McEnroe: 'Something went on in the locker room' between Federer and Wawrinka

Video with the full quotes:


And link from livetennis.com :
http://www.livetennis.com/category/livetennis-news/john-mcenroe-claims-roger-federer-and-stan-wawrinka-involved-in-locker-room-dispute-20141116-0007/

Very interesting, especially with Davis Cup soon.

"OHHH my neck, my neck and my back!!! "- Roger Federer WTF 2014

OMG, end of the tennis as we know it!!!

Whose locker room was it btw? Stans or Fed? Did wifes get involved too?

Mac talking like a bad wife lacking orgasms.

Interesting... I rate Wawrinka would damage Federer in a fight, but Federer has Afrikaans genes on his mother's side, and Afrikaans people don't stand down for nothing. Even when their hopelessly outmatched

King ahhahaha, you are more of a patriot then socal and Djoko combined

kingraf wrote:Interesting... I rate Wawrinka would damage Federer in a fight, but Federer has Afrikaans genes on his mother's side, and Afrikaans people don't stand down for nothing. Even when their hopelessly outmatched

Stan would beat Roger senseless.

Haha thanks mate. It's either Roger or Kevin Anderson... And by gawd do I refuse for Kevin to be my favourite Saffer.

Stans a beast.

Stans wife would beat Mirka too, she is a light pole.

Yeah, I initially went with Stan knocking Federer into next week, but then, I thought... Federer is 85kg, and I have no idea where the muscle is to match that weight, so he must have really dense bones... I reckon one punch from those calcified mofukkas finished Stan of real quick

Fed must have told Stan he was planning to plan today despite his bad back. Stan then erupted - but if you do that you put the DC final in jeopardy! Fight!

There's no evidence that the fight was physical, just a really heated argument which went into the night.

What is surprising is that Federer surely should have been sleeping getting some rest for the big final ? Maybe Stan then to blame for getting in the way of Fed's preparations ?

No, we should blame Mac and you for spreading FUD

Reading people getting excited about this reminds me what an effete sport tennis is.

Here's what sportsmen having a heated argument looks like.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=klTHqPrzE6w

bogbrush wrote:Here's what sportsmen having a heated argument looks like.

Well for all we know Stan beat him up so bad that Fed could not play today.

Don't forget this is the sport where handbags are considered GBH.

bogbrush wrote:Reading people getting excited about this reminds me what an effete sport tennis is.

Here's what sportsmen having a heated argument looks like.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=klTHqPrzE6w

That looks more like physical violence rather than a heated argument ?

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Here's what sportsmen having a heated argument looks like.

Well for all we know Stan beat him up so bad that Fed could not play today.

Doubt it, maybe it affected Federer which meant he was not in the best condition to play mentally, but no way was Stan physically harming Federer so he couldn't play.

It Must Be Love wrote:no way was Stan physically harming Federer so he couldn't play.  

Really???? I am shocked.

It Must Be Love wrote:

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Here's what sportsmen having a heated argument looks like.

Well for all we know Stan beat him up so bad that Fed could not play today.

Doubt it, maybe it affected Federer which meant he was not in the best condition to play mentally, but no way was Stan physically harming Federer so he couldn't play.  

What a load of cr@p this all is.

He has a bad back. He had it by all accounts before the semi. He aggravated it during the match. He's had it before.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

bogbrush wrote:
What part of this is difficult to understand?

None of it ? When did I say anything to the contrary ?

Simon Briggs of the Telegraph:
https://twitter.com/simonrbriggs/status/534024568344961026

Saying Stan was angry at Mirka for talking just after he served.

It Must Be Love wrote:Simon Briggs of the Telegraph:
https://twitter.com/simonrbriggs/status/534024568344961026

Saying Stan was angry at Mirka for talking just after he served.

"Man" said it.

Well, that's good enough for me!

Look the New York Times, the Daily Telegraph, and even the Sky commentators (who said Fed and Stan needed to patch up their relationship over the next week) have reported that there was an argument between the two; and I've linked the McEnroe interview.

The interesting thing for me is what this means for the Swiss Davis Cup prospects. Especially if Federer and Wawrinka play in the doubles together.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to help me get clear about what you think this all is, you seem to be all over the place.

An argument. Is that it?

I'm sure they had a few things to sort out, that match was insane. Particularly with the umpire calls, crowd, MPs and a very heated third set.

Who cares, though? They're big boys, they'll work it out for themselves.

Wawrinka is a whiner and troublemaker. Remember the lopez match at Wimbledon where stan went crying to the umpire that he didn't like lopez berating himself

Silver wrote: They're big boys, they'll work it out for themselves.

Indeed, even if there relationship is strained, time is a great healer.
The thing which makes this occurrence particularly notable is the fact they have a Davis Cup final to play together (and they could be doubles partners), and they only have a week.

IMBL I see that the fact that McEnroe used the term 'long talk' didn't stop you from using the term 'heated argument' and attributing that to McEnroe.
Would you like me to edit the title so that it is accurate, or would you rather keep the one you made up?

JuliusHMarx wrote:McEnroe used the term 'long talk'

Is that what he said?  Oh dear; somehow I understood him to have said a "brief fistfight" instead.  My bad.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL I see that the fact that McEnroe used the term 'long talk' didn't stop you from using the term 'heated argument' and attributing that to McEnroe.
Would you like me to edit the title so that it is accurate, or would you rather keep the one you made up?

My title was summing up what he was saying. I provided the link to his whole commentary so people can watch that.

The reason I think 'long talk' is not as suitable as a sum-up as heated argument is the fact he was talking about the 'stress' that could have impacted Federer and how this makes things 'difficult for Luthi'.
Long talk could indicate that it was a loving chat on how they both love each other, but that's clearly not a good sum-up of what McEnroe was saying.

Edit: For example Julius this link has the title saying McEnroe claims 'locker room dispute'. http://www.livetennis.com/category/livetennis-news/john-mcenroe-claims-roger-federer-and-stan-wawrinka-involved-in-locker-room-dispute-20141116-0007/
Now he didn't say that line exactly, but it's a good sum-up and gist of what he was saying.

Has anyone actually seen Stan today? Maybe Fed knifed him? McEnroe : Fed kills Warwinka in late-night argument; withdraws from WTF final before being carted off to prison.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL I see that the fact that McEnroe used the term 'long talk' didn't stop you from using the term 'heated argument' and attributing that to McEnroe.
Would you like me to edit the title so that it is accurate, or would you rather keep the one you made up?

My title was summing up what he was saying. I provided the link to his whole commentary so people can watch that.

The reason I think 'long talk' is not as suitable as a sum-up as heated argument is the fact he was talking about the 'stress' that could have impacted Federer and how this makes things 'difficult for Luthi'.
Long talk could indicate that it was a loving chat on how they both love each other, but that's clearly not a good sum-up of what McEnroe was saying.

Yes, but you attributed something to McEnroe that he didn't actually say.
How about "Yes, you're right, my bad, I'll change it so it's more reasonable and honest"?

Edit - the link is inaccurate as well. Maybe the best thing is to use good examples to follow, rather than bad ones?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yes, but you attributed something to McEnroe that he didn't actually say.
How about "Yes, you're right, my bad, I'll change it so it's more reasonable and honest"?

It's clearly a sum-up/gist of what McEnroe was saying, people can watch the video I linked to see the quotes in full, honestly this is not an issue.

Not an issue to those who like to distort things, I suppose.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Has anyone actually seen Stan today? Maybe Fed knifed him? McEnroe : Fed kills Warwinka in late-night argument; withdraws from WTF final before being carted off to prison.

You've solved the mystery of the extended injury layoffs from tennis! Ol' gambler Rafa was in deep with the sharks for 7 months, and now Fed will vanish from the tennis scene for, er, 20 years

It Must Be Love wrote:Long talk could indicate that it was a loving chat on how they both love each other...

Don't give the fanfic authors any ideas!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not an issue to those who like to distort things, I suppose.

But it is very clearly not a distortion ?

McEnroe said:

"Something went on in the locker room, there was a long talk between the players that extended well into the night"

"And the stress of that - I can't confirm all of this - but a lot of this went on and that caused - I don't think that helped the (Federer's) situation"

"That makes [DC] more complicated for Severin Luthi because he's trying to juggle these 2 players and make sure both of them are happy..."

When trying to come up with a gist for all of this, the phrase which sprang to mine was 'heated argument'. Which is perfectly fair. I then gave a link to the video with the comments being said by him, so I was hardly trying to hide the actual quotes...

For example Julius you wrote this thread:
https://www.606v2.com/t50669-nadal-says-coaching-tennis-is-easy

Nowhere in the article you linked did it say Nadal said 'coaching tennis is easy'. However that is a fair interpretation of what he is saying, so as a gist I think you've summarised his quotes into a phrase well.

You have a very, er, interesting definition of 'fair'. The tabloid journalist's definition, one might say.

Mine article was a spoof, hardly comparable - I'm sure you gathered that.

PS was that thread in your spreadsheet as well?

Silver wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Long talk could indicate that it was a loving chat on how they both love each other...

Don't give the fanfic authors any ideas!

Ha !

Maybe that's a plot twist. Stan was angry with Mirka out on court because he wanted Roger to be his partner but she was his wife; and then in the locker room Fed and Stan had a long chat with each other telling them how much they loved each other. Mirka then came and kicked Federer in the back for not being loyal, and Fed had to withdraw from his match

(Let's really hope fanfic authors don't find this now...)

What have you done

Silver wrote:What have you done

Somewhere a fanfic author is rubbing her hands in glee, typing away a 2000 word piece to glory, based on our conversation

Anyway on a more serious note, can anyone remember an occurrence where players within a Davis Cup team had hostility towards each other ? Did it affect the match ?

IMBL, you just took what little credibility you'd built up after the farcical days of "Amrit" and trashed it.

I'm finding myself returning to the that never-to-be-returned afternoon I spent trying to explain how doubles doesn't compare to singles, and recalling it was indeed the same person.

bogbrush wrote:
I'm finding myself returning to the that never-to-be-returned afternoon I spent trying to explain how doubles doesn't compare to singles, and recalling it was indeed the same person.

I have never said that doubles compares to singles, you've brought this up numerous times before for some reason, and I've explained clearly that I did not say at all that doubles took the same physical energy as singles.

There is a reason I remember it, and it isn't that I was hypnotised into developing false memories.

If only I'd included that in my little stash of links to classic threads of yesteryear.

IMBL : Hot on the heels of your thread where you included allegations of 'corruption' in the title (despite the fact there was not a shred of evidence to support such a claim) you now talk of a 'heated argument' without any actual evidence that such an argument actually took place.

There seems to be something of a pattern developing. Are we to expect threads from you on a regular basis where you simply fabricate material & events to fit whichever phrase happens to 'spring to mind' - as you put it so quaintly .....??

Perhaps it might be better to do things the other way round, ie use a phrase that actually fits the facts - or at least such as we know them. It's a radical suggestion, I know.

What about your own credibility ....?

Or do you perhaps feel it's a little late to worry about that ?

It Must Be Love wrote:Anyway on a more serious note, can anyone remember an occurrence where players within a Davis Cup team had hostility towards each other ? Did it affect the match ?

I remember Lendl and Agassi had a near "came to blows" situation.. cant remember whether it affected the match or no.

bogbrush wrote:There is a reason I remember it, and it isn't that I was hypnotised into developing false memories.

If only I'd included that in my little stash of links to classic threads of yesteryear.

I said that having watched Federer play well upto the QF in singles, and play well in doubles, I had reached the conclusion it was unlikely he was affected by mono.
You then replied with a really patronising response 'explaining' that the physical effort for doubles is much less than singles.
I replied by saying that was obvious (like come on... double the players on court with just the tramlines extra in play... doesn't take much brain to work it out), but I still stood by my claim that I don't think Fed was affected by mono.
And then I remember you kept bringing it up, in every single thread from that point on for the next 2 months. Not one thread I commented on would go by without you saying something along the lines of 'Armpitia said doubles is the same physical effort as singles' even if the discussion was totally irrelevant to that.

To be frank, I'm not sure why you've brought it up now even. What possible relevance could it have to do with this thread ?

lags72 wrote:IMBL you now talk of a 'heated argument' without any actual evidence that such an argument actually took place.

That was a phrase to sum up what John McEnroe was saying. Watch the video where he talked about:

"Something went on in the locker room, there was a long talk between the players that extended well into the night"

"And the stress of that - I can't confirm all of this - but a lot of this went on and that caused - I don't think that helped the (Federer's) situation"

"That makes [DC] more complicated for Severin Luthi because he's trying to juggle these 2 players and make sure both of them are happy..."

So as a sum-up, the phrase heated argument is actually a fair gist of what John McEnroe was saying.

lags wrote:Or do you perhaps feel it's a little late to worry about that ?

Ah good, another personal attack.
All I can say is I will not respond with another one towards you. All I ask is that you read what I say carefully, and stop misinterpreting me.
I have clarified to Julius already that my title was a summary of what McEnroe was saying, and I even posted the youtube link so the video comes up, so it's not like I was hiding what McEnroe was saying.