ATP Awards

I see that Fed picks up the Fan's Favourite for the 10th year running (57% of the vote), but, wait for it Hawkeye, that Andy Murray was 2nd!!!

Fed also won the Sportsmanship award voted for by fellow pro's for the 8th time since 2004 (the break being Nadal's win in 2010). I'm a fan, I don't think he's Mother Theresa, but he's clearly doing something right for those that know him best, his fellow pro's, to keep on voting for him in that category.

I was also very interested to note that the other nominees for sportsmanship were Cilic, Ferrer, and del Potro - I have been particularly impressed by del Boy's generous conduct this year, both as winner and loser, and it's nice to see that recognised.

Haas gets comeback of the year, which is nice to see.

The newcomer of the year is Martin Klizan, who at the age of 23 played 34 full tour matches compiling a 19-15 record and winning at St. Petersburg - you can compare that with what the top 4 (and indeed del Boy) were doing at the same age.

Honourable mention to Djoko's humanitarian of the year award, but in truth that strikes me as a bit of an ATP self-congratulation thing.

Congrats to Federer and other nominees. Very nice.

One day, perhaps Ferrer will win one too.

barrystar wrote:I see that Fed picks up the Fan's Favourite for the 10th year running (57% of the vote), but, wait for it Hawkeye, that Andy Murray was 2nd!!!

Did you have to tell her? There will be 1000 articles on it now.

I can already hear the angry typing on the keyboard...

HE already has one on the board, Danny - https://www.606v2.com/t36856-the-hard-sell-djokovic-v-murray

That is an amazing result for Murray - it really must add to a feeling for him that he truly belongs to the 'big' group.

Some accolades for Fed too!

Have to say i would love to know the reasoning of those who vote for Federer for the Edberg award. That's not to say that he isnt sporting. He is. However, i wouldnt put him in the same league as say Blake or Ferrer who are more or less flawlessly behaved on court.

I think a lot of it has to do with his off-court behaviour, esp. in the locker room/behind the scenes etc.

Born Slippy - perhaps there's something in what you say re the likes of Ferrer (or indeed Blake .... of whom I can't say I've seen a lot recently, tbh).

However it's worth reflecting on just how deep Federer has gone in the overwhelming majority of tournaments he has played, and over so many years - and with that surely comes the added (ie as compared with many other players) potential for the occasional misdemeanour on court, or indeed in the locker room or 'backstage' as JHM mentions. Quite apart from what his legion of fans think, it seems that in the eyes of fellow pros Federer manages to steer well clear of any such unsportsmanlike behaviour during the season as a whole.

Players vote for Federer cause they don't die of boredom during his serving games.

I think Fed wins because he plays within the rules but also the spirit of the game.

He serves within the time limit and also little touches like holding the ball up to check his opponent is ready to receive serve speak volumes.

I also remember that he seemed almost guilty about taking a MTO v Malisse at Wimbledon, in case it affected Malisse psychologically.

He's not flawless of course, but his general standard of behaviour is very commendable.

I'm glad Del Potro got a mention too. Refusing to say he was injured v Fed at RG was pretty classy.

Not only does he play within the rules, but Fed has also been one of the least aloof of champions and many lowly ranked players have said that they were surprised and pleased to be greeted by name in the locker room when they weren't aware that he even knew who they were - he doesn't seem to play intimidating mind games pre match.

Heather Watson said (wish I could find link atm) that she was thrilled to be hailed by Federer with the words 'good job so far Heather' at Wimbledon this year.

He isn't perfect and he can, as we all know, have a natural arrogance and a tendency to be brutally honest some times, but that is not an unusual trait in elite athletes in the past - he plays fair and he is not starry with the rank and file but accords them the same respect as he does the other top players.

To win the fans' favourite with 57% of the vote is quite some affirmation too.

Federers conduct isn't perfect... Ferrer in my eyes is better in that regard.

Ferrer is a perfect gentleman on the court, but perhaps the bonhomie in the locker room towards all is what tips it in Fed's favour

Anyway, that is only speculation - it doesn't matter what you think or what I do - it is an award for a pro by his fellow pros and they clearly see much more of all the players pre match, post match, in the player lounges etc than anyone else.

Svetlana Kuznetsova credited Fed with persuading her not to give up tennis and inspiring her to win her 2nd grand slam at the French, so as I said before I think a lot is about how friendly and approachable he is to both tours, quite unlike other former champions.

They might be more tempted to vote for Federer because of what he's achieved in the game and his standing... rather than someone like Ferrer?

Maybe, who knows.
I've seen examples of poor conduct on Federer on court, but there you go.

Fed does take not only his tennis seriously but his role a/the leading player. He represents and addresses his fellow players with courtesy...unless they have just beaten him, lol.

We have to remember that the huge self-belief needed to dominate a sport which millions upon millions play can spill over at times into arrogance but it must be hard to be grounded all the time given the money, adulation and fame they receive. But none of these guys are angels, their competitive fires burn deep - most keep it lidded off court. Federer on balance has been a great ambassador for the game, he'll be missed once his Prostaff 90 is hung up.

It Must Be Love wrote:They might be more tempted to vote for Federer because of what he's achieved in the game and his standing... rather than someone like Ferrer?

Maybe, who knows.
I've seen examples of poor conduct on Federer on court, but there you go.

I think your first sentence illustrates your prejudice. It is very unlikely that the players vote for Federer year after year, bar 2010 which went to Nadal, under some misapprehension about what they are actually voting about.

You obviously expect super human standards of behaviour amritia - he has been a pretty good ambassador as Lydian says, but no-one is perfect for sure.

His conduct is good no doubt, but he does let himself down on occasion. I've followed Ferrer closely, and I don't think I've ever seen him do anything wrong.
I don't think Rafa should have won in 2010 either.

Anyway apologies if I am upsetting you TP, that's genuinely my opinion.

Perhaps they vote for Federer because of things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWWL9vKRbQE&feature=related

I doubt that the players vote for Federer because of his standing in the game. No-one is holding a gun to their heads.

I am however amazed that Rafa won the title in 2010 so perhaps Amritia does have a point

Was he the only nominee that year?

Of course you're not upsetting me amritia - what is the point of a forum if it can't tolerate all kinds of opinion?

I agree with you that Ferrer is a total gentleman on court, but for all we know he may not be as 'hail fellow, well met' in the locker room to one and all as Fed - who knows what tips the vote.

Perhaps you could pose the question to a few pros on twitter and see what the response is, if you are interested/gob smacked?

emancipator wrote:
Was he the only nominee that year?

No, he wasn't actually.

time please wrote:Of course you're not upsetting me amritia - what is the point of a forum if it can't tolerate all kinds of opinion?

Thanks TP

time please wrote:
I agree with you that Ferrer is a total gentleman on court, but for all we know he may not be as 'hail fellow, well met' in the locker room to one and all as Fed - who knows what tips the vote.

I agree with you on Ferrer
As for what tips the vote, I suspect Feds achievements on the court may play a part... But of course I may be totally wrong

time please wrote:
Perhaps you could pose the question to a few pros on twitter and see what the response is, if you are interested/gob smacked?

Good idea

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:
Was he the only nominee that year?

No, he wasn't actually.

Oops.. apologies if I'm upsetting you

Emancipator... Thanks for the link.
That was really good stuff from Roger, as I said he generally conducts himself well. (apart from some occasions).
I think Ferrer, from what I have seen, deserves it as much if not more than Roger.
But then again... as TP pointed out, his behaviour in the locker room might not be as good

It's a shame you had to make an immature sarcastic comment at the end though.

You forget oh child Amritia3eeeeeee aka It must be, son of Love,

I am the emancipator

mwaaahhaaaahhaaaaaa



emancipator

emancipator wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:
Was he the only nominee that year?

No, he wasn't actually.

Oops.. apologies if I'm upsetting you

Ok

emancipator wrote:

You forget oh child Amritia3eeeeeee aka It must be, son of Love,

I am the emancipator

mwaaahhaaaahhaaaaaa



emancipator

Alas, I always knew you were Mr. Rotapicname

shhhhh...

that is an ancient secret that only the wise may know..

BOOOOO00000ooooo..... has big ears



emancipator

Ferrer is a nice guy no doubt, truly humble and a model professional. Kids would do well to learn from his dedication and application.

BUT.....I'm sorry to say neither he nor his game has the X Factor for me. I have always found him boring to watch, his game is too Granollers-like to me and surely everyone knows how I feel about Marcel's game by now. I know they're both Spanish but they're a million miles from having the shots or charisma of their countryman from Mallorca.

totally off the point, but can I just say that I hate the use of 'humble' all the time, it just sounds too Uriah Heep(ish) for words.

What's wrong with modest - it sounds much less self abasing!

Sorry lydian - carry on

Well TP I would never claim that of Nadal...but with Ferrer? Absolutely!!!
When Ferrer was playing at Roland Garros this year, at press interview...

Interviewer: When have you used your star status to get special treatment?
Ferrer: "I’m lucky enough to be ranked fifth in the world, I really can’t complain. I’m one of the lucky ones in the tennis world. I’ve made a lot of sacrifices to get where I am and I never wanted to use my success to get special treatment. I come from a very humble family and I’m still like that, I don’t let the star thing go to my head. I’m very down-to-earth."

So Ferrer actually describes himself in this way.
Hence I used..."truly humble..."

don't mind me lydian use which ever word you want - I'm just having a grumpy old git moment

I think the word is usually misused and I don't think it is a suitable adjective for any of the top 4, or really any top athlete in any discipline. They have a self belief that is the antithesis of humble, but they may all conduct themselves modestly (though some clearly more than others you may say )

It probably sounds better in Spanish than it does in English? Though you may well be correct re Ferrer - I really don't know. The adjectives I would use about him are gallant and tenacious!

Oh I know those moments...

The term is misplaced with Nadal but I don't think so with Ferrer, he really is very introverted and seemingly thankful for all he achieves. The Roland Garros interview was done in English to my knowledge. So it appears he really is the Humble Hombre! I think the difference with Uriah Heep, and maybe why that doesn't fit for me, is that the Dicken's character although said to be of humble beginnings was actually a thoroughly repulsive, greedy, patronising and wicked person who used "humbleness" as a decoy to fleece people...can't accuse Ferrer of that!

Anyway, for all that I still don't find Ferrer's game good to watch...their tennis at core has to be interesting for me!

I think its says a lot about Federer that he was the Sportsmanship Award again because it comes from his peers. That speaks volumes about how he is seen by his peers. They are not under obligation to vote for him so its quite an honour. Pity he missed out on the YE #1 as it was within his grasp. A better showing at the USO, Toronto and not dropping Paris may have clinched it for him.

if he had gone to the latter two it may have done more harm than good.

lydian wrote:Fed does take not only his tennis seriously but his role a/the leading player. He represents and addresses his fellow players with courtesy...unless they have just beaten him, lol.

We have to remember that the huge self-belief needed to dominate a sport which millions upon millions play can spill over at times into arrogance but it must be hard to be grounded all the time given the money, adulation and fame they receive. But none of these guys are angels, their competitive fires burn deep - most keep it lidded off court. Federer on balance has been a great ambassador for the game, he'll be missed once his Prostaff 90 is hung up.

Excellent points LYD, at the highest level these top players do believe they lost a a match coz they didn't play well and thats one of the reason they keep dominating, another point is emotion, Fed is emotional and do give up some statements that might anger rival fans, but otherwise in my view his conduct is one of the best seen in the sport and thats been appreciated not by majority of normal fans [except the jealous fans], commentators, legends and best of all fellow sportsmen.

There are incidents from Nadal who failed to shake hands with Berdych and swore at him after losing a match, thats normal and we have seen Fed do lose his composure in the mid match in USO 2009 finals, but whats important is how quick they overcome such emotions and how good they are on and off the court. In my view Fed and Nadal have raised the image of the game on and off the court. If he wins the sportsmanship award he really deserves it.

It Must Be Love wrote:

time please wrote:
I agree with you that Ferrer is a total gentleman on court, but for all we know he may not be as 'hail fellow, well met' in the locker room to one and all as Fed - who knows what tips the vote.

I agree with you on Ferrer
As for what tips the vote, I suspect Feds achievements on the court may play a part... But of course I may be totally wrong

If thats the case how did Nadal win it on 2010? and why wasn't Djokovic or Murray even included in the nominees?

I suspect your view is blinded being a biased Nadal fan, in my view both Nadal and Fed have been emotional and have had bad moments on the court, but over all both are humble , gentle and excellent ambassadors of the game, Fed deserves his honor and he won it coz the fellow sports persons like the way he conducts himself on and off the court and not coz of his track records.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

There are incidents from Nadal who failed to shake hands with Berdych

Well this is a false statement. I've seen every Nadal-Berdych match, and they have shaken hands every time.
You must be talking about what happened in Madrid 2006, and they did shake hands.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
and swore at him after losing a match,

Another false statement...
In Madrid 2006 Berdych, after he won, said 'shhh' to the Spanish crowd cheekily after the match. Nadal wasn't happy, and while shaking hands said something along the lines of 'You are not a good guy.' Berdych later apologised, but added that his reaction was because the Spanish crowd were like a 'Davis Cup' crowd.
Anyway stop randomly lying, it's not good.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
If thats the case how did Nadal win it on 2010?

Well he won the award in 2010, through the normal procedure I guess.
I commented earlier that I don't think he should have won it, someone like Ferrer deserves it more. However the fact that 2010 was they year Nadal won it slightly confirms my theory that the legacy you create has a part to play on who wins (rather than just what the award is for).
When Federer retires, and Djokovic+Murray start building a legacy I suspect they will win this award, even if their conduct is not as good as others.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I suspect your view is blinded being a biased Nadal fan

Ummm... ok.
If you look at what I said @8:45 earlier, I stated I 'don't think Nadal should have won in 2010 either.'
I'm not sure if you missed that, or conveniently ignored it in order to paint a false picture. I might be a Nadal fan, but I'm not 'upping' him here at all, so I don't know where you're coming from.
One thing is for sure, I'm not going to make up lies about Federer like you did about Nadal to try and paint a false picture, and I do recognise he has been a great ambassador for the game. But I still stick with my opinion on this, and as Time Please says, we can't always agree.

Come on guys, none of these players are saints.

They all have the potential to blow their top. Berdy is the last guy to compare Nadal to after his altercations and bad mouthing over the years. But these guys are on balance good role models...they're all highly professional and cope well with the huge pressure and attention on their shoulders. Like all of us the pressure gets to them sometimes and they react badly to winning or losing...havent we all at some point? They're no different to us except their outbursts, however short lived, are under a public microscope. Dont put these guys too far up on pedestals they can never live up to.

One advantage Fed has is that he's played 1000+ matches, he plays 70+ matches every year, and he plays throughout the season on all surfaces, so he's probably faced more of his fellow pro's in more circumstances more often than anyone else.

Furthermore, each time he plays a fellow pro who isn't a top player they have pocketed a story for the grandchildren, "I played Roger Federer once.....". As others have said, that's probably one reason why he has such a low rate of retirements or w/o's from opponents.

I think fans who dwell on and worship aspects of their favourite players that they don't in truth know about are daft and put players under pressure - we follow tennis, not the personal lives of these people.

All that said:

a. If Fed acted like a sh*t playing lots of matches would harm, not help, his prospects. If a match vs. 'the greatest' was in fact a let down because of his behaviour that would v. quickly generate dislike and spite.

b. When someone gets the vote of his fellow pro's to win his 8th sportsmanship award it's clear that those who know him best and see his ups and downs and how he treats them when the cameras aren't there think he's a classy guy.

Everytime someone gets their facts wrong are we going to start accusing them of lying/making up lies?
There are other, better, ways of pointing out factual inaccuracies e.g. it was Berdych vs Almagro where Berdych refused to shake hands
IMBL, did you miss the bit where IC referred to Rafa (and Fed) as "humble , gentle and excellent ambassadors of the game"?

Just out of interest does anyone know how low down the ranks the voting goes? It strikes me that players in the top 100 are more likely to actually know Federer than those lower down.

Having now looked at the blurb for the award i see it also includes promoting the game which makes more sense for Fed consistently winning it.

The 57% figure is the public vote by the way, i dont think the %s are announced for the edberg award.

@IMBL, stop being provocative everytime, there is a big difference in saying your argument has a flaw compared to say lying.

For instance I can say you argument is flaw in you thinking Fed won the award coz of his career achivements, if I say you are lying thats kiddish or rude and that what exactly you doing.

Back to the handshake argument, can you post a link on the match showing Nadal's proper handshake with Berdych? so the misconception that Nadal didn't shake hands can be proved wrong.

Do that rather than being rude like your friend.

Born Slippy wrote:Just out of interest does anyone know how low down the ranks the voting goes? It strikes me that players in the top 100 are more likely to actually know Federer than those lower down.

Very Good question Born Slippy, only ATP can answer it, I think it has to be more open so public can understand more about it and the value of the award will be more worthy.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Back to the handshake argument, can you post a link on the match showing Nadal's proper handshake with Berdych? so the misconception that Nadal didn't shake hands can be proved wrong.

This is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPUFTajFu1g

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Back to the handshake argument, can you post a link on the match showing Nadal's proper handshake with Berdych? so the misconception that Nadal didn't shake hands can be proved wrong.

This is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPUFTajFu1g

If you see clearly Nadal didn't give a proper handshake, its clearly visible in 0.31, and he was very rude to Berdych, and If I am right Berdych and Nadal wasn't ready to see Face2Face with each other for almost a year, between should I call you a liar now? [according to the way you treat us] or should I say your argument is not acceptable at the moment? , btw you don't volunteer to post an apology for your rudeness rite? so why do you bother to act as a forum police and ask others to apologize for which you were no way related?

Back to topic, I did say Nadal is humble like Fed, I see both of them as great ambassadors, both of them deserve to win the title if they win it, unfortunately the co-players see Fed as more sportsmanlike and most decided to vote for him and hence he the winner for 8 times.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

If you see clearly Nadal didn't give a proper handshake, its clearly visible in 0.31,

Well it's a handshake, you said earlier he didn't shake hands. Personally I have seen Mancini give worse handshakes than that when City have lost.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
and he was very rude to Berdych,

Well that's your opinion Berdych later confirmed he said 'shh' because he was annoyed at the crowd, not Nadal.
I never said Nadal was/ was not rude, I just cleared up he shook hands.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
and If I am right Berdych and Nadal wasn't ready to see Face2Face with each other for almost a year, between should I call you a liar now?

??
I never said they were best friends, or anything to the contrary
All I said was that he shook hands, I never specified whether they were friends or not...

invisiblecoolers wrote:
btw you don't volunteer to post an apology for your rudeness rite?

Invisible, without provocation you came here and said I was 'blinded' because I was a 'bias Nadal fan.' Ironically you clearly hadn't read the thread, as despite the fact I am a big Rafa fan I actually said in 2010 Ferrer still deserved to win it.
Anyway I then correctly pointed out your misconception about Nadal and Berdych not shaking hands in 2006 Madrid, and as my link showed, rightly so.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
ask others to apologize for which you were no way related?

Ah, I see you're talking about the Socal incident.
Socal was arguing that the top of the current top 8 was stronger than it had been for a while, due to the number of world class players. Without provocation you came in and said Socal was 'not educated' and later called him an 'idiot.'
Of course you don't have to agree with him, some do and many don't, but I thought your comments were uncalled for. (I also showed your grammar was not perfect, we all have flaws, so it's silly to label Socal or anyone else 'not educated').

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Back to topic, I did say Nadal is humble like Fed, I see both of them as great ambassadors, both of them deserve to win the title if they win it, unfortunately the co-players see Fed as more sportsmanlike and most decided to vote for him and hence he the winner for 8 times.

What about other players who aren't ranked as high?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/tennis/2012/11/04/atp-world-tour-finals-roger-federer/1681357/

saw this link on another forum - maybe it explains why the player population has consistently voted for Fed amritia?

Thanks for the fantastic link TP

Of course good to see Federer work behind the scenes to help fellow professionals.

Earlier this year Davydenko criticised Roger, but Federers responded very well as far as I can see, with work behind the scenes. (http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Davydenko-also-criticizes-Federer-now-articolo3088.html)

Born Slippy wrote:Just out of interest does anyone know how low down the ranks the voting goes? It strikes me that players in the top 100 are more likely to actually know Federer than those lower down.

Yes, that's why I think these awards our slightly superficial.
I recognise Federer has done great work behind the scenes etc. but would he have had similar power or influence to do so if he wasn't ranked in the top 50?