The Stefan Edberg Sportmanship Award 2014

First topic message reminder :

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

temporary21 wrote:

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?

I'll delete it if you want. It was just a bit of a tongue-in-cheek jokey reference to the idea that posters were actually 'raging' - which I genuinely don't think they were. I think that was also a joke by IMBL at the expense of Federer fans. Personally I'd leave both jokes in there, but perhaps if I remove my post, IMBL can remove that part of his post as well? Agreed?

Well darn, I havent slept for 24 hours and I got up specifically to chime in... Can I got back to a coma now?

Sees reasonable truth be told I still dont know how to edit posts soo you both will have to do it. Clearly the offending posts irked one another, soo maybe edit them soo we can get to topic

temporary21 wrote:Sees reasonable truth be told I still dont know how to edit posts soo you both will have to do it. Clearly the offending posts irked one another, soo maybe edit them soo we can get to topic

You should have an Edit button next to the Quote button and a Delete button next to that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

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?

I might be mistaken, but in thinking about it, I think Cilic was nominated in 2012 also... maybe there is something to this guy behind the scenes that we don't know about.

it seems the players felt he was innocent of the drug charges as several have said they believed him when he said it wasn't performance enhancing and a case of mistaken labeling. Still- he should definitely not be nominated because the ATP did see it fit to ban him, and it just doesn't look right. Of course, anyone with a bit of reality knows the ATP has been protecting drug cheats for years now... it's just strange for them to openly catch one then reward him with an sportsmanship honor.

TRuffin wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

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?

I might be mistaken, but in thinking about it, I think Cilic was nominated in 2012 also...  maybe there is something to this guy behind the scenes that we don't know about.

it seems the players felt he was innocent of the drug charges as several have said they believed him when he said it wasn't performance enhancing and a case of mistaken labeling. Still-  he should definitely not be nominated because the ATP did see it fit to ban him, and it just doesn't look right. Of course, anyone with a bit of reality knows the ATP has been protecting drug cheats for years now...  it's just strange for them to openly catch one then reward him with an sportsmanship honor.

I wonder if Moet & Chandon approve?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

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?

I might be mistaken, but in thinking about it, I think Cilic was nominated in 2012 also...  maybe there is something to this guy behind the scenes that we don't know about.

it seems the players felt he was innocent of the drug charges as several have said they believed him when he said it wasn't performance enhancing and a case of mistaken labeling. Still-  he should definitely not be nominated because the ATP did see it fit to ban him, and it just doesn't look right. Of course, anyone with a bit of reality knows the ATP has been protecting drug cheats for years now...  it's just strange for them to openly catch one then reward him with an sportsmanship honor.

I wonder if Moet & Chandon approve?

I doubt it- Cilic stopped Lord Federer from winning an 18th Major- which would have heaped untold riches onto Moet's bottom line!! Surely Moet by attaching their name to the award, should have prevented Cilic from being nominated, just as they alone were able t to crowbar Federer into the nomiations!

TRuffin wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

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?

I might be mistaken, but in thinking about it, I think Cilic was nominated in 2012 also...  maybe there is something to this guy behind the scenes that we don't know about.

it seems the players felt he was innocent of the drug charges as several have said they believed him when he said it wasn't performance enhancing and a case of mistaken labeling. Still-  he should definitely not be nominated because the ATP did see it fit to ban him, and it just doesn't look right. Of course, anyone with a bit of reality knows the ATP has been protecting drug cheats for years now...  it's just strange for them to openly catch one then reward him with an sportsmanship honor.

I wonder if Moet & Chandon approve?

I doubt it- Cilic stopped Lord Federer from winning an 18th Major- which would have heaped untold riches onto Moet's bottom line!! Surely Moet by attaching their name to the award, should have prevented Cilic from being nominated, just as they alone were able t to crowbar Federer into the nomiations!

That would be awesome , the guy who stopped Fed from winning his 18th could stop Fed from winning another sportsmanship award, I still can't figure why people hold grudges on Cilic, yes he was caught on drug scandal and was punished for it, many here would not be even aware whether the punishment got over or he won the appeal but the same posters keep taking a dig at him on every given opportunity.

Cilic was allowed to contest in ATP world tour and Grand slams by the ATP players committee in 2014 and he won a Grand slam too, certainly no much flaws exhibited from the rookie this year so why should he be nominated for the title?

Let alone be nominated I am starting to think he is going to win it this time, and please don't question the integrity of the award just cause Cilic won it.

Its all about a persons stance on it. Most people agree that 2 chances is too many. Some people are wiling to give a second chance, particularly if the circumstance wasnt immediately damning, like say it came from a side effect of a suppement. Others are more strict on it, neither are wrong.

Im in the second chance camp with Marin especially considering he wasnt caught in damning circumstance.

DirectView wrote:Let alone be nominated I am starting to think he is going to win it this time, and please don't question the integrity of the award just cause Cilic won it.

I won't be questioning the process of this award because Cilic won it, I'll be questioning it as it's blindingly obvious that it is flawed- and not one person has even provided an argument as a rebuttal against my points as to why it is flawed.

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

Did it occur to you that they may have chosen to associate themselves with him because he wins the award?

Thought not.

Anyway -
1 - HMM, cracking links. I don't generally laugh from intentional humour on this forum, but that cracked me up
2 - I guess Djokovic should have walked it this year. He's done some fantastic work this year. I dont like him though, so I'm not fussed. Federer is having another Match for Africa, and Africa is everyone's favourite pet project, so I suppose he'll win it.

3 - Cilic already won a slam having successfully thrown his own mother under the bus. Anything else he gets is gravy.

hawkeye wrote: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.

Just to be clear all the ATP awards listed in the link including the Edberg and Fan favorites awards are "presented" by  Moet and Chardon. But the half page advert in this weeks Telegraph (Wednesdays edition) was urging people to vote for Federer to win the Fan favorite award. It included details of the ATP website and instructions on how to vote for him. Of course it didn't mention any other players. There appeared to be a little confusion as some appeared to think the advert was there to boost Federer's chances in winning the Edberg award but that is voted for by the players rather than the general public and a big national advertising campaign would not be the way to swing the players vote

This is part of the summery of Cilic's appeal against his ban. His ban was reduced but it still wasn't considered a minor infringement of the rules

In this case, we are of the view that the degree of the player’s fault was quite
high. This was not a minor and trivial infringement of the rules. The player
had received considerable anti-doping education. He had easy access to
professional expert advice. He took no steps to verify a vague and flimsy
assurance from his mother that the substance was safe. He had the means of
discovering the truth with the simplest of enquiries: by reading the side of the
package, opening it and reading the leaflet inside, or searching online. He did
none of these things.

The linguistic mistakes which led him astray –mistaking “sucer” for sugar and
nicéthamide for nikotinamid –were understandable but highly careless.
Nikethamide had, we note,been on theprohibited list from its inception, and
the potential similarity with other names cannot be considered new or unexpected.
The player had a home in Monte Carlo but had little knowledge ofthe main language
spoken there. He should not have relied on linguistic conclusions derived from a language
of which he knew little.

We do not accept Mr Jacobs’ submission that the player’s anti-doping resources
were not relevant because, having made the mistakes he made, the player had
no reason to make use of those resources. This was not a case in which an
athlete purchases a product identical to one he has previously consumed safely.
He was obtaining a new and unknown product from an untrustworthy source, a
pharmacy. It was precisely the kind of situation in which the wallet card was
intended to be used.

The product had the word “Coramine” in upper case letters on the front. The
player was familiar with websites such as Google and Wikipedia. It would
have taken only minutes to search under “Coramine” on those sites, and
discover the danger he was in. The circumstances in which his mother had
obtained the tablets made this research all the more urgent. They were
not, as Mr Jacobs submitted, such as to justify a sense of security in taking
the tablets.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/158513/158513.pdf

Having read the summery it's difficult to understand how Cilic could be given an award 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."

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

I have also noticed that it was an ITF anti doping trial and the award is an ATP one.

It Must Be Love wrote:

DirectView wrote:Let alone be nominated I am starting to think he is going to win it this time, and please don't question the integrity of the award just cause Cilic won it.

I won't be questioning the process of this award because Cilic won it, I'll be questioning it as it's blindingly obvious that it is flawed- and not one person has even provided an argument as a rebuttal against my points as to why it is flawed.

No-one has even argued against my point that the Stefan Edberg doesn't deserve the award to be named after him either. Unless IMBL and I have missed the point of the award entirely - maybe it's simply named after someone who had exceptional sportsmanship, but not necessarily the best sportsmanship of every player in the world, and is given to someone who shows exceptional sportsmanship, but not necessarily the best sportsmanship of every player in the world. Could that be right IMBL - have you and I totally misjudged the intention of the award, and thus the naming process and the giving of the award isn't really that flawed?

It's meant to be given to 'the' player who has shown the best sportsmanship and the attributes associated with it.
But as I explained earlier, the way the system works with a popular vote- it can actually let a popularity, standing in the game, and image of a player influence the winner rather than just sportsmanship- which makes it inaccurate.

Nadal won it in 2010- now let's think... what did Nadal do in 2010 that was more sportsmanlike than other years ?

Julilus this argument is going around in circles; if you disagree with me about the flaws in the award system then fine- obviously not everyone will agree with me on everything.

And I as explained, it is highly unlikely that Edberg was the absolute most sportsmanlike player of his age. And thus highly unlikely that he should have the award named after him. Yet no-one seems to have complained about that over the years.
Nor indeed, did anyone complain about the recipients (e.g. Rafter, Wilander) over the years. Yet oddly, when Federer wins it multiple times, some people question the integrity and the intention of the award. And the people who seem to do that most are fans of Federer's rivals. Is any of that inaccurate? I don't think so. In which case it is interesting to speculate on the motivation of those people who complain.

Firstly you wouldn't know if people pointed out if this award was flawed or not at the time (they might have not all let you know)- it may also have been that many people accepted that this award is more of a PR show rather than actually an accurate representation.
Secondly, I believe my argument is logical and it is correct. What I'm pointing out in my eyes is absolutely valid, and I've not yet seen one person even try to rebuttal against what I'm saying.
The only argument I can recall is when you said Federer was an anomaly as Grand Slam winners and world number 1s rarely win the award... which was proved factually incorrect when I checked and found out 21/32 of the winners have had either Grand Slam or world number 1.

My argument about the award applies to the year Nadal won it too. Many people who dislike him say he's a terrible sportsman- I could then argue 'but oh look out of all active players he's won it the second most times' and use this award conveniently. But I don't, as this award has a flawed process and is more interested in PR than accuracy.

Julius wrote:In which case it is interesting to speculate on the motivation of those people who complain.

You spend a lot of time speculating on the motivations of other people, even if it does not have much to do with the debate.
Luckily I don't have to speculate if I wanted to quote you on what your true opinion of Nadal is, as you yourself revealed. If I wanted I could constantly bring that up, but I've not brought it up once here on v2; because it's not relevant to the discussion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:And I as explained, it is highly unlikely that Edberg was the absolute most sportsmanlike player of his age. And thus highly unlikely that he should have the award named after him. Yet no-one seems to have complained about that over the years.
Nor indeed, did anyone complain about the recipients (e.g. Rafter, Wilander) over the years. Yet oddly, when Federer wins it multiple times, some people question the integrity and the intention of the award. And the people who seem to do that most are fans of Federer's rivals. Is any of that inaccurate? I don't think so. In which case it is interesting to speculate on the motivation of those people who complain.

It's hardly going to be Federer fans who complain though is it? Surely the question should be why do fans of other players object? Presumably you don't just think it's out of spite? I was a big Becker fan back in the day and wanted Edberg to lose pretty much every match he played but I would never have objected to him winning the Sportsmanship award. I didnt particularly enjoy watching Rafter but I could see he was an excellent sportsman. I don't see Federer as more than slightly above average in that regard.

I've often talked of my true opinion of Nadal on here. Unless you're referring to elsewhere, in which case you'll find my 'true' feelings about Federer and indeed about 'JuliusHMarx' on there as well

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:And I as explained, it is highly unlikely that Edberg was the absolute most sportsmanlike player of his age. And thus highly unlikely that he should have the award named after him. Yet no-one seems to have complained about that over the years.
Nor indeed, did anyone complain about the recipients (e.g. Rafter, Wilander) over the years. Yet oddly, when Federer wins it multiple times, some people question the integrity and the intention of the award. And the people who seem to do that most are fans of Federer's rivals. Is any of that inaccurate? I don't think so. In which case it is interesting to speculate on the motivation of those people who complain.

It's hardly going to be Federer fans who complain though is it? Surely the question should be why do fans of other players object? Presumably you don't just think it's out of spite?

Spite? No, I would hope not - but as way of knocking Federer, yes, I think that is that case for some. Insecurity perhaps more than spite. Or over-zealousness in their favour of their own player.
I doubt Sampras fans, for example, were overly pleased about Rafter's awards.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I've often talked of my true opinion of Nadal on here. Unless you're referring to elsewhere, in which case you'll find my 'true' feelings about Federer and indeed about 'JuliusHMarx' on there as well

You seem to dedicate so many posts to speculating on people's motivations (which you can't prove as you aren't in people's minds); it just fills up space and you rarely actually making counter points against what I'm saying (maybe because you know what I'm saying is obviously correct).

As I said, if I wanted I can also play that game of speculating motivations, and starting with yours would be interesting. You want me to get the quotes out on what you said about Nadal on the other place, that no one here knows about ?

Edit: Or preferably we could stick to the discussion on hand, rather than wasting time over speculating motivations.

I enjoy speculating - it's not any more a waste of time than dissing the award and certainly more interesting to me than a GOAT debate, for example (except for the reasons why people want a GOAT debate - that's quite interesting).
I'm fully aware I can't prove anything - hence I call it speculating. Consider it a hobby.
You do it yourself on many things, including me. You are speculating above about the truth of what I write.
If you want to stick to the discussion in hand, why write a post that's not about it? Why not just ignore me?
I notice also that you don't counter my own points.

JuliusHMarx wrote: Why not just ignore me?

OK, in future if you write another post which is speculating about me rather than actually addressing what I'm saying, I will ignore it.

The people who don't like Federer are blinded to the admiration the rest of the field generally has for him. Time after time players of all backgrounds speak of anecdotes they have that explain why they respect him (I recall Laura Robson being one of them, when she was a young girl coming up).

Either this or it's all a plot by Moet.