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.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

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

Lol mfc I think they must be watching federer's numerous hawkeye blow ups about overturned calls with rosé tinted glasses

emancipator wrote:OOps, look what else I've found

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

Looks like they're all at it.

would've been much better had he given it the McEnroe treatment...

I not desperate in the least I just have my laptop getting repaired the idea that federer is the biggest whiner about hawkeye overturned calls is quite established but you try fighting off the legion of fed fans on a tiny phone screen

And the winner of the first annual roger federer crying about hawkeye calls is you guessed roger federer the once and forever king

Yep, just trolling now.

Overplayed the hand.

You seem to be bordering on paranoia socal. Don't understand what's happened to you..... Anything to do with the weather .....?

A minute ago you were keen to reassure us that you are "fair & objective"

It's fair to say you've made your objectives very clear.

Lags I am fair and objective he is the goat and has been a huge positive in the game . But I don't buy his great sportsmanship line at all I have watched the man and seen his interviews . Let me ask you was he gracious to djoko after the shot? Give me your honest objective opinion did he earn his 8 edberg awards that day?

I'lll say no he didn't deserve all 8. Now give me your honest opinion - did he deserve any of them?

Socal - he could have handled himself better that day for sure. But it was a painful loss, he was still smarting, and press conferences can be harsh when they focus on one specific shot out of the hundreds played.

If you want to take away awards earned over a span of eight years on the tour because of the occasional indiscretion then I"ll leave you to it. The character assassination has become detached from tennis and is part of another agenda judging by many of your recent posts.

Maybe players value not being messed about on court over the odd frank comment. Perhaps they think no fraudulent MTOs matters more. Y'know, not being made to wait to receive for 25 bounces, that sort of thing.

It's a wild idea but I put it out there for consideration.

Or maybe everyone was forced by Nike, it's so hard to tell what is more likely isn't it?

BTW IMBL, don't forget to include 3 or 4 clips from 2004 and 2005 showing Fed behaving badly. Oh, and please include details of how badly behaved he was towards other players in the locker room etc.

And all those times he refused to help old ladies across the road ...........

socal1976 wrote:Lags I am fair and objective he is the goat and has been a huge positive in the game . But I don't buy his great sportsmanship line at all I have watched the man and seen his interviews . Let me ask you was he gracious to djoko after the shot? Give me your honest objective opinion did he earn his 8 edberg awards that day?

From someone that knows him on and off the court:
Q. Besides congratulations, did he say anything after the game?
ANDY RODDICK: Roger's great. He said, I'm happy for you. You deserved to win tonight. Good luck. Keep it going.
He said similar, something similar in the locker room before he left tonight. You know, he was really classy about it. You know, as with any time you play Roger, he's developed such a fan base. And side story, I you know, you're around guys a lot, but The Garden event that we did three weeks ago was the first time Roger and I spent an entire day together doing stuff.
I'm amazed at the way he does every picture, every autograph. You know, I know what I deal with on a small scale, and it's not what he does.
So, you know, you start to have an understanding why people are so fanatical about him. You know, I think the crowd anywhere cheers for him.
And probably in the USA it would have peed me off not too long ago, but I fully get it now after seeing the way he is and was three weeks ago. You know, I didn't think I could be more impressed with him, but I was really impressed with the way he went about his business for those couple days up there.

I think Roddick about summed it up.

As a side note to Roddicks side note- I took my grandson to the MSG event and met Federer at a sponsor party. He could not have been nicer to my grandson, asked him questions about his tennis, etc.. Then after the match- Roddick, Sharapova,Wozniaki and Federer signed autographs as for about 5 minutes, then Roddick, Sharapova, Wozniaki headed for the tunnel, but Federer stayed out, walked around the entire court of MSG for a good 45 minutes signing for everyone. Of course everyone made a mad dash for the walls and it was crazy but he kept signing and signing.. I've been around many athletes during my professional carreer in marketing, worked closely with all time great champion boxers, and Federer is a true asset to the sports world.

Ruffin I don't deny the man has been in general a huge asset to the sport and will be sorely missed. However he has not been a sunshine and kisses to the extent that he deserves every single sportsmanship award. He certainly at times has been quite nasty to Novak and Andy Murray. And as a djoko fan you just aren't going to convince me not believe what I have seen from federer with my own eyes. Did he act sportingly after the shot Ruffin? Or when he yelled into djoko ' s box at his parents when he could have just as easily directed his comments to the umpire? Or when he waded into the roddick SARS controversy to take another shot at Novak? Personally I respect the fellow and wish he sticks around for a long time but I don't like him and don't buy him winning every sportsmanship award. I love fed-djoko matches precisely because of the bad blood for me every win over roger particularly in a slam is worth 10 wins over anyone else for these very reasons. I just don't like him but I do respect him and from where I am sitting I want a Florida style recount of his edberg awards

Yes but TRuffin, what about when he challenged Hawkeye in 2009?

You're glossing over the really important stuff.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'lll say no he didn't deserve all 8. Now give me your honest opinion - did he deserve any of them?

Is an honest answer forthcoming?

bogbrush wrote:Yes but TRuffin, what about when he challenged Hawkeye in 2009?

You're glossing over the really important stuff.

Bb have you ever criticized federer for anything? Is he infallible like the baby Jesus as some would like us to assume? If you were objective and applied the same standard consistently you would on occasion find fault with anyone's actions. Hell I find fault with my own actions from time to time. But somehow federer is mr inviolate. I just don't buy it. Is djoko perfect hell no his stupid video with tipsarvic and a gun was a dumb move, and I criticized it. But federer seems to be the only guy ever to poop Tiffany cuff links and rose water. Sorry I just don't buy it. If that makes me a bad guy fine. I ain't scared of the truth.

socal1976 wrote:I ain't scared of the truth.

So what is the truthful answer about how many Edberg awards Fed should have really won? And should Djoko have won any?

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yes but TRuffin, what about when he challenged Hawkeye in 2009?

You're glossing over the really important stuff.

Bb have you ever criticized federer for anything? Is he infallible like the baby Jesus as some would like us to assume? If you were objective and applied the same standard consistently you would on occasion find fault with anyone's actions. Hell I find fault with my own actions from time to time. But somehow federer is mr inviolate. I just don't buy it. Is djoko perfect hell no his stupid video with tipsarvic and a gun was a dumb move, and I criticized it. But federer seems to be the only guy ever to poop Tiffany cuff links and rose water. Sorry I just don't buy it. If that makes me a bad guy fine. I ain't scared of the truth.

Not really relevant, as the matter in hand is the contrast between doing really important things rather very well (playing to spirit of rules, dealing with fans, representing fellow professionals, leading the sport, etc.) with trivia (has disputed some hawkeye calls). As for telling Djokovic's parents to be quiet, I'll repeat since you let it go last time that he was roundly applauded for that as they are well known idiots and fools.

However, if you're looking for a bone I'll throw you that the Wimbledon clothing was absurd, and the "15" jacket after the marathon v Roddick badly misjudged, especially given the grief that Andy was feeling. Neither were hanging offences, just clumsy.

Let's be really, really honest here though; the problem isn't Roger, it's that simply far too many people (in your mind) are indifferent to Djokovic. It's not that they dislike him, it's that the great majority of people just say "meh", as opposed to the Worldwide adulation heaped upon Federer.

bogbrush wrote:[ it's that simply far too many people (in your mind) are indifferent to Djokovic. It's not that they dislike him, it's that the great majority of people just say "meh", as opposed to the Worldwide adulation heaped upon Federer.

It's building though, BB, it's building.

The majority of general sports fans I know are pretty keen on Djokovic. It's only really tennis buffs who know about the ball bouncing (which he's cut right down), the parents (who have shut up) and all the other things discussed in this thread.

To the casual watcher, he's a player winning big matches (often in dramatic ways) who is media friendly and seems like a nice guy. Consequently they like him. Some people aren't keen on the shirt ripping and roaring but others seem to love it.

I watched the Djoko v Fed WTF final highlights on my commute today and it struck me that the crowd was not strongly behind either player. Both players points seemed to be attacting big cheers. Contrast this to the way the crowd were so pro-Fed in match v Andy and I have to think that people are warming to Novak.

Obviously not at Fed's level yet but he's been at the top of the game for about 5 years fewer.

I have no problem with him HM, I'm simply trying to offer a rational explanation for the last 3/4 pages of absurdity.

bogbrush wrote:I have no problem with him HM, I'm simply trying to offer a rational explanation for the last 3/4 pages of absurdity.

Rationality? You have been on this forum before, right?

This era is Golden Brown

Ah The Stranglers eh lk?

Throughout the night....no need to fight

Nah, wrong forum.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Is an honest answer forthcoming?

Sorry once again Julius, but I don't think you understand what I'm trying to suggest here, I don't think you can even comprehend that what I'm saying is possible.
Last year I believe Ferrer, Cilic, Federer and Del Potro were all up for the Edberg award. I'm suggesting that however well Ferrer, Cilic, and Del Potro behave on court and in the locker room Federer has an advantage due to how successful his career has been and the legacy he is has built up; i.e. tennis players are more likely to vote for him as he is a legend in the sport.
I also made a point that if David Ferer had won 17 Grand Slams, but not behaved as well in the locker rooms or on court, he would still have a better chance of winning the award.

Of course to you this may seem totally a totally crazy idea, and I can type of see why.
I can imagine if a guy goes to a Page 3 modelling shoot, and at the end he has to vote for the model who he thinks as the best toes. At the end you will be convinced that whoever this guy chooses will be the ones he has judged to have the best toes.
I'll say 'No Julius, you have to consider that the model's toes may not be the only factor in him deciding who is the winner.' And you'll reply indignantly, arms flailing, 'OK then Amritia, show me one youtube clip which shows that Hollie has bad toes. Just one clip.'

One thing you overlook, amrit, is the potential high score available to a top player IF the voters factor in a standard of behaviour relative to their expectations from a guy at the top.

Earlier in the thread Roddick was quoted saying that the demands on Federer were far greater than on him, and he was amazed by how much further than himself Federer went. Federer therefore got, from Andy,

* credit for being "nicer" than him
* extra credit for being so nice in the face of a higher challenge to his niceness.

So if the GOAT, sport leader, call him what you like is even only seen as in the same area of niceness as others, he gets the win because he's achieving his standard from a tougher start point; effectively, he's handicapped.

If you get to play 35 consecutive Grand Slams into quarters, play 18/19 finals, and so on and you still only rack up a small handful of games where you get ratty, it's obvious that your behaviour is judged to be exceptionally good; far better, say, than David Ferrer who is only seen in decisive moments at the business end very rarely.
On top of that, if you exposed to mega media scrutiny yet still stand up as decent it must be deemed that you've reached a standard that, say, Alex Bogdanovic would have to perform healing miracles to reach.
And even further, if you have so many options in your life from having more or less unlimited money, yet devote so much of it to doing good things and representing your peers without favour to oneself, then you get extra extra bonus points on top that just aren't available to Gael Monfils.

Therefore, it's entirely logical that a guy who behaves well AND is by so many factors the leader of his sport will win the Edberg award all the time. It's not corrupt, or twisted, it's actually completely rational.

It Must Be Love wrote:

................................................................................................................................................

Of course to you this may seem totally a totally crazy idea, and I can type of see why.
I can imagine if a guy goes to a Page 3 modelling shoot, and at the end he has to vote for the model who he thinks as the best toes. At the end you will be convinced that whoever this guy chooses will be the ones he has judged to have the best toes.
I'll say 'No Julius, you have to consider that the model's toes may not be the only factor in him deciding who is the winner.' And you'll reply indignantly, arms flailing, 'OK then Amritia, show me one youtube clip which shows that Hollie has bad toes. Just one clip.'

Can someone confirm that I'm still logged on to the tennis forum ...??

Just thought I'd better check ........

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Is an honest answer forthcoming?

Sorry once again Julius, but I don't think you understand what I'm trying to suggest here, I don't think you can even comprehend that what I'm saying is possible.
Last year I believe Ferrer, Cilic, Federer and Del Potro were all up for the Edberg award. I'm suggesting that however well Ferrer, Cilic, and Del Potro behave on court and in the locker room Federer has an advantage due to how successful his career has been and the legacy he is has built up; i.e. tennis players are more likely to vote for him as he is a legend in the sport.
I also made a point that if David Ferer had won 17 Grand Slams, but not behaved as well in the locker rooms or on court, he would still have a better chance of winning the award.

Of course to you this may seem totally a totally crazy idea, and I can type of see why.
I can imagine if a guy goes to a Page 3 modelling shoot, and at the end he has to vote for the model who he thinks as the best toes. At the end you will be convinced that whoever this guy chooses will be the ones he has judged to have the best toes.
I'll say 'No Julius, you have to consider that the model's toes may not be the only factor in him deciding who is the winner.' And you'll reply indignantly, arms flailing, 'OK then Amritia, show me one youtube clip which shows that Hollie has bad toes. Just one clip.'

Actually I was asking socal

bogbrush wrote:One thing you overlook, amrit, is the potential high score available to a top player IF the voters factor in a standard of behaviour relative to their expectations from a guy at the top.

Earlier in the thread Roddick was quoted saying that the demands on Federer were far greater than on him, and he was amazed by how much further than himself Federer went. Federer therefore got, from Andy,

* credit for being "nicer" than him
* extra credit for being so nice in the face of a higher challenge to his niceness.

So if the GOAT, sport leader, call him what you like is even only seen as in the same area of niceness as others, he gets the win because he's achieving his standard from a tougher start point; effectively, he's handicapped.

If you get to play 35 consecutive Grand Slams into quarters, play 18/19 finals, and so on and you still only rack up a small handful of games where you get ratty, it's obvious that your behaviour is judged to be exceptionally good; far better, say, than David Ferrer who is only seen in decisive moments at the business end very rarely.
On top of that, if you exposed to mega media scrutiny yet still stand up as decent it must be deemed that you've reached a standard that, say, Alex Bogdanovic would have to perform healing miracles to reach.
And even further, if you have so many options in your life from having more or less unlimited money, yet devote so much of it to doing good things and representing your peers without favour to oneself, then you get extra extra bonus points on top that just aren't available to Gael Monfils.

Therefore, it's entirely logical that a guy who behaves well AND is by so many factors the leader of his sport will win the Edberg award all the time. It's not corrupt, or twisted, it's actually completely rational.

Yes, good post Bobgrush :OK;
However I say this, even when Ferrer loses and reaches the latter stages I see nothing that would suggest an iota of bad behaviour.
Federer of course as you know, and I have said, is generally a good ambassador for the sport. However there are many examples of him letting himself down on court (I think he has done some things which I have seen no one else do in the past decade- on court), and he does appear to be a bit ungracious and arrogant in post-match interviews sometimes.
But I don't think Federer fans deny that- I was on another forum when they said they like a bit of honest arrogance from Federer in post match interviews- as long as he doesn't go too overboard.

Overall though I see your point about exposure- but I challenge you to research even 1 video on Utube from Ferrer, with him swearing at the umpire, ungracious in interviews etc.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Is an honest answer forthcoming?

Sorry once again Julius, but I don't think you understand what I'm trying to suggest here, I don't think you can even comprehend that what I'm saying is possible.
Last year I believe Ferrer, Cilic, Federer and Del Potro were all up for the Edberg award. I'm suggesting that however well Ferrer, Cilic, and Del Potro behave on court and in the locker room Federer has an advantage due to how successful his career has been and the legacy he is has built up; i.e. tennis players are more likely to vote for him as he is a legend in the sport.
I also made a point that if David Ferer had won 17 Grand Slams, but not behaved as well in the locker rooms or on court, he would still have a better chance of winning the award.

Of course to you this may seem totally a totally crazy idea, and I can type of see why.
I can imagine if a guy goes to a Page 3 modelling shoot, and at the end he has to vote for the model who he thinks as the best toes. At the end you will be convinced that whoever this guy chooses will be the ones he has judged to have the best toes.
I'll say 'No Julius, you have to consider that the model's toes may not be the only factor in him deciding who is the winner.' And you'll reply indignantly, arms flailing, 'OK then Amritia, show me one youtube clip which shows that Hollie has bad toes. Just one clip.'

Actually I was asking socal

Yes I know. You asked me a question earlier but I couldn't find it lol.

However did Federer do anything in 2012 that would be deemed 'rude' or 'unprofessional'?

In time it will be re-named "The Roger Federer" award

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Is an honest answer forthcoming?

Sorry once again Julius, but I don't think you understand what I'm trying to suggest here, I don't think you can even comprehend that what I'm saying is possible.

That is absolutely condescending, IMBL.

It Must Be Love wrote:Last year I believe Ferrer, Cilic, Federer and Del Potro were all up for the Edberg award. I'm suggesting that however well Ferrer, Cilic, and Del Potro behave on court and in the locker room Federer has an advantage due to how successful his career has been and the legacy he is has built up; i.e. tennis players are more likely to vote for him as he is a legend in the sport.

The legacy includes being a fair sportsperson, does it not?

I have seen this in many a posts, which goes... "He is great but a. b. c.". This is true for all fans of a player. It is always possible to make such a list for any player.

It Must Be Love wrote:I also made a point that if David Ferer had won 17 Grand Slams, but not behaved as well in the locker rooms or on court, he would still have a better chance of winning the award.

This is a purely subjective statement and 'behaved as well' has no meaning. Is it a count of how many times he has been unhappy with Hawkeye or argued with the umpire? Is there a universal threshold that a player has to cross to be above or below as well?

It Must Be Love wrote:Of course to you this may seem totally a totally crazy idea, and I can type of see why.
I can imagine if a guy goes to a Page 3 modelling shoot, and at the end he has to vote for the model who he thinks as the best toes. At the end you will be convinced that whoever this guy chooses will be the ones he has judged to have the best toes.
I'll say 'No Julius, you have to consider that the model's toes may not be the only factor in him deciding who is the winner.' And you'll reply indignantly, arms flailing, 'OK then Amritia, show me one youtube clip which shows that Hollie has bad toes. Just one clip.'

This example has too many holes in it, IMBL. Reminds me of the rigging conspiracies.

So why is the questioning of Federer and his Edberg awards? The innuendo of rigging and Nike sales reps and overpriced shoes has no bearing on this reward, or does it? The award is given to deserving candidates, if you disagree, fine, but it does not change the fact. Trying to rewrite history is not a good idea.

My question, to whichever Fed detractors wants to answer (no-one so far) is whether Fed deserved to win it in the 2004-2007 period. If not, why not?
I know people say it's easy to be good when you're winning, but Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Lendl, Hewitt etc couldn't manage it.
Perhaps 2004-2007 was just an average era of sportsmanship

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:One thing you overlook, amrit, is the potential high score available to a top player IF the voters factor in a standard of behaviour relative to their expectations from a guy at the top.

Earlier in the thread Roddick was quoted saying that the demands on Federer were far greater than on him, and he was amazed by how much further than himself Federer went. Federer therefore got, from Andy,

* credit for being "nicer" than him
* extra credit for being so nice in the face of a higher challenge to his niceness.

So if the GOAT, sport leader, call him what you like is even only seen as in the same area of niceness as others, he gets the win because he's achieving his standard from a tougher start point; effectively, he's handicapped.

If you get to play 35 consecutive Grand Slams into quarters, play 18/19 finals, and so on and you still only rack up a small handful of games where you get ratty, it's obvious that your behaviour is judged to be exceptionally good; far better, say, than David Ferrer who is only seen in decisive moments at the business end very rarely.
On top of that, if you exposed to mega media scrutiny yet still stand up as decent it must be deemed that you've reached a standard that, say, Alex Bogdanovic would have to perform healing miracles to reach.
And even further, if you have so many options in your life from having more or less unlimited money, yet devote so much of it to doing good things and representing your peers without favour to oneself, then you get extra extra bonus points on top that just aren't available to Gael Monfils.

Therefore, it's entirely logical that a guy who behaves well AND is by so many factors the leader of his sport will win the Edberg award all the time. It's not corrupt, or twisted, it's actually completely rational.

Yes, good post Bobgrush :OK;
However I say this, even when Ferrer loses and reaches the latter stages I see nothing that would suggest an iota of bad behaviour.
Federer of course as you know, and I have said, is generally a good ambassador for the sport. However there are many examples of him letting himself down on court (I think he has done some things which I have seen no one else do in the past decade- on court), and he does appear to be a bit ungracious and arrogant in post-match interviews sometimes.
But I don't think Federer fans deny that- I was on another forum when they said they like a bit of honest arrogance from Federer in post match interviews- as long as he doesn't go too overboard.

Overall though I see your point about exposure- but I challenge you to research even 1 video on Utube from Ferrer, with him swearing at the umpire, ungracious in interviews etc.

Doesn't matter; to reduce it to a silly scoring system, if David has a "perfect behaviour" potential score of 200, and Roger has a perfect potential of 300, Roger can have a few naughty moments and still legitimately, rationally, win.

Such an award isn't about fewest misdeneanours, it's the overall impression given by a guy, which inevitably must factor the challenges they face. Rogers overall impact is obviously deemed far more positively than anyone else, and I don't think they've got it wrong.

The legacy includes being a fair sportsperson, does it not?

Like Julius, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at here.
My point is that the fact Federer has so many slams and has built up such a legacy in terms of achievments, this means it is much more likely for people to vote for him in this award, above others.

This is a purely subjective statement and 'behaved as well' has no meaning.

Of course there's meaning. Once against you're misinterpresting my post.
When I said 'as well' I meant it in the comparitve sense, I wasn't saying that Ferrer behaved 'well' or 'not well.'
My point being of course if Ferrer had won 17 Grand Slams he would have had a better chance of winning the award, even if his behaviour in the locker room or on court is worse than it is currently.

Reminds me of the rigging conspiracies.

No, no no.
Nothing to do with any conspiracies. Exactly the opposite, I'm saying there is no conspiracy- that's my point- that for these tennis players they are more likely to vote for Federer rather than Cilic irrelevant of their behaviour.

Doesn't matter; to reduce it to a silly scoring system, if David has a "perfect behaviour" potential score of 200, and Roger has a perfect potential of 300, Roger can have a few naughty moments and still legitimately, rationally, win.

So if both players show equal sportsmanship, (let's say they are both perfect), Federer wins?
Isn't that unfair on Ferrer, if his sportsmanship is as good if not better than Federer, that according to you his perfect potential is less because of what he hasn't been able to achieve on court rather than his behaviour on it.

It Must Be Love wrote:

The legacy includes being a fair sportsperson, does it not?

Like Julius, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get at here.
My point is that the fact Federer has so many slams and has built up such a legacy in terms of achievments, this means it is much more likely for people to vote for him in this award, above others.

What was his legacy in 2004, 2005? Before that point the history of the award shows that players who won multiple slams in a year and/or who finished as YE No 1 were NOT voted for. So why Fed?

laverfan wrote: .............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................
So why is the questioning of Federer and his Edberg awards? The innuendo of rigging and Nike sales reps and overpriced shoes has no bearing on this reward, or does it? The award is given to deserving candidates, if you disagree, fine, but it does not change the fact. Trying to rewrite history is not a good idea.

Oh come on laverfan, of course it's totally rigged and 100% controlled by Nike.

Nike tell all the strong-minded self-confident guys on the tour who to vote for, and they all meekly fall into line (even if against their better judgment) for fear of the many horrendous plagues that would be visited upon them if they ever had the nerve to do anything other than follow instructions.

And if, for whatever reason, you happen to still doubt it, just look back at the plethora of posts on the matter by socal and you will find definitive proof.

Irrefutable, you would agree surely ....??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Sportsmanship_Award

Looking at the list, I can't see any 'big' or 'successful' names on it like Jordan or James.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Sportsmanship_Award

Again no 'successful' winners. This one above epitomizes what such awards are given The NCAA Sportsmanship Award is given each year to one man and one woman in National Collegiate Athletics Association sports who have demonstrated one or more of the ideals of sportsmanship, including fairness, civility, honesty, unselfishness, respect and responsibility

Can we say that any consistent period of time that Federer has failed to live up to the moral codes required?

It Must Be Love wrote:

Doesn't matter; to reduce it to a silly scoring system, if David has a "perfect behaviour" potential score of 200, and Roger has a perfect potential of 300, Roger can have a few naughty moments and still legitimately, rationally, win.

So if both players show equal sportsmanship, (let's say they are both perfect), Federer wins?
Isn't that unfair on Ferrer, if his sportsmanship is as good if not better than Federer, that according to you his perfect potential is less because of what he hasn't been able to achieve on court rather than his behaviour on it.

No, it's not unfair. If Federer, given the gargantuan challenges and responsibilities that go with his position can be, say, equal (however we judge that), then he's the clear winner.

David simply doesn't face the challenges Federer does; he has fewer seriously big moments in tournaments (vastly!), fewer responsibilities in the game for leadership, fewer and less intrusive media challenges.

Of course all I'm pointing out here is that the reality if that Federer must be a good sport, which is why he was getting the award long before he was GOAT, heading the players Council supporting lower ranked guys, needing to sign for an hour after events or running a foundation, or anything else of that ilk.

lags72 wrote:

laverfan wrote: .............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................
So why is the questioning of Federer and his Edberg awards? The innuendo of rigging and Nike sales reps and overpriced shoes has no bearing on this reward, or does it? The award is given to deserving candidates, if you disagree, fine, but it does not change the fact. Trying to rewrite history is not a good idea.

Oh come on laverfan, of course it's totally rigged and 100% controlled by Nike.

Nike tell all the strong-minded self-confident guys on the tour who to vote for, and they all meekly fall into line (even if against their better judgment) for fear of the many horrendous plagues that would be visited upon them if they ever had the nerve to do anything other than follow instructions.

And if, for whatever reason, you happen to still doubt it, just look back at the plethora of posts on the matter by socal and you will find definitive proof.

Irrefutable, you would agree surely ....??

Well this isn't what I'm saying at all.
It may be what Socal is saying, but let me make this clear, it's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm not sure why LF referred to that while quoting me and replying to me, so just wanted to clear that up.

IMBL, please have a quick review of the 2 questions (on 2 posts) I've asked above and have a go at answering them.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, please have a quick review of the 2 questions (on 2 posts) I've asked above and have a go at answering them.

I've answered like millions of your questions.
You ask like 10 every minute.
If you're asking whether he deserved to win it, I don't think so, I think personally down the years from what I have seen on court Ferrer deserves to win the award more.

Anyway I think I'm signing off from the thread now, I've made my point. If people actually want to believe that winning 17 Grand Slams and being acheiving so much makes no difference to player voting, then they can do so.

Impressive stuff !!

Signs off the thread just as the questions get tricky.......

Purely by coincidence of course.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, please have a quick review of the 2 questions (on 2 posts) I've asked above and have a go at answering them.

I've answered like millions of your questions.
You ask like 10 every minute.
If you're asking whether he deserved to win it, I don't think so, I think personally down the years from what I have seen on court Ferrer deserves to win the award more.

Anyway I think I'm signing off from the thread now, I've made my point. If people actually want to believe that winning 17 Grand Slams and being acheiving so much makes no difference to player voting, then they can do so.

That's graceless.

I've shown you a rational reason why a player in Federers position can easily earn it more than a mediocre player who has no negatives, but you choose not to respond to them.

You're obstinacy in the face of sound logic is noted, I'll bear it in mind in future.

lags72 wrote:Impressive stuff !!

Signs off the thread just as the questions get tricky.......

Purely by coincidence of course.

OK I'll stay on.
Federer fans have basically been bombarding me with 100 questions a minute though, after I suggested that his acheivements on court may play a part in the minds of players voting as well as sportsmanship.

It Must Be Love wrote:

lags72 wrote:Impressive stuff !!

Signs off the thread just as the questions get tricky.......

Purely by coincidence of course.

OK I'll stay on.
Federer fans have basically been bombarding me with 100 questions a minute though, after I suggested that his acheivements on court may play a part in the minds of players voting as well as sportsmanship.

Good show, but perhaps the answer to the question bothering you is set out in my few posts above.

It's rational, or otherwise a complete nobody with no negatives would, by your measure, be in line to win it.

Bogbrush, calling Ferrer mediocre is unfair, and I think he's had a lot of exposure. I can only judge him from what I have seen, and from what I have seen in terms of sportsmanship he is better than many.

bogbrush wrote:
It's rational, or otherwise a complete nobody with no negatives would, by your measure, be in line to win it.

Ferrer isnt' a nobody though.
He's reached the latter stages of many Grand Slams, and he's not put one foot wrong from what I've seen.

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, calling Ferrer mediocre is unfair, and I think he's had a lot of exposure. I can only judge him from what I have seen, and from what I have seen in terms of sportsmanship he is better than many.

Compared to Federers career, calling Ferrer mediocre is realistic to complimentary. I struggle to recall a decisive moment in the business end of a Slam that he's ever been involved in, he normally just gets trounced. Not that I actually called Ferrer mediocre by the way, but it doesn't matter.

Please don't latch onto this as a strawman to divert, by the way.......