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.

Yes

See if you guys were just as reasonable as julius I would agree to never talk about the great pomposity and his patchy sportsmanship record.

He has them. Suck it up.

He'll probably get another soon.

It boggles the mind BB, but you are probably correct.

Why must they taunt me with these edberg awards? He probably will get to double digits if he hangs around, the horror.

socal1976 wrote:Why must they taunt me with these edberg awards? He probably will get to double digits if he hangs around, the horror.

Maybe he is playing in the weak era of tennis sportsmanship.

socal1976 wrote: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?

Can we do the same with Nadal's or Djokovic's slams, SoCal?

Would you like a week from his #1 to be deducted for every Edberg he has won or return a slam for every Edberg he has won?

Is this not going a bit too far in your quest?

Heaven forbid if Djokovic wins an Edberg, and Federer fans come back and want it reduced to zero or less?

What an odd thread to reach 700+ replies.

summerblues wrote:What an odd thread to reach 700+ replies.

Quite agree, SB.

socal1976 wrote: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?

Ha ha! I wouldn't do that if I were you as I reckon you would be disappointed with the result. Also maybe it's just me but I love his pomposity too... I wonder what he'll wear for this years Wimbledon? He does get that prime time spot on the first Monday that he must so love.

But my only worry is that the British media will not treat him with the respect and fairness that he deserves. I wonder why?

summerblues wrote:What an odd thread to reach 700+ replies.

Tell you what sb we could have read the whole of "War & Peace" in the time : at least it has a final ending

Haddie-nuff wrote:

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.

I am not actually criticising Rafa Haddie - I am actually arguing that all the top players are very competitive animals. Someone once said that Nadal plays tennis like his opponent has insulted his mother - I think that aggression has been carefully nutured in Nadal, I think you see the same aggression in his father and that they both are ultra aggressive when losing - that is not a bad quality for a sportsman. I am sure that Nadal is a lovely gentle soft spoken son to his mother - isn't that manners rather than essence? He has actually been groomed relentlessly from a young age to be an ultra aggressive competitor and according to his Uncle he reacted like all highly talented, ultra competitive little boys - mothers see one side, the rest of the world sees another - which is correct. The fact his mother says 'she doesn't recognise him' on court (though really she should by now!) is tantamount to saying she doesn't know all of him, just as none of us really know 'all' of our children. She hasn't historically been too good at recognising that perhaps his Uncle and his father pushed him a little too hard - okay it worked out well, but with less talent they might have screwed him completely (elder Agassi children anyone) - in fact, one might say, she turned the proverbial blind eye to the tears and tantrums (not all of them Rafa's! )

I am just playing Devil's Advocate you know - that aggression is close to the surface with all the top guys and I wouldn't criticise it, in fact if I were a coach, I would look for it.

I have no problems with his agression on court ... sometimes he is too defensive and when he shows more agression he attacks and comes inside the court more .. which now with his knee as bad as it is (and I notice today he has it strapped again) that he should come inside and shorten the rallies.. he is after all quite an adept vollyer when he wants. But it will be interesting to see whether his lay-off has changed his attitude on court ..I think it may well have in the short term at any rate

Is this the record for most number of posts now (disinclude this one in the count).
It's sort of acceptance and tolerance I guess. They're human soo I have no problem tolerating them losing their cool every now and then, they're human after all.
That doesn't mean you have to accept it though.
The current case in point, Federers "shut up" at Djokovic's parents I don't think was acceptable. If they were too vocal, or if they were actually goading Fed, he needed to have a word with the umpire, not shout at the opponents family. Of course he just lost his cool, that's fine but it doesn't make it OK to do just because "oh he's human and he doesn't do it often", you apologise, you learn and move on.

To balance this before people kill me, Im not struck on the Novak shirt ripping. You can let it go because hes in the moment and adrenalines flowing, but it's not the first time hes done and he really needs to understand that it makes him look like a pretty ungracious, disrespectful winner, as well as a twit.

Point being, all these sorts of things go into the pot for the Edberg award (or are supposed to) and I've felt for a while now that there are better sporting top players out there.

@Falzy... it was much more PC 'Be quiet' not a 'Shut the f*** up'.

You may also want to read TRuffin's post.

PS: This is the one I was referring to - https://www.606v2.com/t39841p650-fisticuffs-in-the-fourth-what-did-roger-say#1830076

falzy21 wrote:Is this the record for most number of posts now (disinclude this one in the count).
It's sort of acceptance and tolerance I guess. They're human soo I have no problem tolerating them losing their cool every now and then, they're human after all.
That doesn't mean you have to accept it though.
The current case in point, Federers "shut up" at Djokovic's parents I don't think was acceptable. If they were too vocal, or if they were actually goading Fed, he needed to have a word with the umpire, not shout at the opponents family. Of course he just lost his cool, that's fine but it doesn't make it OK to do just because "oh he's human and he doesn't do it often", you apologise, you learn and move on.

To balance this before people kill me, Im not struck on the Novak shirt ripping. You can let it go because hes in the moment and adrenalines flowing, but it's not the first time hes done and he really needs to understand that it makes him look like a pretty ungracious, disrespectful winner, as well as a twit.

Point being, all these sorts of things go into the pot for the Edberg award (or are supposed to) and I've felt for a while now that there are better sporting top players out there.

Good post Falzy, I think Novak shouldn't do that shirt ripping thing anymore it isn't a good precedent and ok once after 11 hours of Iron man tennis is fine but he does need to understand that this is tennis not rugby or football. This is a sport of upper middle class and middle class suburbunites and urbanites of the world. There is a different mindset to tennis fans and he should dial that behavior down.

glad you agree socal

I left this thread on Friday, partly because of sheer boredom but also because I was away travelling during the weekend. Logged on just a couple of hours ago and not entirely surprised to find it still going strong (sort of….)

My own last post on the topic actually ended up on another thread (the ‘Heroically Charitable’ one) where socal had listed a number of past players who he evidently felt were perfection personified when it came to on-court behaviour. One of those mentioned was Borg.

It was interesting for me to see Borg’s name brought up, simply because he so happens to be my all-time favourite player, the guy who has provided my best-ever, most cherished memories of watching elite-level tennis. But then it was even more interesting to see socal’s strange reaction to my post. It was, I feel, a clear manifestation of his obsession with wanting to convince us all that Federer has committed some sort of horrendous transgression in the act of telling noisy spectators who had become a frustration and disturbance during play to “be quiet”

I myself had not even mentioned Federer in my post, but suddenly socal was talking in somewhat surreal terms of us all being “sacrificed on the altar of Federer” whilst asking “is nothing sacred?”

When posters become obsessed with a particular player, as has socal during countless (and at times somewhat repetitive) posts on this thread about Federer, I do believe that it is very easy for that poster to lose all sense of detachment and objectivity.

Socal’s intention was to use Borg as an example of immaculate behaviour. This was very reasonable and fair in itself, because anyone who was lucky enough to see Borg on court knew just how disciplined and incredibly courteous he was. However, he also wanted to use Borg as yet another stick with which to beat Federer.

I then posted a clip of Borg getting involved with a very protracted (and ultimately meaningless) dispute with an umpire ; a dispute which went on for far too long and was actually disrespectful to his opponent on the day who (irony of ironies …!!) just happened to be a certain J. McEnroe. I posted the clip merely as evidence that the very best – yep, even the great Bjorn Borg – can be less than perfect on the odd isolated occasion.

But in describing Borg’s argument as “exemplary” I in fact meant that he handled himself reasonably well as regards general demeanour & tone towards the umpire, and also (as far as we can tell from the clip) the choice of language used.

And when I used the phrase “worthy of special mention” it was an allusion to the fact that Borg’s on-court indiscretions were famously rare ; in the extreme, one could say.

Socal, however, erroneously and melodramatically interpreted this as me trying “to tear down a great and humble champion like Borg. ” Which I would never remotely contemplate doing - to any player, let alone Bjorn Borg ; but which, paradoxically, socal had been doing to Federer for a good few days/pages.

Here is the relevant exchange :

socal1976 wrote:
lags72 wrote:Especially Borg.

I always thought his long argument with the umpire was indeed exemplary and worthy of special mention.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=amG_wgdh44U



Lags this is beneath your typical standard to try to tear down a great and humble champion like Borg. Must we all be sacrificed on the alter of Federer? Is nothing sacred? As I have said the facade of the great sportsmen died for me the second he yelled into Djoko's box, despite whatever their conduct was, a true sportsmen one of those great champions I mentioned would have addressed their commentary to the umpire. Funny, Rafa has played Novak almost as much as Roger and he never went abusive towards Novak's mother. If a grown man yelling at someone's mother instead of addressing his grievances through proper channels is sportsmanship well then I think we have twisted and perverted the entire meaning of the word.



Socal : to address you directly if I may….

I genuinely do wonder if you ever read back to yourself some of your strongly-worded comments before hitting ‘submit’ on your keyboard…?

I ask because I am quite honestly bemused and perplexed by the various descriptions you have applied to Federer’s two shouted words on that day.

Just a small selection :

“…….public verbal abuse”

“ …….humiliation”

“…….yelling & humiliating”

“…….wildly aggressive manner”

“……Federer decided to go postal”

"…….going after the mother or father is equally sick”

And this very strange one …….

“……Djokovic was discombobulated by said conduct”



I'd say it's worth pondering how many joe publics - if questioned in a survey - would associate those descriptions above with the two words “Be quiet” shouted up at persistently noisy spectators who themselves - like Federer - should know far far better.

Of course Federer could have handled himself differently that day. The vast majority of people agree, me included. But as has been mentioned before – if this is his worst sin in over 1000 matches played on tour then he has little need to either beat himself up about it or defend himself against charges of hypocrisy.

Having remarked that the thread had long ago become boring, I recognise that I too am now guilty in extending its life. So I shall restrict myself to one other, slightly allegorical, comment before closing.

Socal : perhaps your moral indignation at the use of the words “Be quiet” would find a lot of traction in some of our British schools in these politically correct times. There are many stories (some without foundation, no doubt) of perverse judgments being made in incidents involving teacher and pupil. So ...... the pupil who many years ago came home from school to tell a parent that he/she had been told by the teacher to “be quiet” might well have been asked what precisely was he doing to provoke the teacher. Fast forward to today, and the modern pupil might be told by a parent that it’s an absolute disgrace that a teacher should use such language (ie "Be quiet") and shout at a pupil, however ill- behaved that pupil may be ; and we will now find a lawyer (all too readily available in the current climate) to prosecute the school for breach of your human rights. And....win a written unreserved apology & compensation at the same time.

“…….public verbal abuse”

“ …….humiliation”

“…….yelling & humiliating”

“…….wildly aggressive manner”

“……Federer decided to go postal”

"…….going after the mother or father is equally sick”

And this very strange one …….

“……Djokovic was discombobulated by said conduct”


thank you so much for highlighting this lags - I have been sorely in need of some light entertainment this week, and socal bless him never fails to provide

poor discombobulated Novak - naughty, naughty Fed

Good post Lags, eloquently put.

It's very difficult to have any meaningful discussion when extremes become the norm; the ridiculous is presented as gospel and post after post become a flurry of ever increasing indignation.

Down with that rogue socal and his use of flowery and bombastic language, I say we tar and feather him and run him out on a rail, wait I am socal, oh yeah whoops!

Oh doth protest too loudly lags. I read your post but you fail to understand that the actions of federer are not isolated incidents. Incidents that are brushed under the rug, which is fine I actually love this aspect as a djokovic fan. And what is wrong with questioning the voting criteria of what seems to have morphed into the Nike Edberg award? I give the man his due as a player, I take exception to the aura of genteel sportsman that is sold to us. I just don't buy it from my own experiences in watching the man.

time please wrote:“…….public verbal abuse”

“ …….humiliation”

“…….yelling & humiliating”

“…….wildly aggressive manner”

“……Federer decided to go postal”

"…….going after the mother or father is equally sick”

And this very strange one …….

“……Djokovic was discombobulated by said conduct”


thank you so much for highlighting this lags - I have been sorely in need of some light entertainment this week, and socal bless him never fails to provide

poor discombobulated Novak - naughty, naughty Fed

That is what I am here for TP to educate and entertain.

I'm loving this thread...

Just goes to show you still need Rafa and Roger in the game to generate the main column inches. It'll be drier than Ghandi's flipflop once those 2 have hung up their racquets.

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:“…….public verbal abuse”

“ …….humiliation”

“…….yelling & humiliating”

“…….wildly aggressive manner”

“……Federer decided to go postal”

"…….going after the mother or father is equally sick”

And this very strange one …….

“……Djokovic was discombobulated by said conduct”


thank you so much for highlighting this lags - I have been sorely in need of some light entertainment this week, and socal bless him never fails to provide

poor discombobulated Novak - naughty, naughty Fed

That is what I am here for TP to educate and entertain.

Well, one out of two ain't bad.

(C'mon, a straight line like that is just begging for retort! )

See now you are getting it julius, when I set you up for one just take the shot and enjoy my good charity. Don't get undies in a twirl.

lydian wrote:I'm loving this thread...

Just goes to show you still need Rafa and Roger in the game to generate the main column inches. It'll be drier than Ghandi's flipflop once those 2 have hung up their racquets.

So true Lydian.

I'm yet to meet a Murray fan who's not British and Murdoch's the only non-Serbian Screech fan probably in the entire world.

Once the two R's go tennis will likely enter a dark age. Who would wanna watch those identikit players play giant ping pong against each other?

rederer and radal will more sorely missed.

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:I'm loving this thread...

Just goes to show you still need Rafa and Roger in the game to generate the main column inches. It'll be drier than Ghandi's flipflop once those 2 have hung up their racquets.

So true Lydian.

I'm yet to meet a Murray fan who's not British and Murdoch's the only non-Serbian Screech fan probably in the entire world.

Once the two R's go tennis will likely enter a dark age. Who would wanna watch those identikit players play giant ping pong against each other?

You might just do should Alex Salmond get his way

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:I'm loving this thread...

Just goes to show you still need Rafa and Roger in the game to generate the main column inches. It'll be drier than Ghandi's flipflop once those 2 have hung up their racquets.

So true Lydian.

I'm yet to meet a Murray fan who's not British and Murdoch's the only non-Serbian Screech fan probably in the entire world.

Once the two R's go tennis will likely enter a dark age. Who would wanna watch those identikit players play giant ping pong against each other?

Once these two go the barren nature of the modern game will be laid bare. Sadly, if Nadals knees don't hold up they'll go close together and the seismic shock will shake the sport to its roots.

Lets see David Ferrer at #3 and perhaps Tomas Berdych at #4 hold the sport up, alongside screech and his twin brother treating us to ever-longer bore-fests.

Yeah emancipator, not me really either...Murray and Djokovic just don't have that XFactor for me, never have had. I know its subjective of course, but there is just something about Nadal and Federer (together and individually) that raises them above the others somehow. I guess I always remember when Murray was a scowling teenager...oh hang on he still is...and Djokovic flopped when the heat went above room temperature. Sure, they're great players now but they weren't the types who were pretty much great from an early age....those are the ones who always stand out for me. Borg...Mac...Agassi...Sampras...Fed...Nadal....all did amazingly well from 18-21 onwards, they had it from the start. You feel with guys like Murray and Djokovic they've needed their game to be polished under pressure by the others above them whereas with the ones above it was just a matter of time until their natural game broke through. Type thing...

bogbrush wrote:

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:I'm loving this thread...

Just goes to show you still need Rafa and Roger in the game to generate the main column inches. It'll be drier than Ghandi's flipflop once those 2 have hung up their racquets.

So true Lydian.

I'm yet to meet a Murray fan who's not British and Murdoch's the only non-Serbian Screech fan probably in the entire world.

Once the two R's go tennis will likely enter a dark age. Who would wanna watch those identikit players play giant ping pong against each other?

Once these two go the barren nature of the modern game will be laid bare. Sadly, if Nadals knees don't hold up they'll go close together and the seismic shock will shake the sport to its roots.

Lets see David Ferrer at #3 and perhaps Tomas Berdych at #4 hold the sport up, alongside screech and his twin brother treating us to ever-longer bore-fests.

That was too good.

It'll be like watching the ATP version of the Williams' matches.

But seriously, how the hell can anyone enjoy watching these two play 'from me to you' for hours on end. Murray against anyone else isn't too bad but Screech - might as well put Agassi's ball machine at the end of the court.

Ferrer at #3...please no. I respect the guy but seriously #3 would be ridiculous. I'm hearing "all over this wasteland" by The Mission playing in my ears at the thought of where we're headed.

Maybe they'll invent "The Screecher" a ball machine that relentlessly fires shots down the line left and right, with the bolt-on attachment of the shirt ripper. It would be kind of like a musicians metronome, you could even set your watch by its atomic regularity of placement.

lydian wrote:Yeah emancipator, not me really either...Murray and Djokovic just don't have that XFactor for me, never have had. I know its subjective of course, but there is just something about Nadal and Federer (together and individually) that raises them above the others somehow. I guess I always remember when Murray was a scowling teenager...oh hang on he still is...and Djokovic flopped when the heat went above room temperature. Sure, they're great players now but they weren't the types who were pretty much great from an early age....those are the ones who always stand out for me. Borg...Mac...Agassi...Sampras...Fed...Nadal....all did amazingly well from 18-21 onwards, they had it from the start. You feel with guys like Murray and Djokovic they've needed their game to be polished under pressure by the others above them whereas with the ones above it was just a matter of time until their natural game broke through. Type thing...

I find them boring to watch if I'm perfectly honest.

I couldn't stand Rafa before but over time I've mellowed towards him. Despite some of the scathing comments I make every now and then he's actually my second favourite player to watch at present. Because.. he's different. He brings something else to the court. A certain energy and excitement. Even his grinding is different to Novak's. There's something indomitable about his spirit that one has to admire. Screech has a more hang dog, woe is me, the gods have conspired against me attitude. There's nothing electric about his presence. It's robotic, metronomic, boring.

Nice post emancipator, guess we're pretty much agreed...and those reasons you post about Nadal is what I've always liked about him. Sure they are plenty of others who play more text book tennis but text books are boring. Its funny how in an era of increasingly boring players (in our opinion), guys like Nadal are finally being seen for the difference they brought to the game. Their injuries serve to show us all that none of them are around for long and once gone these characters, including The Mighty Fed of course, cant be replaced. One offs. With them both gone Djokovic and Murray could get loads of slams but they would never be on the same tennis plane somehow, they just don't have "it". Guys like Federer and Nadal are polar opposites of the tennis style spectrum, Murray and Djokovic are somewhere inbetween. For those that really like Murray and Djokovic then fair enough...but they're not for me and I can see myself only playing the game, not watching it anymore until the next "it" player arrives.

Screech was one mean mutha these days get ready for some historic and record breaking matches, I have feeling that Nadal will come back and be a force to be reckoned with.

Many of us hope so socal...to be honest tennis needs it besides Rafa himself.
Screech is one tough player to beat these days, no doubt.
I still feel bad for Stan though...that SHBH alone deserves the match!

I can't say I disagree he played in a way that deserved a win, he attacked well he fought hard to get shots back, and served big for long stretches of the match. In particular I was impressed with his returning and I think it caught Djokovic by surprised and him rattled. I find that Djokovic and Murray are both becoming more varied and aggressive in their overrall approach I think there have been some highly entertaining matches between the two and the best yet to come I feel.

lydian wrote:I'm loving this thread...

Just goes to show you still need Rafa and Roger in the game to generate the main column inches. It'll be drier than Ghandi's flipflop once those 2 have hung up their racquets.

I know... Sigh...

socal1976 wrote:I can't say I disagree he played in a way that deserved a win, he attacked well he fought hard to get shots back, and served big for long stretches of the match. In particular I was impressed with his returning and I think it caught Djokovic by surprised and him rattled. I find that Djokovic and Murray are both becoming more varied and aggressive in their overrall approach I think there have been some highly entertaining matches between the two and the best yet to come I feel.

Not me, I think there matches have gone backwards 2bh. I liked their rome encounter, 2012 aus match was decent, us open was meh for me and this year's was just a snore fest imo

USO was played in a hurricane Luvsports, and this last match came on sped up AO court, I thought everyone liked the speeding up of conditions? The match was good till murray hit a bit of a physical wall.

Even the BBC couldn't hype this one up, that's how dire it was from all accounts.

I still prefered the djoko nadal match of '11, where the wind was v. strong.
And it wasn't as bad as the bird match and didn't last the whole match.

I find their match up at present tediously dull, end of.

Those are your opinions I felt that against ferrer and in the early rounds in particular djokovic played a very attack oriented game and was breathtaking with some of his shotmaking. However, in the final he tried that for the whole match but was misfiring badly with the forehand in the first set and half, and murray had some physical issues that impacted the quality of the finals.

emancipator wrote: Despite some of the scathing comments I make every now and then he's actually my second favourite player to watch at present. Because.. he's different. He brings something else to the court. A certain energy and excitement. Even his grinding is different to Novak's. There's something indomitable about his spirit that one has to admire. Screech has a more hang dog, woe is me, the gods have conspired against me attitude. There's nothing electric about his presence. It's robotic, metronomic, boring.

Comment bookmarked.

I'm shocked.
I always thought Eman hated Nadal.

As I said IMBL, as a Djokovic fan you know Djokovic is doing something right when emancipator and BB start cheering for Nadal.

I think it's simply that we realise what he brings; something different, something unusual. That's ultimately why I like Federer.

Djokovic & Murray bring something but they take far too long showing us its quite similar.

It Must Be Love wrote:I'm shocked.
I always thought Eman hated Nadal.

Wow eman so did I ... you have made a good pretence at disliking Rafa you old WUM you.
But your reasons and that of Lydian´s, are the same as mine. No he does not play text book tennis. yes he is poles apart from Roger,. but that is why I like him. He is different, he brings something to the court that makes you want to watch him. I think he is exciting to watch and I dread the day that both he and Fed retire.. unless we can find someone or some others that have that X factor. Its not all about whether they play good tennis but also whether they can keep you glued to your seats. Us spectators are now expecting to get the whole package from the next generation of players because these two are a hard act to follow.

I think Djokovic has oodles of charisma and intelligence when interviewed but sadly for tennis, it doesn't translate to charisma on the court. We Brits find something appealing in Murray but I agree that neither of them have the same world wide appeal as R & R, and they are quite tedious to watch playing each other.

However while I feel that Fed is still going to be up there for a bit but that the younger guys are now reigning supreme, I can't believe that Nadal would be coming back unless he and his team really believe he can sweep all before him again - why would he otherwise? He has nothing left to prove. And while Nadal obviously loves tennis, I never feel he has the same romance with the actual game as Fed, he adores competition and he adores being a winner and I think if he didn't think he could be a champion again, then he would throw all those competitive instincts at golf a la Lendl.

As a Fed fan, I stopped enjoying the R & R contests (for fairly obvious reasons) their contrasting court personalities and styles of play made it (at first at least) compelling viewing and not least because both are huge crowd favourites. If I could be completely neutral, it is the match up I would most want to see for the above reasons. However, I find Nadal v Djokovic, after the initial novelty of Djokovic turning the tables for a while, as boring to watch as D vs Murray. Okay you still have the more vibrant court presence of Nadal to cheer up proceedings, but the tennis still becomes a game of attrition and ends with exhausted or injured players and MTOs galore.