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.

Bogbrush, even Julius (a massive Federer fan) began to hint that maybe, just maybe: Federers actions are not what is expected in terms of sportsmanship??

You're comments that it was a 'public service' is frankly ridiculous.

And no one ever answered my question: has anyone seen a player directly put down the parents of his opponent like Roger did there?
I've never seen it happen before.

Me neither IMBL, what I find extraordinary is that many posters cheer on his behavior and look at this dark incident as something to be commended. I just didn't know that someone humiliating and verbally abusing another players mother or father was something to be commended. Maybe I am old fashioned.

Now we are seeing the type of accounting system that works towards the accumulation of those edberg awards, yeah I could see Steffan or Rafter acting that way.

It Must Be Love wrote:And no one ever answered my question: has anyone seen a player directly put down the parents of his opponent like Roger did there?
I've never seen it happen before.

"Be quiet" was the call. Not even shouted loudly, just sternly and enough to be heard.

Lets use precise language, not take your lead from socal and his allegations that Federer was "wildly aggressive" and uncontrollably so, even toward the point of threatening violence.

I never claimed he threatened violence BB, all I said was if he did that my mother the hothead I am would have a major problem with the guy, and I don't think it is hard to answer why. Aggressive doesn't necessarily mean violent.

socal1976 wrote:Like I said, I have no propensity for violence, haven't hit a man in anger since I was 16 years old, that is 20 years and counting and I plan on never doing it again. I just don't understand why federer didn't address his comments to the official sitting in the high chair. I also don't understand why every other opponent Djoko has had managed to avoid going wild eyed into his box. Maybe they are all just better behaved than the 8 time edberg award winner.

Oh you just talk about doing it, frequently.

That's a relief, I suppose.

Any comment on the other itemised points I made?

Yes sternly enough to be heard by 10000 people, very funny indeed.

socal1976 wrote:I never claimed he threatened violence BB, all I said was if he did that my mother the hothead I am would have a major problem with the guy, and I don't think it is hard to answer why. Aggressive doesn't necessarily mean violent.

You need to be more careful with your words

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

As am I. I said "toward" threatening violence.

And you didn't restrict it to having a problem, you promised violence warranting jail time.

The guy withdrew from the match is that not evidence enough for you that he was disturbed, I don't blame him, the conduct by the 8 time edberg award winner was beyond the pale. You are the only one defending it and claiming quote it was "a public service". Wow how charitable of the fellow.

Obviously the use of the term postal was metaphorical you are smart enough to understand that. I don't think anyone their box thought he was going to pull out a glock or an AR-15.

My problem with this thread is that legitimate discussion is wrecked by hyperbole and catastrophic exaggeration.

It's a pity, the subjects are worth better than this nonsense.

In any case bottom line address your comment at the umpire, you are not above the rules, period I don't care if you are the goat or not. And you can't even admit that basic transgression as being wrong, it just proves the point I am making.

BB, honestly I have a high enough opinion of your sense of fairness to understand that the man was in the wrong and should have handled the affair in a much different manner but when you spin it off as a public service I don't know what to say. You are smarter than that and fairer than that, but for some reason you refuse to show it here.

socal1976 wrote:Obviously the use of the term postal was metaphorical you are smart enough to understand that. I don't think anyone their box thought he was going to pull out a glock or an AR-15.

And here's your problem writ large. You are ridiculously loose with your language. You promise violence repeatedly, but then claim not to mean it, then repeat it. You use expressions in making an argument then disown them.

How do you expect debaters to talk with you when you do this? How is anyone to tell the difference between strong emphasis and serious comment?

Clearly Federer was not "wildly aggressive" let alone going postal (meaning uncontrollably angry to the point of violence) yet you say that, then repeat it over and over. What's the point of having a discussion with that? It's just silly, really.

Had Federer ranted I'd have agreed with you, but he didn't. He said, once, to be quiet. He called it loud enough to be heated, but not shrilly or with accompanying threat. He didn't mutter on or give dirty looks. It didn't delay the match or make a drama. the crowd and commentators saw no issue. It's not a habit to get as it old otherwise become heated, but in this incident it didn't.

Just address my points then BB??
I never said he was postal or whatever that means.

Ok BB just continue to make the issue about my use of a term that everyone in here knows was metaphorical.

Now please answer the question why did he not address his grievance to the officials and in an aggressive manner yell into the other player's box? You want to make this argument about my behavior but that is not what we are talking about. I am sure everyone in here knows that I wasn't accusing federer of threatening to attack Djokvic's box with firearms. If you want to duck the question that is fine, but in your heart you know the man was in the wrong but yet you insist on spinning it off as quote "a public servie", talk about loose terminology.

PS how the hell could I threaten violence on anyone I wasn't there and I obviously wasn't the one playing the match.

Just answer the simple question why did he not address his remarks at the umpire as the rules and etiquette of the game demand?

It Must Be Love wrote:Just address my points then BB??
I never said he was postal or whatever that means.

You haven't made any points amrit, except to suggest Julius's opinion binds mine or to look for precedent. I don't know what answers you're looking for or conclusions we'd draw from them.

socal1976 wrote:PS how the hell could I threaten violence on anyone I wasn't there and I obviously wasn't the one playing the match.

Just answer the simple question why did he not address his remarks at the umpire as the rules and etiquette of the game demand?

I have no idea how you'd do violence; I didn't create the subject.

I imagine he decided to stop the problem there and then, as I've said the issue is less with this event but with setting a pattern of direct interaction. In this case it settled the matter promptly and without fuss. In another case it could cause more trouble.

However, these are the more rational criticisms, unlike the nonsense of the last 3/4 pages.

Ok BB, my conduct discussing an issue many years old equates to a direct threat of violence on the goat. Bad socal, bad socal.

His conduct actually created more of a fuss than following the rules. As IMBL said when has any player of such a status yelled into the box of another player in such a manner. It disturbed Djokovic, it disturbed his family, and the guy as you put it withdrew from the match, in this case it was obviously not a respiratory problem.

What Federer did, was disgraceful.
I don't think that was the conduct I expected from him.

Sorry I find humiliating a man's mother and abusing her in public to be a valid criticism, if that makes me a violent hothead so be it.

It was wildly digraceful, and I am honestly bewildered as how even the most intense federer fan could call it a public service and then accuse others of loose terminology.

socal1976 wrote:Ok BB, my conduct discussing an issue many years old equates to a direct threat of violence on the goat. Bad socal, bad socal.

His conduct actually created more of a fuss than following the rules. As IMBL said when has any player of such a status yelled into the box of another player in such a manner. It disturbed Djokovic, it disturbed his family, and the guy as you put it withdrew from the match, in this case it was obviously not a respiratory problem.

This loose language is exactly the problem.

You have not threatened Federer, I have not said you have. Once agin you exaggerate and misrepresent. Why?

"Obviously" not a respiratory problem? Really? Are you certain about that? You're sure he hadn't showed impairment before that?

What fuss? Watch the clip, the event lasts about 3 seconds and ends it. How much less fuss was possible?

Socal I wouldn't say Federer 'abused' her.

Humiliating isn't the right word either, it was more of a sharp denigrating put down.
Certainly not what we'd expect from Roger.

All in an effort to change the subject of what we are actually talking about frankly.

socal1976 wrote:All in an effort to change the subject of what we are actually talking about frankly.

Beyond irony.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok BB, my conduct discussing an issue many years old equates to a direct threat of violence on the goat. Bad socal, bad socal.

His conduct actually created more of a fuss than following the rules. As IMBL said when has any player of such a status yelled into the box of another player in such a manner. It disturbed Djokovic, it disturbed his family, and the guy as you put it withdrew from the match, in this case it was obviously not a respiratory problem.

This loose language is exactly the problem.

You have not threatened Federer, I have not said you have. Once agin you exaggerate and misrepresent. Why?

"Obviously" not a respiratory problem? Really? Are you certain about that? You're sure he hadn't showed impairment before that?

What fuss? Watch the clip, the event lasts about 3 seconds and ends it. How much less fuss was possible?

I watched the match BB, in real time and its not just my opinion, even laverfan who is the most loathe to criticize any player and as sweet as apple pie with carmel sauce denouced the behavior. Even julius as strident a fed fan as can be found at least admitted a minor transgression, you want to make this issue about me, but it isn't about me. In that scenario the rules and etiquette of the game we both love do not allow you to have a go at the other player's box you address your comments to the official. Now dance the tango around the issue if you like but if you can't admit that well its 130 in the AM here and I will go to bed and simply leave you to it. But frankly, it is plain for everyone to see, if you don't accept my opinion you might want to consider the opinion of another federer fan (julius, also a moderator) and the opinion of laverfan, MFC, and IMBl. If you don't want to that is fine.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok BB, my conduct discussing an issue many years old equates to a direct threat of violence on the goat. Bad socal, bad socal.

His conduct actually created more of a fuss than following the rules. As IMBL said when has any player of such a status yelled into the box of another player in such a manner. It disturbed Djokovic, it disturbed his family, and the guy as you put it withdrew from the match, in this case it was obviously not a respiratory problem.

This loose language is exactly the problem.

You have not threatened Federer, I have not said you have. Once agin you exaggerate and misrepresent. Why?

"Obviously" not a respiratory problem? Really? Are you certain about that? You're sure he hadn't showed impairment before that?

What fuss? Watch the clip, the event lasts about 3 seconds and ends it. How much less fuss was possible?

I watched the match BB, in real time and its not just my opinion, even laverfan who is the most loathe to criticize any player and as sweet as apple pie with carmel sauce denouced the behavior. Even julius as strident a fed fan as can be found at least admitted a minor transgression, you want to make this issue about me, but it isn't about me. In that scenario the rules and etiquette of the game we both love do not allow you to have a go at the other player's box you address your comments to the official. Now dance the tango around the issue if you like but if you can't admit that well its 130 in the AM here and I will go to bed and simply leave you to it. But frankly, it is plain for everyone to see, if you don't accept my opinion you might want to consider the opinion of another federer fan (julius, also a moderator) and the opinion of laverfan, MFC, and IMBl. If you don't want to that is fine.

I also agree Socal. Federer did not react as he should have done, regardless of any provocation.

Thanks carrie how loathe federer's fans are to admit even this obvious dark incident really goes to the meat of what I have been saying frankly for years. Double standard and hypocrisy. I watched the match in real time and Novak and his box was disturbed by the conduct.

goodnight all I have said my piece and I can lead the horse to water but I can not make him drink. And BB that is a metaphor, I am not calling you a horse.

"Dark incident"

This is the debate, the false portrayal of a call/shout as "wild aggression". "Going postal", "abuse" or now a "dark incident".

This sub-discussion has never been about etiquette, it's a last resort on the main silly argument about Nike fiddling the Edberg awards. Anyone coming to it late wouldn't know that

Great stuff from Fed! "Be quite" to the umbearably pushy and annoying Djokovic parents. I really do admire the guy more from now on!

OK BB, set aside any conspiracy theories, Edberg awards etc. for now. Do you believe that Federer acted in a fully appropriate manner during this incident?

Yes

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes

Strange.

carrieg4 wrote:OK BB, set aside any conspiracy theories, Edberg awards etc. for now. Do you believe that Federer acted in a fully appropriate manner during this incident?

Ok Carrie, setting aside court etiquette etc, don't you think Socal has gone ridiculously overboard in his attempts to paint Federer as a bad guy?

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes

Strange.

Not. I think Federer had two choices, Either goto the umpire and ask for the two of them to be brought out of the stadium or more amicably ask them to shut up. They were doing on court coaching and this is not allowed.

emancipator wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:OK BB, set aside any conspiracy theories, Edberg awards etc. for now. Do you believe that Federer acted in a fully appropriate manner during this incident?

Ok Carrie, setting aside court etiquette etc, don't you think Socal has gone ridiculously overboard in his attempts to paint Federer as a bad guy?

I certainly do not have the same issues with Federer as Socal does. I am not buying the Nike conspiracy theory.

I was however quite disturbed by the reaction of some to this incident. The refusal of some to accept that Federer's actions were in any way inappropriate is quite shocking. It is clear that the appropriate course of action would have been to talk to the umpire and let him deal with it as part of his job. He chose not to do this and created an incident. I am not saying it is a capital offence but it was inappropriate behaviour. I would say this no matter who the player was - even Murray.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes

Strange.

Not. I think Federer had two choices, Either goto the umpire and ask for the two of them to be brought out of the stadium or more amicably ask them to shut up. They were doing on court coaching and this is not allowed.

Nope, he should have spoken to the umpire and let him deal with it - it is part of his role. The umpire is the one to enforce the rules, not the player.

Again not a capital offence but he should have handled it better.

it's funny this thread.

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes

Strange.

Not. I think Federer had two choices, Either goto the umpire and ask for the two of them to be brought out of the stadium or more amicably ask them to shut up. They were doing on court coaching and this is not allowed.

Nope, he should have spoken to the umpire and let him deal with it - it is part of his role. The umpire is the one to enforce the rules, not the player.

Again not a capital offence but he should have handled it better.

What I think you are missing, is the fact that players know each other very well, share locking rooms, space and a lot of time together. They become "sort of" friends. Now, the very fact of going to the umpire and ask for the Djokovic parents to be warned or fined, it seems to me, is a lot more unfriendly that an informal "be quiet" which reached the purpose.

carrieg4 wrote:

emancipator wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:OK BB, set aside any conspiracy theories, Edberg awards etc. for now. Do you believe that Federer acted in a fully appropriate manner during this incident?

Ok Carrie, setting aside court etiquette etc, don't you think Socal has gone ridiculously overboard in his attempts to paint Federer as a bad guy?

I certainly do not have the same issues with Federer as Socal does. I am not buying the Nike conspiracy theory.

I was however quite disturbed by the reaction of some to this incident. The refusal of some to accept that Federer's actions were in any way inappropriate is quite shocking. It is clear that the appropriate course of action would have been to talk to the umpire and let him deal with it as part of his job. He chose not to do this and created an incident. I am not saying it is a capital offence but it was inappropriate behaviour. I would say this no matter who the player was - even Murray.

I agree, but does it really warrant pages and pages of endless repetition.

It was a mild outburts at worst - we've seen far worse over the years. I doubt he was specifically targetting anyone (let alone Djokovic's mother). He got frustrated with the chatter from he box and told them to be quiet. That's it.

Ferrer hit a ball at a crying baby a couple of years ago. Does anyone remember that? Yet according to some he is far more deserving of the Edberg award. The point is that we have seen and will continue to see far worse than this.

Maybe some sense of perspective is also required. I've just read that another footballer is being questioned about an assault on a female. Must be the umpteenth time I've read a story like that.

The debate is nothing to do with the incident and everything to do with this desperate whine about Federers popularity and respect from fellow professionals.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes

Strange.

Not. I think Federer had two choices, Either goto the umpire and ask for the two of them to be brought out of the stadium or more amicably ask them to shut up. They were doing on court coaching and this is not allowed.

Nope, he should have spoken to the umpire and let him deal with it - it is part of his role. The umpire is the one to enforce the rules, not the player.

Again not a capital offence but he should have handled it better.

What I think you are missing, is the fact that players know each other very well, share locking rooms, space and a lot of time together. They become "sort of" friends. Now, the very fact of going to the umpire and ask for the Djokovic parents to be warned or fined, it seems to me, is a lot more unfriendly that an informal "be quiet" which reached the purpose.

I disagree JK, the way he handled it made headlines (in the tennis world) and made it a much bigger issue than was necessary. All he had to do was quietly say to the umpire that they were inappropriately distracting him and it is part of the umpires role to resolve the issue in whatever way he sees fit. Job done and no negative PR.

bogbrush wrote:

The debate is nothing to do with the incident and everything to do with this desperate whine about Federers popularity and respect from fellow professionals.

Can't speak for anyone else BB but, for my part, your statement is nonsensical.

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes

Strange.

Not. I think Federer had two choices, Either goto the umpire and ask for the two of them to be brought out of the stadium or more amicably ask them to shut up. They were doing on court coaching and this is not allowed.

Nope, he should have spoken to the umpire and let him deal with it - it is part of his role. The umpire is the one to enforce the rules, not the player.

Again not a capital offence but he should have handled it better.

What I think you are missing, is the fact that players know each other very well, share locking rooms, space and a lot of time together. They become "sort of" friends. Now, the very fact of going to the umpire and ask for the Djokovic parents to be warned or fined, it seems to me, is a lot more unfriendly that an informal "be quiet" which reached the purpose.

I disagree JK, the way he handled it made headlines (in the tennis world) and made it a much bigger issue than was necessary. All he had to do was quietly say to the umpire that they were inappropriately distracting him and it is part of the umpires role to resolve the issue in whatever way he sees fit. Job done and no negative PR.

You are very naive if you think that it wouldn't have made the headlines much more, had Federer spoken to the umpire.. Journalists are paid to jump on silly facts like that one.

Can I ask a very naive question.. how long ago was this offence comitted ?? and why is it being discussed now ?? (sorry thats two qestions) I´m lost

carrieg4 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

The debate is nothing to do with the incident and everything to do with this desperate whine about Federers popularity and respect from fellow professionals.

Can't speak for anyone else BB but, for my part, your statement is nonsensical.

Wasn't referring to you but to the pages of guff before.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Can I ask a very naive question.. how long ago was this offence comitted ?? and why is it being discussed now ?? (sorry thats two qestions) I´m lost

2008

socal