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 socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:09 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:I do have to agree with Socal on most of what he says. He has defended Rafa on numerous occasions especially over the PEDs accusations. I also would agree about what happened on 606 which is one of the reasons I eventually left that forum. No matter whether you were male or female young or old if you just happened to like/support Nadal because you enjoyed his game you were attacked and accused of being a fan girl (oh I should be so lucky). Nadal haters were in abundance on 606 and were disgustingly disrespectful wums and trolls.

Exactly, you said two nice things about Nadal you were Nadal apologist. Thank you for the back up Haddie it is much appreciated.

by User 774433 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:10 pm

emancipator wrote:
Nonsense.

You were an avid Nadal fan on 606, two of us have independently verified this fact. Exposed

Really???
I remember Socal supporting Djokovic during his matches.
He did defend Nadal a few times though I remember, against some anti-Nadal trolls.

Funny how you think Emancipator that just because Suparnik agrees with you, you've now 'verified this fact' when it's simply untrue.
You sound like Rafael Benitez.

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:14 pm

I have often said nice things about murray and nadal, on this very site. I chose not to fawn over federer and I have my reasons for that. I have done threads on this very site praising Roger, I guess I am a Roger fan. You can't possibly have respect for an 11 time grandslam champion and like other players.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:15 pm

bogbrush wrote:I thought you'd 'had enough' of that.

Yeah, 606 wasn't based on anti- Fed wums after all, was it?

Not all negative comments require an answer

by bogbrush Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:17 pm

by spuranik Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:39 pm

socal1976 wrote:Ok Spuranik, you got me, you exposed me as a Nadal fanboy, I like the man's game and his contribution to the game and I have defended him. In fact I did a thread entitled the wonderful shotmaking ability of Nadal. So if you ever say anything positive about Nadal you can't be a fan of another player. Whatever, who cares what your official verdict is, I like the man and have said nice things about him and his game. And I like murray and have said nice things about him. I have even said very nice things about federer on this very website, would you like me to bring that thread up so you can denounce me as a fed fan?

Socal, official verdict post was from Emancipator, not from me... Very Happy

And I (and I think Emancipator too) wasn't talking about saying "some nice things" about Nadal. You were as big a fan of Nadal - if not bigger - as you are of Djokovic now. (with your name as SocalFootieFan).

And rest assured, nobody in their right mind is going to confuse you and "denounce" as a Fed fan.. Very Happy

by spuranik Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:41 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
emancipator wrote:
Nonsense.

You were an avid Nadal fan on 606, two of us have independently verified this fact. Exposed

Really???
I remember Socal supporting Djokovic during his matches.
He did defend Nadal a few times though I remember, against some anti-Nadal trolls.

Funny how you think Emancipator that just because Suparnik agrees with you, you've now 'verified this fact' when it's simply untrue.
You sound like Rafael Benitez.

And just because you say it, it is untrue?

You don't have the slightest idea of SocalFootieFan account, do you? Tell you what, it was way before you joined 606.

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:44 pm

Spuranik you know what feel free to call me a Nadal fan if it makes you feel better, yes on old 606 I often defended Nadal against scurrilous accusations. Anyone who has been on this site knows I have done the same here and on OTF as well. If that makes me a Nadal fan to defend him against character assassination or to sometimes compliment an 11 time slam winner then put whatever label you like. Frankly, if you are so silly that you think a guy who touts himself as being from the milky way galaxy and beyond is the last word on my allegiances go ahead and take your official verdict and stick it in your cornhole and just make sure you don't stick it up there too hard you might get brain damage.

by LuvSports! Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:47 pm

see you didn't answer my post socal. Evidence, something you haven't provided.
A dozen times is just a lie. A few times at max.

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:50 pm

LuvSports! wrote:see you didn't answer my post socal. Evidence, something you haven't provided.
A dozen times is just a lie. A few times at max.

Luvsports, I have seen the man on numeros occassions bitch about shot spot calls like he sees better than the dozens of cameras arrainged on the court linked to a computer, he really is the only one I have ever seen do it. But I don't have an exact count my memory is good it isn't that good. It could be any number I cant give you dozens of incidents from my own memory, ok is that enough for you. He is the only guy I have ever seen do it at all.

by bogbrush Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:54 pm

When he's complained to the Umpire disputing Hawkeye?

6 examples would surprise me. Even 3.

by LuvSports! Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:57 pm

well i think you are prone to flip-flopping around, putting a spin on things to alter the argument to your advantage and blowing things out of proportion.
So until I see hard evidence i won't believe you.

I know of times feds has done churlish things but he doesn't do it that much at all.

by sportslover Thu 31 Jan 2013, 9:57 pm

Catalan Power remember him!

Came across one of his articles on Roger

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A75854811

Good for a laugh if nothing else.

by spuranik Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:06 pm

socal1976 wrote:Spuranik you know what feel free to call me a Nadal fan if it makes you feel better, yes on old 606 I often defended Nadal against scurrilous accusations. Anyone who has been on this site knows I have done the same here and on OTF as well. If that makes me a Nadal fan to defend him against character assassination or to sometimes compliment an 11 time slam winner then put whatever label you like. Frankly, if you are so silly that you think a guy who touts himself as being from the milky way galaxy and beyond is the last word on my allegiances go ahead and take your official verdict and stick it in your cornhole and just make sure you don't stick it up there too hard you might get brain damage.

Don't get angry Socal.

Do you have any reply to my 3:09 post?

And one more thing to add to what BB and luvsports are saying, I will give one more stat. He has the highest success rate on hawkeye challenges. laughing

by **laverfan** Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:13 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Can someone name a match where Federer clearly soldiered on despite being injured severely enough to have no chance of winning?

TMC 2008 v Murray. Wink

by **laverfan** Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:17 pm

May I gently remind posters that poster name calling is not a good idea. Please refrain from such. Frayed nerves do not help a debate.

My son recommends a 'chill pill'. Wink

by LuvSports! Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:23 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8_fBZDGnM

He asks can you switch it off near the end Laugh

I don't think he is abusing the umpire here though, he's just frustrated at HE and the fact he was getting beat in the 4th set.

by LuvSports! Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:24 pm

laverfan wrote:May I gently remind posters that poster name calling is not a good idea. Please refrain from such. Frayed nerves do not help a debate.

My son recommends a 'chill pill'.

But he started it! boxing

honest!

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:34 pm

LuvSports! wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8_fBZDGnM

He asks can you switch it off near the end

I don't think he is abusing the umpire here though, he's just frustrated at HE and the fact he was getting beat in the 4th set.

I rest my case the humble sportsman is the first man on record who asks the umpire to shut off hawkeye because he is losing . Another 8 time edberg awarding moment

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:40 pm

Fed should probably only have won it 3 or 4 times.

After all the players have a long history of NOT giving it to players who were very successful in the year and/or were YE No. 1 - until Fed came along.

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:41 pm

spuranik wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Spuranik you know what feel free to call me a Nadal fan if it makes you feel better, yes on old 606 I often defended Nadal against scurrilous accusations. Anyone who has been on this site knows I have done the same here and on OTF as well. If that makes me a Nadal fan to defend him against character assassination or to sometimes compliment an 11 time slam winner then put whatever label you like. Frankly, if you are so silly that you think a guy who touts himself as being from the milky way galaxy and beyond is the last word on my allegiances go ahead and take your official verdict and stick it in your cornhole and just make sure you don't stick it up there too hard you might get brain damage.

Don't get angry Socal.

Do you have any reply to my 3:09 post?

And one more thing to add to what BB and luvsports are saying, I will give one more stat. He has the highest success rate on hawkeye challenges.

He also has the hghest rate of crying about overturned calls and asking that the machine be turned off because the calls aren't going his way

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:43 pm

Spurnik repost it I don't remember what you said and am now posting via phone

by lags72 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:48 pm

You could have saved yourself a helluva lot of time by just telling us that Federer is the personification of evil in your first post of the thread socal.

I think we've all got the message loud & clear now as to precisely what you think of the guy ........

by LuvSports! Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:50 pm

so i had to provide evidence, you didn't for one part of your argument.

where is the proof for your other part?

by bogbrush Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:51 pm

socal1976 wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8_fBZDGnM

He asks can you switch it off near the end

I don't think he is abusing the umpire here though, he's just frustrated at HE and the fact he was getting beat in the 4th set.

I rest my case the humble sportsman is the first man on record who asks the umpire to shut off hawkeye because he is losing . Another 8 time edberg awarding moment

Just 11 to go, even if we count 'asking' as terrible behaviour,

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:53 pm

Lags if I refuse to accept Feds perfection in all ways and at all times I hate the guy or think he is evil ? I am extremely fair and objective about fed but I refuse to buy this genteel sportsman line of claptrap. I don't care if he has 152 Nike/edberg awards

by bogbrush Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:53 pm

Pretty obvious socal doesn't believe what he's posting, not really. It's mostly just gainsaying.

At worst there's just a simmering sense of injustice that Djokovic doesn't get much love.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 31 Jan 2013, 10:58 pm

The evidence is clear then - in 2004 Fed won his first Edberg award. There is no way he could possibly have won it unless the players were corrupted by Nike representatives into voting for him.
The clear evidence of this is....because Fed won it. Obvious really. There's no other possible explanation.

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:00 pm

Sorry got better things to do then hunt through YouTube for you I retract a dozen and will say more generally that in my opinion he whines about hawkeye calls that go against him more than any player on tour . My memory is good but it isn't that good. I retract a dozen frankly I think it is more than that but I don't know the exact number but he is the biggest whiner on overturned calls on tour.if there was an award for crying about hawkeye calls they should name it the federer award and give it to him every year he has my vote on that one

by bogbrush Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:03 pm

You retract it, but think its probably more? Erm

That's genuinely confusing.

by lags72 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:05 pm

You don't have to buy or accept anything socal, your opinion is your own.

Like so many others here I just find it wholly surreal to imagine that the guys who see Federer week in week out on the court and in the locker room are apparently so naive and meek as to be hoodwinked by some weird Nike conspiracy aka "claptrap" Whistle

by Guest Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:09 pm

socal1976 wrote:
spuranik wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Spuranik you know what feel free to call me a Nadal fan if it makes you feel better, yes on old 606 I often defended Nadal against scurrilous accusations. Anyone who has been on this site knows I have done the same here and on OTF as well. If that makes me a Nadal fan to defend him against character assassination or to sometimes compliment an 11 time slam winner then put whatever label you like. Frankly, if you are so silly that you think a guy who touts himself as being from the milky way galaxy and beyond is the last word on my allegiances go ahead and take your official verdict and stick it in your cornhole and just make sure you don't stick it up there too hard you might get brain damage.

Don't get angry Socal.

Do you have any reply to my 3:09 post?

And one more thing to add to what BB and luvsports are saying, I will give one more stat. He has the highest success rate on hawkeye challenges.

Really? because of one incident?
He also has the hghest rate of crying about overturned calls and asking that the machine be turned off because the calls aren't going his way

by Guest Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:14 pm

Oh look what I found.

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

I guess Rafa is now joint top with Roger for being a HE disputer

by LuvSports! Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:15 pm

well as you don't have any hard evidence, it means nothing to me Smile

. good day

by Guest Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:17 pm

Or what about this?

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

Is Rafa now worse than Fed?

Or maybe they're both actually fine when it comes to such issues. They rarely make a fuss out of it.

by bogbrush Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:26 pm

Oh dear.....

by **laverfan** Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:28 pm

@Emanci... all of them have issues and human frailties. Wink

by User 774433 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:32 pm

Wowzers lots of comments here.

What have I missed?

by User 774433 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:34 pm

I see Emancipator posted the legendary Nadal 'Marco, no puedes comprender' video against Berdych.
Someone must have got him quite angry then.

by lags72 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:36 pm

laverfan wrote:@Emanci... all of them have issues and human frailties.

Yes - ALL of them. Even our current Number One.

But you might want to remind socal of that, laverfan

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:37 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Wowzers lots of comments here.

What have I missed?

the usual whenever someone dares criticise ~~Smuggles~~ Federer on this forum Whistle

by Guest Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:39 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:I see Emancipator posted the legendary Nadal 'Marco, no puedes comprender' video against Berdych.
Someone must have got him quite angry then.

Yeah.. HE I think Very Happy

by **laverfan** Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:40 pm

lags72 wrote:
laverfan wrote:@Emanci... all of them have issues and human frailties.

Yes - ALL of them. Even our current Number One.

But you might want to remind socal of that, laverfan

I quite agree. I have the difficult job of convincing that heros are dudes too. Wink

by User 774433 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:42 pm

emancipator wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I see Emancipator posted the legendary Nadal 'Marco, no puedes comprender' video against Berdych.
Someone must have got him quite angry then.

Yeah.. HE I think

lol

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:42 pm

emancipator wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I see Emancipator posted the legendary Nadal 'Marco, no puedes comprender' video against Berdych.
Someone must have got him quite angry then.

Yeah.. HE I think

Nadal wasn't upset at the HE call I thought, he was upset at the umpire giving the point to Berdych. The umpire was right of course on this occasion (you clearly see Nadal stops to challenge before the call of "out" comes so the umpire is absolutely right to not replay the point), and Rafa had no business going on like that.

If I can slip in a bit of Murray-worshipping, I thought Murray behaved pretty well on a similar call in the AO semi, when Federer hit a BH that just caught the line, was called out, but as Murray had apparently already missed his subsequent shot, the point was awarded to Federer.

by socal1976 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:46 pm

Imbl could you produce some links of fed whining about hawkeye I am on my phone and it is a pain to cut and paste the obvious facts to the legion of fed fans
I know we talked about this issue but I can't really post that effectively with this crappy little screen and no mouse

by User 774433 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:46 pm

laverfan wrote:
lags72 wrote:
laverfan wrote:@Emanci... all of them have issues and human frailties.

Yes - ALL of them. Even our current Number One.

But you might want to remind socal of that, laverfan

I quite agree. I have the difficult job of convincing that heros are dudes too.

I have an article with a few things that Federer has done... things that are much worse than what Socal has revealed here.
Socal and HM have already read it, but I think I'll save it for later, Eman's angry enough as he is.

I still think Ferrer/Tsonga should be winning these awards, and stand by my comment yesterday that if Ferrer had won 17 Grand Slams his chance of winning these awards would be increased irrelevant of his behaviour on courts.

by Guest Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:47 pm

OOps, look what else I've found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NhZbgx1vOg

Looks like they're all at it.

by Guest Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:49 pm

Oh but no oh child Amrit,

I'm quite enjoying this.

Socal's starting to sound a bit desperate though Sad

by User 774433 Thu 31 Jan 2013, 11:52 pm

Eman's even dug out the Murray rant lol.

But no, I won't release that article now Eman, even though I'm sure you'd enjoy it.
I've talked to Socal, we agreed that he would not post some of the links from the article so I can use it later.

by Sponsored content