Agree Agree:  0
Likes Likes:  2
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Club Pro jbrennan929's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Ardmore, PA

    Better Call Saul!!

    I present my case to jury: (if for nothing else, then to bide time during women's QF Day)

    Jazzy G: As one of those who took Janowicz on theopening day, I'll point out he had not lost in the first round of any slamsince 2012 and had advanced to the third round of Wimbledon all three times heplayed it. Reputation be damned, he had been amazingly consistent in slamopening rounds until this shock defeat, which appeared much less shocking whenIlhan, who had not won a slam match since 2011, went up 6-3 in the second-setbreaker on his serve with a chance to take a two-set lead on Anderson.

    Me: Sorry, but Jerzy Janowicz has hardly earned the right to lose a matchand have it be deemed a "shock defeat". His career win-loss record isa paltry 86-75, not to mention zero titles. That was a bad pick. Own it.

    Jazzy G: It was a shock when it happened consideringllhan's complete lack of pedigree on grass. But as I explained in my post, whenIlhan backed up his out-of-nowhere performance by pushing Anderson hard, itwent from shock defeat to one I would predict would happen again if they playedat Wimbledon this year.

    So ultimately, I agree with you. But when a guy wins his first slam match infour years over a Wimbledon semifinalist from two years ago who NEVER has lostbefore the third round, you'd have to be an idiot to say it was a bad pick.

    Me: Facts aside, Janowicz is as inconsistent and unproven a player as theycome. If I was told that I had to pick one player that would almost certainlywin his first round match, Jerzy Janowicz would be one of the last players ontour that I'd select. Awful pick.

    Funkstar (to the rescue): This is a guy who hasn't lost in the firstround of any slam in 3 years, and is a former semi-finalist at this particularslam, with a playing style particularly suited to this surface. He went upagainst a guy who had not won a single match at any slam in 4 years.

    It was a good pick, which didn't pan out. It was not a bad pick, and itcertainly wasn't an awful pick. Nobody who picked him has to 'own to' anything,and if you would kindly stuff it, I think we'd all be all be grateful.

    'Facts aside.' Yeah, no, not 'facts aside': you don't get to dismiss pertinentinformation at your convenience. So, don't do that, maybe? Ta!

    (deleted by staff): yeah .. not quite sure why this obnoxiousposter is getting replies never mind tolerated ??? kinda loses faith in TAT forall of us

    Me: I actually think most people on here would agree with me that Janowiczwas a terrible pick. Also, dismissing pertinent information at one'sconvenience is usually the path to winning suicide pools. Overanalyzing isusually an exit strategy.

    I wouldn't take Janowicz if he was playing Esther Vergeer.

    TAT Vader: OK, he/she gets it, I get it, EVERYONE heregets it: you think Janowicz was a bad pick as you've overbearingly stated threetimes now. The other person doesn't have to agree or own up to anything sincehe/she can think differently at will. Enough with this unnecessarily nastyexchange.

    Better Call Saul!!


    Last edited by shtexas; 07-07-2015 at 07:12 AM. Reason: violation of forum rules

  2. #2

    Re: Better Call Saul!!

    I certainly don't think it was a terrible pick - and the fact that 70 people in the suicide pool went with him seems to indicate that 1) yes, they thought he was high risk to go deep in the tourney, and 2) that it was a reasonable pick given past performance and the unproven opponent. A terrible pick probably wouldn't have 70 people go down on the first day. Sorry, I have to side with Jazzy on this one if I'm on the jury.
    "And for my next fearless prediction..."

  3. #3

    Re: Better Call Saul!!

    If the jury is deliberating about whether Janowicz was a terrible, awful bad pick (as stated by Jbrennan), the jury finds the 70 indicted TAT'ers NOT GUILTY. The SP is a maddeningly psychiatric experiment in which people's minds are tested for rationality, stoicism and, most importantly, LUCK. The Janowicz pick will certainly live in infamy not because of its nature but because of the result, and will be in par with Pospisil at the USO, CSN in this same Wimbledon or any pick involving Richard Gasquet, as he will lose early when expected to go a long way, or late when you need him knocked out by the fourth round (otherwise, he makes you run out of picks). However, the nature of of the experiment is such that there are NO AWFUL picks, as can be seen when somebody picks Roger Federer for a Wimbledon final, an assured win, only to have a pesky little spaniard play the match of his life and snatch that trophy from the GOAT (and that medal from plenty of TAT'ers).
    In the matter of Jbrennan's consistent pursuit of the issue and his demand that those that took such a pick MAN UP or OWN IT (the pick, although he specifically has not used the MAN UP argument) the jury finds him GUILTY in the counts of:
    Not letting go of a silly incident and therefore disturbing the peace of people quietly getting virtually drunk at out LL
    Borderline and reckless language in addressing all of us delicate flowers at TAT
    Disturbing the peace of our community with an ugly avatar that we are forced to see whenever he posts a reply (a misdemeanor at best)

    In so, this jury sentences Jbrennan to HAVING TO PICK JERZY JANOWICZ in every possible SP at the first opportunity available, OWNING and being PROUD of such a decision each and everytime, and having his name changed to JJ Brennan in honor of Jerzy "hey, I have carried my fair share of you bozos in your silly contest plenty of times so cut me some slack" Janowicz.

    Antonin Scalia
    Clarence Thomas
    John Roberts
    Samuel Alito
    Last edited by ponchi101; 07-07-2015 at 07:06 AM.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  4. #4
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    California, USA
    Blog Entries

    Re: Better Call Saul!!

    Personal attacks won't be allowed. This includes calling other members names.

    Let it go.
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts