Fisticuffs In The Fourth / What Did Roger Say?

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.

socal1976 wrote:My mother kicked me in the nuts once only once

I refuse to believe anyone could be that restrained.

I always felt like someone like Ferrer should win/have won a lot of sportsmanship awards. It's easy to be sporting when you're winning everything, it's how you lose which really defines how sportsmanlike you are. Ferrer, despite being perrenially in ther shadow of Nadal, and nearly always the nearly man has just worked hard and never complained. I feel he deserves it far more than the top 4 (well you know what I mean)

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:My mother kicked me in the nuts once only once

I refuse to believe anyone could be that restrained.

feel this should carry a health warning - don't try and drink hot liquid while perusing thread!

falzy21 wrote:I always felt like someone like Ferrer should win/have won a lot of sportsmanship awards. It's easy to be sporting when you're winning everything, it's how you lose which really defines how sportsmanlike you are. Ferrer, despite being perrenially in ther shadow of Nadal, and nearly always the nearly man has just worked hard and never complained. I feel he deserves it far more than the top 4 (well you know what I mean)

Let's be honest, from a viewer's perspective Federer isn't in any way special as regards his sportsmanship. Players like Blake, Ferrer or even Djokovic appear much more sporting. I can only presume that it has been his work for the players behind the scenes that gets the votes.

There are two schools of thought Born.
One is that once after Rafter and Srichaphan won the Edberg award, it became an award controlled by corporate sponsors, basically Nike, who ensured Fed won it a lot. The evidence for this is that, well, Fed won it, so it must be the case.

The other is that Fed is genuinely well-respected and liked by other players for the sportsmanship his shows both on and off court (we can only see the on court stuff, which, as you say, is fairly level with a number of other players). The evidence for this is interviews, quotes etc from other players.

My own suspicion is that many players further down the rankings appreciate the time he gives to them both personally and professionally. I seem to remember Mahut saying that Fed was the only player to come into the locker room to console him after the Isner loss at Wimbledon.
Others may say that sort of behaviour is purely to ingratiate himself with those players so he can win the award and boost his own ego.

The other evidence for scenario one is the identity of the only winner to break Federer's streak.

Well yes, I guess if you figure one deserves it, then you have to figure the other one does too. Or neither of them do.

Didn't Roddick once whack himself in the balls with the racquet attempting a hotdog?

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:My mother kicked me in the nuts once only once

I refuse to believe anyone could be that restrained.

As a fan of sophmoric wit, good post BB. Back to my original thesis, the cardinal rule of comedy is that nutshots are funny as long as they aren't your nuts.

falzy21 wrote:I always felt like someone like Ferrer should win/have won a lot of sportsmanship awards. It's easy to be sporting when you're winning everything, it's how you lose which really defines how sportsmanlike you are. Ferrer, despite being perrenially in ther shadow of Nadal, and nearly always the nearly man has just worked hard and never complained. I feel he deserves it far more than the top 4 (well you know what I mean)

Precisely, Nike cuts you a big check every year and gives you free stuff. Then your team Nike rep calls you and says you know what do you think about Roger for the Edberg award it would really be great for the PR of Nike's brand. How many lower ranked guys are going to say no when the people who cuts them checks and give them free stuff suggest to them that they vote for federer. And why wouldn't Nike want to sell this image of federer as saint with a tennis racquet. He just isn't such a good sport that he should win every single Edberg award. Djokovic is the fairest player I have ever seen when it comes to giving calls. I have seen him give calls to his opponents that are out or that grazed the line by the smallest sliver. Against Berdy someone yelled out in his service motion and he missed it and Djokovic gave him a first serve when the umpire refused to. That never happens on the ATP tour. Yet somehow this can't break up the 8 year running Federer dominance of the sportsmanship award. Lets just call it the Nike/Edberg award and get it over with. Federer is not a bad sportsmanship guy he isn't connors or Mac, but if you believe he is the fairest sportsman and nicest guy on tour, well I got a pair of crappy chinese sneakers I would like to sell you for 200 dollars, any takers?

And here's me thinking poor old Paradorn actually deserved the award. Oh well.

They decided not to rig it that year, it would look silly if he won it every single year. It is like the guy playing 3 card monty on the street corner he has to let his plant in the audience win one or two to entice others to play. I mean if he won the vote every year with 99 percent of the results it would start looking like an election in the old Soviet union or in Saddam hussein's Iraq. Then it would lose its PR value.

Paradorn was before Fed ever won it. It only became instantly and totally corrupt in 2004.

socal1976 wrote:Federer is not a bad sportsmanship guy he isn't connors or Mac, but if you believe he is the fairest sportsman and nicest guy on tour, well I got a pair of crappy chinese sneakers I would like to sell you for 200 dollars, any takers?

Are you saying Federer is personally responsible for your decision to buy the said sneakers, and you bought them just because Federer had his name on them? You fell victim to a very traditional marketing campaign.

BTW, do you buy any Djokovic-promoted gear?

Should every Wilson Pro-staff K6-1 (like the 'sweating on my couch ad') sale be credited to Federer as well?

These players are all human. It shows up in many incidents and building a credit/debit balance sheet for any player does not do them any favours.

Data has not yet started playing Tennis outside the Holodeck.

So 2005 was the year a Nike executive had a bright idea to sell Federer as the genteel sportsman, I am sure he got a nice christmas bonus for that.

I buy expensive brand names like anyone else, but I think Nike is wildly overpriced for the quality they turn out. More power to them I am always fascinated by how you can make money off of propaganda and marketing, it is an interesting phenomenon that can be put to great use.

socal, you old cynic, you'll be saying next that Djoko didn't deserve the Humanitarian of the Year award; it was all some capitalist plot.

No Julius not everything is a conspiracy but I look at things objectively with my own eyes, I just don't believe what people tell me because they say it is true. Like me calling BS on that silly 4 volley number at the AO final, what I find amazing is that people who just watched the match and are ardent tennis fans bought that number because a link to the official stats was provided. If something is reasonable and matches my own knowledge or research ok I buy it, if something smells like BS and doesn't fit the actual facts then I don't buy it because it has the cloak of being official or verified.

The official stats were correct though - it's just that some posters didn't understand what the stats were measuring.

Personally I prefer basing my judgment on evidence rather than making up theories that have no evidence, but which may fit my view of the world.

Yes, what's wrong with Socal also basing his view in evidence?

Ie Observations of Federer in this case.

It's the observations/evidence of Nike representatives bribing lower ranked players that I question and also the impossibility of observing Fed's relationships with those players off court.

btw Nike also sponsor Rafa I think - it's only logical to conclude that if they fixed it for Fed they fixed it for Rafa.

Fixed what?
Sorry, not been following.

What did Nike fix?

They fixed (according to socal) Rafa and Fed winning the Edberg award

JuliusHMarx wrote:They fixed (according to socal) Rafa and Fed winning the Edberg award

Well that's not true.

Players vote these days for the legacy of those players.
If Djokovic had achieved what Federer had in 17 Grand Slams he would have probably won the event numerous times.
Of course NIKE and Addidas etc. like creating brands, but if the players don't win much or have the legacy then they can't do much.
I highly doubt NIKE directly rigged the voting, that sounds incredibly unlikely.

Did the approach to voting change dramatically between 2003 and 2004 do you think IMBL?

Oh rigging is not that nefarious. OK rigging might be a strong word, how about a Nike rep, who employs half the tour tells a player that they give money and free stuff to that it would be great for team Nike if Fed won a certain sportsmanship award. Said player thinks it is a rather meaningless way to show he is a team player and votes the suggested way. Maybe rigging is too strong an adjective, maybe lobbying is a better use of terminology. Yes in hindsight, the result is as a result of Nike Lobbying for fed more than it is of federer being the sportsman in chief.

And 'lobbying with gifts' for Rafa when he won it?

I personally feel Socal it is a lot to do with legacy.
Federer has created stats wise a great legacy so he wins the awards, Nadal in 2010 also created a legacy in winning the Career Grand Slam so he won the award.

This year if Djokovic wins FO and completes Career Grand Slam I suspect he'll win it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:And lobbying for Rafa when he won it?

I really don't think there's specific lobbying from anyone for this award.
I think sponsors may try to create an image for these players anyway, but I don't think it's targeted towards any award.

IMBL what was the difference, in your opinion, between Fed winning it in 2004 and Djoko not winning it in 2011?

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL what was the difference, in your opinion, between Fed winning it in 2004 and Djoko not winning it in 2011?

Because in 2004 there wasn't a player with the legacy Federer had on the tour to compete against him, who had also performed quite well that year (ie top 4).

Yes IMBL legacy is also part of it, as I have often stated if Federer even acknowledges the existence of many of the back benchers they would probably be giddier than a school girl at her high school prom dance.

Sportsmanship wise I'd put Djoko ahead of Fed, never seen him swear at an opponent, he applauds his opponents shots etc.
Only sometimes his celebrations are a bit excessive, but he doesn't do it to be mean, he does it because it's his emotion.

No chance the players voted for Fed in 2004 because they thought, as they did with Paradorn and Rafter before him, that he deserved it for his sportsmanship? No chance of that at all? Impossible?

It Must Be Love wrote:Sportsmanship wise I'd put Djoko ahead of Fed, never seen him swear at an opponent, he applauds his opponents shots etc.
Only sometimes his celebrations are a bit excessive, but he doesn't do it to be mean, he does it because it's his emotion.

I think Djoko's racket smashes might be a factor - if youngsters copy that, it costs the parents money, and it's an very overt display of losing one's temper and damaging equipment.

In 2004 if Federer hadn't won a slam, then he wouldn't have won the award. That's what I'm saying.

Why not? Paradorn won it without that. What changed between 2003 and 2004 in the voting. Did the same players suddenly think they had to give to someone who won a slam? No chance whatsoever they voted for Fed on merit?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why not? Paradorn won it without that. What changed between 2003 and 2004 in the voting. Did the same players suddenly think they had to give to someone who won a slam? No chance whatsoever they voted for Fed on merit?

Paradorn performed the wai, a Thai greeting, at the start of every match, when he bows to all four corners of the stadium.
That's why Paradorn won.

Djoko is also one of the fairest players I have seen with calls. His opponents almost always ask him first if they should challenge before they even look to the umpire. Some of the calls he gives to his opponents in crucial times in the match that are at best in by the smallest margins is not common on tour. I have seen him give his opponents aces that aren't aces as hawkeye later has shown. People focused on his shirt ripping against stan, but I was honestly touched by the hug and the pat he gave stan after the match when stan was crying. He later sent Stan a tweet saying that it was privelege to have played him on that day. That is the world #1 helping to build you back up after a tough loss.

socal1976 wrote:Djoko is also one of the fairest players I have seen with calls. His opponents almost always ask him first if they should challenge before they even look to the umpire. Some of the calls he gives to his opponents in crucial times in the match that are at best in by the smallest margins is not common on tour. I have seen him give his opponents aces that aren't aces as hawkeye later has shown. People focused on his shirt ripping against stan, but I was honestly touched by the hug and the pat he gave stan after the match when stan was crying. He later sent Stan a tweet saying that it was privelege to have played him on that day. That is the world #1 helping to build you back up after a tough loss.

Socal, do you remember the article I sent you on this?
You recall... the Madrid call right

I don't IMBL send it to me again, I mean as a close observer of his, I have seen this behavior over and over again from him and it is one of the things that I really like about him. I mean I have played a lot aholes at my club that in a close match will shrink the line calls on you, and it drives me absolutely nuts. I am not kidding with one guy I honestly try to hit the ball away from the lines because I know in a close match anything I hit on the line is out with this guy. And these guys aren't playing with the kind of stakes we are talking about here.

Sent.
Surprised you don't remember the cheating in the Madrid match (possibly the first time I've ever seen anyone tried to cheat like that in a professional game), but this should help re-jog your memory lol.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why not? Paradorn won it without that. What changed between 2003 and 2004 in the voting. Did the same players suddenly think they had to give to someone who won a slam? No chance whatsoever they voted for Fed on merit?

Paradorn performed the wai, a Thai greeting, at the start of every match, when he bows to all four corners of the stadium.
That's why Paradorn won.

Which answers precisely none of my questions

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Sportsmanship wise I'd put Djoko ahead of Fed, never seen him swear at an opponent, he applauds his opponents shots etc.
Only sometimes his celebrations are a bit excessive, but he doesn't do it to be mean, he does it because it's his emotion.

I think Djoko's racket smashes might be a factor - if youngsters copy that, it costs the parents money, and it's an very overt display of losing one's temper and damaging equipment.

No reply to this - can I assume that Djoko's racket smashing is not considered a factor?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why not? Paradorn won it without that. What changed between 2003 and 2004 in the voting. Did the same players suddenly think they had to give to someone who won a slam? No chance whatsoever they voted for Fed on merit?

Paradorn performed the wai, a Thai greeting, at the start of every match, when he bows to all four corners of the stadium.
That's why Paradorn won.

Which answers precisely none of my questions

Yes it does.
I'm trying to say that players tend to vote for the fellow players who already have a very good legacy, it's much more likely to vote for these players.
I've checked the list for the last 15 years or so, and I think every player I have seen has reached a Grand Slam final, with the exception of Paradorn who did a special Thai greeting for his opponent and the crowd every time he played a match.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Sportsmanship wise I'd put Djoko ahead of Fed, never seen him swear at an opponent, he applauds his opponents shots etc.
Only sometimes his celebrations are a bit excessive, but he doesn't do it to be mean, he does it because it's his emotion.

I think Djoko's racket smashes might be a factor - if youngsters copy that, it costs the parents money, and it's an very overt display of losing one's temper and damaging equipment.

No reply to this - can I assume that Djoko's racket smashing is not considered a factor?

Sorry, you've asked me so many questions I couldn't spot this one.
No, I don't think Djokovic's racket smashing is a huge factor to whether people vote for him. I think if he wins the next 10 Grand Slams in a row, and smashes his racket every 10 matches, he will still win the awards.

So poor old Edberg has a sportsmanship award named after him when he only really won it because he won some slams? That's a pity.

I was talking about Federer, not Edberg
Federer has not had the award named after him.

Anyway I've made myself pretty clear, feel free to have your opinion.

So absolutely no chance that Fed won it on merit in 2004?
Yes/no - delete as applicable.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why not? Paradorn won it without that. What changed between 2003 and 2004 in the voting. Did the same players suddenly think they had to give to someone who won a slam? No chance whatsoever they voted for Fed on merit?

Paradorn performed the wai, a Thai greeting, at the start of every match, when he bows to all four corners of the stadium.
That's why Paradorn won.

Which answers precisely none of my questions

Yes it does.
I'm trying to say that players tend to vote for the fellow players who already have a very good legacy, it's much more likely to vote for these players.
I've checked the list for the last 15 years or so, and I think every player I have seen has reached a Grand Slam final, with the exception of Paradorn who did a special Thai greeting for his opponent and the crowd every time he played a match.

This has to be the most stupid thing I've ever read

So Paradorn won the award because he does a particular greeting before every match? And the players then ignore anything that he or any other player does before, during or after the match and decide to give it to Paradorn based on that one funky move? Man, give them some credit. You make them sound like brainless cattle.

Federer is no Angel (none of them are) but clearly his fellow professionals like him and think he's a fair player. I'm sure they don't feel obliged to vote for him, and they're not bullied into it, so perhaps the guys who see him week in and week out know a little bit more than us onlookers from afar. Just a thought.



emancipator

What is the point of the award anyway? As professional sportsmen sportsmanship is just part of the job. They are supposed to be honest about calls and show professionalism, is it not an added bonus that needs to be rewarded. As for the behind the scenes stuff that is part of being a top player. Does anyone genuinely think that any of the top players are perfect at all times. Going down the list there are less than flattering incidents in all of their histories.

If it is a genuine award why should it be a player at the top. Why not Ferrer or Scrichaphan or other less obvious examples of excellent attitude?

The whole thing smacks of self congratulatory nonsense to me.

Anyway will stop ranting now.