- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Australian Open 2014
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:22 pm to jg8623
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:22 pm to jg8623
quote:That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm making is, Stan wawrinka beat Nadal. Period. No because of injury. Unless we can make the statement, well nadal only beat federer because he is stronger with a better backhand as an excuse
I get that the injury could have most definitely been because of the long tournament, but at the same time an athlete can get hurt in the first minute or the last minute. It's not dead set on conditioning
This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 6:23 pm
2
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:24 pm to lsupride87
I never argued about Stan beating him, I was arguing that an injury can happen whenever regardless of ones conditioning
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:25 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Unless we can make the statement, well nadal only beat federer because he is stronger with a better backhand as an excuse
That's not the same as an injury
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:26 pm to jg8623
In Rafa's defense, the guy puts more effort into an individual match than any other player out there. Thus he has more injuries than most. I agree an injury excuse could be weak. But in Nadals case, I think it's legit. He's a top player because of his physical exertion. That exertion takes its toll. Cut the poor bastardized some slack. Or see if you can match his effort. And not sustain an injury.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:28 pm to jg8623
quote:Yes it is in nadals case. What makes him great is the fact that he plays tennis more physical than anyone in the history if the game. However, that also causes his body to wear down far greater than any other player. So if he wants to reap the positives and advantages of his game, the negatives associated with it must also be taken on without using it as an excuse. I'm not evened at nadal because he understands this and never uses it as a crutch. However fans and media run with it
That's not the same as an injury
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:28 pm to castorinho
quote:
Not really.
How?
If I was playing with somebody and asked the score and said deuce I would think its 40/40 with the next two points to win. Why would you want to call 30/30 and 40/40 both deuce?
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:30 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:You just made my point for me. I don't think rafa is faking it or using it as an excuse. However some people are. His physicality has positives and negatives. So don't praise it when it gets him a win, but use it as an excuse when it creates a loss. It's all part of it
In Rafa's defense, the guy puts more effort into an individual match than any other player out there. Thus he has more injuries than most. I agree an injury excuse could be weak. But in Nadals case, I think it's legit. He's a top player because of his physical exertion. That exertion takes its toll. Cut the poor bastardized some slack. Or see if you can match his effort. And not sustain an injury.
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:30 pm to lsupride87
No, an injury is an injury. A players strong suit is a players strong suit. This is getting stupid, count me out of this ETA: I never made it out as an excuse, simply saying he got hurt Athletes always get hurt, it's part of it
This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:32 pm to jg8623
quote:His strong suit causes him to have more injuries than any other player in the game. It's not a coincidence
No, an injury is an injury. A players strong suit is a players strong suit. This is getting stupid, count me out of this
Posted on 1/26/14 at 6:34 pm to jg8623
quote:I understand your point. But what I want people to understand is this isn't some freak leg break. What happens to nadal isn't random, it's a direct correlation to what makes him great
ETA: I never made it out as an excuse, simply saying he got hurt Athletes always get hurt, it's part of it
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:21 am to JG77056
quote:
Question for the tennis junkies, why isn't 30-30 called deuce?
It should be.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:23 am to kidbourbon
ITF rules state that deuce is when both players have won 3 points in the game, 40-40.
Just how the rule is.
Just how the rule is.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:33 am to lsupride87
quote:
You just made my point for me. I don't think rafa is faking it or using it as an excuse. However some people are. His physicality has positives and negatives. So don't praise it when it gets him a win, but use it as an excuse when it creates a loss. It's all part of it
I understand this guy's point. "Well-conditioned" was a poor choice of words, but his point is reasonable. Rafa exerts himself physically more than any other player, and injuries are basically an occupational hazard if you play that way.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:35 am to UltimateHog
quote:
TF rules state that deuce is when both players have won 3 points in the game, 40-40.
Just how the rule is
The point is that you could take the "40" out of the scoring completely and it would be functionally equivalent. This is true. I've always wondered why the "40" exists. Either way, it's the first to 4, win by 2.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:41 am to AUtigerNOLA
quote:
How?
If I was playing with somebody and asked the score and said deuce I would think its 40/40 with the next two points to win. Why would you want to call 30/30 and 40/40 both deuce
Because they're exactly the same. In both cases, you have to win two straight points to win. 30/30 is deuce.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:43 am to kidbourbon
Posted on 1/27/14 at 3:21 am to kidbourbon
quote:
The point is that you could take the "40" out of the scoring completely and it would be functionally equivalent. This is true. I've always wondered why the "40" exists. Either way, it's the first to 4, win by 2
The above was poorly worded, and in discovering this I think I answered the question.
30/30 and deuce are functionally equivalent. But you need the "40" because it's first to 4 win by 2. And so 3-0 is 40-0, and 3-1 is 40-15. And because you already have the "40", it would be more confusing to call 30/30 deuce and 40-30 ad-in. And that's my final answer.
Personally, I think they should just change it to "first to 4, win by 2". And then rather than saying this is the fourth deuce, for example, it would just be 7-7.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 9:41 am to kidbourbon
quote:
30/30 and deuce are functionally equivalent.
Understand that.
quote:
But you need the "40" because it's first to 4 win by 2.
So you just answered why it would be confusing. At this point you both have 4 points(Deuce). 3 points would be 30/30. It would just be confusing to me at least when I am playing and lose track of score, if you were to call both deuce.
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 9:47 am
Posted on 1/27/14 at 10:40 am to AUtigerNOLA
quote:
So you just answered why it would be confusing.
And I said the same thing.
quote:.
And because you already have the "40", it would be more confusing to call 30/30 deuce and 40-30 ad-in. And that's my final answer
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 10:41 am
Posted on 1/27/14 at 12:00 pm to kidbourbon
K got confused. So we are in agreement?
Page 59 of 59
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News