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.

You might be too quick to jump to conclusions IMBL.

A lot of people here could well be fans of logic & argument backed by historical fact rather than fans of Federer .............

lags72 wrote:You might be too quick to jump to conclusions IMBL.

A lot of people here could well be fans of logic & argument backed by historical fact rather than fans of Federer .............

Assuming of course that fans of logic and historical fact could be anything other than fans of Federer.....

Reminds me of the Gregory House quote, when he was asked whether he should try reasoning with a religious person, to which he said "if you could reason with a religious person there wouldn't be any religious people". The character is my hero.

My point is this:
-Federer has given him a greater chance of winning awards my making himself more well known and winning slams.
-I used Ferrer as an example, I think Ferrer would have a better chance of winning the award if he was a multi-time Grand Slam champion, even if his behaviour was worse than it is now.
-The nominees this year were Fed, Del P, Cilic and Ferrer. I think players would be inclined to vote for Federer, irrelevant f sportsmanship.
-It's NOT rigged by Nike.

-Bogbrush posted a good point that by winning more events it is harder to keep a squeaky clean image as he has more media attention.
However I have given a lot of attention to Ferrer, and in terms of on court at least, I haven't seen him out a foot wrong, unlike Federer.

Interesting quote there bb (even if I have a bit of a problem with it myself ....!)

My comment really stemmed from a post in which IMBL was clearly implying that the annual votes for Federer by his fellow pros on the tour come about NOT because they feel he actually deserves it for his sportsmanlike qualities and behaviour (quite the opposite in fact....) but because of his high profile in the game and uniquely successful Slam record.

So the reasoning goes something like this .......

The pros are offered the opportunity to vote for whoever they wish. They have - presumably - seen Federer at various times do some pretty nasty things on court and in post-match interviews. Indeed, some of these things are (so IMBL and socal tell us) quite unprecedented in the history of the sport. Truly evil in fact. But I'll vote for him nonetheless because er .....although he's a bad sport......er ..... he's won a lot of Slams.

Yep, makes sense.

And if there's still any lingering doubt, cue the over-priced 'crappy' trainers argument, rigging conspiracies and those dodgy guys at Nike - who, would you believe ( ) are in business to make money.

It Must Be Love wrote:... but I challenge you to research even 1 video on Utube from Ferrer, with him swearing at the umpire, ungracious in interviews etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtwHQ6XhQyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcBGN1sFCtQ

This is morally reprehensible on my part, but just to satisfy the challenge.

I like Ferrer a lot. I would love to see him win the Edberg, but if he does not, I do not want to take away anything from other winners. This is what I expect from fans of respective players, do not grudge other players winning awards. The entire Tennis community should be proud of Djokovic, Ferrer, Federer, or Nadal, or Murray for winning for what they win.

bogbrush wrote:Reminds me of the Gregory House quote, when he was asked whether he should try reasoning with a religious person, to which he said "if you could reason with a religious person there wouldn't be any religious people". The character is my hero.

Wonderful actor, Hugh Laurie is.

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.

Well, that's the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. Millions of questions. I've asked 2 and you refuse to answer either of them. And as for the final point - in 2004 I'm fairly sure Fed had not won 17 slams. It doesn't go unnoticed that you avoid questions you don't like the answer to. I ask about 2004 and 2005 - you talk about this year and then say you've made your point. A point in no way related to the question.

One more thing lags, there isn't really a history of "lot of" slam winners winning the award every-time.

Srichaphan won it twice before Federer and Rafter won it 4 times in 5 years before that. Srichaphan as we know, hasn't featured in any slam final. And although Rafter is a 2 time GS champ, he was playing alongside Agassi and Sampras who should have won this award if we have to go by this theory.

Maybe as JHM puts it, this rigging started only after 2004.

Ok Julius Ill have a go at answering one of the questions. Fed has probably deserved aorund half the Edberg awards he got, many of them in his early years. Simply put he was different back then, he went from basically a brat, to a really calm collected and well mannered guy in interviews.

I always felt that Federer changed a bit after about 2008, it's like all the ridiculous success finally caught up with him, and everyone including many of his fans couldn't quite belive that people were beginning to catch up to him a little, hence all sorts of mono excuses, stuff said in interviews and such that I thought he wouldn't have done 3 years ago.
Nothing THAT bad tbh, but little things, for exmaple Wimby 2010 after the Berdych match, he said i belive "these guys don't reinvent themselves in a year" which felt a little off, it was almost like he was sayign Berdych wasn't good enough to improve and beat him, he must have been lucky"

By far the worst thing which was what drew me away from the man was the number 15 shirt after Wimby 09 and the on court interview, I thought that was a rare classless moment from him.

But I digress these are only MY views, I don't expect you to agree with me, though I would ask you respect my opinion and not name call like the last few pages, but these aren't big things but enough for me to feel like someone else, say ferrer should have been considered.

I'm a bit cynical about the award now if im honest, to me its a pr spin opportunity, Federer and the game has created this "honorable gentleman" persona around him, he's still the face of the game, soo what better way to promote the game than keep giving it to the classy face of the sport, and not say Ferrer who most non tennis people have no idea about.

Again this is only my cynical attitude, but it's how I feel, Fed used to win it by right, but I feel time has long past since he was the true deserved winner year by year.

Saying this however I personally do feel that success is a fairly big factor towards getting the award nowadays, it's a good pr opportunity for the game,

Excuse the last post, double the length of any previous

But just to point out, that post does not say I HATE Federer, thats a strong word, I don't even dislike him really, I'm just not in his corner anymore, I thought he chanegd a little and thus I sort of stopped liking him quite as much as I did. Support is not black and white, theres a middle ground, the guys earnt all the accolades he gets by hard work, and the 05 Agassi us open final is still one of my favourites, Feds forehand was That day, still watch it now sometimes, but im just not the same with him anymore, there was a time I didnt like him a little but that went

2004, 2005 Federer won 3 slams a year.
Also he's in general ambassador for the sport, as I've said before.

Lags, I have never said anyone is evil?? When did I say that?

I've no axe to grind on the Stefan Edberg award but have been following the discussion and would be interested to know how the nominees are chosen. Is it :

A preliminary vote of all the players which then produces a short list of four and then the players vote again between them

A vote of all the players which produces a winner but they name the next three as nominees as sort of letting them know that their efforts are recognised (like a highly commended rosette)

A panel of people evaluate the players and come up with the four nominees and then the players vote.

falzy21 wrote:Ok Julius Ill have a go at answering one of the questions. Fed has probably deserved aorund half the Edberg awards he got, many of them in his early years. Simply put he was different back then, he went from basically a brat, to a really calm collected and well mannered guy in interviews.

I always felt that Federer changed a bit after about 2008, it's like all the ridiculous success finally caught up with him, and everyone including many of his fans couldn't quite belive that people were beginning to catch up to him a little, hence all sorts of mono excuses, stuff said in interviews and such that I thought he wouldn't have done 3 years ago.
Nothing THAT bad tbh, but little things, for exmaple Wimby 2010 after the Berdych match, he said i belive "these guys don't reinvent themselves in a year" which felt a little off, it was almost like he was sayign Berdych wasn't good enough to improve and beat him, he must have been lucky"

By far the worst thing which was what drew me away from the man was the number 15 shirt after Wimby 09 and the on court interview, I thought that was a rare classless moment from him.

But I digress these are only MY views, I don't expect you to agree with me, though I would ask you respect my opinion and not name call like the last few pages, but these aren't big things but enough for me to feel like someone else, say ferrer should have been considered.

I'm a bit cynical about the award now if im honest, to me its a pr spin opportunity, Federer and the game has created this "honorable gentleman" persona around him, he's still the face of the game, soo what better way to promote the game than keep giving it to the classy face of the sport, and not say Ferrer who most non tennis people have no idea about.

Again this is only my cynical attitude, but it's how I feel, Fed used to win it by right, but I feel time has long past since he was the true deserved winner year by year.

Saying this however I personally do feel that success is a fairly big factor towards getting the award nowadays, it's a good pr opportunity for the game,

My position is similar to you on this Falzy.
Btw Spuranik, I have never indicated draw rigging.

bogbrush wrote:Reminds me of the Gregory House quote, when he was asked whether he should try reasoning with a religious person, to which he said "if you could reason with a religious person there wouldn't be any religious people". The character is my hero.

The irony being that the character espousing reason is a character with whom you cannot reason.

It is indeed a good quote!

falzy, I more or less agree with that assessment of Fed.
I haven't called anyone any names.

Edit - turns out it was falzy who replied. I've edited my reply as I thought is was IMBL.

It Must Be Love wrote:2004, 2005 Federer won 3 slams a year.
Also he's in general ambassador for the sport, as I've said before.

Lags, I have never said anyone is evil?? When did I say that?

So, its true then. 2004-05 is the period when they started handing out the award to slam winners.

Just before that, the award was true to its name.

spuranik wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:2004, 2005 Federer won 3 slams a year.
Also he's in general ambassador for the sport, as I've said before.

Lags, I have never said anyone is evil?? When did I say that?

So, its true then. 2004-05 is the period when they started handing out the award to slam winners.

Just before that, the award was true to its name.

??? I didn't say that for sure.

Hmmm ..... see what you mean spuranik...

So the fact that the award has NOT always gone to a really 'big' name multi-Slammer pretty much puts paid to IMBL's theory.

Which leaves us with just the rigging conspiracy espoused so enthusiastically and repeatedly by socal.

Think I've got the drift of it now ......

IMBL : Of course you never used the word 'evil'. But the thrust of what I'm saying stands.

Evil was a bit of poetic licence on my part, prompted by the fact that if anyone who (by some remote chance ....) knew absolutely nothing of Mr. Roger Federer chanced upon some of your comments, including allusions to him doing things that you have never witnessed or heard of before in the history of tennis ....... well that person might just be inclined to conclude that he's a pretty nasty piece of work. Happily for Federer and this great sport of tennis and its millions of followers, the vast majority of people (including it seems a large number of top ATP pros) see him in a quite different light.....

spuranik wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:2004, 2005 Federer won 3 slams a year.
Also he's in general ambassador for the sport, as I've said before.

Lags, I have never said anyone is evil?? When did I say that?

So, its true then. 2004-05 is the period when they started handing out the award to slam winners.

Just before that, the award was true to its name.

Exactly - apparently in 2004 the same players who previously had shown an almost steadfast refusal to vote for the year's most successful player suddenly decided to vote for Fed, not particularly because of his sportsmanship, but because of his success.

@Falzy... If one carries an ideal persona in their mind's eye, and somehow there is a specific act (like the '15' jersey), one feels that the pedestal is on a shakey ground from that point on.

My question is the reverse. Why put someone on a pedestal in the first place, to just see them fall subsequently? We seem to gloss over the humanity of these athletes, and are shocked when we do realise that it has always been there to begin with?

Every player in the last 15 years who has won the award has reached a Grand Slam final apart from Paradorn.

Every player in the last 15 years who has won the award has reached a Grand Slam final apart from Paradorn.

It Must Be Love wrote:Every player in the last 15 years who has won the award has reached a Grand Slam final apart from Paradorn.

But rarely in the year they won the award. And they certainly had not been the year's most sucessful player in any year (apart from maybe Edberg himslef) until Fed. Is your statement simply another diversion from addressing the pertinent facts?

It Must Be Love wrote:Every player in the last 15 years who has won the award has reached a Grand Slam final apart from Paradorn.

So before Paradorn, players had a secret criteria that only a GS finalist would be awarded.

Around 2004-05, they started handing out the award to the most successful player.

Federers success puts him in the limelight and means its more likely people vote for him. If he had never been in the top 10 I don't think he would have won, even if his behaviour off and on court was immaculate.

Can someone find the people who were nominated against Fed in 2004 and 2005, then I can answer your question about that precise year.

spuranik wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Every player in the last 15 years who has won the award has reached a Grand Slam final apart from Paradorn.

So before Paradorn, players had a secret criteria that only a GS finalist would be awarded.

Around 2004-05, they started handing out the award to the most successful player.

No, nothing is systematic like that.
Read my reply to Julius above ^.

Let me take 2010 for an example.
Nadal won the award.
But if he hasn't been in the top 5, would he have won it???

I don't think so. And Im not a Nadal hater, Im just putting across my view here.

It Must Be Love wrote:Every player in the last 15 years who has won the award has reached a Grand Slam final apart from Paradorn.

Ok, so Paradorn Scrichaphan is something of an inconvenience because he doesn't fit your theory for Federer (who wins purely because he's a big name multi-Slammer NOT because he's a good sport..... quite the opposite in fact)

But no worries .... socal has a neat theory just for this too :

quote

"I mean sure there is one off here and there, hell a crappy silent movie won the best picture in the academy award, does that mean if you want to win an Oscar you should just make a black and white silent picture. Generally writting and dialogue matters for an Oscar. Just like being a top player matters for being an Edberg award winner".

It Must Be Love wrote:Federers success puts him in the limelight and means its more likely people vote for him. If he had never been in the top 10 I don't think he would have won, even if his behaviour off and on court was immaculate.

Can someone find the people who were nominated against Fed in 2004 and 2005, then I can answer your question about that precise year.

So Sampras and Agassi weren't in the limelight in their winning days? Still couldn't win the award, could they?

And as BB posted a while back, being in the limelight makes the job tougher, not easier.

There is an award for success -> Player of the year

There is a award for being in the limelight -> Fans' Favourite

Lf It's not that I put him on a pedastal just to knock him down, it's not that I was disillusioned by him either, I honestly think he just changed, he wasn't the guy that I supported anymore, the game was still there, but I felt the man himself had moved on.

It's not that he fell off my pedalstal, it's more he just moved off it, he wasn't the old Fed anymore, which in hindsight is obvious he got older and he changed, as people do when they get older and are subjected to more.

To me the 15 shirt wasn't him revealing who he "really was" in a sense but more who he'd become, someone who I couldn't support and admire as much. That's sort of how support goes, you support someone half for their game, and half because you like who they are, what they represent, you like the idea that someone like that can be successful, that people get what they worked for.

It's the reason I hate belittling, when Murray got his olympic medal, and his slam I was sooooo happy, not because he's British or his game is beautiful, but because he worked soo hard for it, and taken soo much flak... he deserved those titles and im soo happy he got them... then someone comes along and says "oh it was because of the wind"... to me thats disgusting, to want to take away what other people have earned as oppossed to want to... say achieve things yourself is a bad bad trait to have.

Anyway again sorry for the Philosophy lecture. Mostly I just like people getting their dues, what theyve earn't. To me Ferrers earnt his titles, and id love to see him in at least a slam final once , and i'd love his sportsmanship to be recognised too, but I don't theink thats what the edberg award is designed for nowadays

falzy21 wrote:Ok Julius Ill have a go at answering one of the questions. Fed has probably deserved aorund half the Edberg awards he got, many of them in his early years. Simply put he was different back then, he went from basically a brat, to a really calm collected and well mannered guy in interviews.

I always felt that Federer changed a bit after about 2008, it's like all the ridiculous success finally caught up with him, and everyone including many of his fans couldn't quite belive that people were beginning to catch up to him a little, hence all sorts of mono excuses, stuff said in interviews and such that I thought he wouldn't have done 3 years ago.
Nothing THAT bad tbh, but little things, for exmaple Wimby 2010 after the Berdych match, he said i belive "these guys don't reinvent themselves in a year" which felt a little off, it was almost like he was sayign Berdych wasn't good enough to improve and beat him, he must have been lucky"

By far the worst thing which was what drew me away from the man was the number 15 shirt after Wimby 09 and the on court interview, I thought that was a rare classless moment from him.

But I digress these are only MY views, I don't expect you to agree with me, though I would ask you respect my opinion and not name call like the last few pages, but these aren't big things but enough for me to feel like someone else, say ferrer should have been considered.

I'm a bit cynical about the award now if im honest, to me its a pr spin opportunity, Federer and the game has created this "honorable gentleman" persona around him, he's still the face of the game, soo what better way to promote the game than keep giving it to the classy face of the sport, and not say Ferrer who most non tennis people have no idea about.

Again this is only my cynical attitude, but it's how I feel, Fed used to win it by right, but I feel time has long past since he was the true deserved winner year by year.

Saying this however I personally do feel that success is a fairly big factor towards getting the award nowadays, it's a good pr opportunity for the game,

I agree with this Falzy.

Falzy

Lags, do you think Federer would have won the award if he was never in the top 10? I don't think so.
That's not to say Federer is a bad ambassador for the game, I think he's a better ambassador and shows better sportsmanship than Sampras and Agassi.

Does anybody else think that discussing whether Fed really deserves the Edberg awards is a bit like discussing whether the Beatles really deserved the NME Pollwinners awards?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH of course you are not a nadal hater

you worship the guy! he is "heroic" after all....

falzy21 wrote:Lf It's not that I put him on a pedastal just to knock him down, it's not that I was disillusioned by him either, I honestly think he just changed, he wasn't the guy that I supported anymore, the game was still there, but I felt the man himself had moved on.

... or the idol you supported no longer fit your ideal. I understand that very well. Let me give you an example.

Federer v Murray AO 2013 - "You f****ing stopped..."

Federer v Murray AO W 2012 - Murray gets a hug from Federer with tears in his eyes, after it is not going to be easy speech.

Federer v Murray USO 2008 - Post-trophy ceremony speech from Federer "There are some great guys behind me...".

falzy21 wrote:It's not that he fell off my pedalstal, it's more he just moved off it, he wasn't the old Fed anymore, which in hindsight is obvious he got older and he changed, as people do when they get older and are subjected to more.

Precisely what I am trying to point out, the fact that we are unwilling accept such changes, whether it is reluctance 1% or reluctance 99%.

falzy21 wrote:To me the 15 shirt wasn't him revealing who he "really was" in a sense but more who he'd become, someone who I couldn't support and admire as much. That's sort of how support goes, you support someone half for their game, and half because you like who they are, what they represent, you like the idea that someone like that can be successful, that people get what they worked for.

My 2p worth is to accept the changes and watch history unfold, good, bad or ugly.

falzy21 wrote:It's the reason I hate belittling, when Murray got his olympic medal, and his slam I was sooooo happy, not because he's British or his game is beautiful, but because he worked soo hard for it, and taken soo much flak... he deserved those titles and im soo happy he got them... then someone comes along and says "oh it was because of the wind"... to me thats disgusting, to want to take away what other people have earned as oppossed to want to... say achieve things yourself is a bad bad trait to have.

This is why when someone calls Ferrer weaponless, it is incomprehensible as is the moniker of rollover generation. He is using his abilities and skill to the maximum possible, if he wins a slam, it is gravy on top.

falzy21 wrote:Anyway again sorry for the Philosophy lecture. Mostly I just like people getting their dues, what theyve earn't. To me Ferrers earnt his titles, and id love to see him in at least a slam final once , and i'd love his sportsmanship to be recognised too, but I don't theink thats what the edberg award is designed for nowadays

PS: Accept the evolution of the Edberg award as one accepts the evolution of the sport or the players.

IMBL would Edberg have won it if he hadn't been in the top 10?
Would Ferrer have been nominated if he wasn't a top 10 player?

But I agree that if Fed had never been ranked in the top 150 he never would have won it.

I asked top 10 Julius, not top 150.

It Must Be Love wrote:
........

Lags, do you think Federer would have won the award if he was never in the top 10? I don't think so.
That's not to say Federer is a bad ambassador for the game, I think he's a better ambassador and shows better sportsmanship than Sampras and Agassi.

Maybe he would not have done. Who knows ?

But do I think that his fellow pros would be happy to vote (from the various options available) for Federer as a fine example of good sportsmanship, and to then look on while he proudly accepts their award, even though he is - allegedly - a worse sport than many others on the tour .....?

Absolutely not.

I do feel it would be easier IMBL if for the purposes of this debate you would just say unreservedly that

a) you are totally convinced that Federer has been winning his Edberg awards on false pretences, ie for reasons other than good sportsmanslike behaviour, and ........
b) you believe that, in each and every year that he won it, there were far more deserving players.

Hmm so you're saying I should change my ideals to fit the person?
I happily accept what Federer is now, but I don't think my feelings should change to suit it, im not sure I should continuie to support him through thick and thin, no matter what. I coudln't anyway, support for a player isn't necessarily conscience anyway, you go with what you feel or relate to, and I just dont feel like that about Federer anymore (Oh boy this is starting to get a little if you know what I mean)

It's pretty tricky to answer I guess, id say id love to be completely impartial, and just observe it as it goes by, but I prolly wouldn't wanna be, pinning your colours to the mast is half what makes it fun, of course squabbling over it (though im not referring specifically to anybody on here) isn't good, thats going too far.

lags72 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
........

Lags, do you think Federer would have won the award if he was never in the top 10? I don't think so.
That's not to say Federer is a bad ambassador for the game, I think he's a better ambassador and shows better sportsmanship than Sampras and Agassi.

Maybe he would not have done. Who knows ?

But do I think that his fellow pros would be happy to vote (from the various options available) for Federer as a fine example of good sportsmanship, and to then look on while he proudly accepts their award, even though he is - allegedly - a worse sport than many others on the tour .....?

Absolutely not.

I do feel it would be easier IMBL if for the purposes of this debate you would just say unreservedly that

a) you are totally convinced that Federer has been winning his Edberg awards on false pretences, ie for reasons other than good sportsmanslike behaviour, and ........
b) you believe that, in each and every year that he won it, there were far more deserving players.

No, things aren't black and white like that. It's not choice A or choice B.
And yes I do think Ferrer has been more deserving than Federer, and I think if their career achievements had been swapped around Ferrer would have won the award. Hence I find it all a bit superficial.

Lags, you didn't directly answer my question.
Neither has Julius.

If Federer hadn't been in the top 10 do you think (Of course you would not no for sure), that Federer would have won it or not?

What lags said

What Fed have won it if he'd never been in the top 10. Who knows?

IMBL would Edberg have won it if he hadn't been in the top 10? Would he have an award named after him if he wasn't a top 10 player? Perhaps we should rename the award to someone who was less successful, but more worthy.
Would Ferrer have been nominated if he wasn't a top 10 player?

JuliusHMarx wrote:What lags said

What Fed have won it if he'd never been in the top 10. Who knows?

You are avoiding my question well. It was a yes/no question.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
IMBL would Edberg have won it if he hadn't been in the top 10? Would he have an award named after him if he wasn't a top 10 player? Perhaps we should rename the award to someone who was less successful, but more worthy.
Would Ferrer have been nominated if he wasn't a top 10 player?

That's my point- I find this award slightly superficial.

Anyway I do have to go now, I'll be back later this evening

falzy 21 - I could be wide of the mark, but I think what you're saying to Federer is ....

It's just not the same any more Roger ..... you just don't turn me on these days in the way you used to do .....

And Fed looks at you and says ....

Oh.... so now that I'm not winning three Slams a year, you're not sticking with me. But you knew that even I couldn't do that forever ......

Ill answer IMBL'S question best I can,

no he wouldn't have but for a different reason.

If he wasn't in the top ten, he wouldn't have been that successful, but THAT would mean that much of his developement, that made him the player he was (and is), such as his behaviour change from the bratty kid to the smooth ice man he did become would not have happened, and thus he wouldn't have ever got it by right.

That said, the overriding point is feel is do you need to be successful to win the award, yes I do, most importantly I think you need to be well known to win it. Why else would they present the winner in a ceremony at the WTF with a great photo opportunity.

It Must Be Love wrote:Lags, you didn't directly answer my question.
Neither has Julius.

If Federer hadn't been in the top 10 do you think (Of course you would not no for sure), that Federer would have won it or not?

Translation :

You both answered my question.

But I just didn't like your answers ......

No lags, I didn't like him beacsue he was successful, or won 3 slams a year, I liked him for the way he broke down when Laver gave him his 06(?) aussie open, the way he didn't resort to anything other than his smooth game to be soo good, that he got his dues for all the work and sacrifice, those sorts of things,

Fair enough

My post was partly in jest of course.

Fair enough, careful with jest though, it's easy to mistake on here sometimes

Too right.

Though I tend to reserve it for posters who I feel will NOT mistake it.....

(that's enough compliments .... Ed.)