- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Posts
- 7,947
- Reaction score
- 63
- Location
- Spanish Announcers table
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Eastuagh, its called percieved bias, try reading the original thread where i mentioned it, then get back to me. I cant be botherd debating with someone who goes over the same arguments all the time and doesnt bring anything new to the topic (is there an echo in here somewhere?)
Michelle, my background Greek? HAHAHAH
That made me laugh, couldnt be more Celt if i wanted too. BTW on my fathers side, im 7th generation Australian if thats any help. Mums a Scot though
I dont know what else you want me to say. Mark withdrew with an injured knee, after he had represented us in the previous ties and helped to win the Cup. That withdrawl was vilified by the whole of his teamates and Captain. People still refuse to accept your qoute again
"unavailable excluding a real injury"
is it so hard to understand that the injury WAS real. His Davis Cup squad choose not to believe it, dont worry about the three months of the season AFTER the tie that he missed of the tennis season recovering from that injury, as it wasnt real. Or so it seems most people want to think anyway.
Elt, its not so much Roche sitting with Rafter, as the posistions he held. Again its acase of percieved bias,insider trading if you like. Its a case of being seen serving two masters and not siding one against the other. Roche failed to do that.
Basically its nothing against Pat or Tony Roche, but the facts are that Roche should not have been in the posistion where he was previously seen to be helping Marks game (as he had done leading into that US Open) only to show the obvious bias he had (and understanbly so) in the Final where he sided with his main coaching priority (Pat).
This is getting convoluted, ive never said Mark was blameless in all this, it does take two (or more) to tango (or play tennis, more so doubles!) i just thought that to much was being blamed at his feet, when there were faults in the Davis Cup camp side as well.
Hope that clears up where i stand on it all.
[This message has been edited by Grendel (edited 13 December 2000).]
Michelle, my background Greek? HAHAHAH
That made me laugh, couldnt be more Celt if i wanted too. BTW on my fathers side, im 7th generation Australian if thats any help. Mums a Scot though
I dont know what else you want me to say. Mark withdrew with an injured knee, after he had represented us in the previous ties and helped to win the Cup. That withdrawl was vilified by the whole of his teamates and Captain. People still refuse to accept your qoute again
"unavailable excluding a real injury"
is it so hard to understand that the injury WAS real. His Davis Cup squad choose not to believe it, dont worry about the three months of the season AFTER the tie that he missed of the tennis season recovering from that injury, as it wasnt real. Or so it seems most people want to think anyway.
Elt, its not so much Roche sitting with Rafter, as the posistions he held. Again its acase of percieved bias,insider trading if you like. Its a case of being seen serving two masters and not siding one against the other. Roche failed to do that.
Basically its nothing against Pat or Tony Roche, but the facts are that Roche should not have been in the posistion where he was previously seen to be helping Marks game (as he had done leading into that US Open) only to show the obvious bias he had (and understanbly so) in the Final where he sided with his main coaching priority (Pat).
This is getting convoluted, ive never said Mark was blameless in all this, it does take two (or more) to tango (or play tennis, more so doubles!) i just thought that to much was being blamed at his feet, when there were faults in the Davis Cup camp side as well.
Hope that clears up where i stand on it all.
[This message has been edited by Grendel (edited 13 December 2000).]
