The Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award 2013

This award is for "The player who, throughout the year, conducted himself at the highest level of professionalism and integrity, who competed with his fellow players with the utmost spirit of fairness and who promoted the game through his off-court activities."

The nominees for 2013 are Del Potro, Federer, Ferrer and Nadal

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/Moet-ATP-Awards/2013-ATP-Awards-Fan-Favourite-Voting.aspx

This annual award is voted for by the players. But who would get your vote?

Out of that lot I'd probably have to pick Ferrer. Its not a great choice though.

I'd go for Tsonga or Novak if I had a free choice.

Tsonga has been injured for a large part of the year and no one likes Novak, so how can they be nominated?

Nadal should take this one, as Fed has made this award a bit of a private monopoly.

Ferrer? Interesting - I guess his behaviour must have improved this year.
JMDP would get my vote.

JMDP seems to be a gentle giant and also appears to be well liked by the other players. He is always generous to his opponents. To me, he sets a good example.

I really don't get this award.

Is it basically a "He's a Nice Guy" award? Because I'm not aware of an abundance of off-court activity from Ferrer?

So yes, 4 very nice guys. Isner is a lovely guy too but didn't get a look in. Tsonga is a nice guy, Novak is a nice guy who does a lot of charity work, so I can't make a judgement on why these 4 have separated themselves.

Of that list, I'd give the award to JMDP.

HM Murdoch wrote:I really don't get this award.

Is it basically a "He's a Nice Guy" award?

No, it's a "He's a Really, Really Nice Guy, no seriously, he's a Really, Really Nice Guy" award.

Anyone know how they come up with the shortlist of nominees. Do the players have a vote and these are the top four ? or is there some panel who decide who will be nominated and then these are voted on ?

Quite how someone who has had a warning for on-court coaching (ie. Deliberate cheating) and then denied it in the face of obvious evidence can be nominated does escape me.

If they changed the name of this award because Edberg won it 5 times, why has it not subsequently become the Roger Federer Award?

Calder106 wrote:Anyone know how they come up with the shortlist of nominees. Do the players have a vote and these are the top four ? or is there some panel who decide who will be nominated and then these are voted on ?

If Socal were here, he'd point out which clothing brand sponsors three of the four players...

I don't think the nomination process is clear. I assume some ATP committee draws up the names and then the players vote on the shortlist. It seems unlikely that the players vote twice.

Born Slippy wrote:I don't think the nomination process is clear. I assume some ATP committee draws up the names and then the players vote on the shortlist. It seems unlikely that the players vote twice.

Very good point! If the shortlist is drawn up by some suits on a committee, then this really is a redundant award.

Just let the players vote for anyone and whoever gets most votes wins.

Well ive always felt this award was more a marketing opportunity than any real sportsmanship, its a chance to showcase their biggest star of the year in the papers, in a sort of positive light. On that note Nadal will probably take it, but loads of guys are good sports

falzy21 wrote:Well ive always felt this award was more a marketing opportunity than any real sportsmanship, its a chance to showcase their biggest star of the year in the papers, in a sort of positive light. On that note Nadal will probably take it, but loads of guys are good sports

Past winners include Todd Martin, Pat Rafter, Alex Corretja and, in 2002 and 2003, Paradorn Shrichaphan - not exactly the biggest stars of the year. Federer in 2004 was actually the first time a current No 1 won it, I think, apart from Edberg.

Cynics will say that 2004 was the very year that it turned from an honest recognition of sportsmanship to a sponsorship driven marketing ploy.
Others will argue that 2004 shows that Fed must a Really, Really Nice Guy to overcome the apparent desire NOT to pick the current No 1.

Did it used to be showcased in a big awards ceremony at the end of the year like it does now? I wonder if it wasnt then maybe it got too commercialised.

I don't see what there is to be cynical about. Of course the four most sporting players in the game are ranked no lower than 7.

Everyone knows lower-ranked players are ill-mannered cheats who will bring the game into disrepute given half a chance.

I mean I have no doubt that Roger deserved the award on more than one occassion, I mean looking at it its not unusual for guys to win multiple times, Patrick got 4 and Edberg 5, heck the Thailand player before Roger I hadnt head of before, it just seems a little odd that only the top 2 players have won it in the last nearly 10 years, particularly their top 2 most marketable guys.

I wonder if maybe it got turned into a suit and tie award ceremony kind of thing, and affected the result.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:I don't think the nomination process is clear. I assume some ATP committee draws up the names and then the players vote on the shortlist. It seems unlikely that the players vote twice.

Very good point! If the shortlist is drawn up by some suits on a committee, then this really is a redundant award.

Just let the players vote for anyone and whoever gets most votes wins.

I don't see any reason not to think that the players were not involved in the nominations too. Why do you think otherwise? They are in a good position to judge who is most sporting as they would be on the receiving end of both good and bad sporting behavior from fellow players.

Anyway my poll was asking who you would vote for. Maybe it's someone who wasn't nominated? If so say who and why.

falzy21. Maybe Nadal and Federer are the most marketable because they are "sporting"?

HE, I had a fairly long look online because I didn't know how the process worked. I can't find anything definitive but the impression is of a shortlist being presented to the players who then vote.

The nominees do tend suggest this. Surely a lower ranked player would get on the list at some point? It's overwhelmingly made up of top ten players.

I'm open to be corrected, if anyone can find anything?

Tough to say who I'd vote for as I don't see the behind the scenes things that the players do.

As a tennis watcher, the stand out guys to me are Del Potro and Isner. In terms of charitable work, I'd put Federer and Novak ahead of the pack.

^ If a pre prepared list was just given to players why that list? I take your point that they are all highly ranked but why those particular 4? Who would gain anything by attempting to manipulate a popularity poll such as this? The players would all have to be a little stupid if they went along with voting in these circumstances and if just one of them let the cat out of the bag it wouldn't just be the players looking stupid.

I think you've made a good point about this being tough to judge if you don't see behind the scenes. Maybe this award is a chance for us to get a glimpse behind the scenes by looking at the results?

I wonder if its Novak's racquet smashing which keeps him off the list? All the guys nominated are pretty good at not chucking their racquets around.

I do wonder if a re-brand to "Best Ambassador for the Tour" or something similar might be good and more accurately reflect the situation.

Born Slippy wrote:I wonder if its Novak's racquet smashing which keeps him off the list?  

And swearing at the Madrid crowd and kicking a clock in Shanghai and yelling at umpires....

I love the guy and there is a lot about his on court behaviour that is particularly good (applauding shots, conceding points etc) but he does plenty to rule himself out of this award too!

His charitable work is very commendable though. I believe twice this year he has hosted gala events for his charity foundation the day after losing a slam final!

I too understand the nominee part, but still a great set of names, can't really beat these 4 for the awards, given Del Potro's conduct , gamesmanship , spirit to fight on the court and leave it there should win the contest narrowly.

Its a close contest, but I guess this time Del Po will win this, certainly he will get the vote of Djoko, and will get the vote of Fed and Rafa if they are not allowed to vote for themselves.  , outside that I guess tour loves him as well.

Djokovic is a fantastically good sport though, never shouts at other players, applauds them, all his interviews are pitched perfect and very eloquent.
He gets angry a bit at himself yeah, even Roger and Rafa do that, but its the good sportsman award, not the best behaved boy award.

There are plenty of really sporting guys in tennis, arguably moreso because they dont have the success the top guys have, I cant believe that Fedal are the only enitites who are good sports deserving of the title.

falzy21 wrote:its the good sportsman award, not the best behaved boy award.

I think it may have become the Best Behaved Boy award!

Considering Federer has taken whippings at the hands of lesser players and still been all class in his pressers and behavior compared to the "it's easy to be nice when your winning" knock some people used to say about him when he won the award just about every year, I would think he'd be the favorite again.     Then again, the one year Nadal won it was the year he really broke out of the Fed shadow and dominated the whole tour, and he's done that again this year.......  So maybe it's his turn again-- though his uncle admitting that they coach him on court should be a knock against him IMO..

If purely on behavior though- I think Del Potro deserves it. I know Federer constantly talks Delpo up in the press as being one of the nicest guys on the tour, so maybe that would carry some weight as a transition from the Fed stranglehold on the award.

It could be though that the players seeing the end of the road becoming clearer for Fed will go on voting for him as a kind of ongoing tribute.

I'd give it to Delpo out of that list. The way he conducted himself in that Wimbledon semi final sticks out for me. Playing well enough to beat anyone, Djokovic just managed to stay in front of him which would have had me smashing rackets, throwing things at the umpire, punching spectators...

But he took it all with a smile. Who can forget when he sat down and chatted with a woman in the crowd after an epic point? He seems to have been like that all year.

Not that there is anything wrong with smashing rackets, the odd swear word, or even taking too long to start a point. These are athletes trying to gain any advantage they can.

Plus some of the things that would rule someone out of this are the best bits to watch. Who can forget JJ trying to get the roof closed at Wimbledon at 7pm on a bright day, or talking during a rally to annoy Murray. It worked too. Hilarious stuff! Great to watch.

Tennis, and sport in general, needs bad boys.

Anyway where was I... Oh yeah, Delpo for me. But a silly award. Reminds me of 'clubman' award at my old football team. Basically it's a 'bless him for trying' award. A sympathy vote. Nobody wanted it. I wouldn't want this one either.

Danny_1982.

I quite like a bit of emotion too. But there is a big difference from an opponents perspective between watching a racquet being smashed because of your good play and seeing someone do something to as you say "gain any advantage they can". I doubt that anyone known for doing the latter would gain many votes from fellow players for this award. You may like watching "bad boys" but you should perhaps cast your vote in the fan favorite category on the ATP site.

I certainly don't see this award as a "bless him for trying award" or a "sympathy vote" and am not sure how you have come to that conclusion. After all two of the nominees are perhaps among the best players ever. Why would they need sympathy? They have shown that Sportsmanship and being successful are not mutually exclusive.

Sorry its late and I cba to read through all the posts but does the edberg award have anything to do with on court behaviour as well as off court?

My vote goes to Del Potro, the Gentle Giant.

LuvSports! wrote:Sorry its late and I cba to read through all the posts but does the edberg award have anything to do with on court behaviour as well as off court?

I would think just knowing human nature that the players are taking into account everything they know about a guy both on and off the court. A guy who is a jerk in the lockeroom or at an event but is well behaved on court is prob not going to get the votes... Roddick talked about Federer being the total package on and off the court a couple of years ago in talking about his Sportsmanship.. right after the award.. talked about how Fed treats fans, the players,etc.. So judging by that- I am guessing guys are judging the totality of what they know about the guy..

Well delpo I think takes a lot of the time too long between points and challenges way too late, same with rafa, who has shown questionable actions on the court.

JMDP all the way, such a class act. I can't believe he's not won this award before, he really does deserve it.

Fed and Ferrer just behind, TRuffin makes a good point about the former not being bitter at all about his slide this year, which is very commendable. Ferrer has always been good with his on-court behaviour and seems like a thoroughly decent chap (that's basically the award...right?). Rafa is good too, but the halo has been slipping for a number of years now.

Danny's right, I reckon there should be a counter award to encourage spiky antics on tour. JJ would be a shoo-in, but Gulbis could work on his presser technique and be right up there challenging him next year

LuvSports! wrote:Well delpo I think takes a lot of the time too long between points and challenges way too late, same with rafa, who has shown questionable actions on the court.

Yeah, and he has had a fair few questionably timed medical time-outs as well. Given those issues are my personal main gamesmanship gripes I wouldn't vote for him, albeit he seems a nice enough chap otherwise.

I can't agree with Danny though. You only need to look at the guy the award is named after to realise that it is possible to be the best and play fairly. If you have to cheat to win then I would take no satisfaction from that. I think its good that the ATP recognises someone who does epitomise those values. I just wish they'd make better choices!

Perhaps comparing it with the 'clubman' award was taking it a bit far. It's obviously a bit more than a sympathy vote. I still wouldn't be that bothered about winning it though. Just my personal opinion.

And I stand by the statement that tennis is richer for bad boys being around. I'd love a McEnroe type character in the game today. Sadly it would be too commercially damaging for the individual so they are all nearly perfectly behaved.

Danny_1982. There will always be players who are prepared to use gamesmanship in order to win but most people don't tend to support players who use sneaky tactics. And fellow players will see right through them. I think players would be pleased to receive an accolade from their fellow players.

Luvsports. The players would say you were wrong about Del Potro and Nadal. I believe Nadal has already won the award on a previous occasion too.

hawkeye wrote:Danny_1982. There will always be players who are prepared to use gamesmanship in order to win but most people don't tend to support players who use sneaky tactics. And fellow players will see right through them. I think players would be pleased to receive an accolade from their fellow players.

Luvsports. The players would say you were wrong about Del Potro and Nadal. I believe Nadal has already won the award on a previous occasion too.

I remember Fed being a bit upset over JMDP's delayed challenges.
I think it's more of an overall judgement the players take - so any player can still win it despite the odd bit of questionable on court behaviour.

Basically the top guys get this award right? More exposure etc?

hawkeye wrote:Danny_1982. There will always be players who are prepared to use gamesmanship in order to win but most people don't tend to support players who use sneaky tactics. And fellow players will see right through them. I think players would be pleased to receive an accolade from their fellow players.

Luvsports. The players would say you were wrong about Del Potro and Nadal. I believe Nadal has already won the award on a previous occasion too.

What about nadal's questionable medical time outs? Going to the bathroom before feds serves for the match, constantly going over the time limit, challenging too late and then ranting away at the umpire, bumping deliberately into rosol and complaining that he was distracting him before serve?

I know you will ignore these facts and that Nadal is prone to gamesmanship, but you just think Murray does it.

Luvsports. That's what you think. The players think otherwise. They have nominated Nadal for an award in recognition of his sporting behaviour. It might be worth re assessing your view of him in the light of this evidence? I agree with the players so I'm not ignoring the evidence

Who would you give the Stefan Edberg sportsmanship award too?

That is what I think. That is proof! You can google or youtube clips of it. Do you want me to show you the evidence so that you think this as well? It's very clear to see.
That is people's opinion, not fact and I stick to facts thanks .
You are ignoring the evidence and so are they.

Well if it means off and on court I would probably say Ferrer of the 4 nominated.

^ The facts are Rafa's behavior both on and off the court. You have your opinion on them (from the distance of your sofa at home or even if your lucky a court-side seat) and the ATP players have their opinion. But they might be in a better place to judge.

Please don't spoil my article by sending it off on a tangent discussing one specific and famous Wimbledon match that was so earth shattering the after quakes are still being felt now. Given just half an opportunity many posters would probably prefer to discuss that match rather than my article. If you want to discuss that why not write your own article about it?

Learn what fact means first.
I won't comment anymore ok?

OK  

Are you going to write an article on the Rosol incident instead?

Nominees by year...

2003 - Roger Federer, Tim Henman, Carlos Moya, Paradorn Srichaphan
2004 - Roger Federer, Carlos Moya, Paradorn Srichaphan, Sargis Sargsian
2005 - ?
2006 - Roger Federer, James Blake, Ivan Ljubicic, Rafael Nadal
2007 - James Blake, Roger Federer, Carlos Moya, Jarkko Nieminen
2008 - ?
2009 - Roger Federer, Ivan Ljubicic, Carlos Moya, Jarkko Nieminen
2010 - Marin Cilic, Taylor Dent, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal
2011 - Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Aisam-Ul-Haq Qureshi
2012 - Roger Federer, Marin Cilic, Juan Martin del Potro, David Ferrer

I cannot find 05, 06 and 08. Can someone help?

hawkeye wrote:^ The facts are Rafa's behavior both on and off the court. You have your opinion on them (from the distance of your sofa at home or even if your lucky a court-side seat) and the ATP players have their opinion. But they might be in a better place to judge.

I agree with this Hawkeye, but can't help feeling there might be a teensy bit of hypocrisy here.  Have you tried applying this principle to some of your own opinions?  Let's take two tennis players entirely at random, say Andy Murray and Rafa Nadal.  You'd probably be prepared to concede that Rafa is better placed than you to know what Andy's character and behaviour is really like.  Do you think he shares your rather stringent views?  I reckon, if you gave it a bit of thought, you'd probably be able to spot some significant differences.  I know you have the upmost respect for Rafa, so why do you think you know best when it comes to Andy?

We all know that Rafa has better things to do than trawl internet tennis forums, but just imagine if he ever did come across any of your Andy Murray oeuvre.  Do you think he'd be impressed or endeared to you?  Or perhaps he'd just think you were a bit of a dick.....

A teeny bit Aut0gr4ph?

The last sentence made me laugh by the way. Such a logical post ending with that word was a surprise, and a funny one.