The Stefan Edberg Sportmanship Award 2014

The nominees are now in for the Stefan Edberg Sportmanship Award.

It is given to "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."

Of all the players on the tour these four are thought to meet these high credentials.

Marin Cilic
Grigor Dimitrov
Roger Federer
Kei Nishikori

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/Moet-ATP-Awards/2014-ATP-Awards-Fan-Favourite-Voting.aspx

I read one of the names on that list and spluttered on my drink

Cilic being nominated for this is ludicrous. Why Dimitrov? Kei is the only one on there who I would vote for.

Fairly obvious who wins this. Again.

Cilic's nomination is not quite as bad as Justin Gatlin's for World Athlete of the Year, but pretty odd nonetheless. What's the message for other players - that taking whatever over the counter supplements you like and blaming your mother if they contain banned substances = the high level of professionalism & integrity?! Actually beggars belief that the ATP did this.

I can't remember Dimitrov doing anything particularly special in this regard this year (don't think dating a leading WTA player counts!) nor Nishokori (although he promotes new markets). Out of the four, I'd go for Roger, though I do think Djokovic has done alot of off court stuff with his foundation and raising awareness of the Serbian floods, and also showed fairness in conceding points so was worthy of a nomination.

Can anyone tell me how this shortlist is arrived at?

Clear as day who will win, irrespective of who else is on the shortlist though!

I must admit that I'm a little surprised that Djokovic didn't merit an inclusion. His efforts around the Serbian floods (donated all his prize money from Rome and did the media rounds afterwards to draw attention to the situation) reflected very well on both him as an individual and tennis as a whole. There's been the odd racquet smash but also points conceded to opponents.

I'm unaware of what Cilic, Nishi and Dimi have done to elevate themselves onto the list.

Cilic? wow...

It's Federer's award until he retires- short of him throwing some chairs at the audience or something.

I wonder what the Federer award will be for when the time comes? Can't take the name from Edberg. Maybe the charitable work award?

bogbrush wrote:Fairly obvious who wins this. Again.

Its also fairly obvious how its going to annoy some section of fans, but to be frank the list looks very absurd, ATP should come up open with the formula how this list is brought up.

Lets guess

1]In terms of popularity? certainly not barring the one name in the list
2]In terms of charity works? I don't have any clue whether Cilic even runs a charity
3]In terms of conduct ? certainly Daveed and Stan would come above most listed here.
4]In terms of boring tennis? certainly not, not even close to it

so may be I guess they gave this one a preference

5]Best sportsman of the year , Note - Only players with aggressive and stylish game considered.

Gulbis.

I hope Fed does not win it, already seems like some Private prize for him.

Dimi/Cilic/Kei looks fine, some encouragement for the younger boys.

Djoko can't win it, he is not important outside Monaco.

Agreed with Jahu, it's time to give this award to someone else and preferably a younger one. So Nishi would be very nice (considering the new market aspect too).

If Fed gets it again it would really start to be boring. Imho, same as if they kept given the Golden Ball to Messi, while there would be deserving Defense or Goalkeepers in line. (imagine the SPOTY to Phil Taylor since 1995)

Yeah, the award already feels slightly devalued. Just feels like a popularity contest nowadays. Says it all that Rafa won it the one year in the last decade it hasn't gone to Federer.

Not going to criticise any of the players nominated but it would be good to know who creates this shortlist (is it the players themselves or some panel within the ATP). Also explanation for each as to why it is perceived that they have excelled in meeting the criteria. I'm sure there would still be arguments as to whether Player A should be on it rather than Player B or that Player C shouldn't be on it for a specific reason. However it would be a lot more transparent and people would understand better why the players chosen were considered the best in this category.

It'll go to Federer as, after all, Edberg is his coach...

They should also ditch the bit about promotion of the game through off-court activities. Its too confusing and corporate in tone. The award should be about integrity on court and in competition with fellow players. Who has been the best PR guy for the ATP should be a separate award.

Born Slippy; check your inbox.

Born Slippy wrote:Yeah, the award already feels slightly devalued. Just feels like a popularity contest nowadays. Says it all that Rafa won it the one year in the last decade it hasn't gone to Federer.

I argued a while back that the process that hands out this award has some flaws, and I remember many people getting very very angry and raging at me for pointing it out.

Hopefully people can stay a bit more calm this time but I'll say it again- the process to decide the winner of this award has come clear flaws. As an award of sportsmanship it should be decided on sportsmanship, and any factors outside this influencing the process means it's less likely to be accurate.
I've noticed that not only the winners, but also the players who are nominated, are players who tend to be near or at the top of the rankings. Of course it is possible, that the players who have the best sportsmanship are all in the top 20 or so in that specific year, but on the basis of probability it is unlikely.
It's clear that this award is biased towards players who are more well known. In terms of having a popular vote, imagine this: you're a tennis player in the top 100, and an icon such as Federer comes up to you and says hi how are you, signs an autograph for your kids and walks off. You'd be ecstatic. Federer's status in your mind would be elevated even more. If the world number 140 was the nicest guy in the world, and the best sportsman ever seen in tennis, even if he did the same- you would probably frown and say 'who are you?'
And that world number 140 who's the best sportsman in the world can't even get your vote anyway as he won't even be nominated unlike a guy who was banned for doping last year (but won the US this year!).

The only player apart from Federer to win this award in the past years is Nadal... again very suspicious that it's a player so well known. I'm a fan of Nadal- but I highly doubt if you objectively examined all the ATP players eligible for this award he would be the best sportsman in 2010 (funny he won it in his best year...).

Is there a WTA equivalent to this award?

The Special Juan wrote:Is there a WTA equivalent to this award?

http://www.sportsbreak.com/tennis/10-hottest-female-tennis-players/

The Special Juan wrote:Is there a WTA equivalent to this award?

Or maybe this one:
http://www.businessinsider.com/loudest-womens-tennis-shrieks-2013-6?op=1

Hahahahah, both top reads.

Cheers HMM.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Yeah, the award already feels slightly devalued. Just feels like a popularity contest nowadays. Says it all that Rafa won it the one year in the last decade it hasn't gone to Federer.

I argued a while back that the process that hands out this award has some flaws, and I remember many people getting very very angry and raging at me for pointing it out.

Hopefully people can stay a bit more calm this time but I'll say it again- the process to decide the winner of this award has come clear flaws. As an award of sportsmanship it should be decided on sportsmanship, and any factors outside this influencing the process means it's less likely to be accurate.
I've noticed that not only the winners, but also the players who are nominated, are players who tend to be near or at the top of the rankings. Of course it is possible, that the players who have the best sportsmanship are all in the top 20 or so in that specific year, but on the basis of probability it is unlikely.
It's clear that this award is biased towards players who are more well known. In terms of having a popular vote, imagine this: you're a tennis player in the top 100, and an icon such as Federer comes up to you and says hi how are you, signs an autograph for your kids and walks off. You'd be ecstatic. Federer's status in your mind would be elevated even more. If the world number 140 was the nicest guy in the world, and the best sportsman ever seen in tennis, even if he did the same- you would probably frown and say 'who are you?'
And that world number 140 who's the best sportsman in the world can't even get your vote anyway as he won't even be nominated unlike a guy who was banned for doping last year (but won the US this year!).

The only player apart from Federer to win this award in the past years is Nadal... again very suspicious that it's a player so well known. I'm a fan of Nadal- but I highly doubt if you objectively examined all the ATP players eligible for this award he would be the best sportsman in 2010 (funny he won it in his best year...).

I don't recall people getting very very angry and raging. Obviously Stefan Edberg wasn't necessarily the most sporting player of his time - that might have belonged to the world number 553. So to even call it the 'Stefan Edberg Award' is, by the same token, flawed. No-one seems to have mentioned that stick to beat Edberg up with though - perhaps because his name isn't Federer. It just seems that some people can't accept that Federer is viewed by the ATP and his fellow pros as a very sporting player, certainly the most sporting of the top players. Some people just don't like that. In terms of this award, historically, he is a bit of an anomaly - prior to Fed very few GS champs and world No. 1's won it. Coincidence?

HMM

Love it.

I've found something interesting. The ATP World tour awards are "presented" by Moet and Chandon. That includes the Edberg award and the The Fan Favorite award.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/Moet-ATP-Awards/2014-ATP-Awards-Fan-Favourite-Voting.aspx

But guess who the "brand ambassador" is for Moet and Chandon? It's Roger Federer.

http://www.luxurydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/moet-roger-federer-web-site.jpg

Now isn't that a coincidence? it certainly explains the half page add I saw in the Telegraph earlier this week. It was a Moet and Chandon advert with a picture of Federer similar to the one I linked and it was urging people to vote for their brand ambassador to be given their... sorry I mean the ATP's award once again as the fans favorite.

If I was IMBL I would interpret that as hawkeye being very very angry and raging.

^ Why do you think that I think it's funny? Anyway as usual you are trying to make sarky comments about posters rather than say anything on topic Don't you think it's a coincidence that Federer's sponsor is also sponsoring these awards. Not only that but the sponsor of the awards is paying for half page adds in the press to try and swing votes in favor of their brand ambassador.

I am quite proud to have exposed the link

I have posted on topic. Perhaps you don't read all my posts. Sorry that my sense of humour is lost on you.
When did the sponsoring of Fed & the awards start? 2003?

hawkeye wrote:it certainly explains the half page add I saw in the Telegraph earlier this week. It was a Moet and Chandon advert with a picture of Federer similar to the one I linked and it was urging people to vote for their brand ambassador to be given their... sorry I mean the ATP's award once again as the fans favorite.

Did it explicitly say that ?

Julius wrote:I don't recall people getting very very angry and raging.

Why so ?
Not only were they angry, people were apoplectic with rage.

Julius wrote:So to even call it the 'Stefan Edberg Award' is, by the same token, flawed.

I'm not too concerned about the name of the award, whatever the name the whole process is ridiculously flawed.

Julius wrote:In terms of this award, historically, he is a bit of an anomaly - prior to Fed very few GS champs and world No. 1's won it.

Out of the 32 times this award has been given, 21 to someone either World number 1 or a Grand Slam champion... how on earth is that an anomaly ?

Look the only active player apart from Federer to win this award is Nadal, but even though I am a Nadal fan I am objective enough to realise that this system is ridiculously flawed.

Like I said "It just seems that some people can't accept that Federer is viewed by the ATP and his fellow pros as a very sporting player, certainly the most sporting of the top players. Some people just don't like that".
Best to just slate the award and stick to that.

Another snide comment, probably the 10000th one from you Julius- perhaps you can actually rebuttal the points I am making ?
If I wanted to I could write why neither Federer nor Nadal should be winning this given things they've done, but my point here is that this award system is flawed.

If Cilic hadn't won the US Open, would he have been nominated ?
Who decided to nominate Cilic ?

It Must Be Love wrote:Another snide comment, probably the 10000th one from you Julius- perhaps you can actually rebuttal the points I am making ?
If I wanted to I could write why neither Federer nor Nadal should be winning this given things they've done, but my point here is that this award system is flawed.

It's not snide - it's a valid point. I point out that the name of the award is flawed and you don't even care about that! Why not address that point? Why is the very name of the award not important as being flawed?

It Must Be Love wrote:If Cilic hadn't won the US Open, would he have been nominated ?
Who decided to nominate Cilic ?

Martina Hingis

hawkeye wrote:^ Why do you think that I think it's funny? Anyway as usual you are trying to make sarky comments about posters rather than say anything on topic Don't you think it's a coincidence that Federer's sponsor is also sponsoring these awards. Not only that but the sponsor of the awards is paying for half page adds in the press to try and swing votes in favor of their brand ambassador.

I am quite proud to have exposed the link

Since Federer only started promoting Moet a few years ago, how do you explain all the other years he won it?

I hardly think half page ads in the press sway actual ATP players who are the once who vote on the winner.

So we have your Moet theory and SoCals absurd Nike theory....

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Another snide comment, probably the 10000th one from you Julius- perhaps you can actually rebuttal the points I am making ?
If I wanted to I could write why neither Federer nor Nadal should be winning this given things they've done, but my point here is that this award system is flawed.

It's not snide - it's a valid point. I point out that the name of the award is flawed and you don't even care about that! Why not address that point? Why is the very name of the award not important as being flawed?

It was clearly snide, anyway;

Are you asking- Why don't I care about the name of the award as much as the process itself ?
My answer is because the name of the award I don't see as relevant- I mean it doesn't even have to have a name (it could just be called sportsmanship award)- it doesn't make a difference what the name of the award is. However what is more important is that the process itself is flawed and therefore inaccurate.

The Special Juan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If Cilic hadn't won the US Open, would he have been nominated ?
Who decided to nominate Cilic ?

Martina Hingis

Link ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If Cilic hadn't won the US Open, would he have been nominated ?
Who decided to nominate Cilic ?

Martina Hingis

Link ?

It was a joke You know, cause they're both druggies....

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Another snide comment, probably the 10000th one from you Julius- perhaps you can actually rebuttal the points I am making ?
If I wanted to I could write why neither Federer nor Nadal should be winning this given things they've done, but my point here is that this award system is flawed.

It's not snide - it's a valid point. I point out that the name of the award is flawed and you don't even care about that! Why not address that point? Why is the very name of the award not important as being flawed?

It was clearly snide.

I find that comment quite snide.

The Special Juan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If Cilic hadn't won the US Open, would he have been nominated ?
Who decided to nominate Cilic ?

Martina Hingis

Link ?

It was a joke  You know, cause they're both druggies....

Hehe, whoever it was who decided to choose Cilic... were probably smoking whatever Hingis took to get her banned

Ok everyone calm down. Snide or not thats not relevant to the current topic also TSJ please dont mention the things we cannot prove and can get sued for if were not careful .

It Must Be Love wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Yeah, the award already feels slightly devalued. Just feels like a popularity contest nowadays. Says it all that Rafa won it the one year in the last decade it hasn't gone to Federer.

I argued a while back that the process that hands out this award has some flaws, and I remember many people getting very very angry and raging at me for pointing it out.

Hopefully people can stay a bit more calm this time but I'll say it again- the process to decide the winner of this award has come clear flaws. As an award of sportsmanship it should be decided on sportsmanship, and any factors outside this influencing the process means it's less likely to be accurate.
I've noticed that not only the winners, but also the players who are nominated, are players who tend to be near or at the top of the rankings. Of course it is possible, that the players who have the best sportsmanship are all in the top 20 or so in that specific year, but on the basis of probability it is unlikely.
It's clear that this award is biased towards players who are more well known. In terms of having a popular vote, imagine this: you're a tennis player in the top 100, and an icon such as Federer comes up to you and says hi how are you, signs an autograph for your kids and walks off. You'd be ecstatic. Federer's status in your mind would be elevated even more. If the world number 140 was the nicest guy in the world, and the best sportsman ever seen in tennis, even if he did the same- you would probably frown and say 'who are you?'
And that world number 140 who's the best sportsman in the world can't even get your vote anyway as he won't even be nominated unlike a guy who was banned for doping last year (but won the US this year!).

The only player apart from Federer to win this award in the past years is Nadal... again very suspicious that it's a player so well known. I'm a fan of Nadal- but I highly doubt if you objectively examined all the ATP players eligible for this award he would be the best sportsman in 2010 (funny he won it in his best year...).

I'm not sure how you get to decide the criteria of the award. If the ATP decides the criteria is based on other outside deeds, then that's what the award is based on and the players are well aware of that when they vote. I agree the nominees don't make complete sense, and you are probably right- surely there are low ranked players no one knows about that deserve to at least be nominated.. but once again- welcome to the real world. Look at any sport- who gets the MVP? The Michael Jordans and the Peyton Mannings. The sport is not pure- it's a business to make money and promote itself. Everything is done for the greater good of increasing popularity which increases revenue. It just so happens that the ATP was blessed with a player in Federer who not only became a legend through his tennis, but is seen as a great sportsman and extremely hardworking charitable person. Is he the greatest sportsman, prob not- like you said- there is surely a guy somewhere losing in the 1st rounds each week who goes about his business in a wonderful way- but the reality is- a Federer is always going to get noticed more than a guy in the 100's who 99.5% of the fans have never heard of. That's what happens in all walks of life. A US President like Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize? Please............

I think it would be nice if someone other than Federer got it- certainy he's won it enough that anyone with an ounce of clarity realizes he's a great sportman and all around good guy. IT wouldn't hurt to give it to someone else. The fact they don't though actually tells me that the ATP really doesn't have much control and pulling the strings like we think. Maybe in the nominations as we don't know exactly how that gets chosen, but if the ATP was 100% looking to use it to promote a certain player- they would have turned to a younger generation up and comer, or Nadal and Djokovic. Federer has reached as much popularity and market saturation that can be achieved. Like I said, gving him another award doesn't really boost anything. It would make more business sense to start pushing someone else... yet it keeps going to Federer- which tells me the voters(players) want it that way.

I just don't understand why an award that celebrates good sportsmanship gets people so upset that's all. Surely the award and the sportsmanship should simply be celebrated for what it is, rather than attacked. I find it very revealing that it only started being attacked after Federer started winning it regularly - most often by people who are fans of Federer's rivals.
Pretty sure that's on topic

Good detective work, HE!

I think it's pretty clear that the shortlist is not exactly an open, unbiased work.

It's a bit of a silly award really that is partially redeemed by the players voting once the shortlist is presented to them.

Federer is clearly a good egg but he has now won it so often, it's starting to make the award look silly.

Speaking of silly...

Does anyone know who won the Arthur Ashe Humanitarian Award in 1997?

Nelson Mandela! Not odd in itself, other than the fact it usually won by a tennis player.

I'm not sure whether they think tennis players are generally the greatest humanitarians or whether sometimes they can't find a tennis player who has done much and have to look elsewhere.

truffin wrote:I agree the nominees don't make complete sense, and you are probably right- surely there are low ranked players no one knows about that deserve to at least be nominated.. but once again- welcome to the real world. Look at any sport- who gets the MVP? The Michael Jordans and the Peyton Mannings. The sport is not pure- it's a business to make money and promote itself. Everything is done for the greater good of increasing popularity which increases revenue.

Yes, that sums it up well.

Julius wrote:Surely the award and the sportsmanship should simply be celebrated for what it is, rather than attacked.

No the system is flawed, and it's just nominated a guy who has just come back from a drugs ban.

Julius wrote:I find it very revealing that it only started being attacked after Federer started winning it regularly

OK either you're being snide on purpose, or by accident; but anyway: no my point was that the whole process is not flawed- and that includes the year when my favourite player won it. Just because my favourite player wins something shouldn't mean I see something which is flawed and call it accurate- when it's not.

It Must Be Love wrote:OK either you're being snide on purpose, or by accident

Temp21 - can you ask him to stop making these baseless personal accusations? Thanks

Sorry, I'll word my thoughts differently next time.

It Must Be Love wrote:No the system is flawed, and it's just nominated a guy who has just come back from a drugs ban.

What did Cilic do wrong in 2014?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:OK either you're being snide on purpose, or by accident

Temp21 - can you ask him to stop making these baseless personal accusations? Thanks

I'm not sure if you're finding this amusing but I'm not, and don't pretend it's all an accident; everything I post any opinion around 50% of your replies will be nothing to do with my argument and some sort of snide remark- either a sarcastic jibe or a really subtle nasty comment. I notice it but I can't complain as you are the moderator.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If I was IMBL I would interpret that as hawkeye being very very angry and raging.

Do you mean this one? Tone is always hard to gauge from writing, but I would agree thats its not really on topic, its more directed at a poster than a topic. In that case maybe JHM could agree to get rid of it and we come to a truce?

If you feel that way you can complain to the Admins. I feel that my replies deal with the rationale behind the arguments i.e. the reasons why people make the arguments.
But to imply that I am 'snide', 'sarcastic' and 'nasty' is, I feel, commenting on the poster to a far greater and more insulting extent. That said, it doesn't bother me - you can say what you like about me. Temp21 doesn't really need to intervene on my behalf - that was just a joke.