Wimbledon Final: Federer v Murray

First topic message reminder :

Ok, I got this in first!

I can't make a forecast as I'm not rational on the subject, but fire away!

mystiroakey wrote:SO BB this team you played in , and these teams that exist with no support- do the players invloved pay for the facilities? and what was your motivation to win?

support isnt just about fans watching- its also the local business, councils,pro sporting teams(that have support), schools,us as tax payers that have paid for the facilities

Yeah, Ethiopian distance runners needed the support of their local Counil didn't they?

My motivation to win is to win. For me. Same as all others who participate. If you seriously think Andy Murray is giving 0.0001% attention to winning 'for Britain', you're seriously deluded. He isn't, and quite right too.

mystiroakey wrote:CAS as you may be aware- sport wouldnt exist without a sense of belonging and local to national support

I think you're pretty much embedded in this stuff. It's just nonsense, sport is a diversion of competitive spirit, nationalism came and took the thing over laters or political reasons.

CAS wrote:I think Patriotism is very important in Sport, it makes athletes fight for another cause other than for themselves, and makes their country feel like they are part of it, just look at Serbia

Yeah, it's not like nationalism and prejudice ever caused any trouble there is it?

CAS people still wouldnt play sport without local support or a sense of belonging. well it may but only on a participation level(but i still doubt that- because they would be no end result and the lack of belonging would kill competition)

If countruies didnt support there players then no money would be pumped into the game. We wouldnt have the game as we know it, and there would be no wimbledon

And to think Roger Federer winning tomorrow will do more for tennis in this country than a Murray win then I'd suggest you are seriously deluded.

And no nationalism never came later as the ancient Olympiad had a myriad of kingdoms/nations competing so it has been there since the beginning.

mystiroakey wrote:CAS people still wouldnt play sport without local support or a sense of belonging. well it may but only on a participation level(but i still doubt that- because they would be no end result and the lack of belonging would kill competition)

If countruies didnt support there players then no money would be pumped into the game. We wouldnt have the game as we know it, and there would be no wimbledon

Who invented Wimbedon?

I bet you think that without a State there'd be no schools or hospitals, even though neither originated with the state.

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:CAS as you may be aware- sport wouldnt exist without a sense of belonging and local to national support

I think you're pretty much embedded in this stuff. It's just nonsense, sport is a diversion of competitive spirit, nationalism came and took the thing over laters or political reasons.

you dont get it do you- dont think nationalism- think territory, think counties, think local teams, think competition, if we broke down national boundariues- we would just be competitive on another boundary level. think tribes fighting tribes or playing rudementary sport v each other from day one

CaledonianCraig wrote:And to think Roger Federer winning tomorrow will do more for tennis in this country than a Murray win then I'd suggest you are seriously deluded.

And no nationalism never came later as the ancient Olympiad had a myriad of kingdoms/nations competing so it has been there since the beginning.

No, because the place is full of poor sods who had their brains messed up as children. And I don't even care, I have no preference whether a British kid or an Angolan gets inspired. I know more would play if they didn't need nationalism crap to kick start them. Oh the harm done to young minds......

Oh, and the Olympiad invented sport did it?

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:CAS people still wouldnt play sport without local support or a sense of belonging. well it may but only on a participation level(but i still doubt that- because they would be no end result and the lack of belonging would kill competition)

If countruies didnt support there players then no money would be pumped into the game. We wouldnt have the game as we know it, and there would be no wimbledon

Who invented Wimbedon?

I bet you think that without a State there'd be no schools or hospitals, even though neither originated with the state.

your proving the point there pal- so your saying that local people got together and decided to teach there neighbours skills and support them... Why would they do this if they didnt feel a sense of belonging.

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:CAS as you may be aware- sport wouldnt exist without a sense of belonging and local to national support

I think you're pretty much embedded in this stuff. It's just nonsense, sport is a diversion of competitive spirit, nationalism came and took the thing over laters or political reasons.

you dont get it do you- dont think nationalism- think territory, think counties, think local teams, think competition, if we broke down national boundariues- we would just be competitive on another boundary level. think tribes fighting tribes or playing rudementary sport v each other from day one

Or teams put together amongst friends. Or by elite grouping.

Why do you think people have to be divided to ome together?

The Olympiad is the oldest form of sport that historians know of so yes it is. And jeez if you think sportstars who take up sport (inspired by watching idols as a kid) have had their brains messed up then I am staggered.

And in any case Roger obviously is nationalistic enough to be his country's flag bearer and compete at the Olympics for Switzerland and same goes for Davis Cup.

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:CAS people still wouldnt play sport without local support or a sense of belonging. well it may but only on a participation level(but i still doubt that- because they would be no end result and the lack of belonging would kill competition)

If countruies didnt support there players then no money would be pumped into the game. We wouldnt have the game as we know it, and there would be no wimbledon

Who invented Wimbedon?

I bet you think that without a State there'd be no schools or hospitals, even though neither originated with the state.

your proving the point there pal- so your saying that local people got together and decided to teach there neighbours skills and support them... Why would they do this if they didnt feel a sense of belonging.

Self interest. The grouping of available kill to advance their own interest.

Do you keep a close eye on your neighbours kids exam results?

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:CAS as you may be aware- sport wouldnt exist without a sense of belonging and local to national support

I think you're pretty much embedded in this stuff. It's just nonsense, sport is a diversion of competitive spirit, nationalism came and took the thing over laters or political reasons.

you dont get it do you- dont think nationalism- think territory, think counties, think local teams, think competition, if we broke down national boundariues- we would just be competitive on another boundary level. think tribes fighting tribes or playing rudementary sport v each other from day one

Or teams put together amongst friends. Or by elite grouping.

Why do you think people have to be divided to ome together?

why do you think supporting your neighbours means your divided!!!

It means your united amongst your beighbours to help each other out. Sport would have never happened without this basic human nature plus competitve nature

CaledonianCraig wrote:The Olympiad is the oldest form of sport that historians know of so yes it is. And jeez if you think sportstars who take up sport (inspired by watching idols as a kid) have had their brains messed up then I am staggered.

And in any case Roger obviously is nationalistic enough to be his country's flag bearer and compete at the Olympics for Switzerland and same goes for Davis Cup.

So history starts when historians know of it? Like, if something happened before, it didn't, because it isn't written down?

Sport stars aren't addled by definition, just people who take nationalism seriously.

I'm sure Roger is also filled up with that stuff too, though I suspect he's really after a Gold Medl for himself and the glory it would bring.

"Do you keep a close eye on your neighbours kids exam results?"

why the heck would i- but i hope they do well. on the other hand i do keep an eye on the national levels of eductaion- and so should everyone in any country..

So BB you keep glossing over the important questions here.

Do you think sport should be amatuer only?

Do you understand without local support on all levels we couldnt have sportsmen/teams on the quality levels there currently are today?

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:CAS as you may be aware- sport wouldnt exist without a sense of belonging and local to national support

I think you're pretty much embedded in this stuff. It's just nonsense, sport is a diversion of competitive spirit, nationalism came and took the thing over laters or political reasons.

you dont get it do you- dont think nationalism- think territory, think counties, think local teams, think competition, if we broke down national boundariues- we would just be competitive on another boundary level. think tribes fighting tribes or playing rudementary sport v each other from day one

Or teams put together amongst friends. Or by elite grouping.

Why do you think people have to be divided to ome together?

why do you think supporting your neighbours means your divided!!!

It means your united amongst your beighbours to help each other out. Sport would have never happened without this basic human nature plus competitve nature

Because you can't allocate loyalty to one specific group without implying division from another. That's obvious.

The effort & energy that people put into sport due to tribalism locally/nationally is typically great for the powers that run countries ... it means less energy is put into questioning / protesting in a political sense.

Tribalism is natural for humans (evolution), but it doesn't mean it's good.

Another effect is that you tend to follow individuals (e.g. olypmic athletes) because you've heard details about them and you've become familiar with them. This typically happens through the (local) media so you end up "supporting" athletes from your own country even if you're in no way nationalistic. Or else supporting more famous foreign athletes (only the famous ones are covered by national media).

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The Olympiad is the oldest form of sport that historians know of so yes it is. And jeez if you think sportstars who take up sport (inspired by watching idols as a kid) have had their brains messed up then I am staggered.

And in any case Roger obviously is nationalistic enough to be his country's flag bearer and compete at the Olympics for Switzerland and same goes for Davis Cup.

So history starts when historians know of it? Like, if something happened before, it didn't, because it isn't written down?

Sport stars aren't addled by definition, just people who take nationalism seriously.

I'm sure Roger is also filled up with that stuff too, though I suspect he's really after a Gold Medl for himself and the glory it would bring.

Look at or ask sportstars of today and they will tell you who inspired them to take up the sport. By your definition they have been brain-washed so England would never have had Freddie Flintoff as a cricketer as he was inspired by Ian Botham and I am well-nigh sure you could erase many other great sport stars who took to sport to emulate their heroes. And yes of course Roger is nationalistic and it isn't all about just winning Gold otherwise he could have turned down the role as flag-bearer and could easily opt out of Davis Cup so of course he is proud of his national roots.

mystiroakey wrote:So BB you keep glossing over the important questions here.

Do you think sport should be amatuer only?

Do you understand without local support on all levels we couldnt have sportsmen/teams on the levels there currently are today?

I isn't gloss over that, I answered it. No, there is no connection in this World between what I say and a suggestion of amateur sport. Where on Earth did you get that from?

No, I don't understand that. Do you know who trained Sebastian Coe from a child? His Dad.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The Olympiad is the oldest form of sport that historians know of so yes it is. And jeez if you think sportstars who take up sport (inspired by watching idols as a kid) have had their brains messed up then I am staggered.

And in any case Roger obviously is nationalistic enough to be his country's flag bearer and compete at the Olympics for Switzerland and same goes for Davis Cup.

So history starts when historians know of it? Like, if something happened before, it didn't, because it isn't written down?

Sport stars aren't addled by definition, just people who take nationalism seriously.

I'm sure Roger is also filled up with that stuff too, though I suspect he's really after a Gold Medl for himself and the glory it would bring.

Look at or ask sportstars of today and they will tell you who inspired them to take up the sport. By your definition they have been brain-washed so England would never have had Freddie Flintoff as a cricker as he was inspired by Ian Botham and I am well-nigh sure you could erase many other great sport stars who took to sport to emulate their heroes. And yes of course Roger is nationalistic and it isn't all about just winning Gold otherwise e could have turned down the role as flag-bearer and could easily opt out of Davis Cup so of course he is proud of his national roots.

Feds inspirations - a Swede, German and American

Andys - Bates? Mottram? Perry? Seriously?

So do nether of those guys exist, as they isn't have a local hero to emulate? I mean, Flintoff wouldn't have existed without Botham, right?

Oh, and Federer doesn't play much Davis Cup. And why not hold the flag? If it makes his Mum proud or he revels in the adulation? I probably would, it's a ign of respect I'd be happy to accept.

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:So BB you keep glossing over the important questions here.

Do you think sport should be amatuer only?

Do you understand without local support on all levels we couldnt have sportsmen/teams on the levels there currently are today?

I isn't gloss over that, I answered it. No, there is no connection in this World between what I say and a suggestion of amateur sport. Where on Earth did you get that from?

No, I don't understand that. Do you know who trained Sebastian Coe from a child? His Dad.

possibly the most ironic post i have ever witnessed there dude

No I did say earlier it is not all the time one from their own nation but big majority it is. You are saying it is kids being brain-washed by who? Was it so wrong and brain-washing that Freddie Flintoff marvelled at Ian Botham and wanted to be like him? No of course not and it is just as well he was otherwise he may never have taken up the sport. Just like there are many other incidences throughout the sporting world like that. It cannot be denied and certainly isn't brain-washing.

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:So BB you keep glossing over the important questions here.

Do you think sport should be amatuer only?

Do you understand without local support on all levels we couldnt have sportsmen/teams on the levels there currently are today?

I isn't gloss over that, I answered it. No, there is no connection in this World between what I say and a suggestion of amateur sport. Where on Earth did you get that from?

No, I don't understand that. Do you know who trained Sebastian Coe from a child? His Dad.

possibly the most ironic post i have ever witnessed there dude

Are you claiming his Dad as a example of patriotically inspired support? Oh dear.........

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I did say earlier it is not all the time one from their own nation but big majority it is. You are saying it is kids being brain-washed by who? Was it so wrong and brain-washing that Freddie Flintoff marvelled at Ian Botham and wanted to be like him? No of course not and it is just as well he was otherwise he may never have taken up the sport. Just like there are many other incidences throughout the sporting world like that. It cannot be denied and certainly isn't brain-washing.

It's great he was inspired by him. What's not great is the suggestion (by no means proven) that if there was no Botham there'd be no Flintoff. In that case wouldn't it be better if Andrew was inspired by Kapil Dev, or Richard Hadlee? then there could be an Andrew Flintoff whether or not.

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:So BB you keep glossing over the important questions here.

Do you think sport should be amatuer only?

Do you understand without local support on all levels we couldnt have sportsmen/teams on the levels there currently are today?

I isn't gloss over that, I answered it. No, there is no connection in this World between what I say and a suggestion of amateur sport. Where on Earth did you get that from?

No, I don't understand that. Do you know who trained Sebastian Coe from a child? His Dad.

possibly the most ironic post i have ever witnessed there dude

Are you claiming his Dad as a example of patriotically inspired support? Oh dear.........

no try again lol

Don't arse about, if you have a point make it.

I've knocked all your others into the dumpster.

What we're finding is that the world is becoming more, not less, nationalistic over the past 3000 years, even past 100 years. There are more sovereign states than ever. It's the human condition to associate similar types and aggregate together. The concept of safety in numbers works on a similar basis...we're kind of programmed to flock with birds of a feather.

However sport, like music, breaks down arbitrary boundaries. It shows that there's not that much different between us all. Tennis is a perfect example of this. Also it's not so team based except DC.

I don't think Murray grew up with Henman, Bates, Castle and Rusedski as his idols. And because tennis is so global I think Federer has espoused the global nature of the sport, being Swiss adds to that with their history of neutrality and diversity, so I don't think he'll be treated badly at all tomorrow.

Well put it this way, he evidently was a young boy who marvelled at Botham's massive achievements and quite clearly acts to inspire one so young. To have a role model to emulate is a massive spur and to try to pretend it means very little is incorrect. And so what if he had of been inspired by any of those you mentioned as it still proves that youngsters are inspired by sportstars of today or brainwashing as you call it.

Probably true Lydan, because the power of States has increased, their need to control the populace has developed, and so we get told more to fear others than ever so we behave.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well put it this way, he evidently was a young boy who marvelled at Botham's massive achievements and quite clearly acts to inspire one so young. To have a role model to emulate is a massive spur and to try to pretend it means very little is incorrect. And so what if he had of been inspired by any of those you mentioned as it still proves that youngsters are inspired by sportstars of today or brainwashing as you call it.

Terrific. But why does that only work if he comes from the same country? I only seek to expose the brainwashing behind the idea that it's normal that kids in Britain should be more inspired by a Murray win than, say, a Djokovic one.

I'm inspired by Johnny Marray.

Because he's from nowhere and he was unbelievably honest when calling the point on himself.

No that isn't brainwashing though it is just like I said earlier. A quite natural instinct by kids (not through brainwashing) but purely by wishing to aspire to achieve the unachievable having watched others from similar backgrounds as themselves as it tells them it can be done and is possible. Now it may be by watching them on television or in the old days listening to radio commentaries and they get so wrapped up in a great sporting moment it acts as a motivation from them to take up the sport. I have done things like that in other warps of life and can testify there is no brainwashing to it.

bogbrush wrote:Don't arse about, if you have a point make it.

I've knocked all your others into the dumpster.

you havent even come close arguing to one.

the irony is in your two answers. you dismiss your want for amatuer sport , then use an example to try and prove another point(bad as it is) who was an amatuer sportsman..

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Don't arse about, if you have a point make it.

I've knocked all your others into the dumpster.

you havent even come close arguing to one.

the irony is in your two answers. you dismiss your want for amatuer sport , then use an example to try and prove another point(bad as it is) who was an amatuer sportsman..

I don't want amateur sport. I never said it. I contradicted in two times. You're not reading.

It's irrelevant whether someone is pro or am (oh and if you think Seb Coe lived the life of an amateur sportsman I truly despair for you).

CaledonianCraig wrote:No that isn't brainwashing though it is just like I said earlier. A quite natural instinct by kids (not through brainwashing) but purely by wishing to aspire to achieve the unachievable having watched others from similar backgrounds as themselves as it tells them it can be done and is possible. Now it may be by watching them on television or in the old days listening to radio commentaries and they get so wrapped up in a great sporting moment it acts as a motivation from them to take up the sport. I have done things like that in other warps of life and can testify there is no brainwashing to it.

Fine. Nothing nationalistic there, all human.

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Don't arse about, if you have a point make it.

I've knocked all your others into the dumpster.

you havent even come close arguing to one.

the irony is in your two answers. you dismiss your want for amatuer sport , then use an example to try and prove another point(bad as it is) who was an amatuer sportsman..

I don't want amateur sport. I never said it. I contradicted in two times. You're not reading.

It's irrelevant whether someone is pro or am (oh and if you think Seb Coe lived the life of an amateur sportsman I truly despair for you).

BB how would pro sport exsist without local support?

People would play games and people might pay to watch them.

Yes and no brainwashing to it as well. But if you honestly think Federer winning tomorrow does more for British tennis than Murray winning I despair. Of course that factor of what it means matters not one jot to many people but JL is just reiterating what it would mean to British tennis on BBC2 now.

the only way it would exist is if we went back to amatuer days and sport was only about participation- (because they would be no money in it otherwise), and all we would have is - if your rich enough your family can support you and you dont have to work!!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and no brainwashing to it as well. But if you honestly think Federer winning tomorrow does more for British tennis than Murray winning I despair. Of course that factor of what it means matters not one jot to many people but JL is just reiterating what it would mean to British tennis on BBC2 now.

Craig, you are mixing up my statement that people are hobbled into nationalistic beliefs with implying I think nationalism oesnt exist.

What I'm trying to say is that it is irrational to favour one man over bother because of his accident of birth, and healthier if people took inspiration from performance rather than political boundaries.

JL is an idiot. That's established fact.

BB you do understand that this is a world wide thing dont you?

infact we probally live in one of the least patriotic countries out there?

mystiroakey wrote:the only way it would exist is if we went back to amatuer days and sport was only about participation- (because they would be no money in it otherwise), and all we would have is - if your rich enough your family can support you and you dont have to work!!

Even if true that's an effect, and not a good reason in support for irrational nationalistic behaviour.

mystiroakey wrote:BB you do understand that this is a world wide thing dont you?

infact we probally live in one of the least patriotic countries out there?

Course I do. The World is full of poor saps having their heads filled with crap. How else do you get them to go over the top in wars that have no bearing on their lives?

BB do you want this country to produce better tennis players?

mystiroakey wrote:BB do you want this country to produce better tennis players?

I'm not interested where they come from. It would be great if they came from everywhere, so that includes Britain.

The best way to guarantee a high level of inspiration would be if they could be inspiredby the best World-wide quality rather than having it depend on a British win. That way there'd be great examples to follow every year.

That requires dumping nationalistic thinking and adopting an even handed receptiveness to great tennis.

Ok what about getting more kids in to sport from this country(success being immaterial- but participation levels going up), is that a factor for you?

I'd like to see that, it's good for kids. So they need a wider field to be inspired by, so we need to dump nationalistic limited thinking.

Plus they're less likely to hate people in other countries/cities, and that's a bonus.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and no brainwashing to it as well. But if you honestly think Federer winning tomorrow does more for British tennis than Murray winning I despair. Of course that factor of what it means matters not one jot to many people but JL is just reiterating what it would mean to British tennis on BBC2 now.

Craig, you are mixing up my statement that people are hobbled into nationalistic beliefs with implying I think nationalism oesnt exist.

What I'm trying to say is that it is irrational to favour one man over bother because of his accident of birth, and healthier if people took inspiration from performance rather than political boundaries.

JL is an idiot. That's established fact.

Is it irrational though? I mean just say for example someone seeks to follow in Murray's footsteps tomorrow does it make it irrational? Of course not. Forget about where he was born and people out there (apart from just Murray fans) admire the way he plays the game and can be inspired by what he has achieved in the sport and that acts as inspiration. Where he was born is merely what people can and often do identify with and is not brainwashing. Inspiration can come in many forms in any case. A lot of people are highly motivated by national pride and will take to a fellow countryman and others will maybe see traits in a player of a different nationality that they can take to. But to try to fudge things by pretending a Murray win won't be better for British tennis than a Federer win is off the mark,

And yes I agree JL is an idiot but that doesn't make him wrong.