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.

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

I have never heard of that "incident", before it came out on this gem of a thread............Looks like RG 2011 to me.

bogbrush wrote:

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

ah ok 2008. lol

emancipator wrote:

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.

Agree that it is not a huge issue in the scheme of thing Emancipator. To use JHMs term it was a minor transgression. The endless repetition came, in part, from some posters insistence that it was a laudable act. A simple acceptance that he made the wrong choice would have saved a lot of time.

As for footballers . You can't go a week without reading yet another horror story. Terrible.

Personally I have never said that Federer is undeserving of the Edberg award in individual cases just that I am not sure anyone is deserving of it 8 times and counting. The way the criteria appear to have transmogrified to include star quality is questionable in my opinion but I accept that is just an opinion. I would like to see Tsonga get it at least once.

The transgression came from the box.

The choice of handling it was fine, no fuss, swift and clean. No abuse, no rant, no dragging it out. Better than a whiner making a big deal to the Umpire.

Man up folks.

bogbrush wrote:The transgression came from the box.

The choice of handling it was fine, no fuss, swift and clean. No abuse, no rant, no dragging it out. Better than a whiner making a big deal to the Umpire.

Man up folks.

Guess we will have to disagree. It was ill advised and created much more of a fuss than the correct course of action would have done.

carrieg4 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The transgression came from the box.

The choice of handling it was fine, no fuss, swift and clean. No abuse, no rant, no dragging it out. Better than a whiner making a big deal to the Umpire.

Man up folks.

Guess we will have to disagree. It was ill advised and created much more of a fuss than the correct course of action would have done.

Mostly on this thread.

I would like to add that I have no issues with Federer in general. I thought he behaved excellently straight after the Olympic final where he appeared to be looking after Murray a bit. He helped straighten the Union Flag and behaved in a very gentlemanly manner.

I also appreciate the good he has done as part of the players council. Especially in looking out for players lower down the rankings.

I can't get too heated up about what Fed did.

Partly because if you dish it out, you have to be willing to take it.

And partly because this is in my guy's back catalogue and I quite like what he did! (1m30s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69izvDaepm0

Commentators view at 1:52 is interesting too.

HM Murdoch wrote:I can't get too heated up about what Fed did.

Partly because if you dish it out, you have to be willing to take it.

And partly because this is in my guy's back catalogue and I quite like what he did! (1m30s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69izvDaepm0

Commentators view at 1:52 is interesting too.

Again I would put this in the same category, ill advised but not a huge offence. The sort of thing where you think "he could have handled that better" and move on.

HM Murdoch wrote:I can't get too heated up about what Fed did.

Partly because if you dish it out, you have to be willing to take it.

And partly because this is in my guy's back catalogue and I quite like what he did! (1m30s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69izvDaepm0

Commentators view at 1:52 is interesting too.

The right way to handle it; no ranting, no aggression.

Sadly socal will see this as Djokovic "going postal" on the guy, being "wildly aggressive" and it being a dark act. Or......... maybe he won't.......

The trouble with reacting to the crowd in that way is that it lets them know that they can get to you. Always better to rise above it, laugh at it or go through the proper channels.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:I can't get too heated up about what Fed did.

Partly because if you dish it out, you have to be willing to take it.

And partly because this is in my guy's back catalogue and I quite like what he did! (1m30s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69izvDaepm0

Commentators view at 1:52 is interesting too.

The right way to handle it; no ranting, no aggression.

Sadly socal will see this as Djokovic "going postal" on the guy, being "wildly aggressive" and it being a dark act. Or......... maybe he won't.......

Yeah this is no different to what Fed did. No doubt Socal will agree.

I guess Screech also doesn't deserve any Edberg awards.

So that's Fed, Ferrer and Screech ruled out.

There is a period where spectators rarely got involved beyond applause or shouts of dismay during a winner or a missed shot. Wimbledon comes to mind.

Tennis is slowly becoming a sport where spectators are akin to Football fans. Here is an example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/4321908/Brawling-fans-overshadow-Novak-Djokovic-win-over-Amer-Delic-at-Australian-Open.html

The decorum that existed in days gone by, has been lost. Media also instigates such stuff, see the repeated Federer v Murray incident discussion.

Nadal gets portrayed in bad light due to his discussion with Bernardes, as does Djokovic's camp.

Will the sport ever go back to being a gentleperson's sport? This is an Utopian dream.

Respective fans have now started tracking of transgressions or perceived transgressions, including use of media and internet resources.

I have yet to see a realisation that the players' human roots should be respected?

Paragon's of virtue these players are not. Yet posters are beating each other up with sticks and stones to make the players themselves and posters who are fans of these, both, look bad. This is not what the sport of Tennis is based on, is it?

It is very to see this mob mentality tearing the sport I love, apart.

The question I ask myself now is, should I be part of such a community, which utterly and miserably fails to realise the basis of such sport. Do I really need this discussion? Does it enhance the pleasure of the sport any further, does it endear me to another who enjoys this sport?

Do I need a longer hiatus and let others tear the v2 community apart?

That is the point. They are ALL human and all have moments during which they could behave better on court. I can list such moments for all the top twenty at least but choose not to.

It is an either / or situation. Either they are all critiqued or none. I prefer the latter as it makes for a better atmosphere.

laverfan wrote:There is a period where spectators rarely got involved beyond applause or shouts of dismay during a winner or a missed shot. Wimbledon comes to mind.

Tennis is slowly becoming a sport where spectators are akin to Football fans. Here is an example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/4321908/Brawling-fans-overshadow-Novak-Djokovic-win-over-Amer-Delic-at-Australian-Open.html

The decorum that existed in days gone by, has been lost. Media also instigates such stuff, see the repeated Federer v Murray incident discussion.

Nadal gets portrayed in bad light due to his discussion with Bernardes, as does Djokovic's camp.

Will the sport ever go back to being a gentleperson's sport? This is an Utopian dream.

Respective fans have now started tracking of transgressions or perceived transgressions, including use of media and internet resources.

I have yet to see a realisation that the players' human roots should be respected?

Paragon's of virtue these players are not. Yet posters are beating each other up with sticks and stones to make the players themselves and posters who are fans of these, both, look bad. This is not what the sport of Tennis is based on, is it?

It is very to see this mob mentality tearing the sport I love, apart.

The question I ask myself now is, should I be part of such a community, which utterly and miserably fails to realise the basis of such sport. Do I really need this discussion? Does it enhance the pleasure of the sport any further, does it endear me to another who enjoys this sport?

Do I need a longer hiatus and let others tear the v2 community apart?

Don´t lose heart LF. As Rafa would say stay colm ..the art is to "keep your head when all around you are losing theirs" This thread, imo, should have been closed a long time ago. It is going nowhere and there will continue to be no resolution.

I think murdochs link will kill it; showing the favourite player of the main critic on this thread in the same light would end it.

I had posted the same ESPN link with Fowler/Gilbert earlier, but the debate continued unabated.

bogbrush wrote:I think murdochs link will kill it; showing the favourite player of the main critic on this thread in the same light would end it.

Can I hold my breath

bogbrush wrote:I think murdochs link will kill it; showing the favourite player of the main critic on this thread in the same light would end it.

No when Novak yells at Mirka or Roger's parent then we are even, but he wont do that because he isn't pompous and doesn't feel like he is above the rules of the game and common etiquette. Keep telling us how this was a public service that is why this thread is so long because you want to turn his bad act into good conduct. As I said 8 time edberg award winner should be held to a higher standard and he has failed to in this incident and in many others.

Jk's argument was laughable that fed and djoko are sort of friends and that it would be worse to have asked the umpire to intervene. They were not friends back then and I doubt they are anything approaching friends now because this wasn't the last time Roger decided to go diva on Djokovic. And it would not have been worse if he just asked the umpire to do his job and followed the rules. As I said if Roger walked over and punched Novak in the face everyone would be talking about how evil Djokovic is for running his hand into Roger's fist.

I knew you had it in you to keep it going.

Did you see Novak 'going postal' and becoming wildly aggressive in his dark moment? Was he being pompous and above the rules?

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I think murdochs link will kill it; showing the favourite player of the main critic on this thread in the same light would end it.

Can I hold my breath

I hope you're not still holding, the fascinating discussion has come up for breath.

bogbrush wrote:I knew you had it in you to keep it going.

Did you see Novak 'going postal' and becoming wildly aggressive in his dark moment? Was he being pompous and above the rules?

Did he go at Tommy Haas' box, I am sorry I missed that? Got a tennis lesson mate, I will be back to sink my teeth into this epic thread that documents the fallacious double standard halo imparted to our resident racquet wielding divinity.

Perhaps the cutlural differnce socal alluded to earlier is a factor.
Correct me if I'm wrong socal, but does your background perhaps impart a great deal more importance to the matriarchal figure than a Western background might have?

To my mind it's a minor telling off of someone who was being slightly rude. I tend to apply the same 'rules' to ladies and gents - if you're being rude to someone (and all the indications are that Djoko's parents were being somewhat rude to Fed - I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend or deny that rudeness, but condemn Fed's so utterly), you might expect a bit of a telling off.
It shouldn't have come from Fed, but it was only a minor indescretion, no different from Djoko's altercation with a fan.
Ferrer hitting a ball toward a baby was worse.

It would have been better for Fed to approach the umpire, but then the umpire would have had to ask the Djokovic family, over the loadspeaker, to stop misbehaving - which potentially would have been even more embarrassing to them, since it would have come from an official.

I know you're going to say they were not being rude, but from the reactions of the cameraman, the commentators and the crowd (not to mention their past history), it's fairly clear they were misbehaving.

Fed has played many opponents in his 1000+ matches - he has never felt the need to admonish any opponent's parents/box in any other match before or since. Yet here you say it did it for no reason whatsoever, which does not seem to be the case.

I did try holding my breath but I just !!!!

I will be back to answer you later Julius it is a beautiful 73 degree day here and I am off to play.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I knew you had it in you to keep it going.

Did you see Novak 'going postal' and becoming wildly aggressive in his dark moment? Was he being pompous and above the rules?

Did he go at Tommy Haas' box, I am sorry I missed that? Got a tennis lesson mate, I will be back to sink my teeth into this epic thread that documents the fallacious double standard halo imparted to our resident racquet wielding divinity.

Ah, it seems that the 'box' is a special zone within which extra care must be taken. Higher standards apply to the 'box' than stray fans, who are obviously fair game for any player quite properly asserting his rights.

Yes, it's all so clear to me now.

Yes it is a different zone, because the friends and family of your opponent reside there and as a courtesy and respect to your opponent you should have a go in their box if you can avoid it by following the rules.

@JUlius, whether the comments were directed at his mother or father makes no difference. The man should follow the rules. I don't want to make it a big psychoanalysis of various cultural norms. Even in a modern society certain things are sacred like a player using his power position to intimidate the parents or box of another competitor. And whether the fans liked it or not is immaterial, the same attitude of blind support for federer that is apparent on this website is apparent in the game at large.


I feel like I have made my point and exposed how loathe federer fans are to admit their heroes obvious, blatant, and often frequent diva like behavior. These type of actions are not as minor as they are being portrayed and not as infrequent some would like to claim. We see it with the murray cussing, or in his post match interviews, his reactions to overturned hawkeye calls, etc. As I said he isn't 8 edberg awards worth of a sportsman. And I think it is blindingly obvious that he was voted those awards for reasons independent of his sportsmanship.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps the cutlural differnce socal alluded to earlier is a factor.
Correct me if I'm wrong socal, but does your background perhaps impart a great deal more importance to the matriarchal figure than a Western background might have?

To my mind it's a minor telling off of someone who was being slightly rude. I tend to apply the same 'rules' to ladies and gents - if you're being rude to someone (and all the indications are that Djoko's parents were being somewhat rude to Fed - I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend or deny that rudeness, but condemn Fed's so utterly), you might expect a bit of a telling off.
It shouldn't have come from Fed, but it was only a minor indescretion, no different from Djoko's altercation with a fan.
Ferrer hitting a ball toward a baby was worse.

It would have been better for Fed to approach the umpire, but then the umpire would have had to ask the Djokovic family, over the loadspeaker, to stop misbehaving - which potentially would have been even more embarrassing to them, since it would have come from an official.

Fed has played many opponents in his 1000+ matches - he has never felt the need to admonish any opponent's parents/box in any other match before or since. Yet here you say it did it for no reason whatsoever, which does not seem to be the case.

I like Djokovic as a player though some of the after match celebrations are a little much for my taste, but I respect him. However, I was at the Cinci Masters in 2009 for the week and was at the Djoko/Chardy match and the Djoko/Federer match. I was using some friends corporate tickets and seated both time about 5 rows back directly behind the Djokovic box. I have never seen such horrible behaviour from the family and friends of a player in 30 years of attending pro matches. Especially his father and another guy who someone who I pointed him out to said was a cousin.. Djokovics father literly heckled Chardy nonstop-- I like it to a baseball fan taunting the opposing pitcher here in the USA- it was pathetic.. He talked during points, and anytime Chardy walked past him. To Chardy's credit and what Fed should have done obviously in the match everyone is talking about was ignore him. A couple of times ushers or security came and asked the father and cousin/friend to cool it. I personall thought they were drunk but who knows... Now- the Federer match-- same thing but not quite as bad. The father would call out to Roger in a sing/song voice clearly to annoy him everytime he walked by... They would talk during points-- not one time did Federer even look or acknowledge them so I guess he had learned him lesson or was just in a better mood that day.. Around the 2nd set- securtiy came and talked to the box, and they did quiet down............ SO- I agree Federer should not have said anything to the parents but he did and it was wrong- at the same time from what I witnessed- he prob just lost his cool for a second after listening to this in 2008 or whatever year that happened.... Two wrongs don't make a right, but I am sure based on what I saw- the Djokovic box were going out of their way to aggravate him.....

Now going through this thread, it's almost comical how you guys are fighting and debating over every nuance of such a thing... Here's what I know and feel. 1. Federer is a human being with natural human reactions. He gets mad, loses his cool,says the wrong thing. Who amongst us hasn't.. Has anyone ever said the wrong thing to a wife/husband,kid, friend, coworker that in retrospect shoudl have kept quiet? If your honest 100% have. 2. As I posted earier with the Roddick comments, it is clear Federer is not only highly respected but highly loved in the lockerroom.. I have found numerous interviews with various players that all praise him. Guys who say he's the biggest prankster in the locker room, young players like Harrison who talk about how Federer is the ONLY veteren who seems to be genuinely interested in them, over and over- players mention Federer as a great guy to be around. Players mention how approachable he is.. and I've seen comments from them that compare that to how unapproachable or standoffish some of the other top players are...

The Sportsmanship award is cleary part sportsmanship award, part popularity contest. As is most awards handed out. In all walks of life, the guys who have the most friends, are the funniest, most personable get the awards because that gives them the slight edge over someone probably just as deserving. That's life guys.. The best looking get the prettiest girls usually. So Federer some years prob deserved the award just on sportmanship and some years others prob deserved it, but Federer did enough along with his popularity to win it-- so what? Move on... He's a nice guy and well liked and as someone pointed out in a posting- guys like Roddick and other players prob recognize that he is under pressures they can't fathom so he's doing pretty well despite some misteps and flaws. They also prob understand that none of them are perfect... I see you guys slamming Fed but then going on about how a guy who hits a ball at a baby crying because it annoys him deserves it more.. What would you say if Federe did that? I see vidoe of Djoko losing his cool and acting out, but his fans go on and on about Federer. I see Nadal in the year he won the sportsmanship award lose his cool on court so bad that Berdych called it the "most disgusting behaviour I've ever seen on court" I've seen Nadal phycially contact a player merely becasue the player is beating him. They are prob all great guys- but here and there act out.. The players vote each year and time and again- they decide Federer should get the award. That's all this is- a bunch of guys who get together and have a chance to award the guy who they like the best on and off the court- and it's Federer. Let's move on to more interesting things IMO.

socal, I take issue with your use of the word 'sacred', although perhaps it is just a figure of speech.

You seem equally loathe to admit any poor behaviour of Djokovic and his parents and their own lack of courtesy and respect. Is it not a societal duty of parents (a 'sacred' duty?) to show a good example to their children, not matter how old they may be?

No, Fed is not 8 Edberg's worth, probably only 3 or 4, but I think you would need to look outside the current top 5 to find the 'correct' winner for the last few years. There are fairly obvious reasons why Djoko, Ferrer, Rafa and Murray don't quite measure up to the standards required.

I've really enjoyed this thread.

We've had 'going postal' (a phrase coined because of a series of gun murders at US postal offices) for stern words, wild aggression and dark days used to describe Federers instruction to the Djokovics. We've learned that arguing with the crowd only matters if its a box inhabitant, and that it counts as abusing and humiliating Mummy Djokovic even if you just say 'be quiet'. If you do it to other crowd members, well that's right and proper.

We've found that a paragon of virtue can hit balls at small children, so long as he doesn't win any Slams, and of course that on-court gamesmanship isn't unsporting at all.

Excellent stuff.

Now could someone help socal untangle himself, I'm off to bed?

JuliusHMarx wrote:There are fairly obvious reasons why Djoko, Ferrer, Rafa and Murray don't quite measure up to the standards required.

What are you talking about. Not only is it "fairly obvious" that Rafa measures up to the standards required to be entitled to the Edberg award for sportsmanship he has concrete proof of his entitlement in that he holds this very award. Were you unaware of this or do you think you are somehow entitled or qualified to question it?

HE, I am aware of the award Rafa won, and I was referring more to the last couple of years where Rafa has shown more unsporting behaviour than in previous years and has made a few controversial remarks advocating changes that would benefit himself i.e. the 2-year ranking.

Having said that, we are all entitled to question it, as indeed I question Federer's last couple of awards.

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, I am aware of the award Rafa won, and I was referring more to the last couple of years where Rafa has shown more unsporting behaviour than in previous years and has made a few controversial remarks advocating changes that would benefit himself i.e. the 2-year ranking.

Having said that, we are all entitled to question it, as indeed I question Federer's last couple of awards.

I agree you are of course entitled to question anything... But I would say that Rafa just like Roger is generally known for his sporting behavior. Both of course because of their strong and often opposing fan bases will have many that would like to paint a different picture of one or the other. Perhaps to make their favorite look better in contrast. I would say this happens more with tennis "enthusiasts" rather than more general observers. Both are not saints but the award is for the most sporting player and sainthood isn't required. It's difficult to make a case that there was some sort of fix in the voting possess when there is no evidence to suggest that Rafa wasn't qualified to win.

When Rafa was democratically elected onto the player council putting forward ideas for change was not "unsporting". Even if you disagree with his suggestions.

I apologise if I gave the impression that Rafa didn't deserve to win - I wasn't trying to say that. Merely that for, say, 2011-2012, none of the big four would be the best choice.

I am sorry you don't understand metaphorical use of the word "postal", it is a harsh term, but it is a slang expression that means losing your cool. It does not necessarily equate to gun violence, maybe it is a difference in usage and a slang term that is lost in translation. His conduct was wrong as numerous federer fans on this thread have indicated. I don't care if he was antagonized by the Djokovic box or not there is proper form and etiquette and a better way to address his grievances.

Ruffin's comments are interesting however in that I to have attended numerous Djokovic matches at Indian Wells, and I always sit first tier and very close to the action as close as second row. I have not noticed the type of behavior he is indicating. But I find it interesting every other opponent has managed to not go postal into Djoko's box other than federer and as you indicated once a complaint was made the actions stopped.

Now I agree his parents are annoying and he has done a lot to reign them in over the years. Hopefully Djoko can get them to control themselves better in the future.

socal1976

Djokovics family were very annoying and Djokovic himself has done a few ill advised things. But credit to him he is learning. This is actually a big credit to him as not everyone in his position would be both capable and willing to do so. One of the things I like about Djokovic is his obvious desire to be liked. Some see this trait as a negative as for some reason it is thought more cool to not care what people think but not me. If he could just tone down the chest beating, shirt ripping celebrations... Someone should tell him they don't make him look good. Maybe Roger or Rafa could snap something at him next time he manages to get a hard fought win over either of them...

Hawkeye, good post. Yeah the shirt rip was good once, but I don't think it is mean spirited. Still I think he should evolve out of doing that kind of stuff less regularly. But hey you play a few hours of grandslam tennis in a highly emotional match and he is a highly emotional player. It is part of what makes him the way he is and I would not want to act like wilander or edberg, I found that very boring. I like a player with personality, with fire, I actually even like Roger's fire when he shows it. But he does have a particular dislike of Djokovic, which is fine it makes the rivalry special. Just don't sell me 8 edberg awards for federer. I have no real problem with the guy, but this aspect of his personality is way oversold to us. Part of the reason I like Fed v. djoko matches is this tension and bit of history between the two.

hawkeye wrote:But I would say that Rafa just like Roger is generally known for his sporting behavior.

They are different.

Rafa is an absolute picture of humility and good manners when speaking about tennis off the Court, and he has never thrown a racquet, but in my view his is a very unsporting and aggressive presence on Court.

Federer is, by and large, a far more sporting presence on Court, but he lets the veil slip (or is more honest - you can take your pick) when talking about the match afterwards and he does on very rare occasions let his temper get the better of him (much more so when he was younger).

Rafa is an absolute picture of humility and good manners when speaking about tennis off the Court, and he has never thrown a racquet, but in my view his is a very unsporting and aggressive presence on Court.


Rafa´s mother was once quoted as saying "I do not recognise who my son is on court".. I believe he is so psyched up when he goes on court he doesn´t even recognise himself to be honest

With all due respect - rubbish!

These guys are all fierce competitors and the Rafa you see on court is exactly who he is - just look at his father's reactions in the box to see the same emotions reflected in the same way.

time please wrote:With all due respect - rubbish!

These guys are all fierce competitors and the Rafa you see on court is exactly who he is - just look at his father's reactions in the box to see the same emotions reflected in the same way.

I dont care if its with your due respect or not... that is your opinion sobeit.

That quote came from his mother and with due respect I think she probably knows her son better than you do dont you think. Anyway who says he takes after his father... his father is like his brother. Uncle T.

Have we decided the all Tennis players are criminals and their respective Crimes Against Humanity are so egregious that we want Tennis banned and all Tennis players exiled to another planet, perhaps Jupiter or Venus or Mars, or the Outer ones like Pluto and all the past history of Tennis will be expunged as well as all human memory will be wiped (like Dollhouse) and v2 will be deemed a subversive terrorist website, if found discussing Tennis?

As I said, none of these players are saints and they will never be. They will never be paragon's of virtue either. Let them have their humanity back.

@HE ... are not saints but the award is for the most sporting player and sainthood isn't required....

Their respective antics are mere reflections of the rat-race that is the society at large. If we condemn these players, selectively or collectively as our preference and inclination may be, we also point the fingers back at ourselves.

Well I for one am not suggesting that Nadal is a saint by any means and I do not defend him for his mis-demeanours. He is not a paragon of virtue and I dont believe his mother thought so either when she made the remark she did.

First and foremost like you say he is a human being one I like who happens to play the game I love. What other sportsmen go into the "arena" for maybe five hours plus with the spotlight continuously upon them as an individual... not many I could mention ..given what they do and for how long they do it.. that alone makes them super human. Whilst we stand by and watch

H-n, T-p... it is a wonderful sport. Let us enjoy our chosen sport, the best we can.

I had much rather take them with all their warts, rather than not have any Tennis at all.

sorry to break it to you lf, but pluto hasn't been classed as a planet for sometime now, thanks to the likes of neil degrasse tyson among others.

LuvSports! wrote:sorry to break it to you lf, but pluto hasn't been classed as a planet for sometime now, thanks to the likes of neil degrasse tyson among others.

Pluto was only a planet during the planetary weak era.

@LS/BB... I was hoping to get away with the 'Outer' label, rather than the planetoid label.

Can we just all vote to discount federer's Ebderg awards to no more than 3 and then I promise to never talk about it again?

no