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.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

It's not a yes/no question, because it's unknowable. If, in 2004/5, he'd been ranked like Cilic was this year, then probably yes, but maybe not. How is it possible to say with any certainty?
But at least I gave an answer, even if it wasn't to your satisfaction. You didn't even try to bother answering mine.

Wow this has gone off thread


back to the initial question

Fisticuffs In The Fourth / What Did Roger Say?


Fed: I think I am being stalked, by a 606v2 er who seems to love me.

Murray: I am the anti tennis budhda and spew evil from my flowing pube like hair

Fed: - You f*ing stopped praying to me then - your true god

Murray: (Sneers) Yup, and here is a little confessional contribution for you (hits ball at Fed)




See a simple miss understanding - now can we please move on

HM Murdoch wrote:

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!

The character is the epitome of rationality.

What you can't do is try to convince him to do stuff for irrational reasons, like to make other people happy. Since most people are irrational he has some difficulties.

Hmm. I would say how many times Federer has won the Stephan Edberg award is exactly on topic.

Some people are just popular. Call it charisma if you like. Federer like it or not is one of these people. The Edberg award is given for being sporting but that like "charisma" is difficult to tie down. But anyone who could gain votes for being charismatic would likely also gain votes for being sporting. Of course as long as they are not known for obvious bad behavior. If the vote for the Edberg award was by fans he would no doubt win a few. Players are probably no different from fans in the way they decide to cast their vote. They vote for him because he appears likable to them.

Also very popular people are never universally popular. Some dislike them for their popularity, some dislike them because of envy, some may even want to hit balls at them and hit them where it hurts to pull them down a peg or two, some just don't see the charisma and of course some just dislike them...

Actually Hawkeye I agree with almost all you say in your last post.

Quite right Hawkeye.

Amrits big error on this is thinking of sportsmanship in purely negative terms; the absence of misbehaviour equalling perfect sportsmanship. He's ignored all the positive aspects.

hawkeye wrote:They vote for him because he appears likable to them.

I'm not sure that's sufficiently nuanced - I don't know whether they want to go out drinking with him or laugh at his jokes or find his conversation light and amusing.

I suspect that they vote for him because he has more objective and less personal qualities which mean that from their point of view he stands out as an opponent and a power-broker within tennis who it is easy, even pleasurable to deal with, and someone whose effect on tennis increases the amount of money available for the sport: he appears to be a pretty straight dealer, he says what he thinks, he's consistent, he takes what he regards as his responsibilities seriously, he doesn't generate bad headlines by trying to argue the toss through the media, he does not argue (publicly at least) for rule changes that would benefit him at the expense of others lower down the pecking order, there are stories of him having time for lesser players (e.g. the note to Blake when he was ill and the time he spent in the locker room with Mahut after the Isner defeat), his popularity transcends sport and that brings in money (golfers love Tiger Woods for what he has done for their earning capabilities), his is by and large a polite and fair presence on a tennis Court - he plays quickly and very rarely allows his competitive temperament to get the better of him. One thing I don't like is when an opponent is sticking the boot with his game face on but when the battle is over is full of talk of fairness and humility and "I didn't mean it personally when I did X, Y, and Z"; I don't think Federer is like that.

Like everyone who wants to win in a gladiatorial sport his halo slips, but not dramatically and not more than anyone else.

These are reasons based on the way he conducts himself, but they would make him popular in a more distant sense that would make him someon you'd vote for rather than a guy you'd want to spend a holiday with.

hawkeye wrote:Hmm. I would say how many times Federer has won the Stephan Edberg award is exactly on topic.

Some people are just popular. Call it charisma if you like. Federer like it or not is one of these people. The Edberg award is given for being sporting but that like "charisma" is difficult to tie down. But anyone who could gain votes for being charismatic would likely also gain votes for being sporting. Of course as long as they are not known for obvious bad behavior. If the vote for the Edberg award was by fans he would no doubt win a few. Players are probably no different from fans in the way they decide to cast their vote. They vote for him because he appears likable to them.

Also very popular people are never universally popular. Some dislike them for their popularity, some dislike them because of envy, some may even want to hit balls at them and hit them where it hurts to pull them down a peg or two, some just don't see the charisma and of course some just dislike them...

I would love to see fed take an attempted volley in the Lindt chocolates. I don't envy the man he deserves all the success he has received, and he has grown the game and done a lot off the court. But frankly his behavior has been found lacking on numerous occassions and these incidents if done by any other player would be soundly and harshly criticized but for federer a media and fan halo exists. The test of sportsmanship is not when you are winning and everyone is praising you and rolling over for you in matches. The test of true sportsmanship is when you are challenged, or when you don't feel that another rival is likeable or acting properly, how you conduct yourself under a stress test. Everyone can be nice when everything is pleasant and wonderful. But his treatment of Novak is more connorseque than Edbergesque replete with terse media back biting, gamesmanship, and disrespect.

Julius Federer probably deserved a couple of those Edbergs when he was winning everything and his behavior reflected the rosy situation he was in. The day the image of fed the sportsman died for me was the day he yelled into Djoko's box, once the facade has dropped and you have seen that the Wizard of OZ is some weakling with a big microphone behind a curtain you just can't un see it.

Thank God, I've missed the Nike conspiracy theory during the afternoon.

BB, you are my number 1 fan, we all know that. If you mail me something I would be happy to sign it for you to display my great sportsmanship.

Just went to pick up the laptop crappy toshiba is 3 months old, I felt naked with just an IPhone to do battle with.

Stick around bb, it's bound to be back any time soon .......

Last 9 winners of the Edberg award all worked for Nike, was Rafter a nike man as well I think he was that would make it like the last 15. Coincidence or correlation?

I smell a rat.

It's all rigged, I tell you ....... it's rigged.

Just proves that you really can fool all the people (or in this case the players who vote) all the time...

Coincidence Socal.

Nike pick up the players who generally would be on course to win these awards, through achievements on the courts and generally good sportsmanship.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nike sign Djoko when Fedal retire

Conspiracy theories aside the argument appears to be this.

Federer is no more or less sporting than many others but, because of who he is, the things he does mean more and merit a stranglehold on the Edberg award until such time as he retires.

Glad that's cleared up.

Socal, you've forgotten how the bounder sat in Novak's chair at WTF. That was truly heinous.

He also took about 90 attempts to ask Rafa what he was getting him for Christmas, the great idiot.

His Lindt endorsement must surely be partly to blame for the childhood obesity epidemic.

And his pony tail looked really stupid.

It Must Be Love wrote:Coincidence Socal.

Nike pick up the players who generally would be on course to win these awards, through achievements on the courts and generally good sportsmanship.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nike sign Djoko when Fedal retire

And if that happens I wouldn't be surprised if Djoko starts winning edberg awards.

carrieg4 wrote:Conspiracy theories aside the argument appears to be this.

Federer is no more or less sporting than many others but, because of who he is, the things he does mean more and merit a stranglehold on the Edberg award until such time as he retires.

Glad that's cleared up.

Yes that's what Im trying to say.

Socal stop being so suspicious of NIKE lol, I like Nike.

HM Murdoch wrote:Socal, you've forgotten how the bounder sat in Novak's chair at WTF. That was truly heinous.

He also took about 90 attempts to ask Rafa what he was getting him for Christmas, the great idiot.

His Lindt endorsement must surely be partly to blame for the childhood obesity epidemic.

And his pony tail looked really stupid.

Oh murdoch, that was fun thread on the magic towel theory and chairgate. Don't you worry the special investigation committee is still working and I know the wider public is desperately awaiting our results, so finally we can put the horror of Federer's conduct behind us. I am writing this from a secure hidden location.

It Must Be Love wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Conspiracy theories aside the argument appears to be this.

Federer is no more or less sporting than many others but, because of who he is, the things he does mean more and merit a stranglehold on the Edberg award until such time as he retires.

Glad that's cleared up.

Yes that's what Im trying to say.

Socal stop being so suspicious of NIKE lol, I like Nike.

I own some Nike stuff myself, they are just trying to make money nothing wrong with that, I maybe extremely liberal but I also understand the need for making money.

socal1976 wrote:Everyone can be nice when everything is pleasant and wonderful.

Connors, Lendl, McEnroe? Even Sampras, Agassi and Courier weren't quite nice enough it seems.

socal1976 wrote:Julius Federer probably deserved a couple of those Edbergs when he was winning everything and his behavior reflected the rosy situation he was in. The day the image of fed the sportsman died for me was the day he yelled into Djoko's box, once the facade has dropped and you have seen that the Wizard of OZ is some weakling with a big microphone behind a curtain you just can't un see it.

I guess it's just difficult to know how to react when someone in the crowd is being rude to you. And when that someone is deliberately trying to put you off so that their offspring can win - well, let's just say Edberg never had to deal with that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Julius Federer probably deserved a couple of those Edbergs when he was winning everything and his behavior reflected the rosy situation he was in. The day the image of fed the sportsman died for me was the day he yelled into Djoko's box, once the facade has dropped and you have seen that the Wizard of OZ is some weakling with a big microphone behind a curtain you just can't un see it.

I guess it's just difficult to know how to react when someone in the crowd is being rude to you. And when that someone is deliberately trying to put you off so that their offspring can win - well, let's just say Edberg never had to deal with that.

I don't think it's that difficult. It would be tricky if you were conflicted but since they are known loudmouths who everyone dislikes its easy.

And what evidence do you have, I was watching the match and no they were not yelling out in the middle of points, that is a post hoc justification of federer and his fans. They were cheering loudly for their son. And who cares, I don't care if she called him a haughty swiss shanker during the points, he needs to address his comments at the umpire and I am sure that admonishment would have worked for everyone. It disturbed Novak and his play went into the crapper, I to would have been disturbed. No excuse, I don't care what she said during the match or prior to the media about the king is dead. For a grown man to yell at a woman like that in public when other avennues were available to me is beyond the pale. Probably about as bad as anything connors did on the court maybe worse.

Is it worse to swear at your own mother or someone else's?
http://www.mirosport.net/tag/novak-djokovic-swearing/

Sorry, couldn't resist

socal1976 wrote:And what evidence do you have, I was watching the match and no they were not yelling out in the middle of points, that is a post hoc justification of federer and his fans. They were cheering loudly for their son. And who cares, I don't care if she called him a haughty swiss shanker during the points, he needs to address his comments at the umpire and I am sure that admonishment would have worked for everyone. It disturbed Novak and his play went into the crapper, I to would have been disturbed. No excuse, I don't care what she said during the match or prior to the media about the king is dead. For a grown man to yell at a woman like that in public when other avennues were available to me is beyond the pale. Probably about as bad as anything connors did on the court maybe worse.

Don't forget his Daddy too!

The admonition worked all right. Everyone loved it! A good round of applause for it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fpd23dTcT6c

Because the idiots in the mob cheer you that makes it ok! In my high school a student would walk behind our teacher to sharpen his pencil, when behind her he would pull his wang and quickly put it back in his shorts when she turned around. Everyone laughed, does that make his behavior right?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is it worse to swear at your own mother or someone else's?
http://www.mirosport.net/tag/novak-djokovic-swearing/

Sorry, couldn't resist

Yes none of you can resist in defending the indefensible, funny I don't remember federer addressing the umpire with is comments or any officials just going postal when other avennues are available. I find it amusing that you would even defend the conduct and actually cheer it on. It just proves my point about the rabidly, biased double standard that exists for the annointed one.

hawkeye wrote:Hmm. I would say how many times Federer has won the Stephan Edberg award is exactly on topic.

Some people are just popular. Call it charisma if you like. Federer like it or not is one of these people. The Edberg award is given for being sporting but that like "charisma" is difficult to tie down. But anyone who could gain votes for being charismatic would likely also gain votes for being sporting. Of course as long as they are not known for obvious bad behavior. If the vote for the Edberg award was by fans he would no doubt win a few. Players are probably no different from fans in the way they decide to cast their vote. They vote for him because he appears likable to them.

Also very popular people are never universally popular. Some dislike them for their popularity, some dislike them because of envy, some may even want to hit balls at them and hit them where it hurts to pull them down a peg or two, some just don't see the charisma and of course some just dislike them...

Well said HE

socal1976 wrote:Because the idiots in the mob cheer you that makes it ok! In my high school a student would walk behind our teacher to sharpen his pencil, when behind her he would pull his wang and quickly put it back in his shorts when she turned around. Everyone laughed, does that make his behavior right?

Now the Djokovic's are a poor put upon teacher.

This is comedy gold!

BB, it was an inappriopriate and highly serious breach of conduct, any other player would be hounded in the media and possibly suspended for that type of conduct. I think Novak's parents have made mistakes in their conduct. How you address your grievances in a proper and appropriate manner tells me more about your sportsmanship than how you act when everyone is fawning over you.

Telling people calling lines to be quiet?

We all know it was cool. You do too, secretly.

That was absolutely disgraceful from Federer.
Can anyone recall a player in the last decade speaking in that way to the parents of the opponents. I can't.

It Must Be Love wrote:That was absolutely disgraceful from Federer.
Can anyone recall a player in the last decade speaking in that way to the parents of the opponents. I can't.

Exactly, funny Djoko's parents attended numerous matches and no one, not one other player felt so superior to the rules of common etiquette to do such a thing. Hell in NY and paris the yahoos routinely yell out calls and yell out during service motions. The players give a dirty look and address their comments to an umpire, period and end of story. Yes federer yelling publically at another players mother when a simple word with the umpire would do is deemed a public service, how bizarre frankly. And I am the one who is accused of having an illogical bias.

I can't remember anyone's parents being so rude in public to an opponent either. It would explain why Djoko swears back at them in public I guess.

Fed said 'Be quiet' - quite possibly the worst breach of tennis etiquette since I turned up at the Weoley Hill Mixed Doubles Invitational 1979 in a pair of blue shorts.

Seriously, this moral outrage is bizarre.

Seriously amrit, cheerleading doesn't become you.

Actually, Julius the rumor you produced says he sweared at his box nothing says he sweared at his parents, it says they were sitting there. I know swearing at your own box is and unheard of breach of etiquete.

No the fact that you guys cheer it on and call it a public service when it is the most ungentlemanly behavior I have seen from a tennis player in years is what is bizarre. And the lengths that federer's fans go to defend the indefensible should further cement in the minds of a neutral exactly the arguments that I am making.

Julius, I am not defending Djokovic's parents.
But isn't the whole point of good sportsmanship not to react like that?

Getting angry at your own box is one thing, but it's totally different from a comment towards the parents of your opponent.

Amritia, that is precisely the point. Roger is a great sport when things are going well and those around him give him the respect he feels he deserves. It is your conduct when faced with a challenging scenario or when you are rightfully angry that marks your sportsmanship. Easy to be a good sport when all is well.

I wasn't aware you were making any arguments, just venting at Novak being overlooked.

Fed does all this criminal stuff....... and the Worlds tennis fans love him. Novak does funny impersonations and nobody cares about him. Ain't it a bitch?

Bogbrush, address me then.

bogbrush wrote:I wasn't aware you were making any arguments, just venting at Novak being overlooked.

Fed does all this criminal stuff....... and the Worlds tennis fans love him. Novak does funny impersonations and nobody cares. Ain't it a bitch?

I know those grandslam wins do ease the pain and horror for his fans though.

I'm not defending Fed's actions, let alone cheer them on - he was wrong to do it. But it was a very mild indescretion. The idea that it's the worst thing any player's done for years is baffling to me and to most people I suspect.

I think what Djoko's parents did was far worse - trying to effectively cheat their way to their son's victory. But apparently that sort of thing is OK for some posters.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not defending Fed's actions, let alone cheer them on - he was wrong to do it. But it was a very mild indescretion. The idea that it's the worst thing any player's done for years is baffling to me and to most people I suspect.

I think what Djoko's parents did was far worse - trying to effectively cheat their way to their son's victory. But apparently that sort of thing is OK for some posters.

Oh ok, because I watched the match and didn't hear anyone in a silent stadium yelling during the point. And it is interesting that you can mind read and determine that his mother was trying to cheat federer. Even if she did yell out during the point it very easily could be an honest mistake of a person too emotionally involved. You have no, no evidence to level a charge that they were trying to cheat federer. Are the fans who all of sudden yell out out! when they get hyped up trying to cheat the other player? I was watching that match and it was quiet in between points like every other tennis match I have watched. After fed went postal all of sudden the party line from him and his supporters became that she was yelling out line calls. Even so, the man should have the good grace and sense to address his comments at the offiicial. If he doesn't and yells at another players mother it is not a minor indiscretion. Somehow dozens of other opponents were able to tolerate Djokovic's parents without such disrespectful behavior. Now that is a bizarre and unfounded accusation that she was trying to cheat federer out of the match. What next? all in a campaign to whitewash away what was before our own eyes. Plain rude and disgusting. Tell the umpire, tell the court official to sit an usher there. I watched the match and don't recall chronic line calls in a silent stadium, don't recall a single admonition from the umpire.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The idea that it's the worst thing any player's done for years is baffling to me and to most people I suspect.

That's not what I said at all?
I said can you remember anyone aiming comments towards the opponents parents, because I certainly can't.

So he's accused of telling people who didn't make any noise to be quiet?

Right, I think this is getting weird now.

Did not DelPotro have a go at Andy´s Mum in one match.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Did not DelPotro have a go at Andy´s Mum in one match.

A link?
Can't remember that.

No he didn't haddie, murray was complaining to the umpire and Del Po tells andy during a change over to go cry to his mother, it was at worst a school yard jeer, he didn't direct any comment to Andy's mother.