

No GOAT. Only GOTE. (Pronounced GOAT-y) Greatest Of Their Era.


BBB Says:

Logic not your long suit, eh skeezer?

CF, I just don’t buy into weak era/strong era arguments, but it does seem likely to me that Borg would have scooped up a few AOs along the way, especially as it was played on grass at the time.


J-Kath Says:

BBC: Late Sports News

Contenders at Rio lodged complaints about their accommodation. .did mention Aussie sportspeople but may also have been other nationals.

Ah well.

If Konta wins her match in Canada tonight she will move into 10 ranking….a record for a Brit. female….(didn’t hear exactly what the record was).

Goodnight. You all behave.


BBB Says:

When the cat’s away…. :)


J-Kath Says:

BBB: the mice will play.

Caught you.

Zika has arrived in Florida.


Wog Boy Says:

BBB,

Thanks for the tip, but don’t worry, I wouldn’t touch anything that comes from fedfanatics, it is contagious and not curable.

BTW, I like MMT’s wrap up of FO and Nole making history..;)

How is Nole playing, I am out, can’t watch it?


BBB Says:

He was doing well but as is his new norm, coughs up a break when serving for the set. His serving is pretty atrocious right now, and he’s flown a lot of backhands long.

5-5, deuce, Nole serving.


Wog Boy Says:

Don’t worry BBB, I can see result, he failed to serve for the set…again..


Wog Boy Says:

Thanks BBB.


BBB Says:

Squeaked through. Berdych coughed up some key points.


Wog Boy Says:

How on earth Nole managed to win first set, I was following result and so Berdych having three set points in the TB, next thing I know Nole won it, but he serving only 45%, that is atrocious!


Wog Boy Says:

Maybe Nole just wants to bail out and sort out whatever problem he has, and he has some problems, prior Rio.


Wog Boy Says:

Surprise Surprise, Nole served the match out;)

Just arrived home to see last few games, this looked like Nole’s “B” game, he was giving this match to Betdych, but Berdych refused to take it:)


Wog Boy Says:

I just realized, this is whrong thred.


Willow Says:

The irony is for once Federer will be the one out injured, and Nadal will be the one playing, all assuming he does play Rio and USO, but its looking positive for Rafa for a change ….


skeezer Says:

J-Kath,
Thanks for the link..
👍


BBB Says:

It seems that Federer will be eligible for a protected ranking, and IIRC, it’s not like he’ll be losing a lot of points, because he had a challenging start to the year. So if he comes back for AO and does reasonably well (so as not to have tons of points roll off), he should be fine. No?


J-Kath Says:

Skeezer:

It seemed more authoritative than previous reports.


MMT Says:

BBB: I’m confused by your reference to Borg. I thought you wondered why he wasn’t considered in the GOAT debate, and my response is that his GOAT status was principally compromised when Sampras surpassed his tally. And if I understand you correctly, I don’t rebut Borg vis a vis Federer specifically – I rebut him vis a vis EVERYONE who has more majors than him. Since then 3 others have done the same, so the case for him, in my opinion, is DOA. I’m not denigrating Borg – he inspired me to play and watch tennis – his 1980 Wimbledon final and the battle of 18-16 was the first match I ever saw on tv. But he’s not the GOAT – not by 6 majors.

You do correctly capture my premise – that majors are the most coveted titles (as well having been the most coveted for as long as tennis has been a de facto or de jure professional sport). I also agree that it is an incomplete measure, but so to is the structure of every tournament that has ever declared a champion. You don’t play 128 players, and technically that is the only way to determine who was truly the best in the field. Yet you accept tournament champions, so your argument against majors won as an insufficient measure is insufficiently (pun intended) applied to all competitive measures in tennis. As such, I don’t find it compelling. Conversely, because no competitive measure is inclusive of all variables, it’s rationally consistent to use another incomplete measure to determine the greatest competition of them all (the GOAT) – e.g. majors won.

“…I’ve had you use straw man arguments against me in your defense of Federer’s reputation…”

That strikes me as facile and mischievous to make such a claim with citation. Happy to address what you’re referring to, if you would kindly make plain what you’re referring to.

Travis Bickle: I don’t “seem” to advertise my blog – I promote it fair and square because I think there are people here who would enjoy it. Although the charge is a bit obtuse, I enter a plea of guilty. I also plead guilty to being verbose, using obscure words, complex sentence structures, and a childish sense of humor, while I’m a it.

As to the silent ban business, if it’s easy to find links to YOUR quotes, I would think the person to do so would be you – they are, after all, quotes that you included (without citation, but I digress). Again, there are silent bans, but the real issue is only if they should materialize (based on evidence) but are instead suppressed. I’m not aware of that, and have seen nothing on it. But don’t bother asking me to do your research for you. I’ve never accused anyone of masking a silent ban, and I’m not about to start now. If you want to write about silent bans, then go with God (wink, wink), my friend, it’s a free internet.

Wog Boy: I have, in fact, written about Djokovic’s historic accomplishments over the last 2 years on my blog here (https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2015/11/abbott-and-costello-martin-and.html) and here (https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2016/06/wimbledon-2016-history-beckons.html). If that’s not enough for you then YOU write it. After all, you did once write, “Anyone today can have a blog,” (http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2016-01-31/21821.php) and that would include you. But it’s fairly ironic of you to insinuate that I have a bias because I don’t write enough about a topic that YOU want me to write about.

That’s my blog and I’m sticking to it.


MMT Says:

“BBB Says: It seems that Federer will be eligible for a protected ranking, and IIRC, it’s not like he’ll be losing a lot of points, because he had a challenging start to the year.”

That is an excellent point: does he get a protected ranking by staying out of the game for 6 months? Could that have factored into the decision?

Was this really the intent of the rule?


Travis Bickle Says:

MMT,

Nothing wrong with advertising or promoting your blog. You clearly do it because in almost every post here you post some link to your blog Absolutely fine by me! I actually wonder why you consider my noticing that to be “a charge” against you. There is no need to ‘plead guilty’ and be defensive, because I definitely did not attack your habit, I simply noted it.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with having pro-Federer bias and trying to promote your fave through your blog, especially when someone is not blatantly insulting towards other players (and you are definitely not).

Finally, there is nothing wrong with refusing to write on the topic I suggested. That was merely a suggestion to someone who obviously has time to write at length on various tennis-related topic. It’s your blog and you can write whatever you want. I hope you understood that I was suggesting a topic to you, not ordering you to write it ;-)

There is only one thing that I find off-putting – and that is when folks try to mask their fandom and biases in order to appear more objective than they actually are. That is the only ‘charge’ you could consider of me having against you – really nothing else…


MMT Says:

Travis Bickle:

I reject, out of hand, your “permission” (as I see it) to be biased. The very suggestion is a disingenuous attempt to discredit people as “biased”, rather than their arguments, and is the weakest form of argument for one obvious reason – everything they say could be logical, historically correct and truthful whether someone is biased or not. If you say what you say because you’re biased, that’s your cross to bear, not mine.

I write what I write through research, analysis and logical conclusions – not bias.


skeezer Says:

MMT,
It’s obvious they don’t want to read your Blog, and thus they accuse you falsely as they have done with others ( yours included ), which in itself is not very intelligent. Keep in mind this is a Cult that loves to just rattle off insults as a way of justifying a position. Weak.
Keep on writing, its intelligent, fair minded, very non biased and interesting take on the game.


Travis Bickle Says:

MMT,

Fair enough.
I may be wrong and my opinion does not have to reflect the truth, but it is still my opinion. Based purely on your posting history and presented argumentation – you exhibit pro-Federer bias! You write what you write primarily through that prism and then attempt to justify your reasoning with selected facts while omitting facts that contradict your arguments. That is how I see it, and apparently I’m not the only poster here seeing it that way.

You are free to disagree with that opinion but that, as you know, will not change it. Therefore, I also reject your charge of me attempting to discredit you as a person (I plead not guilty;-). I am simply saying that, based on your writing and posting here, you are a big Federer fan who tries to hide that fact.

Why would you interpret my opinion of your pro-Federer bias as an attempt to discredit you personally is beyond me. I’ve noticed other Fed fan also feel defensive and attack me personally when I say that Djoker is already GOAT and better than Federer ever was – it is as if any opinion differing from a pro-Fed narrative is pure blasphemy (Federer as religious experience ;-)


Travis Bickle Says:

MMT,
Note that Skeezer’s endorsement of your writing above as “very non biased” further solidifies my argument – considering Skeezer’s “objectivity” and lack of fandom…


Wog Boy Says:

MMT,
I couldn’t care less about your blog, if it is such a good blog you would have sleep around in order to advertise your blog. I just went to see whatt did you write about FO 16, and I loved your wrap up, it was nothing special really, just a first man after great RL to win four in a row;)

You just couldn’t force you fedfanatic hand to write something about what he didn’t manage to achieve, no biggie..


Wog Boy Says:

^^ “..you wouldn’t have to sleep around…”


MMT Says:

WB – you obviously care enough about my blog to look for Djokovic posts – you reveal your duplicity.

TB – even a long winded poster like me omits “facts” from every post. In and of itself that proves little. I watch and write about a lot of players. But if I read something that I find incorrect or worse I speak up regardless of the subject. Just ask Skeezer who excoriated me when I criticized Federer for that little tete a tete with Murray at the Oz Open 2013. That you ignore examples of that is a reflection of your perspective, not mine.


MMT Says:

TB – I’ve never attacked you personally, only your arguments when I disagree with them. That your arguments frequently criticize Federer is not my bag. I don’t even know (or care) who you support. For me it’s all about the game, which I’ve said repeatedly. In fact I’ve written extensively about Djokovic’s game and how much it had improved technically in 2011 and again in 2015. If that’s not enough for Djokovic’s fans then there’s a great big internet they are welcome to jump in. As Wog Boy said, “Anybody today can have a blog.”

Your opinion that Djokovic’s is already the GOAT is an opinion that I don’t believe is as yet supported by what I believe is the most obvious measure. But if/when that changes I will proclaim him the GOAT as well, precisely because my assessment is based on an objective measure: majors won. It is incomplete, but so too is every other competitive measure in tennis, so that point is rationally inconsistent. I believed Sampras was the GOAT until Federe surpassed him in majors won: that too is objective and consistent. If I were to offer other considerations when Federer hit 15, that would be capricious of me.

And if insisting I am biased in my assessments is benign, then there is no point in mentioning it, as it presumably has no bearing on my analysis. That you persist in doing so (which I have not reciprocated) belies an ulterior motive. If there is none you are wasting a lot of time and space saying it over and over again.


skeezer Says:

“considering Skeezer’s “objectivity” ”
Really? Have you read your posts? Look in the mirror. BTW love all the attention you and the puppet give Fed and his fans, it keeps the clicks a comin’ for Tennis X. ;)

MMT’s blog is non-biased, and he doesn’t hold back criticism to any player if he feels it is due. This includes Fed, Novak, Andy, Rafa, etc….and or any Tennis topic. The difference with “his” opinion, is he backs it up with research and justifies his reasoning with intelligence. What was not pointed out is if you do read his stuff, you’ll find he doesn’t “hate” any player, and respects the game in its entirety. It’s not a cheerleading blog.
Furthermore, his insight is like so very few here( we had a few more, but alas they rarely post ), he knows the game of Tennis from a players point of view. I know he actually plays the game. His description of technique of the game is very sound ( hence my disagreement with him back in 2013 ). This site has turned into a cheerleading site, MMT’s is not. For anyone who wants to go deeper than a “cheerleader” I would strongly suggest reading his stuff whenever you can. Be educated, enlightened, and….
entertained.

Here is an example:( Yep, sorry its a Fed article, but my point about technique. Check out the Wawrinka vid at the end )
https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2014/02/federers-high-one-handed-backhand.html
and his Wimpy 2106 write “Return of the King” highlighting Novak and BB detailed help on his first serve placement;
https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2016/06/wimbledon-2016-history-beckons.html


Margot Says:

skkeze: I believe everyone is biased to some extent. Even, as TB is suggesting, the choice of subject material in itself shows bias.
I don’t think it matters at all TBH because whenever we read anything we can take that bias into account and we usually factor in our own bias too.


skeezer Says:

I don’t think MMT is that type of writer you describe. The people who read it? Probably.


BBB Says:

MMT: I’m happy to elaborate. I didn’t mean it to be as provocative as it seemed – I didn’t bother arguing with you at the time because it didn’t seem worth it. I concluded that you weren’t as objective as I had thought you were, which is fine.

I had made the point that Federer isn’t nearly as gracious as he is reputed to be, and I gave specific examples. You responded by arguing that other people are less gracious. It’s a non-sequitur – whether Federer’s graciousness is exaggerated has nothing to do with other players. During a discussion around the same time, I said that someone hadn’t provided the best example involving Federer, but I went on to explain the point, and you responded by saying that it was good that I agreed it was a bad example. Something being not the best example is not the same as something being a bad example.

So, I saw you use a strawman and also mischaracterize my argument in order to further your support of Fed, IIRC in the same thread.

I did take WB at face value and look for your post on Djokovic winning 4 in a row, and then I realized he was joking because there isn’t one, unless I missed it?

To be clear, it’s totally fine to be biased. And I agree with Margot that everyone is. But the fact that you either don’t see it, or think you’re above it, is what I found a bit irksome about your prior post. You are essentially accusing us mere mortals of having an emotional investment while asserting that you yourself do not. Yet I found your arguments about Fed’s graciousness to most definitely reflect an emotional investment.

As to Borg – my point is that we will never know how many majors he could have won, and given the beauty of his style, and his exceptional success, it seems absurd to say he’s not in the running for GOAT because he doesn’t have as many majors as others. You don’t have to agree, that’s fine; but that’s also my point. This is all a queston of opinion.


BBB Says:

MMT – separately, re the protected ranking: I don’t see Federer as gaming the system. With one major left in the year, the difficulties he’s had with injuries, I think it makes sense to take this chunk of time off to recuperate. I assume his priority is getting #18, not another Olympic medal etc., and his best chances of a major do seem to be at Wimbledon.

I would guess that most players aren’t in Fed’s financial position to be able to skip Masters 1000 events and majors, so I am not sure the rule is in much danger of being abused.


Travis Bickle Says:

MMT,

First of all, I’ll give you a credit for having ability to argue reasonably – trait that most Fed fans do not posses. And also, you are fairly respectful to other players, including even Djokovic – sore point for most Fed fans.

However, I am still puzzled as to why you are hiding the fact that you are a big Federer fan. Reminds me a little of that story “Emperor’s New Clothes” in which I would be the kid stating that the emperor is actually naked…
Since you insist of denying having a pro-Federer bias and picking facts/topics that suit your pro-Fed narrative, I’ll use few examples from your own blog to showcase few glaring examples of it – and please there is no ulterior motive here – merely showing your own examples and drawing conclusions. My only motive is to have you publicly admit that you’re an objective fan of tennis second and fan of Roger Federer first – perhaps you don’t even know it yet and in that case my motive becomes sort of favor to you – it’s always good to realize some fact about themselves that we might have been unaware of…

Example 1:
In your blog, you have 22 post (thus far) written in 2016. Conspicuously (here is another SAT word for you ;-) a post about RG 2016 is not among those 22 posts?!? We are talking of the monumental achievement of Grand Slam (non-calendar), something that has not been done in almost 50 years, something neither your Federer nor Rafa Nadal have not accomplished and will 99% likely never accomplish – literally a generational achievement!!! Yet, you as the chief editor of your blog, have decided that story is not newsworthy enough to be among 22 apparently more important stories of 2016… Sorry but only rationale for such a choice (or lack of it) is significant pro-Fed bias – call it envy of the Fed-fan towards Djoker, call it anti-Novak sentiment, or whatever, but it sure is not objective tennis writing.

Example 2:
In your post about year 2015 in review (“ABBOTT AND COSTELLO, MARTIN AND LEWIS…NOLE AND ROG?), you write about “that poor Serbian boy who’s allergic to something that everyone’s heard of, but nobody really knows what it is” with interesting choice of words:
“But I wonder if he isn’t the stooge? After all the machinations and success, the clothes, the sense of humor, the talk shows, the dancing and the jokes…after all the jokes, for god’s sake? It just takes one Lucy shaped Swiss guy with a little talent and some high class friends, to pull that football away from his oncoming kick, sending him flailing in the air like a rag doll, and make it all for naught. In the end, in this tennis town (by which I mean planet Earth) there really isn’t enough room for anyone not named Roger Federer.”
Tennis – planet Earth – belongs to only one man (The Man, curtesy of skeezer) – no room for anyone else – hmmm, OK MMT if you say so… This paragraph alone, in its blind fandom to Roger is worthy of something our own Madmax would write, and is enough to paint you as a Roger fan boy to anyone who is not completely dumb/naive.
This is how you describe USO 2015 final:
“…the result only made more stark the contrast between good and evil, by the script of this running gag, that the game has been teasing us with for the last two years. No matter how desperately we want it to be so, nobody is beating Novak Djokovic in 2015 except maybe…well, Novak Djokovic.”
I presume ‘good’ in your quote above is Federer and ‘evil’ is … we all guessed it … Djokovic.
There are many more examples like these in your writing MMT, which is fine and there is nothing wrong with it, assuming you admit you are a fan of Federer first and tennis writer second.

Example 3:
This is not from your blog MMT, but is in a way similar, i.e. an example of established journalist (Sports Illustrated) who is first Federer fan but, due to his supposed journalistic objectivity, is trying not to reveal it – that is until Freudian slips like the one in this link. I called him on it, the same way I call you on your bias, and you can see from the comments below that many folks agreed with me.
https://twitter.com/Bickle_Tennis/status/758124554740838400

Finally, nothing personal – I actually think you are quite pleasant fellow and will read your future posts with pleasure. Just do not try to sell me that “objectivity” BS, when the examples listed above and many more I didn’t not list, clearly (at least to me) reveal you as a big Federer fan/guy who is not thrilled with Novak Djokovic and his all-time tennis supremacy…


Okiegal Says:

@Margot….11:17. You are right……..


MMT Says:

BBB: it seems we disagree on the definition of strawman: as I understand it’s intentionally mischaracterizing something to make it easy to contradict. Since there still isn’t a citation, I would venture to guess there was a misunderstanding, because generally I prefer to contradict actual arguments. As for the emotional investment, you misunderstand me: I don’t assume everyone’s perspective on is based on emotional attachment to players. Some perhaps, maybe many, but largely that’s irrelevant. What matters is the arguments made. Your allegiance matters little to me if your argument is rational and consistent. That’s what I strive for. You will note I argued in 2009 that anointing Federer the GOAT after winning RG was premature. How then can I be accused of reserving that for Federer or excluding others? It’s just nonsense. Furthermore, saying everyone is biased is like saying everyone is strong – that kind of universality renders descriptive terms meaningless. What matters is whether your bias informs your analysis. However the panoply of bias applies to me, it does not inform my reasoning.

As for a protected ranking for Fed, I don’t think that was the intent of the rule, but I have not yet researched enough to form an opinion on whether it should be revised. Brian Baker blowing out his knee, or Tommy Haas doing his shoulder is what that was meant to address. More research to come…


Margot Says:

http://drscottamills.com/2013/10/everything-and-everyone-is-biased/

“Whatever you believe there’s proof out there to support it.”


MMT Says:

Travis: Ex 1: There’s no post on my blog about Fed winning RG either or Nadal winning Wimbledon. You seem hell bent on it, but I am not in the habit of fawning over players just to fawn. Did you notice that half my posts were about the Citi Openin 2015? If there is a bias, it is a local bias. Your analysis here is perfunctory.

Ex 2: I don’t want to seem uppity, but you have missed the point of this piece: the tennis world wanted a rivalry and fooled itself into believing it existed, but it was not a true rivalry because Djokovic reigns supreme when he wants and when it counts, and as if by a written script, the result when it mattered was always the same. Much of that piece is ironic to the point of satire, but you focused on some sentences that made fun of Djokovic’s charm and ignored that I declared him the most dominant player in the open era and he king of tennis. I just can’t do anything about that.

I’m going to set aside example 3 since it’s not about me, and I can’t speak to the intent. I will never accept being put in the same category as those who make arguments so facile, illogical, inconsistent and irrelevant as to lead one to wonder why they’re writing in the first place. I defend my intellectual “honor” ceaselessly, because without it, there’d be no point to me writing anything.

I may be wrong in my analysis, but I have no axe to grind…except when I cite my blog, of course.


BBB Says:

MMT, what steps do you take to ensure that your bias doesn’t inform your analysis or reasoning? To me, someone who is interested in ensuring that bias doesn’t inform his reasoning would be open to exploring a discussion about whether such bias exists, so that it can be corrected going forward. We’re none of us perfect. I’ll be honest – someone who says “my bias doesn’t inform my reasoning” sounds so closed to the possibility that it only increases my sense that it does. I engage in reasoning for a living, and I cannot tell you that the fact that I like Djokovic never influences my arguments. I don’t think that’s human nature. I try to ferret it out as best I can, but if someone argues that I’ve allowed bias into my argument, I think about whether that’s true, rather than saying it doesn’t happen.

As for strawman, it’s refuting an argument that wasn’t made. I didn’t argue that Federer was comparatively lacking in graciousness. I argued that his graciousness was exaggerated. I don’t think this site lends itself to finding old threads. I’d guess it goes back to February or so. I’m not sure the details matter – the point is, following that exchange, I concluded you were not dispassionate, and I had previously no reason to otherwise. Take that for what it’s worth, or dismiss it. I’m just a stranger.

I think you do try to be meticulous in your reasoning, and that’s why the error in flow of argument was jarring to me and changed my view of where you’re coming from. I won’t lie – I was a bit disappointed because you clearly are knowledgeable about the game, and I’d like to find a source that is as bias-free as possible because, as I said above, I have my own biases.

I say this constructively, but as you are not simply a poster here but someone with a blog, I’d at least consider the question of bias more closely, rather than dismissing it.


MMT Says:

BBB: Whatever bias you presume that I have, it does not inform my reasoning. I applied it equally when the GOAT was Sampras as I do now that it is Federer. If/when it is Djokovic I’ll do the same – the point is that my bias is towards the majors because they are the backbone of the history of the game, which I love. But I don’t argue in favor of one player over another because frankly, I find that to be pointless. It’s like arguing that one should like one painter more than another – that’s absurd. If you have a bias, and it informs your reasoning, that’s your problem, not mine. I will not be boxed out of my reasoning and may analysis by attempts to discredit them before I even make them, which is all that insisting that I’m biased is doing.

As for the straw man example, again you don’t give a citation, so I’d rather not speculate on your recollection and/or interpretation of what was discussed. And if one exchange is capable of disabusing you of the impression left by years of reasoned/objective discourse on tennis, I doubt there was much there to begin with or that whatever it was that was discussed actually formed your opinion.

That would be like if a basketball player never breaks single digit points, rebounds and assists for his career, then in his last game he hits a triple double, and you start wondering if he was on the take all those other games – that’s just implausible.


skeezer Says:

A good lawyer knows when the battle with reasoning is lost. Time to settle.


skeezer Says:

Cha ching. A good lawyer knows when their battle with reasoning is lost. How can you accuse bias when you are biased?


BBB Says:

I’m sorry you feel that way, MMT. Seems I’ve touched a nerve. It was meant constructively.

But, let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Even if I’m accurate in what I describe (and frankly I don’t think either of us could be bothered to manually scroll to find the exchange, but maybe I’ll give it a whirl some time, I’m stubborn), it only reflects poorly on me. Why? Because you’ve been impartial for years, so even if you dropped the ball on that one occasion, it shouldn’t call into question the rest of your work.

Which is it? Does your bias never contiminate your analysis, or if it happens, it’s unusual and should be overlooked? The latter I could absolutely get behind, but for your position on the former, which I find bumptious.

However, you’ve made it clear that your blog is for your own enjoyment, not meant to be taken seriously as a piece of journalism, so the fact that you don’t seem to have any checks to guard against your own bias informing your analysis – other than your own boundless confidence that it doesn’t happen – is of no consequence.

One last point: it’s an element of sound reasoning not to assume your conclusion. You write in your blog (see, I did read it) that

“The GOAT debate is trying to determine, given their circumstances who more often emerged as the best player at the most important competitions in their respective careers.”

That’s one of my fundamental problems with your approach. Defining the GOAT debate that way, it’s not a surprise that you conclude that majors won is the lone benchmark. What other conclusion could follow? A perfect example of circular reasoning.


Okiegal Says:

@Skeezer 7:11…This is so true……everyone is biased when it comes down to their favorite…All the arguments we can have on TX, ain’t gonna change that….might as well move on and end the GOAT war 4-ever……redundant…..


Wog Boy Says:

I think MMT bit more than he can chew, now he is choking, call his bridesmaid to give him one from behind so he can spit out …the thing..don’t try to swallow..no good..

I guess you all know who is his bridesmaid..


MMT Says:

BBB: I don’t concede that the specific point you’re referencing was in evidence of bias that compromised anything I’ve written. You can search for bias so that you don’t have to address my rational analysis, but it would be more effective to address my analysis/conclusions.

And I said if one questionable (in your mind) issue (which could just as easily be a misunderstanding or projection on your part) calls into question years of reasoned objective discourse I’ve engaged in, then I don’t believe you were particularly convinced by reasoned objective discourse.

My blog is called the Tennis Column – not the tennis reporter. All that about journalism is, in fact, a straw man. As long as you try to convince people to stay away from my blog because you don’t like what I write, which is intellectually honest, rationally consistent and logically presented when intended to be so, I will continue to defend myself against empty insinuations.

But note that you have not given rational a contradiction of anything I’ve written about the GOAT debate, or anything I’ve written on my blog that was intended as serious discourse. You’ve attempted, over and over again, to discredit me and engage in a game of “prove you’re not biased” or “if you don’t admit bias, you’re biased”, or some variation thereof. But you’ve made no substantive contradiction of any of my rational analysis or conclusions.

What a waste and a shame – you might actually convince someone that my analysis is off or faulty in some way if you bothered to try.


MMT Says:

I don’t assume my conclusion – I arrive at a rational determination of the GOAT: not who would have more majors if XYZ, not who would beat whom in tennis heaven, not whose victories are worth more because of what others did – quite simply, just like we do in tournaments, the GOAT should be a measure of who was the best at what everybody equally wanted to be the best at. By conceding that no other conclusion can be reached, you are concurring.

Your alternative is to offer a better definition of the GOAT, or to argue that the notion of the GOAT is impossible or implausible, by some argument that can’t be applied to everything else in tennis that you already accept. Otherwise you are being selective in what bothers you about the GOAT debate, which isn’t compelling.


MMT Says:

I also have tennis history on my side, after all if we’re talking all time (since the beginning of tennis) then what better measure is than tournaments that have been most highly coveted for the longest period of time? What other measure can make this argument of having historical context?


Wog Boy Says:

Bridesmaid, hurry up, the dude is getting blue in the face and convulsions are very visible..he is running out of time..and breath..it could be his last one..


MMT Says:

Do you agree with the #1 ranking – it also places greater value on the most highly coveted titles on the ATP tour – do you disagree with those assessments? Because they are precisely the same in the microcosm as the majors won argument is in the GOAT debate – the #1 ranking, which you accept on a daily basis. So why do you reserve your skepticism only for a concept when applied for to the GOAT debate, and not in the everyday micro-GOAT of the #1 ranking? It’s logically inconsistent and therefore not compelling.


MMT Says:

And yet here you are still reading Wog Boy – it must just kill you that you can’t come up with a reasoned contradiction to my analysis – go ahead and try. What’s the worst that could happen? You would appear to be irrational? Dare I say, the ship has sailed, so you have nothing to lose.


Wog Boy Says:

I am reading TX and enjoying it, not your shity blog..see the difference??


Wog Boy Says:

Bridesmaid, hurry up..or somebody call ambulance ..


MMT Says:

Wog Boy – diatribes, insults, name-calling – what are you doing? Why do you bother? Are you incapable of making a reasoned analysis or just unwilling?


MMT Says:

Wog Boy: you’ve already admitted that you search my blog for content concerning Djokovic that you approve of – once again, the horse is out of the barn on that one. Too late to now to appear to be too good for my blog. You’re convincing yourself of something you’ve already admitted is not the case. That’s both irrational and a waste of time – two for one. More efficient, but no less disappointing…to me anyway.


skeezer Says:

MMT,
As I said on he other thread, this is how the CON cult deals with intelligent analysis. Insults. Childish insults. Just ignore it aiready. Insults are not a response to intellegent discussions, whether a poster agrees or not.
Lawyers who are in the CON know that very well. Please, teach your children.


skeezer Says:

“arrive at a rational determination of the GOAT: not who would have more majors if XYZ, not who would beat whom in tennis heaven, ”
So true. “Ifs” are for losers”

Be warned, WB has posted, The pyscho taxi driver is not far behind in the puppet show.
Just sayin’.


Wog Boy Says:

Bridesmaid arrived and managed to get the thing out of his throat..mout..

MMT, wrong presumption, I prees one of those links from your blog, that you keep bombarding TX with to see your wrap up about historical FO, found nothing and that’s all. Keep believing that I am actually reading your blog if that makes your feel good, I am happy to make people feel good.
You admitted that your blog is for yourself and for your self pleasureing, that’s fine, self pleasuring is not illegal, ask your bridesmaid, he even know one or two things about law.
Now, I’ll live you and your bridesmaid to enjoy what you like the most…self pleasureing..sorry I don’t want to be rude, but I have things to do..


Wog Boy Says:

Disregard spelling mistake, I am sure you and your bridesmaid will get it…and keep doing whatever you are doing…I mean you and your bridesmaid..


skeezer Says:

wog boy,
It’s very clear to this blog site that TB and you have a thing going on, not me and MMT. We rarely engage in conversation, and we tend to disagree on things. You 2 however only cheerlead each other (pom poms and all) and are glued to the hip. One posts, the other cheers. Please be honest, it’s ok, we all get it.
Wishing you both the best…..


BBB Says:

MMT – I’ve already explained to you why your analogy to the #1 ranking is false. Frankly, what you believe passes for “analysis” is sophistry.


Wog Boy Says:

BBB,
I got that one covered:
_____
sophistry
ˈsɒfɪstri/
noun
the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
_____

Needless to say, I agree:)…my google search is in overdrive because of you.


BBB Says:

WB – LOL.


MMT Says:

My position on the GOAT debate has been consistently based on reason:

https://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2007/11/great-samprasfederer-debate.html?m=1


BBB Says:

MMT – I mean this very constructively, and this will be my last word on the subject.

People who want their arguments to be sound understand that they cannot do it alone. They subject their analysis to criticism for the purpose of improving the end result. Lawyers have their briefs reviewed by colleagues for just this reason, for example. Journalists have editors. Etc.

You continue to insist that your process is bias-free, and you reject any suggestion that it isn’t, by repeating over and over again that it isn’t. I asked you what your process is for ensuring objectivity. You don’t seem to have one. I don’t know how else to explain to you the arrogance of the notion that you, all by yourself, can ensure there is no bias in your work, when people in all sorts of professions have processes to guard against it.

My response, when someone has criticized a brief I’ve written, is to give it some thought, not reject it out of hand because I’m convinced I’m infallible. The fact that you cannot even see how your reasoning is circular undermines your credibility.

My opinion should be irrelevant to you, so you can continue to restate your position if you like. As you can see, you didn’t persuade me the first half dozen times you declared it, and you’re not likely to do so by stating it again another half dozen times. It likewise seems to me that the pains I’ve taken to try to get you to see that you suffer from the same foibles as the rest of us are of no avail either.

Peace out.


MMT Says:

BBB: No where on this post have you addressed the #1 ranking or the rejection of the priority placed on majors in the GOAT debate, while simultaneously accepting that same priority placed on majors in the #1 ranking.

That is the rational analysis that forms my opinion of the GOAT debate, and I welcome a rational refutation/contradiction of it. If, however, the refutation/contradiction is not applied to all competitive measures in tennis, then it is inconsistent, and insufficient to exclude majors won as the measure to consider in the GOAT debate.

I didn’t place the priority of the majors in tennis – tennis did. I simply use that priority as a way to measure all-time greatness. Is it an incomplete measure? Certainly. But so too are all competitive measure in tennis that we accept, so should this exclude it as a measure of the GOAT.


MMT Says:

Last sentence should read: “…so this shouldn’t exclude [majors won] as a measure of the GOAT.”


MMT Says:

You said you should presume your conclusion, but ask how I ensure that bias doesn’t enter into my analysis. So you conclude I have bias that informs my opinion, then ask me to prove that it doesn’t. I’m not playing that game. I have only my analysis to offer and defend.

It’s not complicated: just address the arguments – if they are based in bias, and not rational analysis, does it not follow that there would be some logical or rational contradiction that would kill two birds with one stone: i.e. 1) refute the analysis/conclusion and 2) reveal the bias?

If you cannot do that, then both remain unproven: the analysis/conclusion is sound and the PRESUMED bias that ostensibly led to it, is at least irrelevant, and at most, non-existent.


BBB Says:

MMT – the discussion was about a month ago. I don’t see the need to repeat the discussion, as it evidently didn’t register with you the first time.


MMT Says:

BBB: Why don’t you recapitulate it here. I don’t think it matters if it was 10 years ago. If it rationally consistent and sound then, it will remain so today.


BBB Says:

MMT, if you’re as committed to reason as you say, then these arguments should have already informed your analysis. Frankly, over the last two days it’s become clear to me that you’re not actually interested in a discussion, but in validating your existing position.

Carry on.


MMT Says:

BBB: What arguments? I haven’t addressed ALL arguments: I’m not omniscient. There’s no harm in including ones that you believe would contradict my reasoning, just provide them, and I’ll gladly do so.

Remember, this entire exchange results from me being accused of bias that informs my reasoning. If I am mistaken, and your contention is that whatever bias you assume I have is benign and does not inform my reasoning, then I stand corrected.

If not, I think it is only fair for you to offer rational contradictions that would elucidate that supposed bias.


BBB Says:

MMT – nobody’s asking you to be omniscient. You and I had an exchange on the relevance of the #1 ranking about a month ago. You don’t remember it. QED, as far as I’m concerned. I could repeat it here; I could also tilt at windmills.

Let’s move on.


MMT Says:

BBB: You did cite a failure to address a contention, which you won’t repeat, to insinuate that I am not committed to reason. I stand committed to reasoned debate on any topic in tennis. Always have, always will.


BBB Says:

You are welcome to believe whatever you like about yourself.

Can we now move on, or shall we continue this exchange until we’re both put in moderation because everyone else is bored to tears?


MMT Says:

Skeezer: I was so focused on defending myself, I neglected to say that I’m very happy you enjoy my blog. As I mentioned on another post, I try to write what I would enjoy reading, and hope I’m not the only one who does – I’m glad I’m not!

Top story: Croatia at France in Davis Cup Final, World Group Playoffs Results