WTA ATP Aus Open 1/17 - 1/30 2022

[meganfernandez]

So:
First, he plays the NATIONALITY card. "I am Russian, people don't like me"
Second, he plays the "Crowd never roots for me" card.
When does somebody tell him: "You have behaved like a total ass on several occasions. This is what happens".

Lol, what a crab. If he got rid of that ever-present sneer on his face that looks like he is continuously belching, I think that would go a long way toward people warming to him.

The thing is, he won over the NY crowd throughly in 2019. That runner-up speech was fantastic and he looked so comfortable in that role. I wonder why this was so different. Maybe the loss was harder and he couldn't take away the positives as quickly as the trophy ceremony (where he mouthed "so boring" when the presenter was talking about him) and press conference.

[atlpam]

So:
First, he plays the NATIONALITY card. "I am Russian, people don't like me"
Second, he plays the "Crowd never roots for me" card.
When does somebody tell him: "You have behaved like a total ass on several occasions. This is what happens".

Lol, what a crab. If he got rid of that ever-present sneer on his face that looks like he is continuously belching, I think that would go a long way toward people warming to him.

The thing is, he won over the NY crowd throughly in 2019. That runner-up speech was fantastic and he looked so comfortable in that role. I wonder why this was so different. Maybe the loss was harder and he couldn't take away the positives as quickly as the trophy ceremony (where he mouthed "so boring" when the presenter was talking about him) and press conference.

Your lip reading skills are better than mine. I was trying to figure out what he was saying while they were complementing his play/competitiveness, etc. The look on his face was like a kid tired of his parents reminding him to clean up his room (yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before...)

[meganfernandez]

Lol, what a crab. If he got rid of that ever-present sneer on his face that looks like he is continuously belching, I think that would go a long way toward people warming to him.

The thing is, he won over the NY crowd throughly in 2019. That runner-up speech was fantastic and he looked so comfortable in that role. I wonder why this was so different. Maybe the loss was harder and he couldn't take away the positives as quickly as the trophy ceremony (where he mouthed "so boring" when the presenter was talking about him) and press conference.

Your lip reading skills are better than mine. I was trying to figure out what he was saying while they were complementing his play/competitiveness, etc. The look on his face was like a kid tired of his parents reminding him to clean up his room (yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before...)

I had to look it up online when it happened. I don’t know what else he said. There was more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[meganfernandez]

over 24 hours later and I am still thinking about that match. Rewatching pivotal parts in the background while I work/do online errands. It was just thrilling. I was on the edge of my seat. Me, a Federer fan! Or retired Federer fan. I stopped watching him a couple years ago.

[MJ2004]

We're so in our tennis bubble that it always catches me off guard when a match gets so much mainstream attention. One of my husband's co-workers stayed up all night to watch the match live. A co-worker of mine randomly started talking about it on a call today. This entire tournament, starting with the very very bad and and ending with the very very good, has certainly not gone under the radar.

[meganfernandez]

We're so in our tennis bubble that it always catches me off guard when a match gets so much mainstream attention. One of my husband's co-workers stayed up all night to watch the match live. A co-worker of mine randomly started talking about it on a call today. This entire tournament, starting with the very very bad and and ending with the very very good, has certainly not gone under the radar.

crazy for a non-mainstream sport halfway around the world... It definitely ended in a radically different place than where it started.

[ponchi101]

That should put it in top 5 best matches ever, IN THE SENSE OF THE COVERAGE. I remember the talk after some matches: Borg/Mac W 1980, Fed/Rafa W 2008, Sampras/Agassi QF USO 2000 (the no breaks match). As far as media coverage is concerned, this is right there.

[JazzNU]

That should put it in top 5 best matches ever, IN THE SENSE OF THE COVERAGE. I remember the talk after some matches: Borg/Mac W 1980, Fed/Rafa W 2008, Sampras/Agassi QF USO 2000 (the no breaks match). As far as media coverage is concerned, this is right there.

It's getting coverage, but I wouldn't say it's getting over the top coverage here. Not at all. Many of Serena's and Venus' GS wins got more. The Wimbledon match that Roddick lost was very big. Sampras farewell GS win vs. Agassi was big. Nadal vs. Fed Wimbledon was as well.

I think many people did watch some of it though, which is different than coverage. It was lasting so long that people who wouldn't necessarily tune in saw it trending on social media and were able to tune in for the second half for sure.

But I also don't live in a tennis bubble. I'm an all around sports watcher, though tennis is my favorite. I can easily say that Serena not winning the US Open in 2015, 2017, and 2019 (I think those are the right years) got much more coverage than this has on both regular sports and mainstream news, so imagine how much coverage some of her wins got, especially a few of her matches against Venus. This is getting a mention, a few highlights, etc, it is not getting a full segment on sports shows in large part that I've seen, especially not today after NFL Conference Championship games. It got a bit more attention earlier in the day yesterday, less as the day progressed and very little carry over to today.

[ponchi101]

Only thing I will say is that my three skiing partners today mentioned it. They then detoured to the NFL, but they were aware. Which I found surprising.

[skatingfan]

No... people twist things to suit their own 'politically correct' agenda, desperately trying to twist benign matters into something 'offensive'.
I make a basic observation on a matter which seems very obvious to me, and you two twist it into me 'questioning their identity'. Incredible.

There's no such thing as a politically correct agenda, and I certainly don't have agenda other than trying to point out that you're thinking on this issue is misguided. You said that Sharapova & Osaka were Americans, and not Russian & Japanese respectively, which they both identify as respectively, so whether you realize it or not you were questioning their identity.

As I said - people will 'take offense' to anything today in order to 'support' whatever their agenda is. And these same people - these same intolerant people - are the ones who preach tolerance the most.
The contradiction is as evident as it is mind boggling. It doesn't require 20/20 vision to see that such people who preach tolerance the most are only 'tolerant' of others who share their view, and are completely intolerant of all others.

Being tolerant does not mean that you have tolerate everything, and anything. There are limits to tolerance.

If you wish to believe that Sharapova and Osaka's lifestyles and behaviours are more in tune with Russian and Japanese cultures respectively, you are certainly free to believe that.
I believe that the facts very clearly demonstrate that their comportments are significantly more consistent with American culture than they are with the Russian or Japanese cultures. And I am as free to believe that as you are to believe whatever it is that you believe.

What I believe about Sharapova or Osaka isn't the issue, nor is your belief. They identify as Russian, and Japanese, respectively, and it's rude, condescending, and offensive to say they aren't because they don't fit your definition of what it means to be Russian, or Japanese.

[Deuce]

No... people twist things to suit their own 'politically correct' agenda, desperately trying to twist benign matters into something 'offensive'.
I make a basic observation on a matter which seems very obvious to me, and you two twist it into me 'questioning their identity'. Incredible.

As I said - people will 'take offense' to anything today in order to 'support' whatever their agenda is. And these same people - these same intolerant people - are the ones who preach tolerance the most.
The contradiction is as evident as it is mind boggling. It doesn't require 20/20 vision to see that such people who preach tolerance the most are only 'tolerant' of others who share their view, and are completely intolerant of all others.

If you wish to believe that Sharapova and Osaka's lifestyles and behaviours are more in tune with Russian and Japanese cultures respectively, you are certainly free to believe that.
I believe that the facts very clearly demonstrate that their comportments are significantly more consistent with American culture than they are with the Russian or Japanese cultures. And I am as free to believe that as you are to believe whatever it is that you believe.

And now you're offended that I critized your post.

No - you're once again assigning thoughts, feelings, and motivation to me and trying to make me the subject in order to suit your agenda. All without having a clue as to my true feelings or motivation - you simply make it up conveniently.
I never get offended - by anything. Because there is no practical or progressive purpose to it.
But when I believe that someone is wrong about a subject which interests me - I point it out.
Same with hypocrisy.

This discussion was about Medvedev - which you've dismissed entirely. It could have then evolved into a discussion about Sharapova and Osaka - but you insisted that it be about me instead. Perhaps that's due to your being unable to support your apparent belief that Sharapova's behaviour is more in tune with Russian culture than with American, and Osaka's comportment is more in tune with Japanese culture than with American.
If you're going to disagree with my assessment, that's perfectly fine - but at least provide an argument to support your position - I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you or anyone else. Instead, though, you're clearly more interested in deliberately misinterpreting my expression and motivation, and in making this about me.
When one's argument is weak, one shifts the focus.

[Deuce]

No... people twist things to suit their own 'politically correct' agenda, desperately trying to twist benign matters into something 'offensive'.
I make a basic observation on a matter which seems very obvious to me, and you two twist it into me 'questioning their identity'. Incredible.

There's no such thing as a politically correct agenda, and I certainly don't have agenda other than trying to point out that you're thinking on this issue is misguided. You said that Sharapova & Osaka were Americans, and not Russian & Japanese respectively, which they both identify as respectively, so whether you realize it or not you were questioning their identity.

You're telling me that you know what I'm doing, what I'm thinking, and what I'm feeling better than I do. How incredibly arrogant.
And you're once again twisting my words. Why else would you do this other than to suit an agenda?
I never said that Sharapova and Osaka are American. I said that their comportment is much more American than it is Russian or Japanese. That their comportment is more in tune with American culture than with Russian or Japanese culture is extremely evident in my opinion. I see absolutely nothing 'offensive' or troublesome with that basic and benign observation.
I suggest you study some basic sociology.

As I said - people will 'take offense' to anything today in order to 'support' whatever their agenda is. And these same people - these same intolerant people - are the ones who preach tolerance the most.
The contradiction is as evident as it is mind boggling. It doesn't require 20/20 vision to see that such people who preach tolerance the most are only 'tolerant' of others who share their view, and are completely intolerant of all others.

Being tolerant does not mean that you have tolerate everything, and anything. There are limits to tolerance.

And within this extremely limited 'tolerance', there is obviously a great deal of allowance for blatant hypocrisy.

If you wish to believe that Sharapova and Osaka's lifestyles and behaviours are more in tune with Russian and Japanese cultures respectively, you are certainly free to believe that.
I believe that the facts very clearly demonstrate that their comportments are significantly more consistent with American culture than they are with the Russian or Japanese cultures. And I am as free to believe that as you are to believe whatever it is that you believe.

What I believe about Sharapova or Osaka isn't the issue, nor is your belief. They identify as Russian, and Japanese, respectively, and it's rude, condescending, and offensive to say they aren't because they don't fit your definition of what it means to be Russian, or Japanese.

You're again telling me what I'm thinking. And your words are straight out of the 'political correctness' promotional pamphlet.
You're reacting as if I've accused them of being child molesters or something. Get real, please!
I'm stating what I observe. And in discussion with people I know, they've observed the same thing regarding Osaka and Sharapova, as those two have spent a very large portion of their lives in the U.S., and so it's only natural that their comportment is more in line with American culture than with Japanese or Russian culture. If you find that benign statement to be 'rude' and/or 'offensive', then you have a major problem with interpretation in my opinion, and are looking to create problems where none exist (which is, of course, the entire foundation of 'political correctness').
If you find my observations to be "rude, condescending, and offensive", I'm fine with that. I could 'identify' as the Pope. It doesn't make me the Pope.
I personally doubt that either Maria or Naomi would have a problem with my observation. So who are you to object? Do you have a stake in the matter? It occurs frequently within 'political correctness' where someone is 'offended' by a statement/observation about a third party, and then the third party states that he/she has no problem at all with the statement/observation. This is pure agenda at work...
As a friend said to me yesterday "Osaka and Sharapova would very likely agree that their behaviour is more consistent with American culture than with Russian or Japanese culture." And, yes - they are the issue - or, at least, they were before you decided to take aim at me and criticize my postings and conveniently insisted on switching the focus to be about me.

As I said - because of the plague of 'political correctness', which encourages people to be overly sensitive to absolutely everything and to be offended at least 7 times per day by benign matters, people are 'offended' by and find a problem with everything today. This has lead, among other negative elements, to the majority being terrified to say what they truly think and feel - for fear of someone complaining that they're 'offended'. And so people have taken to lying outright about their thoughts and feelings - which, quite naturally, leads to a terrible level of communication between and amongst human beings. When there is no honesty, and there is instead fear of stating honest thoughts and opinions, everyone suffers.
Sociology 101.

[skatingfan]

No - you're once again assigning thoughts, feelings, and motivation to me and trying to make me the subject in order to suit your agenda. All without having a clue as to my true feelings or motivation - you simply make it up conveniently.
I never get offended - by anything. Because there is no practical or progressive purpose to it.
But when I believe that someone is wrong about a subject which interests me - I point it out.
Same with hypocrisy.

You've done the exact same thing in your post, and that was what I was pointing out with that sentence.

This discussion was about Medvedev - which you've dismissed entirely.

You brought up Sharapova, and Osaka, and that's what I was responding to.

It could have then evolved into a discussion about Sharapova and Osaka - but you insisted that it be about me instead. Perhaps that's due to your being unable to support your apparent belief that Sharapova's behaviour is more in tune with Russian culture than with American, and Osaka's comportment is more in tune with Japanese culture than with American.

That's not my opinion.

If you're going to disagree with my assessment, that's perfectly fine - but at least provide an argument to support your position - I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you or anyone else. Instead, though, you're clearly more interested in deliberately misinterpreting my expression and motivation, and in making this about me.
When one's argument is weak, one shifts the focus.

My positions is that neither you, nor I, is qualified to determine whether someone's self-professed identity is valid. Both Sharapova, and Osaka have talked about these respective identities, and the importance of these identities, and it's inappropriate to dismiss that based on personal definitions of what those identities should mean.

[Deuce]

No - you're once again assigning thoughts, feelings, and motivation to me and trying to make me the subject in order to suit your agenda. All without having a clue as to my true feelings or motivation - you simply make it up conveniently.
I never get offended - by anything. Because there is no practical or progressive purpose to it.
But when I believe that someone is wrong about a subject which interests me - I point it out.
Same with hypocrisy.

You've done the exact same thing in your post, and that was what I was pointing out with that sentence.

No - you stated that I was offended - which I was not. You were thus assigning to me specific thoughts and feelings without any foundation whatsoever.
You're doing exactly the same thing in telling me that I'm 'questioning their identity'. No - I'm stating my honest observation - which I obviously have every right to state. I did not accuse them of anything; I used no vulgarity; I felt no disrespect toward them... Yet you're telling me that I am disrespectful, condescending, etc. - and that is incredibly arrogant of you.
Somehow I think I know when I feel disrespect or condescension toward an individual better than you do.

This discussion was about Medvedev - which you've dismissed entirely.

You brought up Sharapova, and Osaka, and that's what I was responding to.

I brought them up merely flippantly, very much within the context of the discussion about Medvedev, in response to another poster comparing Medvedev to Sharapova, which I felt was not a good comparison, and I stated why.
You then veered completely off the rails in making the discussion about me.

It could have then evolved into a discussion about Sharapova and Osaka - but you insisted that it be about me instead. Perhaps that's due to your being unable to support your apparent belief that Sharapova's behaviour is more in tune with Russian culture than with American, and Osaka's comportment is more in tune with Japanese culture than with American.

That's not my opinion.

Heh... But whether the comportment of Sharapova and Osaka is more in tune with American culture than with Russian or Japanese culture is the entire crux of the issue you seem to have with me!! So how can you not state your opinion or argument on the issue?! Is it just that your only goal is to come after me?

If you're going to disagree with my assessment, that's perfectly fine - but at least provide an argument to support your position - I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you or anyone else. Instead, though, you're clearly more interested in deliberately misinterpreting my expression and motivation, and in making this about me.
When one's argument is weak, one shifts the focus.

My positions is that neither you, nor I, is qualified to determine whether someone's self-professed identity is valid. Both Sharapova, and Osaka have talked about these respective identities, and the importance of these identities, and it's inappropriate to dismiss that based on personal definitions of what those identities should mean.

I don't recall having 'dismissed' anything or anyone. I stated my observation - which I don't feel in any way disrespects or devalues - or even contradicts - whatever either of them have stated about themselves.

In terms of 'self-professed identity' (how many catch phrases can one use out of the 'political correctness' doctrine?)... if what you say is true, then if I call myself the Pope, you must then refer to me as "Your Holiness" - because, after all, you must respect my 'self-professed identity', right? Under your P.C. rules, you'd have no right to question whatever identity I choose to wear.
Uh huh...

Again, this is all pure 'political correctness'... We MUST NOT, under any circumstances, have any opinion about anything at all - and if we do have the misfortune of actually forming an opinion, or assessment, on an issue, we MUST, at all costs, withhold it, and never, ever express it, for fear that someone, somewhere, will jump out of the peanut gallery and pronounce that they are offended!
Sigh...

Opinions are not 'inappropriate' - they are a very natural part of being a human being. And to supress them for the sake of some twisted 'politically correct' agenda is harmful to everyone.
Where do you think the term 'political correctness' came from? It came from the outright lies and manipulations which politicians have been spewing for decades, if not centuries, to further their own self-interests and personal agendas. Now it's not only politicians doing it, but it has infected a large portion of the populace.

Look - it's absolute human nature to form opinions and to assess matters and people. To not do so is to not be human. We very naturally form dozens of opinions and make dozens upon dozens of assessments every single day. And so to pretend that we have no opinion helps absolutely no-one - it simply perpetuates a lack of honest communication among people.
Please study some sociology. (And allow yourself to form opinions and to make assessments about it.)

[skatingfan]

Please study some sociology. (And allow yourself to form opinions and to make assessments about it.)

Thanks Deuce. I've studied sociology, and I have opinions and assessments of the thing that I've learned, and I expressed my opinion.

Also, political correctness doesn't have anything to do with politicians.