"Federer should do More" - Nadal

First topic message reminder :

It will be interesting to see how Fed responds to this:-

http://www.sportinglife.com/tennis/australianopen2012/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=tennis/12/01/15/TENNIS_Australian_Nadal.html&BID=23811

http://www.cbssports.com/tennis/story/16877372/rafa-roger-rift-emerges-at-australian-open

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10778931

Simple_Analyst wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Not according to what Davydenko is saying which is Nadal and Djokovic are agreeing to the demands for changes by the rest of the top 100 and Federer clearly in this case is not. So he is taking is own interest ahead of everyone.

Can you list what is in Federer's interest?

1. Only calling for changes when he sees it might help him win and stay on tour longer.
2. Making good money on tour by playing lucrative exhibitions and getting good appearance fees whiles not promoting the interest of lower ranked players
3. Refusing to help in the case to have better prize money because with his ability to go deeper in tournaments, he will make enough millions
4. Don't want players to give out their opinions on current issues
5. Interested in protecting his "Swiss Gentleman" image.


Other things to add:

6. Not representing the players well leading to unrest
7. Not performing his duties as President of the council effectively.

1. Can you elaborate with examples, otherwise it is very vague statement?
2. The Top 4 play many exhibitions. Do you recall the ones for Roger Federer foundation and Nadal's Fundacion Nadal?
3. By leaving the schedule as is and allowing lower ranks a larger choice of tourneys? . If you want a pay raise at work, do you talk to your manager at work or to the media? . The revenue stream is a fairly complex equation of sponsors, player marketability and visibility, amongst others. Should this be discussed in the media or within the ATP council?
4. Despite the fact that Nadal and Davy did. Murray also did.
5. So? Lindt pays him good money for that, btw.
6. Are the players whistleblowers or members of ATP?
7. If that is the case, the Vice President and the rest of the council has also been a 'rubber' stamp, correct? .


The current members are

Along with Federer and Nadal, the following individuals comprise the 2010-2012 ATP Player Council:
1-50 singles ranking: Roger Federer, Fernando Gonzalez, Rafael Nadal, Sam Querrey
51-100 singles ranking: Peter Luczak, Jarkko Nieminen
1-100 doubles ranking: Eric Butorac, Nenad Zimonjic
At-large: Yves Allegro, Ashley Fisher
Coach: Claudio Pistolesi
Alumni: Ignacio Hirigoyen


Federer served as President during the 2008-2010 term while Nadal served as Vice President, and the 28-year-old Swiss said of working with the current World No. 1: “We are opponents on court but we work well in a room setting and I hope this dedication trickles down to the other players and the next generation.”

He added: “I also came through Satellites, Futures, Challengers, maybe not as much time as some guys but I really do care about all the players on the tour. Top guys play a huge role in the game, but it is important to have a balance. We have all kinds of players represented in the Council and we can put our minds together to come up with the best possible plan for the Tour.”


http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2010/06/Other/ATP-Player-Council.aspx

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius here is Federer backing a shorter season . No one knows what his views are on it now. We just know amongst other issuesz he is protecting his perfect image and telling others not to voice their opinions.

www.sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=5783753

Do you want to check this link and then get back to us ?

I wouldn't, you'll probably get rickrolled.

Would make more sense though.

erictheblueuk wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius here is Federer backing a shorter season . No one knows what his views are on it now. We just know amongst other issuesz he is protecting his perfect image and telling others not to voice their opinions.

www.sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=5783753

Do you want to check this link and then get back to us ?

This link does not work for me either.


"Federer (German translation): "Demands must be made privately and professionally to the Board of Directors—only once an official request as been turned down do we ponder the public opinion arena and if its turned down are they saying no to hurt us or are there real logistical reasons and will it hurt the game in general. As president I have to consider all the players regardless of rank, there has never been consensus on the length of the season—so if I use words like 'boycott' to the media I'm acting out of personal interest. Jarkko [Nieminen] and Peter [Luczak] have not said anything about the demands of the lower ranked guys and there is the demands doubles players to consider....Speaking up without proper consultation is premature—if the season is shortened it should be done with most guys on board....It’s easy for the top 10, we get offered exhibition matches and wild cards to shape our income and season how wish, that’s not a luxury afforded to everyone...a lot of livelihoods are at stake."

The question that I leave to end this article is that maybe it isn't the ATP that should change for the players. Maybe it's the players' attitudes toward incorporating a healthy plan for their careers that should change.

When it comes to this matter, it is the players who have more mobility and choice. They can decide if they want to grind themselves out or keep playing until they're 30. If Federer can learn how to pace himself to extend his career, why can't everyone else do the same?


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1025056-nadal-criticizes-federerwill-shorter-atp-tour-benefit-all

laverfan wrote:

When it comes to this matter, it is the players who have more mobility and choice. They can decide if they want to grind themselves out or keep playing until they're 30. If Federer can learn how to pace himself to extend his career, [u]why can't everyone else do the same?

Yes! Why? I have answered that question a million times...but I would like to hear it from the Nadal's fans.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

When it comes to this matter, it is the players who have more mobility and choice. They can decide if they want to grind themselves out or keep playing until they're 30. If Federer can learn how to pace himself to extend his career, [u]why can't everyone else do the same?

Yes! Why? I have answered that question a million times...but I would like to hear it from the Nadal's fans.

PED's?

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

When it comes to this matter, it is the players who have more mobility and choice. They can decide if they want to grind themselves out or keep playing until they're 30. If Federer can learn how to pace himself to extend his career, [u]why can't everyone else do the same?

Yes! Why? I have answered that question a million times...but I would like to hear it from the Nadal's fans.

PED's?

Nope. Not what I had in mind.

What helps you make something difficult look easy?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

When it comes to this matter, it is the players who have more mobility and choice. They can decide if they want to grind themselves out or keep playing until they're 30. If Federer can learn how to pace himself to extend his career, [u]why can't everyone else do the same?

Yes! Why? I have answered that question a million times...but I would like to hear it from the Nadal's fans.

PED's?

Nope. Not what I had in mind.

What helps you make something difficult look easy?

I was messing.

I alluded to this point earlier. Rafa cannot use such a lazy excuse when 'ALL' the players have access to the same coaches, equipment and dietary options. Yes I agree the tour should be shortened, but I think a change to the conds would help prolong every players career. But that is a whole other discussion.

Talent is the answer! if you are not talented enough you need to work harder. But the fact of working harder should not be the ATP problem. Sticking to the rules (time between points) and leaving things as they are might affect the ranking....but at the end of the day we woudl still have a ranking. The order and the stars might be different but for us there will always be tennis matches. We might even get more variety!

Ironic that after all these debates, the biggest vindication you got came from Nadal himself.

Yep. Nadal would undertand what we mean, his fans can't or don't want to !

Despite the fact that this has turned into a Fedal debate, yet again. , the intention was to highlight that the ATP council, as a whole should tackle the issues, not just the one or two players.

The "Demands must be made privately and professionally to the Board of Directors..." to me was the correct approach.

(Way too many Fedal debates, which, if they ever came to a conclusion, would preclude such future ones). I guess too many Reality Shows, so everyone derives vicarious pleasure by watching such discussions take place in the media.

Is anyone here old enough to remember the Pro-Am divide and the acrimony that preceded and followed? For the sake of my beloved Tennis, please stop, and make it healthy again.

laverfan wrote:Is anyone here old enough to remember the Pro-Am divide

No. I remember the Pan-Am building, if that helps.

laverfan wrote:Despite the fact that this has turned into a Fedal debate, yet again.

Are you referring to us or Nadal? Cause Nadal is the one here starting the Fedal debate!

JuliusHMarx wrote:No. I remember the Pan-Am building, if that helps.

Thanks for the calming effect.

Tenez wrote:Cause Nadal is the one here starting the Fedal debate!

Nadal apologised, let us discuss AO 2012 and Tomic's comeback on HEs thread, please.

laverfan wrote:

Nadal apologised, let us discuss AO 2012 and Tomic's comeback on HEs thread, please.

If you pull this off they need to get you out to Syria ASAP.

bogbrush wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Nadal apologised, let us discuss AO 2012 and Tomic's comeback on HEs thread, please.

If you pull this off they need to get you out to Syria ASAP.

George Mitchell has much better credentials than I do.

He wouldn't have a prayer in this place.

bogbrush wrote:He wouldn't have a prayer in this place.

At least he has the experience dealing with war zones, but I do see your point.

But Fed was agreeing at around the time of the US Open that something needed to be done. But it's as though he then realises this means risking his image and hence prestige, so he keeps his head down

You surely can't deny that a player like Fed constructively criticising the tour on an ongoing basis, would get far further then the other three put together

I continue to be disappointed with Fed off the court, he says one thing one minute and then contradicts himself by his actions. Whether it be the "man up" comments at the O2 or this - he gives the impression of being more interested in his legacy than the future of the game

Now we all know that Nadal must be in a poor state, because he's obviously getting desperate - realising that his body and his game won't last another two years (you can almost smell the dramatic press conference as he quits, citing 'rigours of the tour'!!) so he is being just as hypocritical. However, let's not forget , like it or not, Fed has an important role to make.

-------------------------

The above post was written by Banbrotam.

Wow, what a load of moronic bull!

Talk about jumping the gun and reaching the worst, most negative possible conclusion about a player's intent.

So Fed is only concerned about his image? The guy who promotes the tour more than any other player, who has raised the profile of the sport more than any other player in recent times, and has endorsed and even organised many charitable intiatives? Give me a break.

Federer's comments regarding this whole issue have been the most considered, balanced and mature. Just because he is not jumping up and down with teenage angst and using the court of public opinion like others (read Nadal) does not mean he does not care. Federer understands that any changes to the tour must be to the overall benefit of ALL the players, not just a select few at the top. This requires cooperation with sponsors, TD's, managers, etc. Of course this is best done through structured negotiations. The tour will not change overnight, it will likely take YEARS to implement any noticeable changes, or do you think tourneys will just take it lying down when, next year, out of the blue, they're kicked off the main tour?

Of course not; expect a lot of legal wranglings if rapid changes are made. Tourney's don't exist in a vacuum. They employ people, have salaries to pay, require sponsors, have long histories, etc. Hence Federer understands the practicalities and nuanced details such an undertaking involves which is precisely why he is guarded and careful in his statements. Unlike Nadal, who no doubt also has an understanding of the issues, but is hell bent on creating drama and sympathy. Which of those approaches is going to be more successful in the long run?

Finally, Nadal claims to have a 'supermajority'. Of what? top 10 players? The fact that he referenced Novak and Murray makes it pretty clear which players his vision of the tour would benefit.



emancipator - the truth is out there; my children i will guide youuuuuuuuuuu

Well said. Regrettably the culture of noisy vessels talking publicly has sucked in many posers here, even normally sensible ones like bantro.

Your post is indeed a reliable guide to the truth of the matter!