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.

Yes, I think Nike bought it all for Federer.

Every year.

Yes, I'm sure that makes sense, you know, the best player, head of the ATP Council who the players are happy to have them represent them is really disliked.


I keep warning people not to encourage amrit, last time he went off like this I had to explain that doubles isn't as tough as singles. Took me a day and a half before he got it.

I will Paradorn his due, he greeted the players all the same.

Feds after his match with Tsonga waited to walk with him yet couldn't afford the same token to Murray at the AO. Not the complete pro by any means.

I am with carrie. Does it really merit an annual award.

It is a bit of self-congratulatory nonsense and certainly on court there are more sportsmanlike players than Fed in the last few years.
I just find it odd that no-one questions the recipients up to 2004, but in 2004 it suddenly becomes either corrupt or players no longer voting on the basis of sportsmanship. Oh look, 2004 is when Fed first won it. What a coincidence

JuliusHMarx wrote:It is a bit of self-congratulatory nonsense and certainly on court there are more sportsmanlike players than Fed in the last few years.
I just find it odd that no-one questions the recipients up to 2004, but in 2004 it suddenly becomes either corrupt or players no longer voting on the basis of sportsmanship. Oh look, 2004 is when Fed first won it. What a coincidence

???
That's not what I said at all. I went through the last 15 years and I think they were all slam finalists/winners.

I'm not saying that Federer is a bad guy, obviously if he every match threw a tantrum at his opponent or something he wouldn't win the award.
But I think his legacy has given himself a great opportunity to win the award, ie without his great achievements on court he would be less likely to win.
If Ferrer had won 17 Grand Slams, I think he would have had a better chance to win the award, even if he behaviour was slightly worse.
Do you understand me?

btw bogbrush, lol

To clarify my post, I am not saying that Federer is not popular with the other players. No reason why he wouldn't be.

Does that merit a special separate award though?

To take BBs points

The best player - they give out big shiny trophies at tournaments for that.
Head of ATP Council - does that mean Stakhovsky is in the running as a member of said council?

It just seems to be an added plaudit for those who are winning a lot anyway. Was that the original intention of the award?

They need to go back to basics on it and work out what the award is meant to be for. There must be players much lower down the ranks who go the extra mile, how about some attention for them?

I would say this no matter who was winning JHM and think they should have done that from the start.

carrie, if you have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Awards#Stefan_Edberg_Sportsmanship_Award

You'll see that historically (i.e. before Fed) it was only really Edberg that was regularly winning slams and also winning the award. He was such a good sportsman and won it so many times that it was then named after him.

Winners were either 1. lesser known or 2. Well known and also renowed for sportsmanship

When Fed started winning it you either have to assume that the same criteria applied for voting as before, which makes Fed a worthy winner, or that something changed in 2004 and he won it despite not meriting it.

Socal reckons it became corrupt at that point. IMBL reckons the players changed and decided to vote more for whoever was winning slams at that point. I reckon the voting criteria remained pretty much the same in 2004 as it was in previous years.

carrieg4 wrote:To clarify my post, I am not saying that Federer is not popular with the other players. No reason why he wouldn't be.

Does that merit a special separate award though?

To take BBs points

The best player - they give out big shiny trophies at tournaments for that.
Head of ATP Council - does that mean Stakhovsky is in the running as a member of said council?

It just seems to be an added plaudit for those who are winning a lot anyway. Was that the original intention of the award?

They need to go back to basics on it and work out what the award is meant to be for. There must be players much lower down the ranks who go the extra mile, how about some attention for them?

I would say this no matter who was winning JHM and think they should have done that from the start.

They need to change their thinking, they're doing it all wrong. Ill get them to pm you for advice.

It was fairly depressing when Federer won above Qureshi, whichever year that was. I appreciate the players must vote for Federer because they genuinely like him but the fact they voted for Nadal the one year Federer hasn't won strongly suggests that they aren't really voting for the most sporting player. Either that or its a remarkable coincidence that Rafa and Fed are the two most high profile and most sporting players on tour. It is a shame in my view that it seems to have moved away from its original intention.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It is a bit of self-congratulatory nonsense and certainly on court there are more sportsmanlike players than Fed in the last few years.
I just find it odd that no-one questions the recipients up to 2004, but in 2004 it suddenly becomes either corrupt or players no longer voting on the basis of sportsmanship. Oh look, 2004 is when Fed first won it. What a coincidence

???
That's not what I said at all. I went through the last 15 years and I think they were all slam finalists/winners.

I'm not saying that Federer is a bad guy, obviously if he every match threw a tantrum at his opponent or something he wouldn't win the award.
But I think his legacy has given himself a great opportunity to win the award, ie without his great achievements on court he would be less likely to win.
If Ferrer had won 17 Grand Slams, I think he would have had a better chance to win the award, even if he behaviour was slightly worse.
Do you understand me?

btw bogbrush, lol

I think your arguement lost all credibility when you insisted that Paradorn's greeting alone won him the award.

I expect there is an element of star quality that gives Fed an edge however that alone should not account for 8 awards. Imean he hasn't finished the year ranked as number one since 2009.

JuliusHMarx wrote:carrie, if you have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Awards#Stefan_Edberg_Sportsmanship_Award

You'll see that historically (i.e. before Fed) it was only really Edberg that was regularly winning slams and also winning the award. He was such a good sportsman and won it so many times that it was then named after him.

Winners were either 1. lesser known or 2. Well known and also renowed for sportsmanship

When Fed started winning it you either have to assume that the same criteria applied for voting as before, which makes Fed a worthy winner, or that something changed in 2004 and he won it despite not meriting it.

Socal reckons it became corrupt at that point. IMBL reckons the players changed and decided to vote more for whoever was winning slams at that point. I reckon the voting criteria remained pretty much the same in 2004 as it was in previous years.

I don't know. Maybe they need to re-emphasise the criteria when it comes to voting. I would have been surprised had not won it a couple of times in his career but I cannot believe that there has only been one occasion since 2004 that he hasn't won it. He is a fallible human being just like all the others and his level of on court sportsmanship is no greater than many others. Why shouldn't a lesser known player be in the running There must be quite a few that don't win a lot but show great sportsmanship.

bogbrush wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:To clarify my post, I am not saying that Federer is not popular with the other players. No reason why he wouldn't be.

Does that merit a special separate award though?

To take BBs points

The best player - they give out big shiny trophies at tournaments for that.
Head of ATP Council - does that mean Stakhovsky is in the running as a member of said council?

It just seems to be an added plaudit for those who are winning a lot anyway. Was that the original intention of the award?

They need to go back to basics on it and work out what the award is meant to be for. There must be players much lower down the ranks who go the extra mile, how about some attention for them?

I would say this no matter who was winning JHM and think they should have done that from the start.

They need to change their thinking, they're doing it all wrong. Ill get them to pm you for advice.

I don't believe in celebrating mediocrity just because it makes some people feel good.

You get it if you deserve it.

This is turning into a justify-the-Edberg-winner every year contest. I am to see innuendo and allegations of unfair wins being discussed for some of the current top pros.

I am surprised the number of Facebook followers and other factors have not yet been incorporated in this discussion.

Is this what HB called the 'never-ending-GOAT-debate'?

The 1986 Edberg award winner is Noah who has made a name for himself with Magic Potion comments. Is he, in hindsight, a worthy winner, despite tarnishing the sport by unsubstantiated claims?

This debate is focussed on a few current players, 2000 onwards, with Paradorn/Rafter thrown in for some balance.

None of the posters on this thread were asked who should get it? Is that why the Edberg award is tarnished, or is it Noah?

As I said, the credit/debit balance sheet, to ascribe GOATness for player X, is a sad commentary on the sport of Tennis, that gives us hours of pleasure.

emancipator wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:To clarify my post, I am not saying that Federer is not popular with the other players. No reason why he wouldn't be.

Does that merit a special separate award though?

To take BBs points

The best player - they give out big shiny trophies at tournaments for that.
Head of ATP Council - does that mean Stakhovsky is in the running as a member of said council?

It just seems to be an added plaudit for those who are winning a lot anyway. Was that the original intention of the award?

They need to go back to basics on it and work out what the award is meant to be for. There must be players much lower down the ranks who go the extra mile, how about some attention for them?

I would say this no matter who was winning JHM and think they should have done that from the start.

They need to change their thinking, they're doing it all wrong. Ill get them to pm you for advice.

I don't believe in celebrating mediocrity just because it makes some people feel good.

You get it if you deserve it.

A valid point if the award was for being good at tennis emancipator. It isn't.

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:carrie, if you have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Awards#Stefan_Edberg_Sportsmanship_Award

You'll see that historically (i.e. before Fed) it was only really Edberg that was regularly winning slams and also winning the award. He was such a good sportsman and won it so many times that it was then named after him.

Winners were either 1. lesser known or 2. Well known and also renowed for sportsmanship

When Fed started winning it you either have to assume that the same criteria applied for voting as before, which makes Fed a worthy winner, or that something changed in 2004 and he won it despite not meriting it.

Socal reckons it became corrupt at that point. IMBL reckons the players changed and decided to vote more for whoever was winning slams at that point. I reckon the voting criteria remained pretty much the same in 2004 as it was in previous years.

I don't know. Maybe they need to re-emphasise the criteria when it comes to voting. I would have been surprised had not won it a couple of times in his career but I cannot believe that there has only been one occasion since 2004 that he hasn't won it. He is a fallible human being just like all the others and his level of on court sportsmanship is no greater than many others. Why shouldn't a lesser known player be in the running There must be quite a few that don't win a lot but show great sportsmanship.

Maybe there's a side to Fed that the players see off court that we don't - and they like it.

Worth noting the four nominees this year were Del P, Cilic, Ferrer and Federer. Now if we had a vote on here i suspect Federer would win as he has the most supporters. No reason to think the lower ranking players would be any different, unless they had a particularly strong reason to vote for one of the others.

I'm sure that behind the scenes stuff is a factor and I am not having a go at Federer but it is surprising that the same person has won so often when there are so many potential candidates.

If he is doing wondrous stuff behind the scenes all the time that we aren't aware of then congrats to him.

Just noticed something interesting, Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) won the Humanitarian award in 2002 (with Amir Haddad - ISR) and 2010 (with Bopanna - IND).

My hat off to Qureshi on forging such partnerships, which show wonderful humanity, IMVHO.

laverfan wrote:Just noticed something interesting, Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) won the Humanitarian award in 2002 (with Amir Haddad - ISR) and 2010 (with Bopanna - IND).

My hat off to Qureshi on forging such partnerships, which show wonderful humanity, IMVHO.

carrieg4 wrote:

laverfan wrote:Just noticed something interesting, Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) won the Humanitarian award in 2002 (with Amir Haddad - ISR) and 2010 (with Bopanna - IND).

My hat off to Qureshi on forging such partnerships, which show wonderful humanity, IMVHO.

Davydenko comes to mind as a good candidate for the Edberg award. Perhaps he will get a lifetime award for his mediocrity of never winning slam or the Edberg award. Just kidding, Carrie.

Born Slippy wrote:Worth noting the four nominees this year were Del P, Cilic, Ferrer and Federer. Now if we had a vote on here i suspect Federer would win as he has the most supporters. No reason to think the lower ranking players would be any different, unless they had a particularly strong reason to vote for one of the others.

Cilic and Ferrer have been known to smash the odd racket on court (not sure about delpo) - maybe that's something the other players frown on. Also, we really don't know about the off court stuff that may lead them to vote for one player or the other.

Tsonga surely. Plays with a smile and shows grace in both victory and defeat

legendkillarV2 wrote:Tsonga surely. Plays with a smile and shows grace in both victory and defeat

He is a good candidate LK. He even showed good sportsmanship having got tagged in the jewels

laverfan wrote:Just noticed something interesting, Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) won the Humanitarian award in 2002 (with Amir Haddad - ISR) and 2010 (with Bopanna - IND).

My hat off to Qureshi on forging such partnerships, which show wonderful humanity, IMVHO.

Except Amir Haddad sounds like the name of a Palestinian who probably had no choice but to play under the Israeli flag

I will second LK and Carrie vis-a-vis Tsonga. Always that infectious smile.

Indeed. Someone regardless of conditions, moments, results shows a passion for the game that stretches beyond individual achievement

emancipator wrote:

laverfan wrote:Just noticed something interesting, Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) won the Humanitarian award in 2002 (with Amir Haddad - ISR) and 2010 (with Bopanna - IND).

My hat off to Qureshi on forging such partnerships, which show wonderful humanity, IMVHO.

Except Amir Haddad sounds like the name of a Palestinian who probably had no choice but to play under the Israeli flag

Not according to the ATP site - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ha/A/Amir-Hadad.aspx

Remember Saddam's Vice PM was Tariq Aziz, a Christian.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Indeed. Someone regardless of conditions, moments, results shows a passion for the game that stretches beyond individual achievement

Perfect.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I will Paradorn his due, he greeted the players all the same.

Feds after his match with Tsonga waited to walk with him yet couldn't afford the same token to Murray at the AO. Not the complete pro by any means.

I am with carrie. Does it really merit an annual award.

My take on this:

Winner of a match is interviewed on court; Federer won against Tsonga, so he would be interviewed by Courier (or someone else). He had to wait for Tsonga to pack his things and leave that stadium before they can proceed with the interview. It would be rude if Tsonga is present and they start the interview. (And Tsonga takes a long time to pack up; you would have noticed that if you had seen Leconte waited for him for eternity after Gasquet match.)

After Murray match, it would be Murray who will be interviewed. No need for Federer to really wait. How long should he be there? Till Murray's interview gets over?

emancipator wrote:
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?

Look Emancipator.
I researched the last 15 years, and found out that every guy who won the award has reached a Grand Slam final in tennis. Is it just a coincidence that it's always the top guys that have the best sportsmanship? I don't think so.

The exception to this rule in the last 15 years was Paradorn, who won the award but he has not reached a Grand Slam final. He was well known and famous for greeting his opponents with the Wai, a exotic Thai greeting where he bows to his opponent and all four corners of the stadium.
So I think that made a big difference.
Born Slippy has made some excellent points, funny that Nadal won his award in 2010 (where he cemented his legacy with a career Grand Slam). I stand by what I say, if Ferrer had won 17 Grand Slams but not behaved as well on court, he would still have had a better chance of winning the award.
If believing this means I 'lose my credibility' in your eyes then so be it.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I will Paradorn his due, he greeted the players all the same.

Feds after his match with Tsonga waited to walk with him yet couldn't afford the same token to Murray at the AO. Not the complete pro by any means.

I am with carrie. Does it really merit an annual award.

Eh?

In the former case he has to wait or starts his interview while the guy is packing his bags. In the latter he gets out of the way so the other guy can start his interview.

Can't see your problem here.

IMBL, so you don't think Rafa deserved it any more than Fed did. At least that's consistent.

Do you even blinking bother to read what I'm saying??

Which part of the 'Nadal won it in 2010 because he completed the Career Grand Slam that year' which I wrote hours ago, did you not understand?

You've also indicated that I've indicated that the voting policy changed in 2004- which is not what I said at all!! It's just a lie.
Players who are at the top of the game and achieving things always give themselves a better chance of winning this award, see my David Ferrer example @ 10:03.

I read what you're saying IMBL but it's so evasive and fluffy that it's hard to draw any conclusions that you're then happy with.
When I asked a Yes/No question no reply was forthcoming.
So you're saying Rafa did deserve it more than Fed? Or less than Fed? Or the same? More/less/the same - delete as applicable.

I think it's astonishing that anyone can think these players on the tour know these top players as well as we do.

bogbrush wrote:I think it's astonishing that anyone can think these players on the tour know these top players as well as we do.

That's not what I'm saying.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I read what you're saying IMBL but it's so evasive and fluffy that it's hard to draw any conclusions that you're then happy with.
When I asked a Yes/No question no reply was forthcoming.
So you're saying Rafa did deserve it more than Fed? Or less than Fed? Or the same? More/less/the same - delete as applicable.

You have absolutely no idea what I'm trying to say.
For the record I believe none of them deserve it, in my eyes it's Ferrer who should pick up this award more than these two.

bogbrush wrote:I think it's astonishing that anyone can think these players on the tour know these top players as well as we do.

And we have a winner

I say we just rename it the Nike Team leader award and be done with it.

Amrit, I get your point and I think there may be some merit to it and I've acknowledged as much in a previous post.

However, I don't think that alone accounts for 8 Steffan Edberg awards - surely a large part of his success in this area is because he deserves it?

Why hasn't Screech won one? He's been the top player in the world for two years now.



emancipator

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I will Paradorn his due, he greeted the players all the same.

Feds after his match with Tsonga waited to walk with him yet couldn't afford the same token to Murray at the AO. Not the complete pro by any means.

I am with carrie. Does it really merit an annual award.

Eh?

In the former case he has to wait or starts his interview while the guy is packing his bags. In the latter he gets out of the way so the other guy can start his interview.

Can't see your problem here.

I have no problem. It was a different slant to the bizarre criticism Paradorn received.

I don't buy into the argument that the very best are the accomplished professional in every way possible.

emancipator wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I think it's astonishing that anyone can think these players on the tour know these top players as well as we do.

And we have a winner

The nominees were Del P, Cilic, Ferrer and Federer.

You think the Del P, Cilic, Ferrer even stand a chance in any sort of players vote??
Even if Del P, Cilic, Ferrer visited all the players every week to give them chocolates they wouldn't stand a chance, with the legacy Federer has created they are much more likely to vote for Federer than the other 3.
Surely you are aware of this possibility?

Ah yes more of Socal's conspiracies!

Did you get tired of the 'draw rigging against Screech' mantra?

I remember you bleating on about that one for months, and very vociferously too.



emancipator

Amrit, see previous post.

emancipator wrote:Amrit, see previous post.

Kl, seen it now, I was writing my post, then saw yours after I pressed send.

It Must Be Love wrote:I researched the last 15 years, and found out that every guy who won the award has reached a Grand Slam final in tennis.

Incomplete research, IMBL. I am just listing exceptions....

1982 - Jose Higueras - Highest slam round - RG SF 82/83.
1983 - Brian Gottfried - Highest Slam - RG W 77
1986 - Noah - Highest Slam - RG W 83

It Must Be Love wrote:Is it just a coincidence that it's always the top guys that have the best sportsmanship? I don't think so.

Is it an exception that players who reach the top are also good sportspersons?

It Must Be Love wrote:The exception to this rule in the last 15 years was Paradorn, who won the award but he has not reached a Grand Slam final. He was well known and famous for greeting his opponents with the Wai, a exotic Thai greeting where he bows to his opponent and all four corners of the stadium.
So I think that made a big difference.

See earlier exceptions.

It Must Be Love wrote:Born Slippy has made some excellent points, funny that Nadal won his award in 2010 (where he cemented his legacy with a career Grand Slam). I stand by what I say, if Ferrer had won 17 Grand Slams but not behaved as well on court, he would still have had a better chance of winning the award.

Is it not subjective to say as well is relative and this is a matter of interpretation?

How come Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro, Soderling, Safin, Hewitt, Murray are yet to receive this award? Sampras with 14 slams and Becker, Lendl, etc?

I may have to research the nominees for each year to better see what the distribution looks like.

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I researched the last 15 years, and found out that every guy who won the award has reached a Grand Slam final in tennis.

Incomplete research, IMBL. I am just listing exceptions....

1982 - Jose Higueras - Highest slam round - RG SF 82/83.
1983 - Brian Gottfried - Highest Slam - RG W 77
1986 - Noah - Highest Slam - RG W 83

I did say I was talking about the last 15 years???
So not the 1980's.
Look you can research any decade you want, my point is that if a player has the legacy Federer has he gives himself a better shot at winning it than a player like Ferrer does, even if they have similar behaviour on court.
Is it really that difficult to understand??
This doesn't necessarily mean of course that every single player with a great legacy will win this award, nor does it mean every player to win the award will have a great legacy.
Apologies if I'm not being clear enough.

IMBL, did Fed not even deserve it in 2004? When the history of the award was NOT to give it to the year's slam winners or YE No 1's ? (Edberg and Rafter being the rare exceptions).
Why would the players suddenly vote for a multi-slam winner (in that year)and YE No 1 after having a history of not doing so?

I've made my point, I just feel you're choosing to ignore it now to wind me up.

@IMBL... why the 15 year window, because it fits your horizon? If Ferrer had no slams, he could still win it. If you talk about chances, every single player has an equal chance. The players top may have better visibility to their peers and the world. The Reward is perhaps a cementing of what is already known to the public at large.

It Must Be Love wrote:This doesn't necessarily mean of course that every single player with a great legacy will win this award, nor does it mean every player to win the award will have a great legacy.

By this statement, there is an equal chance for any player winning it. It is like winning a slam. There are 127 players who get money, but no trophy. The Edberg award is an individual player award.

There is a committee which awards it, like the Nobel Prize. This discussion seems to be going round the literal mulberry bush, and questioning the decision of this committee.

There may perhaps be more deserving candidates at a given point in time, but unlike the Olympic Gold Medal, which an athlete can be stripped off of, this award cannot be.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Fans/ATP-Awards/ATP-World-Tour-Award-Nominees-2012.aspx

laverfan wrote:
If Ferrer had no slams, he could still win it. If you talk about chances, every single player has an equal chance.

No they don't.
They really really don't. The players who are at the top of the rankings and have created an amazing legacy (if they have) will always have a better chance in these things.
Anyway we'll continue this debate tomorrow.