Week 10/11 - ATP 1000 BNP Paribas Open, Indian Wells, California, USA (Hard) - SINGLES

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Week 10/11 - ATP 1000 BNP Paribas Open, Indian Wells, California, USA (Hard) - SINGLES

the addict · Tennis legend

JonH comes home wrote:
Jack is in action around 4.20 pm this afternoon GMT.

Who's he playing - everyone else seems to be in Miami

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

the addict wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Jack is in action around 4.20 pm this afternoon GMT.
Who's he playing - everyone else seems to be in Miami

biggrin biggrin

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

the addict wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Jack is in action around 4.20 pm this afternoon GMT.
Who's he playing - everyone else seems to be in Miami

Guaranteed not to lose then!

its cos the darn IW keeps getting posts in it!

SuperT · Futures level

sliced backhand wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Jajon wrote:
Nadal really committing to being a fraud here by faking an injury so much hes skipping part of the calendar where hes most successful!
Its a really devious ploy, ingenious even!
Except he won't miss that part of the season. Just wait and see....

The prognosis for recovery is 4 to 6 weeks. Assuming things go well and it clears up in 4 plus a week's practice it's not impossible for Rafa to be back in action w/c 25th April, but with no big tournaments that week Madrid on 1st May seems more likely. I for one will be following his progress with great interest to see if these allegations are justified.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Im really lost - I know Rafa has always had issues pushing the boundaries on timekeeping but, to be frank, they are really minor things .

The Puentes thing has been around for years and Ive also wondered so Im more open to that. But no proof so no condemnation from me.

The Monaco comment is just scurrilous , I mean, and I think that just laughable really.

The faking injuries thing - dont agree with that; his game puts a lot of strain on him and hes not a young man now; why would he bother faking, I dont get it?

Ill be keen to hear more evidence on these and particularly the drug taking if you have it? But until I see the evidence and not just hearsay, Im ignoring it.

christ · Futures level

It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.

seagull · Hall of fame

Well put

telstar · Strong Club Player

christ wrote:
It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.

Some people consider 'Mr Nadal' to be a long-running blight on the generally good name of tennis and have very good reasons for thinking so!

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.
Some people consider 'Mr Nadal' to be a long-running blight on the generally good name of tennis and have very good reasons for thinking so!

it may be true but it would be good to have more substantiation - what do you mean and what is the evidence?

A lot also think Djoko is ditto, Federer is disliked by many, my son thinks Muzza takes PED's etc...but is there anything beyond personal dislike to support any of this?

christ · Futures level

telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.
Some people consider 'Mr Nadal' to be a long-running blight on the generally good name of tennis and have very good reasons for thinking so!

Exactly my point: "innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay".

telstar · Strong Club Player

christ wrote:
telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.
Some people consider 'Mr Nadal' to be a long-running blight on the generally good name of tennis and have very good reasons for thinking so!
Exactly my point: "innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay".

So well-founded opinion is barred in your world then?

christ · Futures level

telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.
Some people consider 'Mr Nadal' to be a long-running blight on the generally good name of tennis and have very good reasons for thinking so!
Exactly my point: "innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay".
So well-founded opinion is barred in your world then?

Nope. Opinion always welcome (except when stated as fact).

"well-founded" even more welcome, when the foundations are exposed, so that they can be assessed and agreed.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.
Some people consider 'Mr Nadal' to be a long-running blight on the generally good name of tennis and have very good reasons for thinking so!
Exactly my point: "innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay".
So well-founded opinion is barred in your world then?

We had a poster recently who left the board, but he would often make comments like this, effectively saying " I know a lot with good reason, so believe me", but never actually saying anything more about why they believed what they believed, what the actual evidence was.

I am with Christ (or Chris T here, there is no such thing as Christ) - it is all very well throwing things out, but tell us what the basis is, what evidence sits behind it - I think we are all open minded to listen and learn and understand, but we need a little more that "believe me" or "trust me".

Bagel · Lower Club Player

JonH comes home wrote:
telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
telstar wrote:
christ wrote:
It appears that some people don't like Mr Nadal, which is understandable.

However, attempting to justify such dislike through innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay appears to say more about the fake and fraudulent nature of the commentator than the subject.
Some people consider 'Mr Nadal' to be a long-running blight on the generally good name of tennis and have very good reasons for thinking so!
Exactly my point: "innuendo, unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and hearsay".
So well-founded opinion is barred in your world then?
We had a poster recently who left the board, but he would often make comments like this, effectively saying " I know a lot with good reason, so believe me", but never actually saying anything more about why they believed what they believed, what the actual evidence was.
I am with Christ (or Chris T here, there is no such thing as Christ) - it is all very well throwing things out, but tell us what the basis is, what evidence sits behind it - I think we are all open minded to listen and learn and understand, but we need a little more that "believe me" or "trust me".

And I'm with Telstar. Here's a definition of a forum: 'a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged' Sorry I'd always believed this to be a forum!