Fisticuffs In The Fourth / What Did Roger Say?

by hawkeye Fri 25 Jan 2013, 4:04 pm

First topic message reminder :

I was unable to watch today's semi between Federer and Murray (although I do have it on record) but reading match reports there is a lot of discussion of this incident in the fourth set when Federer said something to Murray. I'm curious to know what was said and the context. We are always hearing about how all the players are best of buddies but with these two I've never been convinced. Does anyone know what happened?

Here is a video. But it isn't clear what was said and we cannot see the context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJatAb1IWAs

This is what Federer had to say afterwards about it

Q. You spoke earlier in the week about the good manners that exist between the players. There definitely seemed to be a bit of feeling between the two of you after 6 5 in the fourth. Can you talk about that. Was there an exchange between you?
ROGER FEDERER: I mean, it wasn't a big deal anyway. We just looked at each other one time. That's okay, I think, in a three and a half hour match. We were just checking each other out for bit.
No, I mean, that wasn't a big deal for me. I hope not for him.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2013-01-25/201301251359121946973.html

And what Murray says is even more intriguing

Q. How surprised were you by what he shouted when you were at the net at 6 5 in the fourth? You had a funny look on your face at that point.
ANDY MURRAY: I mean, I wasn't that surprised. I mean, stuff like that happens daily in tennis matches. You know, in sport, the stuff that some people say on football pitches and in basketball and all sorts of sports. I mean, it was very, very mild in comparison to what happens in other sports. It's just one of those things.

Q. Did it rattle you at all?
ANDY MURRAY: No. I think it didn't rattle me. I think he raised his game, you know, and that's what happens. Sometimes guys need to get, you know, emotion into the match.
He definitely raised his level and played in that game I think he hit two balls onto the line and was extremely aggressive after that.

Q. Can you repeat what he said?
ANDY MURRAY: It's not relevant what he said. You know, it doesn't really matter. It's something that happens, like I say, all the time on tennis courts, in sport, all the time.
Especially when it's a one on one sort of individual combat. It's not relevant. There's no hard feelings.

Q. Was it a word that we might struggle to get in our newspapers?
ANDY MURRAY: It's not relevant what was said, you know. I'm sure Roger won't talk about it and I have no interest in discussing it either, because, like I say, it happens all the time.
People will want to make a big deal of it and it isn't really a big deal.

My first thought was that Murray had tried to hit Federer with a ball as he did at Wimbledon. But I was wrong. So what did happen?

Have just found a description of what was going on from Kevin Mitchell from the Guardian

Serving for the match at 6-5 in the fourth, Murray stopped in mid-rally then passed Federer on his backhand side. Federer, irked at what he perceived to be gamesmanship, said something that provoked Murray into an ugly sneer in reply. From there until the end, it was no tea party.

When Federer forced a tie-break and took the match into a fifth set, the feelings did not subside. At 15-0 in the second game, Murray had the simple option of passing down the line with a backhand volley but drilled it at Federer, who celebrated when it went long. He was not so happy when he framed a backhand and again Murray broke, for 2-0. They went punch for punch to the final bell and indulged in the most rudimentary of pleasantries at the net after Federer had sent his final forehand long.

Federer smiled. Murray did not. Nobody present could remember such naked antagonism between them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/25/andy-murray-roger-federer-australian-open

Not nice! Not nice at all... Mitchell sums up by saying It is one they will want to forget and no doubt they will gloss over it but it was real, all right.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 26 Jan 2013, 9:02 pm

Of course too much is being made out of this especially by hawkeye who is trying, and failing miserably to implicate Murray but to tap onto what Haddie Nuff was saying read the topic from this forum and see how opinions were made about Murray's swearing:-

https://www.606v2.com/t35987-interesting-twitter-conversation-about-some-of-murray-s-on-court-behaviour?highlight=Murray+Rant

by Danny_1982 Sat 26 Jan 2013, 9:21 pm

Craig - some interesting changes of opinion there. Laugh

Still got to say it doesn't bother me that much, but it's strange how the same thing can bring out different views based on who is saying it. Most notably the person who wrote both articles!

by bogbrush Sat 26 Jan 2013, 9:25 pm

That's another thing that's Murrays mostly stopped doing, effing after had his bad misses. That was a bit too frequent really, and often really audible because the camera would often be right on him at the time.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 26 Jan 2013, 9:29 pm

Well going by your opinion BB then Roger really let himself down yesterday. And as you said about Murray - just think of all the kids that heard it.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 26 Jan 2013, 9:33 pm

I am sure there was an even older topic on this from some time ago but can't find it. Basically, all players swear in the heat of the moment and I haven't got a problem with it, neither did the players and that was the end of it. The only person desperate to make a thing of this incident is Hawkeye and is somehow trying to twist it into being Murray's fault. Surprise surprise. Rolling Eyes

by bogbrush Sun 27 Jan 2013, 9:24 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well going by your opinion BB then Roger really let himself down yesterday. And as you said about Murray - just think of all the kids that heard it.

Yeah, not what he's supposed to do at all.

I see I've made another error and Andy is dropping the f-bomb liberally in the final. Disappointing. We've just had our first 'sorry for the language'.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 27 Jan 2013, 9:56 am

Perhaps he has learnt it from Roger eh? Wink

By the way BB, that is a leg-pull okay. Come on Muzza - rather pinched the first set.

by Josiah Maiestas Sun 27 Jan 2013, 9:59 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps he has learnt it from Roger eh?

Or Judy.

by barrystar Sun 27 Jan 2013, 10:15 am

Why don't you stop feeding the troll everyone.

HE is like someone desperately trying to blow air into a flaccid leaking lilo and you mugs are offering her a patch.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 27 Jan 2013, 10:21 am

barrystar wrote:Why don't you stop feeding the troll everyone.

HE is like someone desperately trying to blow air into a flaccid leaking lilo and you mugs are offering her a patch.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 27 Jan 2013, 6:32 pm

barrystar wrote:Why don't you stop feeding the troll everyone.

HE is like someone desperately trying to blow air into a flaccid leaking lilo and you mugs are offering her a patch.

Spot on barrystar and now is my time to act. Hawkeye is now on Foe list. Fabulous no more BS to read and I suggest others fed up with this type of dross posted join me.

by sportslover Sun 27 Jan 2013, 6:48 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
barrystar wrote:Why don't you stop feeding the troll everyone.

HE is like someone desperately trying to blow air into a flaccid leaking lilo and you mugs are offering her a patch.

Spot on barrystar and now is my time to act. Hawkeye is now on Foe list. Fabulous no more BS to read and I suggest others fed up with this type of dross posted join me.

Take note Murray fans "starve the Troll of oxygen" and do the same

by Guest Sun 27 Jan 2013, 6:49 pm

Duly noted. She has made the foe list like many others today Smile

by User 774433 Sun 27 Jan 2013, 6:53 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Duly noted. She has made the foe list like many others today

Oh cmon that's unfair man.
Was it the herioc Chile thread?

by Danny_1982 Sun 27 Jan 2013, 6:55 pm

Added to my foe list. The troll will not be fed by me.

All Murray fans should do the same.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 27 Jan 2013, 6:56 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Duly noted. She has made the foe list like many others today
Oh cmon that's unfair man.
Was it the herioc Chile thread?

Perhaps it was the refusal to explain the use of the term 'heroic' Smile

by User 774433 Sun 27 Jan 2013, 7:00 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Duly noted. She has made the foe list like many others today
Oh cmon that's unfair man.
Was it the herioc Chile thread?

Perhaps it was the refusal to explain the use of the term 'heroic'

Didn't I explain it?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 27 Jan 2013, 7:02 pm

Must've slipped your mind - I can't imagine how.

by bogbrush Sun 27 Jan 2013, 7:07 pm

Foe lists are for losers.

Be fair, it's not like Hawkeye abuses anyone.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 28 Jan 2013, 10:37 am

No BB the losers are people that spend (seven years and counting) of their lives fabricating anything they see and hear in a bid to sullen one (and just one) players name. I would say my patience has been beyond exemplary in this matter as have other posters but enough is enough. If hawkeye one day wishes to quit her continuous tirades aimed at Murray then I may consider removing her from my foe list.

by bogbrush Mon 28 Jan 2013, 12:32 pm

Can I ask that this thread is retitled "Handbags in the Fourth"?

Craig; so what? Who asks for you to be patient? She says her stuff, it isn't abusive or rude, so either mock her or disagree or ignore, but "foe"? Blanking out her posts? Really? Even in my darkest days of warfare with socal I never considered that, and we were attacking each other. She doesn't do 2% of that.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 28 Jan 2013, 12:41 pm

You did consider leaving the forum did you not? That is far more drastic. I would expect this sort of reaction though as her articles are not about your favourite player. I have seen how you react if anyone dared to suggest even Roger having dirty fingernails so you would never have lasted seven years of it. I wouldn't mind if it was the odd random post but it is blitzkrieg on a massive scale. You'd need to check if hawkeye was alive and kicking if a week goes past without her twisting articles or seeing things that just aren't there such as in this article and that is how she will continue unless something is done.

by **laverfan** Mon 28 Jan 2013, 12:56 pm

@CC... look at the challenge a bit differently. If HE has consistently produced such articles, and they continue to irk you, even after seven years,

a. you have enormous patience, and you can handle more, or,
b. such articles do not add anything to your reading pleasure or challenge your brain in any way.

In either case, you can choose to ignore these. As BB says, foe button, may be an extreme in some cases and he can probably share his reasons via a PM, if necessary.

If the criticism of Murray irritates you, do not expose it any further by reading such material. There is always Overend to help HE with therapy. Wink

by Danny_1982 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 12:59 pm

bogbrush wrote:Can I ask that this thread is retitled "Handbags in the Fourth"?

Craig; so what? Who asks for you to be patient? She says her stuff, it isn't abusive or rude, so either mock her or disagree or ignore, but "foe"? Blanking out her posts? Really? Even in my darkest days of warfare with socal I never considered that, and we were attacking each other. She doesn't do 2% of that.

You two had / have different views on things and clash over it.

HE is a troll. There's a huge difference.

by bogbrush Mon 28 Jan 2013, 1:17 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:You did consider leaving the forum did you not? That is far more drastic. I would expect this sort of reaction though as her articles are not about your favourite player. I have seen how you react if anyone dared to suggest even Roger having dirty fingernails so you would never have lasted seven years of it. I wouldn't mind if it was the odd random post but it is blitzkrieg on a massive scale. You'd need to check if hawkeye was alive and kicking if a week goes past without her twisting articles or seeing things that just aren't there such as in this article and that is how she will continue unless something is done.

I didn't consider, I did. But the action was far more intense (without placing blame) and it wasn't censorship as my reason for leaving wasn't an individual, it was something related to that. Even so, in the depths of that battle the option of foe was put to me and I rejected it for these reasons. We're either in or out the forum, imho.

And hawkeye isn't ever nasty. Even I can't say that! Anyone attacking Rogers fingernails had better be ready for the sh1tstorm I'll unleash on their a$$e$.

by sportslover Mon 28 Jan 2013, 1:20 pm

laverfan wrote:@CC... look at the challenge a bit differently. If HE has consistently produced such articles, and they continue to irk you, even after seven years,

a. you have enormous patience, and you can handle more, or,
b. such articles do not add anything to your reading pleasure or challenge your brain in any way.

In either case, you can choose to ignore these. As BB says, foe button, may be an extreme in some cases and he can probably share his reasons via a PM, if necessary.

If the criticism of Murray irritates you, do not expose it any further by reading such material. There is always Overend to help HE with therapy.

Judging by the rubbish Overend puts out perhaps he also needs therapy, why not suggest Harman - but wait a minute he also puts out cr@p!

Maybe HE thinks she is a budding journalist, she does read The Times (PPV well worth it!)

HE - sadly you aren't and never will be if you believe what these guys write.

Better check the bottom of your garden, there maybe some Fairies lurking about doh, pft, ha ha

by bogbrush Mon 28 Jan 2013, 1:51 pm

Overend

Harman

Newbery

Has anyone ever seen them together?

by lags72 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 3:01 pm

Little surprise that the "fisticuffs" incident has prompted such widely diverging views, both here on the forum and in the press.

It's understandable, based perhaps on its sheer rarity value, that many have come to see the Federer 'outburst' as a sign of frustration and/or unwelcome lapse from his usual icy calm on-court demeanour and no-nonsense sportsmanlike behaviour. The very same behaviour that over so many years has brought a plethora of Stefan Edberg awards as voted by his peers.

But for me the most interesting comments (apart from those of the two guys actually involved, who were both quick to draw a line under the issue when questioned) have come from two former multi-Slammer World Number Ones - in fact in the eyes of many, two greats (even legends....??) of the game.

Both Andre Agassi and Mats Wilander not only liked what they saw from Federer ; they also wish they had seen more of it from him in the past.......

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/edge-is-good-agassi-20130126-2ddw4.html

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/praise-for-crankiness-20130126-2ddw6.html

by hawkeye Mon 28 Jan 2013, 4:18 pm

I'll give CaledonianCraig and Danny_1982 a bit of a pass on this because I know they may be feeling a little emotional. But I will ask the moderators to please put a stop to posters commenting on me rather than discussing tennis. I particularly object to being called a "troll" for expressing by views just because they differ to the name callers.

This topic whether certain posters like it or not has been discussed widely. I have made my views clear and I'm willing and interested to hear what others have to say... So thank you lags72 for returning to topic.

by R!skysports Mon 28 Jan 2013, 5:23 pm

Well my opinion is

Federer was wrong to swear at Murray, but in all it is such a non story

Murray in this did nothing wrong

by socal1976 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 5:27 pm

bogbrush wrote:Foe lists are for losers.

Be fair, it's not like Hawkeye abuses anyone.

Yes, she doesn't like Murray, has waged a relentless campaign of nitpicking the guy. But come on she isn't an aggressive person or insulting. I don't mind having a chat with her she has been respectful to me and to other posters who even take runs at her. On the flip side I can see why murray fans would get upset with her and one woman campaign of negative PR. But lets not get carried away. I myself oppose foe lists. In fact, as far as I know I might be on the foe list of many posters, I am much more aggressive than HE is. But I also much more objective to be honest. YOu guys do what you feel you must but diverse views should be welcomed. If she says something silly, which in regards to murray is often she takes the heat for it. I don't think we have to sanction her North Korea or something. That is my opinion and I do see how murray fans can get wildly annoyed by her. But her obsession is kind of funny, just like how I found Tenez's obsession with Nadal amusing. Take it as a sign of respect, like Lion on old 606 who used to call federer the swiss shanker.

by socal1976 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 5:29 pm

Federer winning like 10 Edberg awards if pretty funny, I don't find the guy to be that good of a sport at all. I demand a florida style recount into his Edberg awards.

by lags72 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 6:14 pm

Well socal, something tells me you wouldn't have voted for Federer, given the chance - as so many of his fellow-players have done consistently over so many years.

But each to his own, that's fair enough. You sure can't please all the people all the time.

His broad popularity with other pros does however seem to be reflected in the wider public. I would never claim that facebook is the ultimate barometer, but he now has 12.4 million 'likes' (compared to 11.4m for Nadal and 2.7m for Djokovic ......perhaps a Florida-style recount on this too ....??!!! Wink

)

by Born Slippy Mon 28 Jan 2013, 6:34 pm

hawkeye wrote:I'll give CaledonianCraig and Danny_1982 a bit of a pass on this because I know they may be feeling a little emotional. But I will ask the moderators to please put a stop to posters commenting on me rather than discussing tennis. I particularly object to being called a "troll" for expressing by views just because they differ to the name callers.

This topic whether certain posters like it or not has been discussed widely. I have made my views clear and I'm willing and interested to hear what others have to say... So thank you lags72 for returning to topic.

You haven't really made your position clear. You've obviously now seen the point concerned. As far as you can see, did Murray do anything inappropriate? If not, in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, do you accept that the most likely situation is that Federer made an error of judgment? Oh, and arent you a bit concerned that Federer said they just looked at each other, when it is palpably the case that Federer said something unpleasant. A bit disingenuous for the multi winner of the Edberg award wouldnt you say?

by User 774433 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 6:39 pm

It's not the first time he's sworn at someone on court too.

by lags72 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 7:05 pm

He's done it before ...?

Surely not ....?? Erm

Ah well, just shows how standards have dropped.

You'd never have heard well-behaved past champs like McEnroe, Connors or Nastase swearing on court. No way. And yet nowadays I hear schoolkids swearing at the bus stop, let alone on the court.

Personally, I blame the parents.

And Federer.

by socal1976 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 7:08 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:It's not the first time he's sworn at someone on court too.

Or yelled at people's parents, or walked off the court denouncing his opponents "lucky" shot. Lags, Nike employs half the tour, the other half the of the tour the back benchers would be happy enough if Roger just acknowledged their existence. Sportsmanship is measured by the courtesy you extend to people you are actually threatened by. He is a nice guy in general but a good sport, well that is pushing it a bit. As for Nike's PR and marketing apparatus if they can sell hundreds of billions of crappy chinese shoes for 200 dollars to middle and working class families who struggle to pay their bills they can certainly turn Federer into the world's most gracious tennis player.

by lags72 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 7:32 pm

Well I guess if those evil capitalists at Nike are smart enough to hoodwink so many folk into voluntarily parting with their hard-earned cash for trainers, then tricking top tennis pros into voting for Federer as a good sport would be easy-easy. I knew there was something fishy about those awards he keeps getting.....

by Guest Mon 28 Jan 2013, 7:36 pm

bogbrush wrote:Overend

Harman

Newbery

Has anyone ever seen them together?

At a HE house party?

by socal1976 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 7:38 pm

That is why I am here Lags, to educate the masses, it is a tireless task but deeply rewarding task when I find a good student like yourself to mentor. I don't know who has a better brainwashing apparatus the Republican party or Nike? I lived in tehran for 3 years and I am not kidding there are half a dozen Nike stores in tehran and one was right by my father's home where I was staying. One day I see a line of 300 deep in front of the Nike store. I thought maybe the national soccer/football team was there signing autographs or they were giving crap away for free. They even had security at the door and where only letting a few shoppers in at a time like the hottest night club in town. And then I asked one of the people in line what all the crowds were for, and it was a sale! A freaking sale! I laughed my arse off, now if you can get people in a country with an average per capita income of a few hundred dollars a month, to wait two hours in line because you give them a small reduction in a wildly overpriced shoe or sweat pants; well then selling the federer mystique is like a piece of cake.

For further reading on the subject of marketing and conspicous consumption I suggest the works of noted philospher Thorsten Veblen. I think that is the correct spelling although not sure.

by lags72 Mon 28 Jan 2013, 7:58 pm

Well like I said socal, I always thought there was something fishy about those awards he keeps getting. So many of the top pros on the main ATP tour must be so stupid to be fooled so easily.

That's an interesting story about Nike's underhand marketing tactics, just shows how they play fast & loose with a gullible public, desperate to snap up overpriced items in a so-called sale. Hard to imagine. But now that I know their game, they sure won't be fooling me.

by **laverfan** Mon 28 Jan 2013, 11:53 pm

@Lags72... nice reading the links to the Agassi/Wilander statements. It would make more sense directing this type of emotional energy (from Federer) and channeling it towards a winning position. He did that very well to force a fifth set.

There may have been a pre-cursor where the pass was directed at Federer's body which may have brought about the response.

The IW incident between Agassi and Sampras (Hit for Haiti part 2 - including Fedal), at the same time, may have taken the 'edge' a bit too far.

Long-term the prognosis for 2013 may be positive, showing how he is still very hungry. Annacone has also commented on Federer's enthusiasm towards the sport and his love of it. Let us see what Rotterdam shows us. The DC tie with CZE does not show Federer in it.

Murray's calendar says IW is next, so a longer break.

by hawkeye Tue 29 Jan 2013, 7:13 am

laverfan wrote:

There may have been a pre-cursor where the pass was directed at Federer's body which may have brought about the response.

Well that's exactly what I was saying! Federer swore in response to something Murray did. However the party line here is that Federer is so un sporting he would yell at an opponent for no reason. Or worse than that as an attempt to put his innocent opponent off. That would be fine in itself and this is probably how the incident is viewed by Murray fans. Quite handy because not only does it mean Murray comes off whiter than white but it also makes it look like Federer has been forced into irrational and un sportsmanlike behavior because of Murray's good play rather than something provocative.

But my main point was that the British press took hold of it too and used it to make Federer look bad and "their" boy look good. My other point was what the press say matters (like it or not).

Sadly pointing this out brings out such an emotional response that many are unable to even discuss this but have to respond with abuse. But I thought it was interesting that most of the abuse came not immediately but a couple of days later after Murray lost to Djokovic. And that was unrelated to this article.

by Born Slippy Tue 29 Jan 2013, 7:29 am

hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:

There may have been a pre-cursor where the pass was directed at Federer's body which may have brought about the response.

Well that's exactly what I was saying! Federer swore in response to something Murray did. However the party line here is that Federer is so un sporting he would yell at an opponent for no reason. Or worse than that as an attempt to put his innocent opponent off. That would be fine in itself and this is probably how the incident is viewed by Murray fans. Quite handy because not only does it mean Murray comes off whiter than white but it also makes it look like Federer has been forced into irrational and un sportsmanlike behavior because of Murray's good play rather than something provocative.

But my main point was that the British press took hold of it too and used it to make Federer look bad and "their" boy look good. My other point was what the press say matters (like it or not).

Sadly pointing this out brings out such an emotional response that many are unable to even discuss this but have to respond with abuse. But I thought it was interesting that most of the abuse came not immediately but a couple of days later after Murray lost to Djokovic. And that was unrelated to this article.

Laverfan is inaccurate as she has got her timings the wrong way around. There is no excuse for what Federer did, other than the fact he made a mistake. Are you going to answer the questions in my previous post?

by R!skysports Tue 29 Jan 2013, 9:40 am

hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:

There may have been a pre-cursor where the pass was directed at Federer's body which may have brought about the response.

Well that's exactly what I was saying! Federer swore in response to something Murray did. However the party line here is that Federer is so un sporting he would yell at an opponent for no reason. Or worse than that as an attempt to put his innocent opponent off. That would be fine in itself and this is probably how the incident is viewed by Murray fans. Quite handy because not only does it mean Murray comes off whiter than white but it also makes it look like Federer has been forced into irrational and un sportsmanlike behavior because of Murray's good play rather than something provocative.

But my main point was that the British press took hold of it too and used it to make Federer look bad and "their" boy look good. My other point was what the press say matters (like it or not).

Sadly pointing this out brings out such an emotional response that many are unable to even discuss this but have to respond with abuse. But I thought it was interesting that most of the abuse came not immediately but a couple of days later after Murray lost to Djokovic. And that was unrelated to this article.

Not true HE, Federer swore at something he percieved Murray did - which it turns out was wrong.

Federer was in the wrong on this occassion, but as all know, most players swear at times, (not usually at other players though) and it is not really a big deal.

Not had any impact on Federers reputation - so not big deal

by Calder106 Tue 29 Jan 2013, 10:19 am

Come on Hawkeye answer the question. You have been very critical of Murray swearing on court and have previously created articles about it. These have been sparked off by articles in the British Media (so same sort of reporting).

Most people including myself said they did not approve of it but pointed out that a) He was not the only one and b) and it is often done in a foreign language and unless you know that language you are unaware of the swearing. However your take appears to be that it is totally unacceptable. Are we now going to put an 'asterisk' against that and say it's only if it is Murray or one of the other players you may not like.

You are unable to come up with an explanation of why Federer swore in Murray's direction. My own take was that it was just frustration. I agree with the ones offered earlier in this thread regarding the very slight stop as the ball landed very close to the baseline. There were a couple of these in the first set against Djokovic on Sunday where the commentators said it looked like the ball was going out but dipped and hit the baseline forcing Murray to return.

Therefore by your standards there is no excuse for the swearing. I'm a bit more sanguine about it though. It happened, I'm not against a bit of needle as long as it passes fast and does not lead to 'fisticuffs', the players didn't want to make a big deal of it. The press will report it as they reported Murray getting frustrated in the final in the papers I read yesterday.

From Murray's point of view I'm sure he thought at the time (even though the lost the game and subsequent tie break) that it was a positive sign in that he had got Roger frustrated.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 29 Jan 2013, 10:28 am

Fed swore - "You f***ing stopped". IMHO Murray was intending to challenge the line call, then realised he had no challenges left, so had to change his mind play on.
Fed thought he'd stopped play to challenge, because of Murray's hesitation.

by Guest Tue 29 Jan 2013, 11:05 am

I am sure Mirka has said something similar to Roger Wink

by Calder106 Tue 29 Jan 2013, 12:08 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fed swore - "You f***ing stopped". IMHO Murray was intending to challenge the line call, then realised he had no challenges left, so had to change his mind play on.
Fed thought he'd stopped play to challenge, because of Murray's hesitation.

I saw it in realtime and unfortunately have been unable to view any clips of the actual point (not the aftermath since) but my recollection is that if he did stop it was momentarily and before (not after) he played the ball back. Therefore the point was still very much alive. It may have been as you say but I still think it was down mainly to frustration as he had shown signs of it earlier in the match.

As I say I've no real issue with it but the OP trying to turn it into being Murray's fault and that the British press were trying to make Federer look bad is poor in my opinion. For instance I could only manage to see the final up until 5-5 in the first set on Sunday and pick up on the last few games of the match on radio. However from studio analysis and the British press I aware that Murray was getting frustrated, was moaning to the umpire and showing poor body language. Hardly a whitewash by the British media.

by Guest Tue 29 Jan 2013, 12:09 pm

Bottom line, you dont swear AT a player, you keep it to yourself if you think he's done wrong. Swearing at yourself isn't great either but at least its animosity to yourself.
Fed shouldn't be looking at Murray anyway, should be playing the ball no matter what the opponent does, he knows that. Like Julius said, Murray might have made a miscount on his challenges.
Either way it's hardly ban material, he just has to not do it again. I was more annoyed by the way he belittled the umpire in the third set.

In terms of the other subject at hand, I think you reap what you sow, though it really should'nt spill out to name calling. Foe list is a bit ott, an ignore list is better. In fact an ignore button would be fantastic.

by Sponsored content