Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Joe Ramire » Tue, 22 May 2007 13:11:42


A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
Mallorca.

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Care » Tue, 22 May 2007 13:21:34

Quote:

> A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
> assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
> Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
> will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

> For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
> is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
> few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
> if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
> on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
> have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
> the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

> Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
> scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
> thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
> performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
> lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
> possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
> Mallorca.

> Joe Ramirez

Nicely thought and composed.

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Dave Hazelwoo » Tue, 22 May 2007 13:34:01

On 20 May 2007 21:11:42 -0700, Joe Ramirez

Quote:

>A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
>assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
>Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
>will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

>For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
>is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
>few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
>if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
>on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
>have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
>the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

>Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
>scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
>thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
>performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
>lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
>possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
>Mallorca.

>Joe Ramirez

amen

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Mikko ?mm?l » Tue, 22 May 2007 14:01:10

Quote:

> A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
> assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
> Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
> will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

> For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
> is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
> few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
> if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
> on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
> have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
> the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

> Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
> scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
> thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
> performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
> lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
> possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
> Mallorca.

> Joe Ramirez

Noone remembers to question Kafelnikov's FO 1996, when Muster was
Nadalish favourite for it (and lost 4R to Stich).

.mikko

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Manc » Tue, 22 May 2007 13:52:07

Quote:

> Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
> scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
> thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
> performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
> lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
> possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
> Mallorca.

> Joe Ramirez

Ummm no. Roger still needs to beat Rafa in the French final to gain ultimate
validation by all. After that, any clay titles w/o beating Nadal are valid.
 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by David » Tue, 22 May 2007 13:58:11

Quote:

>A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
> assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
> Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
> will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

> For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
> is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
> few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
> if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
> on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
> have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
> the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

They can and they will. No one looks at tune-ups leading up to a slam to decide
whether an asterisk is warranted. It's based entirely on what happens at the
slam.
 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Joe Ramire » Tue, 22 May 2007 14:17:12


Quote:

> >A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
> > assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
> > Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
> > will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

> > For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
> > is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
> > few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
> > if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
> > on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
> > have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
> > the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

> They can and they will. No one looks at tune-ups leading up to a slam to decide
> whether an asterisk is warranted. It's based entirely on what happens at the
> slam.

I should have specified, "Fed's critics who don't normally take apart
every slam to see if the title was 'deserved' based on the draw, but
who might be tempted to do so if Fed were to win the French without
ever having beaten Nadal on clay." For those who do engage in that
pastime by rule, such as yourself, of course nothing will stop the
inquisition. For you, the history of tennis is probably a whirling
galaxy of asterisks.

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Joe Ramire » Tue, 22 May 2007 14:18:37


Quote:

> > Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
> > scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
> > thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
> > performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
> > lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
> > possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
> > Mallorca.

> > Joe Ramirez

> Ummm no. Roger still needs to beat Rafa in the French final to gain ultimate
> validation by all. After that, any clay titles w/o beating Nadal are valid.

I'll see your "ummm no" and raise you an "ummmm yes."

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Joe Ramire » Tue, 22 May 2007 14:20:08


Quote:

> > A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
> > assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
> > Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
> > will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

> > For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
> > is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
> > few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
> > if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
> > on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
> > have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
> > the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

> > Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
> > scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
> > thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
> > performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
> > lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
> > possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
> > Mallorca.

> > Joe Ramirez

> Noone remembers to question Kafelnikov's FO 1996, when Muster was
> Nadalish favourite for it (and lost 4R to Stich).

As I said, in the light of history, a championship is a championship.

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by coop-a-loo » Tue, 22 May 2007 14:25:04

Is same asterisk/criticism applied if Nadal (or anyone else) wins
Wimbledon w/o beating Federer?
 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by David » Tue, 22 May 2007 14:35:32

Quote:



>> >A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
>> > assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
>> > Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
>> > will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

>> > For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
>> > is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
>> > few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
>> > if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
>> > on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
>> > have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
>> > the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

>> They can and they will. No one looks at tune-ups leading up to a slam to
>> decide
>> whether an asterisk is warranted. It's based entirely on what happens at the
>> slam.

> I should have specified, "Fed's critics who don't normally take apart
> every slam to see if the title was 'deserved' based on the draw, but
> who might be tempted to do so if Fed were to win the French without
> ever having beaten Nadal on clay." For those who do engage in that
> pastime by rule, such as yourself,

No, not me.

Quote:
> of course nothing will stop the
> inquisition. For you, the history of tennis is probably a whirling
> galaxy of asterisks.

No, apart from obvious cases such as some very weak fields at past AOs, not a
single one. You must be mixing me up with someone else.
 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Lax » Tue, 22 May 2007 14:38:59


Quote:


> > >A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
> > > assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
> > > Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
> > > will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

> > > For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
> > > is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
> > > few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
> > > if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
> > > on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
> > > have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
> > > the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

> > They can and they will. No one looks at tune-ups leading up to a slam to decide
> > whether an asterisk is warranted. It's based entirely on what happens at the
> > slam.

> I should have specified, "Fed's critics who don't normally take apart
> every slam to see if the title was 'deserved' based on the draw, but
> who might be tempted to do so if Fed were to win the French without
> ever having beaten Nadal on clay." For those who do engage in that
> pastime by rule, such as yourself, of course nothing will stop the
> inquisition. For you, the history of tennis is probably a whirling
> galaxy of asterisks.

> Joe Ramirez

Ouch.  Pwnage by Ramirez.
 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by rupedsk » Tue, 22 May 2007 15:20:10


Quote:

>> A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
>> assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
>> Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
>> will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

>> For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
>> is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
>> few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
>> if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
>> on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
>> have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
>> the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

>> Although I think Nadal remains the clear favorite at the French, a
>> scenario in which he fails to reach the final no longer seems
>> thoroughly implausible, after we factor in fatigue and review the
>> performances of Davydenko and Hewitt against him. Of course Fed is no
>> lock for the final either, but the point is that it's now at least
>> possible that the road to Roland Garros glory won't go through
>> Mallorca.

>> Joe Ramirez

> Noone remembers to question Kafelnikov's FO 1996, when Muster was Nadalish
> favourite for it (and lost 4R to Stich).

> .mikko

Mikko, this is just more BS from a sockpuppet. Frankly, I'm amazed it's
gotten this kind of play, I thought of replying but knowing what Ramirez is
and considering the inanity of the post, I figured I just let it die!

There would be no asterisk either way and if one were inclined to put one,
this win would be meaningless! The conditions aren't the same, it isn't a
slam and it isn't even 5 sets! He still has a losing record against Nadal!
Regardless, what matters is the FO!  If somebody wants to analyze an FO
victory in which the champion did not meet Nadal, then sure, it's a valid
and important point. However, it takes nothing away from the title. What a
load of crapola! LOL

 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by EFill4Zaggi » Tue, 22 May 2007 16:40:26

On 20 May 2007 21:11:42 -0700, Joe Ramirez

Quote:

>A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
>assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
>Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
>will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

>For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
>is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
>few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
>if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
>on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
>have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
>the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

No, I think they still will do that because they would argue that
Nadal wasn't 100% in Hamburg.
 
 
 

Side effect of Fed's win: asterisk protection

Post by Sakari Lun » Tue, 22 May 2007 19:42:15

On 20 May 2007 21:11:42 -0700, Joe Ramirez

Quote:

>A side effect of Federer's victory over Nadal in Hamburg is the
>assurance that a French Open final win by Fed over someone other than
>Nadal -- should Nadal lose in rounds 1-6 or withdraw with an injury --
>will bear no "taint" or "asterisk."

>For most people, a slam championship is a slam championship, and that
>is almost always the judgment of history as well. (Maybe there are a
>few odd exceptions, such as Kodes at Wimbledon.) But it's clear that
>if Fed had never earned a win against Nadal on clay, and then had gone
>on to win at Roland Garros without beating Rafa, Fed's critics would
>have raised a din about how he was simply lucky and had stumbled into
>the title without really deserving it. Now they can't.

You bet they can.