someone asked me if nick the tennis player is gay

[westg]

41 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

if K tosses it, it ends up in a potplant.

if T flips it, it goes straight to his pocket.

Yep ..spot on

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, David88 said:

I like hot-headed sportsmen, normally it shows a burning desire to win. McEnroe was a great example from tennis, he had a pretty bad attitude at times but it came from wanting to win. Kyrgios however is a clown. He throws games when they aren't going his way and doesn't care about the fines or bad publicity. Somehow he's still ranked as a top 20 player despite all of this.

we certainly agree on K but i'm intrigued re the hot-headed idea. i think we all quite enjoy them to a degree as they provide entertainment - not when they are morons and go way over the top like this idiot. but i'm not sure that the hot-headed thing is automatically linked to the desire to win. more a personality thing. plenty of cool cool players who wanted to win just as much. federer, sampras, borg, ashe, laver. i think they all wanted to win as much as anyone. i see it more as the personality thing and a tiny bit of lack of control. but mcenroe himself has said that a lot of his temper and carrying on was put on as a way to fire himself up. rather than the loss of control that true hot-headedness implies.

but this guy is way past anything acceptable.

[David88]

36 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

we certainly agree on K but i'm intrigued re the hot-headed idea. i think we all quite enjoy them to a degree as they provide entertainment - not when they are morons and go way over the top like this idiot. but i'm not sure that the hot-headed thing is automatically linked to the desire to win. more a personality thing. plenty of cool cool players who wanted to win just as much. federer, sampras, borg, ashe, laver. i think they all wanted to win as much as anyone. i see it more as the personality thing and a tiny bit of lack of control. but mcenroe himself has said that a lot of his temper and carrying on was put on as a way to fire himself up. rather than the loss of control that true hot-headedness implies.

but this guy is way past anything acceptable.

K isn't hot-headed, he has a bad attitude. I think that in the top level of sport you need a must-win attitude to maintain the standards that are needed. I enjoy seeing competitors fired-up as that element of their personality gives a game an extra edge. The McEnroe vs Bjog matches were a classic example of hot vs cool. You see it in rugby too. When your team is getting stuffed seeing players fired up (not in an idiotic way, dishing out cheap shots etc.) gives you some glimmer of hope or solace.

I think you are right about being a true 'hot-head' and losing control. That isn't what I personally want to see. There are enough idiots in sport. But those players who show that almost desperate part of their personality can make a good match great.

[wabashcr]

6 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

but mcenroe himself has said that a lot of his temper and carrying on was put on as a way to fire himself up. rather than the loss of control that true hot-headedness implies.

What a revisionist load of BS that is.  I don't ever recall McEnroe playing better after one of his infamous tantrums.  He was a child, who at times couldn't control his emotions.  More often that not, his play suffered for it.  When he was able to keep his temper in check, he was great.  Now we're supposed to believe it was all an act, so he can sit in the commentary booth and criticize others for losing their cool.  How do we know they're not also just trying to fire themselves up, John?  I'll give him credit for knowing the game of tennis, and generally being a pretty good commentator.  I like that he's not afraid to provide blunt criticism of players today.  Tennis decorum seems to dictate that most commentators are a bit too reserved in that regard for my taste.  But I'd feel a lot better about him if he were coming from a place of remorse and honesty about the mistakes he made when he played.  

I'm with you, Ken.  I think all the greats want to win very badly.  Some can control their emotions and direct that energy positively, while others can't.  For much of his career, McEnroe was clearly in the latter category.  

[Ken Gargett]

11 hours ago, wabashcr said:

What a revisionist load of BS that is.  I don't ever recall McEnroe playing better after one of his infamous tantrums.  He was a child, who at times couldn't control his emotions.  More often that not, his play suffered for it.  When he was able to keep his temper in check, he was great.  Now we're supposed to believe it was all an act, so he can sit in the commentary booth and criticize others for losing their cool.  How do we know they're not also just trying to fire themselves up, John?  I'll give him credit for knowing the game of tennis, and generally being a pretty good commentator.  I like that he's not afraid to provide blunt criticism of players today.  Tennis decorum seems to dictate that most commentators are a bit too reserved in that regard for my taste.  But I'd feel a lot better about him if he were coming from a place of remorse and honesty about the mistakes he made when he played.  

I'm with you, Ken.  I think all the greats want to win very badly.  Some can control their emotions and direct that energy positively, while others can't.  For much of his career, McEnroe was clearly in the latter category.  

actually, i do believe him. and i think it goes a lot further.

this was something i remember from when he was tossed out of the australian open for a tantrum many years ago (so didn't serve him too well there). he was later interviewed and admitted that he thought he still had a warning left. had miscounted. had he realised, never would have indulged himself - mind you, i have no problem with someone doing that, being suspended asap. he was certainly a hothead and did lose it at times but he maintained that part of this was a way of firing himself up. i have no doubt that is true.

how many sports do you see a bloke play better after a fight or an argument? it can happen the other way. the australian cricket team, at its peak, had a policy of what they called 'mental disintegration' which would be applied to certain opposition players because they knew they were mentally vulnerable. but there were certain opposition players which would be left well alone. they knew firing them up like that would have the opposite effect.

personally, at an infinitely lower level, as a hockey goalie, i always knew if i could have a blow up with a ref, i played far better after it. probably not a positive thing about me but as soon as i heard mcenroe say this, i knew exactly what he meant. just helped to fire me up and made me try even harder. the downside was that i did get sent off more times than i would perhaps prefer to mention. as a cricketer, if the opposition had a go at me for any reason, i know it fired me up and i tried even harder.

i think mcenroe was certainly in the category of hotheaded and that he did lose it at times but i really think paart of it was his way of playing his best. borg, sampras, plenty of others - the exact opposite.

[wabashcr]

On 1/20/2017 at 8:05 PM, Ken Gargett said:

actually, i do believe him. and i think it goes a lot further.

this was something i remember from when he was tossed out of the australian open for a tantrum many years ago (so didn't serve him too well there). he was later interviewed and admitted that he thought he still had a warning left. had miscounted. had he realised, never would have indulged himself - mind you, i have no problem with someone doing that, being suspended asap. he was certainly a hothead and did lose it at times but he maintained that part of this was a way of firing himself up. i have no doubt that is true.

how many sports do you see a bloke play better after a fight or an argument? it can happen the other way. the australian cricket team, at its peak, had a policy of what they called 'mental disintegration' which would be applied to certain opposition players because they knew they were mentally vulnerable. but there were certain opposition players which would be left well alone. they knew firing them up like that would have the opposite effect.

personally, at an infinitely lower level, as a hockey goalie, i always knew if i could have a blow up with a ref, i played far better after it. probably not a positive thing about me but as soon as i heard mcenroe say this, i knew exactly what he meant. just helped to fire me up and made me try even harder. the downside was that i did get sent off more times than i would perhaps prefer to mention. as a cricketer, if the opposition had a go at me for any reason, i know it fired me up and i tried even harder.

i think mcenroe was certainly in the category of hotheaded and that he did lose it at times but i really think paart of it was his way of playing his best. borg, sampras, plenty of others - the exact opposite.

Of course any confrontation or adverse situation is going to fire up an athlete. That's true for any athlete, even the ones who might not show it.  I played soccer at the collegiate level, and was as competitive as anyone.  Any kind of altercation served as fuel.  But that's not really what we're talking about.  Do you think Sampras didn't get a charge out of a bad call or a slight, real or perceived, from an opponent?  The difference is Sampras was always in complete control of his emotions, and McEnroe often wasn't.  Sampras knew how to funnel that fuel into something positive, without losing his temper and jeopardizing the match.  McEnroe didn't.  If it was all a calculated play, and he was really in control, as you suggest, how do you account for miscounting to three?  That doesn't seem like something anyone focused would be capable of doing.

Obviously McEnroe played some of his best tennis when he was right on the edge.  I don't doubt he would manufacture slights in his mind to bring himself closer to the edge.  But the outbursts and tantrums?  That was when he lost it and went over the edge.  And it's one of the defining characteristics of his career.  It's been 25 years since he was relevant as a player, plenty of time for him to spin this revisionist tripe about his career.  His ego would never allow him to admit he had a major weakness, which is exactly what it was, just like with Kyrgios.  The difference is that McEnroe was able to control himself long enough to win grand slams over the course of his career.  If somehow Kyrgios is able to do the same, I very much doubt his previous tantrums will be excused as him just firing himself up to play better.

[Ken Gargett]

"If it was all a calculated play, and he was really in control, as you suggest". i really don't suggest any such thing. i suggest that there were times. i said several times, if you read what i did say, when he channelled the anger (or charge, if you prefer), but i also said, several times, he was hotheaded and he did lose it. i've not suggested it was a successful strategy all the time - the extent of whether it was successful, only mcenroe would know. but i said that i thought i understood it. as i indicated fairly clearly - i did not support it. i did say, if you read what i wrote, that i was happy for anyone carrying on in this manner to be suspended asap. not sure many would see that as support.

the comments from mcenroe were not "revisionist crap" from 25 years later because of his ego. he was tossed out and "later" interviewed. as in later after the game (whether it was that day or the next day, or possibly even the next day, i don't recall), not 25 years later. i have no idea if he thinks the same now (and little interest).

how do i account for him miscounting? well not really sure i need to say more than i did. he said he miscounted. what more do i need to say? that is what he said. i saw no reason to disbelieve that.

i do not think, whatever happens to kyrgios, that his nonsense will be seen as firing himself up and have never suggested this. i see him as very different to mcenroe on so many levels. you may see him as 'just like kyrgios'. i do not. they both have flaws but i see differences - sure, one can also find some similarities. doesn't mean i approve of the way either conducted themselves.

[Ken Gargett]

actually, thinking about whether mcenroe's tactics were successful or not, they obviously were. i don't think i ever saw him play without supporting the opposition but impossible not to acknowledge is ability.

he "was able to control himself" long enough to win half a dozen grand slams or so, another 10-12 slams in doubles, a truckload of other titles and i think he still has the record for the most successful year ever for wins/losses (only 2 or 3 in the year?). that is not a portrait of a sportsman not in control.

would he have won more if he'd been more like the ice-borg? who knows, but i doubt it.

 

and for what it is w i can remember a BBC series from years ago which went through various sports looking for the greatest in each. they, if memory serves, decided that was mcenroe (pre sampras, fed etc). orth, i most certainly did not agree with mcenroe as the greatest. at that stage, i think it was undoubtedly laver. now, laver or federer but impossible to compare as it is basically a completely different game to what was played decades ago.