US OPEN 2012 MEN'S SEMI-FINAL

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:Murray gets an extra day off

and a preferential first semi-final slot today. That's why he's never won a slam !

Federer had the first semi final at Wimbledon and he won,why do you say Murray hasnt won cause he plays the first semi final?

I thought this was LF's post ... Murray hasn't won a slam despite all the pushing and molly-cuddling he has been receiving all his career, incl. this preferential draws, his opponents being given 11 footfaults etc. You can't buy heart!

Veejay wrote:So is the match not going to be completed today?

No. The stadium is being shut down.

Veejay wrote:Ok I just read the final is on Monday...Federer would have had a chance with a days break between the semi final and final

Federer would have beaten Berdych much more convincingly than Murray. Remember Federer-Nadal at IW in windy conditions.

The night match on Ashe was perfect for Berdych to beat Federer.

BTW, some attendance numbers for you...

Some 59,971 people filed into the Open on Monday, the latest in a string of some of the biggest crowds ever here. While some records may be broken on the courts, the event has already rewritten the books on attendance, with plans in the works to add as many as 10,000 seats in coming years, organizers said. That has left some fans and officials examining the relationship between the quantity of spectators and the quality of their experience.

Attendance at the Open on Friday was a tournament-best 62,362, with a record 37,688 people attending the day session and 24,674 for the night session. The crowds this year are on track to outpace last year’s daily average of 27,768 fans and are a far cry from the 24,590 average in 2001 and 19,305 fans in 1991, before Arthur Ashe Stadium opened.

This year’s record attendance has been fueled by increased bleacher seating on the outer courts, which now all seat at least 340 spectators each, and Court 17, the fourth-largest court at the Open, now accommodating 2,800 fans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/sports/tennis/us-open-draws-record-crowds-but-fans-are-feeling-the-squeeze.html?pagewanted=all

(Unverified and unreliable Internet resource).

Veejay wrote:Murray gets an extra day off

A couple of hours tomorrow. I am pretty sure Djokovic will sleep tonight, correct?

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:Murray gets an extra day off

A couple of hours tomorrow. I am pretty sure Djokovic will sleep tonight, correct?

Even Granolles would not stoop to THIS

"(Unverified and unreliable Internet resource)."


Thats so you Laverfan

This is turing out to be a huge missed opportunity for Roger,I think he would have been able to handle today's conditions better then Murray

Poor Ferrer,the momentum was clearly with him,I wont be surprised if he ends up losing the 1st set now

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:Murray gets an extra day off

A couple of hours tomorrow. I am pretty sure Djokovic will sleep tonight, correct?

Even Granolles would not stoop to THIS

I thought this was LF's post ... Murray hasn't won a slam despite all the pushing and molly-cuddling he has been receiving all his career, incl. this preferential draws, his opponents being given 11 footfaults etc. You can't buy heart!

Let us not turn this into a non-Djokovic player bash. That is unfair.

As I said yesterday, do not let your slip show. Are we going to turn this into a draw-fixing/rigging discussion now?

Please read this -

Djokovic endured a steamy afternoon to beat David Ferrer of Spain, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3, to reach his first Grand Slam final. He will take on the top-seeded Federer, who beat Nikolay Davydenko of Russia, 7-5, 6-1, 7-5, in the windy second semifinal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/sports/tennis/09men.html

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Veejay wrote:Murray gets an extra day off

A couple of hours tomorrow. I am pretty sure Djokovic will sleep tonight, correct?

Even Granolles would not stoop to THIS

I thought this was LF's post ... Murray hasn't won a slam despite all the pushing and molly-cuddling he has been receiving all his career, incl. this preferential draws, his opponents being given 11 footfaults etc. You can't buy heart!

Let us not turn this into a non-Djokovic player bash. That is unfair.

As I said yesterday, do not let your slip show. Are we going to turn this into a draw-fixing/rigging discussion now?

Please read this -

Djokovic endured a steamy afternoon to beat David Ferrer of Spain, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3, to reach his first Grand Slam final. He will take on the top-seeded Federer, who beat Nikolay Davydenko of Russia, 7-5, 6-1, 7-5, in the windy second semifinal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/sports/tennis/09men.html

I really don't know what you are on about here LF, try a bit less slice, please!

Veejay wrote:"(Unverified and unreliable Internet resource)."


Thats so you Laverfan

This is turing out to be a huge missed opportunity for Roger,I think he would have been able to handle today's conditions better then Murray

Absolutely.

Veejay wrote:Poor Ferrer,the momentum was clearly with him,I wont be surprised if he ends up losing the 1st set now

At least you, SB and I agree on this much.

Tomorrow's weather favours Djokovic much more because he can be aggressive, unlike today.

http://www.weather.com/weather/tomorrow/New+York+NY+USNY0996:1:US

Veejay wrote:This is turing out to be a huge missed opportunity for Roger,I think he would have been able to handle today's conditions better then Murray

I was thinking the same. Except that it occured to me then that they would have likely put Nole-Ferrer on as the first match, so Fed would possibly have had to play most of his match tomorrow, and then face rested Nole (surely not Ferrer???) on Monday. So maybe it would have still been tough.

summerblues wrote:

Veejay wrote:This is turing out to be a huge missed opportunity for Roger,I think he would have been able to handle today's conditions better then Murray

I was thinking the same. Except that it occured to me then that they would have likely put Nole-Ferrer on as the first match, so Fed would possibly have had to play most of his match tomorrow, and then face rested Nole (surely not Ferrer???) on Monday. So maybe it would have still been tough.

Why do you think they would have put Fed in the second semi? He was in the same half as Murray. Plus, it was a Super Saturday, no need for the night slot.

noleisthebest wrote:I really don't know what you are on about here LF, try a bit less slice, please!

noleisthebest wrote:Murray hasn't won a slam despite all the pushing and molly-cuddling he has been receiving all his career, incl. this preferential draws, his opponents being given 11 footfaults etc.

Without any assumptions, are you 100% sure (like Murray asked Berdych) about what you are saying? I am not accusing you, just looking for clarification?

Preferential draws, facing Nadal as many times as Federer played Djokovic at slams? Why? The 11 (or 14) foot faults were against Karlovic, IIRC?

noleisthebest wrote:You can't buy heart!

Who is buying heart? Is there just one player with a heart in the entire ATP?

summerblues wrote:

Veejay wrote:This is turing out to be a huge missed opportunity for Roger,I think he would have been able to handle today's conditions better then Murray

I was thinking the same. Except that it occured to me then that they would have likely put Nole-Ferrer on as the first match, so Fed would possibly have had to play most of his match tomorrow, and then face rested Nole (surely not Ferrer???) on Monday. So maybe it would have still been tough.

I think Roger as the top seed may have been able to chose the preferred slot,if that was the case he would definitely have gone for the earlier slot to give himself a few more hours to recover
He could now have been sitting on a day and a half's rest extra..not that it makes much difference to Djokovic but going by what happened at the Olympics,he would have really needed it

laverfan wrote:

The 11 (or 14) foot faults were against Karlovic, IIRC?

noleisthebest wrote:You can't buy heart!

Who is buying heart? Is there just one player with a heart in the entire ATP?

What did you think about those 11 foot faults?

Sorry, I don't understand your logic in the last question. Windy conditions have taken that slice back in your half of the court...

Veejay wrote:I think Roger as the top seed may have been able to chose the preferred slot,if that was the case he would definitely have gone for the earlier slot to give himself a few more hours to recover

No. I have an example from 2007.

Veejay wrote:He could now have been sitting on a day and a half's rest extra..not that it makes much difference to Djokovic but going by what happened at the Olympics,he would have really needed it

His age does need more recovery.

noleisthebest wrote:What did you think about those 11 foot faults?

Why did Karlovic not stop and refer to the tournament referee? I am sitting behind a video screen. There was no slow motion for me to make a judgement. Did he lodge an official protest and was the investigation for such a protest made public? Press conference is the wrong place to use media to be a judge.

You are also implying blatant favouritism to help Murray win a match, which, in your opinion he could have lost if the 11/14 foot faults had not been called. And my question about clarification was ignored.

noleisthebest wrote:Sorry, I don't understand your logic in the last question. Windy conditions have taken that slice back in your half of the court...

1. Federer in 2007 played the second semi in windy conditions and yet won the final. Can Djokovic do it?

2. Djokovic had an extra rest day in USO 2011, which may or may not have helped him. A few extra hours of Ferrer tennis in conditions favouring Djokovic (where he can be aggressive) is better than losing a set 6-2 in the current conditions and continuing where he can lose the match. The organisers (and weather) are actually favouring Djokovic by the stoppage. He will get a rest tonight, and more importantly, can talk to his coaching staff to discuss a strategy, which he could not have done today, if there was no stoppage. Do you realise that?

3. Why drag Murray (molly-coddling, preferential draws) into this discussion?

4. With Nadal out and Federer-Murray in top half, the draw is unfavourable to Djokovic? Was there not a 12v12 question that you still keep pursuing? I have a lifetime analysis of 35-29 on draws on v2, if you are willing to dispel an urban myth based on a flawed analysis.

What clarificaton LF?
My posts are concise and direct, maybe I should quadruple them in volume to make them legible?

What exactly did you not understand (one sentence please)

Also, remember, at Cincy, Djokovic lost a 6-0 set to Federer, in conditions very different then this. If he loses the first set 6-2 and continues to play and loses the second in 6-0, it is very difficult hole to climb out of.

He was very lucky Del Potro missed the first overhead volley when serving for the second set at 5-4.

Berdych missed his opportunities today against Murray, partly due to conditions favouring Murray (and Ferrer, as the current scoreline very clearly indicates).

laverfan wrote:
Why did Karlovic not stop and refer to the tournament referee? I am sitting behind a video screen. There was no slow motion for me to make a judgement. Did he lodge an official protest and was the investigation for such a protest made public? Press conference is the wrong place to use media to be a judge.

He did complain to the umpire, but he is no Roddick from the almighty US of A. In addition, he stutters.

noleisthebest wrote:What clarificaton LF?
My posts are concise and direct, maybe I should quadruple them in volume to make them legible?

What exactly did you not understand (one sentence please)

See Item 3 in the prior post, repeated here.

3. Why drag Murray (molly-coddling, preferential draws) into this discussion?

I also asked are you 100% sure (like Murray asked Berdych)....

laverfan wrote:

3. Why drag Murray (molly-coddling, preferential draws) into this discussion?

I also asked are you 100% sure (like Murray asked Berdych)....

why not?

100% sure about what?

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Why did Karlovic not stop and refer to the tournament referee? I am sitting behind a video screen. There was no slow motion for me to make a judgement. Did he lodge an official protest and was the investigation for such a protest made public? Press conference is the wrong place to use media to be a judge.

He did complain to the umpire, but he is no Roddick from the almighty US of A. In addition, he has a stutter.

Having a 'stutter' has no relevance to stopping playing, is it?

Why drag Roddick into this? Now we have two Andy's being referenced.

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

3. Why drag Murray (molly-coddling, preferential draws) into this discussion?

I also asked are you 100% sure (like Murray asked Berdych)....

why not?

100% sure about what?

... of the accusation that Murray was given preferential treatment. You are not reading my posts in it's entirety. We can stop discussing this, if you are not interested. Are you?

Why use the acusatory word "drag" in my choice of illustraton?
Roddick is well-known for being vocal and manipulative with the umpires, Karlovic is a polite, timid man with no such experience and no wealthy tennis association to back him up behind the closed leather padded doors.
he was dealt with in a heavy-handed, professional manner.

Laverfan on pwnage mood today

NITB you aren't responding to LF directly. Vague one-liners doesn't count as a response.

Amritia3ee wrote:Laverfan on pwnage mood today

NITB you aren't responding to LF directly. Vague one-liners doesn't count as a response.

were you sent a PM into your v2 inbox to come as a helper here?

Djokovic fans are complaining about everything these days:

-he gets the easiest possible semi (seeding wise).
-when he is losing and the momentum is with Ferrer, the players head off court with Ferrer about to serve for the set.
-Murray would have beaten Karlovic anyway, 11 foot faults or not. There was no video evidence shown the line judges were wrong, Karlovic just complained pre-match after he had lost.

laverfan wrote:
... of the accusation that Murray was given preferential treatment. You are not reading my posts in it's entirety. We can stop discussing this, if you are not interested. Are you?

I knew you'd run out of steam.....GSM

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Laverfan on pwnage mood today

NITB you aren't responding to LF directly. Vague one-liners doesn't count as a response.

were you sent a PM into your v2 inbox to come as a helper here?

No

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:
... of the accusation that Murray was given preferential treatment. You are not reading my posts in it's entirety. We can stop discussing this, if you are not interested. Are you?

I knew you'd run out of steam.....GSM

This is like after the guy in Monty Python who's legs were cut off during a sword-fight.

As the king crossed the bridge he was meant to be guarding the guard said:
'You! Stop running away. Come back here you scaredy-cat.'

It has been not a nice day of tennis today, and as a tennis fan I feel disappointed that Murray and Berdych had to play in very difficult conditions.
On the bright side, two more days of tennis.
I don't look forward to watching any of it, though.

Good night

noleisthebest wrote:It has been not a nice day of tennis today, and as a tennis fan I feel disappointed that Murray and Berdych had to play in very difficult conditions.
On the bright side, two more days of tennis.
I don't look forward to watching any of it, though.

Good night

Djokovic is still my favourite here, don't worry.
He will see off Ferrer in 4 sets, and then edge Murray in 5.

noleisthebest wrote:Why use the acusatory word "drag" in my choice of illustraton?

Illustration of what. You do not have single iota of evidence that Karlovic was mistreated. You have used words like 'molly-coddle' and preferential when referring to Murray. I asked you a question about Federer-Murray v Djokovic-Ferrer. SB made a comment which clearly indicated that either scenario's interpretation was fraught with issues.

noleisthebest wrote:Roddick is well-known for being vocal and manipulative with the umpires, Karlovic is a polite, timid man with no such experience and no wealthy tennis association to back him up behind the closed leather padded doors.
he was dealt with in a heavy-handed, professional manner.

If Karlovic was wronged, he could have defaulted, asked for a linesperson change, walked away. His 'stutter' and 'timidity' is being used as a f***ing excuse for his inability to articulate his case. Now the lack of a 'wealthy' tennis association is being paraded. Why?


Given a choice between the following two scenarios, pick one,

a. If Djokovic played today and lost to Ferrer because he could not play his usual game in such court conditions, Ferrer leading 5-2, or,
b. No stormy weather, 20% chance of precipitation, 5-10 mph wind, vs 80% chance of precipitation, 20-40mph winds with gusty conditions.

Which conditions favour Djokovic?

VJ/NITB: I do not know for sure how USO does their semifinal scheduling but my feeling has been that they tend to put whichever semi they think is the "big ticket" on as the second. Because of the timing, the second semi is (normally) closer to prime time slot, so they want to have the more interesting pairing there.

I am not 100% certain about it, but it does strike me as quite plausible. I doubt Roger would have had much say in it, and I am also almost (not quite) certain that it does not have much to do with which side of the draw went first throughout earlier rounds.

If Roger had beaten Berdych, then Roger-Andy would have been the "big" SF, so I suspect they could have been scheduled after Nole-Ferrer.

laverfan wrote:
Illustration of what. You do not have single iota of evidence that Karlovic was mistreated.

Do you have one iota of evidence that Karlovic was treated correct? . See now, you too are empty handed in here. You have believed Karlovic was treated correct, nitb believes he was mistreated. You believed Lloyd. nitb believed Karlovic. Why is your belief any superior to nitb's that you have the right to look down on it saying she has not an iota of evidence. Where is your evidence?

I have seen many many times the linesmen giving favored biased decisions towards certain players in important points. Numerous uncountable oocassions. Recent one. Fed-Fish in Cincy, crowd cheering for Fish on a BP on Fed's serve. An over-head smash by Fed was 10-inches inside the baseline, and still the linesman called it out. ( umpire corrected, because it was such a stupid call. But more often they rely on linesman's decisions ).

laverfan wrote: If Karlovic was wronged, he could have defaulted, asked for a linesperson change, walked away.

Defaulted and lose the match then and there, isn't it? Did you ever see any player, ever, defaulting the match when he/she believes he was being handed unfair decisions? Why didn't Mcenroe default the match or asked for a new chair umpire or lines persons in all those matches where he thought he was handed incorrect decisions. I see he absolutely believed in it. So why he continued to play? Why didn't Fed default the 2008 wimby final when he wasn't happy with the HW decision? Why didn't he ask for a new HE machine? HE has documented fact that it can give erroneous call averaging 3.6 mm and that call was in by 1mm. So likely it was an erroneous HE call. Why didn't Nadal default the Match against Berdy the in the WTF 2010. He was so enraged he stopped playing for 5 minutes. But he didn't default or ask for a new umpire. WHY? Why Isner even continued to play when he was handed a point penalty by Bernades. If he can argue to that limit, why not instead default the match.

Because this how a professional tennis player behaves and is expected to behave. You think its a match between 5 year olds, where a kid feeling unfair will take away the ball and go home to his mother.

laverfan wrote: His 'stutter' and 'timidity' is being used as a f***ing excuse for his inability to articulate his case. Now the lack of a 'wealthy' tennis association is being paraded. Why?

And his inability to articulate his case is being used as a f***ing reason to justify those unfair decisions he was handed. Yes he is not articulate, he is timid. Does this mean its right to give him unfair decisions? What nonsense you are talking here.

I've seen Karlovic play for years and he has never foot-faulted. And in an important match against a local player on important points, he foot-faults 11 times with no environmental disturbances like wind etc.? Karlovic is a server, he won't make rookie errors like foot-faults 11 times in a match. Unless something seriously wrong, I won't believe it. And that wrong wasn't on Karlovic's part I think.

SF order of play at USO for the last 9 years...

2003 - SF1 Ferrero v Agassi, SF2 - Roddick v Nalbandian
2004 - SF1 Hewitt v Johansson, SF2 - Federer v Henman
2005 - SF1 Agassi v Ginepri, SF2 - Federer v Hewitt
2006 - SF1 Federer v Davydenko, SF2 - Roddick v Youzhny
2007 - SF1 Djokovic v Ferrer, SF2 - Federer v Davydenko
2008 - SF1 Federer v Djokovic, SF2 - Nadal v Murray
2009 - SF1 Del Potro v Nadal, SF2 - Federer v Djokovic
2010 - SF1 Nadal v Youzhny, SF2 - Federer v Djokovic
2011 - SF1 Djokovic v Federer, SF2 - Nadal v Murray

Let me know if anyone sees any errors in this list.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Illustration of what. You do not have single iota of evidence that Karlovic was mistreated.

Do you have one iota of evidence that Karlovic was treated correct? . See now, you too are empty handed in here. You have believed Karlovic was treated correct, nitb believes he was mistreated. You believed Lloyd. nitb believed Karlovic. Why is your belief any superior to nitb's that you have the right to look down on it saying she has not an iota of evidence. Where is your evidence?

So let us address the Karlovic issue, first. I did not listen to either Karlovic or Lloyd.

1. Karlovic suggested on Thursday that 11 calls were made against him but yesterday revised the number to nine.
2. 'The woman line judge called six or seven and someone else three. Maybe she doesn't know the rules. Who are they hiring here? She didn't look old so her reflexes and eyes should be OK. I'm not saying I would have won because he played unbelievably. But I was not given an equal chance.'
3. The tournament have vowed to look into the issue when Karlovic lodges his complaint while the BBC have vehemently denied claims they deliberately didn't show replays of the foot faults, instead promising any help they can provide to assist the investigation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2166752/Wimbledon-2012-Andy-Murrays-victim-Ivo-Karlovic-makes-official-protest.html

At the end of the match, he goes to argue with the umpire. Can the umpire change anything at this point?

Karlovic is unhappy about the foot-fault given against him during the tie-break and is having a fractious conversation with the umpire, steam coming out of his ears.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/28/andy-murray-ivo-karlovic-live-wimbledon

Why not have such a conversation after 3 or perhaps 4 calls from the same linesperson? Perhaps the chair umpire could have asked another linesperson to replace the one who called 6 faults and put them on a side-line rather than the baseline.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
I have seen many many times the linesmen giving favored biased decisions towards certain players in important points. Numerous uncountable oocassions. Recent one. Fed-Fish in Cincy, crowd cheering for Fish on a BP on Fed's serve. An over-head smash by Fed was 10-inches inside the baseline, and still the linesman called it out. ( umpire corrected, because it was such a stupid call. But more often they rely on linesman's decisions ).

I have seen more of this 'nationalistic' fervour in DC matches. Very rarely have I seen it in Slams. I recall some very famous matches with a US player named Stan Smith being involved. You can find it in his biography, too. Laver DC matches definitely had them.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: If Karlovic was wronged, he could have defaulted, asked for a linesperson change, walked away.

Defaulted and lose the match then and there, isn't it? Did you ever see any player, ever, defaulting the match when he/she believes he was being handed unfair decisions? Why didn't Mcenroe default the match or asked for a new chair umpire or lines persons in all those matches where he thought he was handed incorrect decisions. I see he absolutely believed in it. So why he continued to play? Why didn't Fed default the 2008 wimby final when he wasn't happy with the HW decision? Why didn't he ask for a new HE machine? HE has documented fact that it can give erroneous call averaging 3.6 mm and that call was in by 1mm. So likely it was an erroneous HE call. Why didn't Nadal default the Match against Berdy the in the WTF 2010. He was so enraged he stopped playing for 5 minutes. But he didn't default or ask for a new umpire. WHY? Why Isner even continued to play when he was handed a point penalty by Bernades. If he can argue to that limit, why not instead default the match.

Because this how a professional tennis player behaves and is expected to behave. You think its a match between 5 year olds, where a kid feeling unfair will take away the ball and go home to his mother.

ROTLA... read my statement again, walked away, defaulted, ask for a linesperson change. You just arbitrarily picked the defaulted option and wrote your viewpoint about it. Do you remember Jeff Tarango?

We are not debating the accuracy of Hawkeye, are we? the 3.6mm vs 1 mm. discussion needs to be a separate topic about the technology, etc. Let us not muddy the water. Hawkeye gives the players a better ability to question lines person, for example the Federer-Fish example. I saw some abuse of such a right in the Djokovic-Del Potro match, where Del Potro was challenging in frustration, rather than focus on his play.

We are also not talking about a single call, but 9 foot faults, 6 from a specific lines person. As I suggested, after 3, if you are convinced that the linesperson is biased, go talk to the umpire. Why bother arguing at the end of the match and then take your case to the media? Media wants a story, rather than any semblance of logic.

BTW, as the unreliable internet resources indicate, what happened to the 'official' protest and resulting investigation?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: His 'stutter' and 'timidity' is being used as a f***ing excuse for his inability to articulate his case. Now the lack of a 'wealthy' tennis association is being paraded. Why?

And his inability to articulate his case is being used as a f***ing reason to justify those unfair decisions he was handed. Yes he is not articulate, he is timid. Does this mean its right to give him unfair decisions? What nonsense you are talking here.

I've seen Karlovic play for years and he has never foot-faulted. And in an important match against a local player on important points, he foot-faults 11 times with no environmental disturbances like wind etc.? Karlovic is a server, he won't make rookie errors like foot-faults 11 times in a match. Unless something seriously wrong, I won't believe it. And that wrong wasn't on Karlovic's part I think.

He corrected 11 to 9 as the unreliable link I have posted suggests. These 9 were divided between 2 specific line judges. After the one who called a total of 6, has called, say, 3, which Karlovic felt were incorrect. That, during the match, was the appropriate time for discussion, not after the match. The Chair Umpire cannot rollback the scores and ask Murray-Karlovic to start from that point, can he, or can the chair umpire 'overrule'? That timeliness is gone. I am surprised at his timidity and speech impediment being offered as an excuse. Did he not argue with teh umpire after the match. Did these aforementioned qualities somehow change at the end of the match? His country affiliation is also now considered a disadvantage. Why? Is someone penalising Djokovic because he is Serbian? It is an international sport, FFS.

BTW, I have seen Roddick play for years, and I do not recall him foot-faulting, and yet, in USO matches he was called for it.

There are other viable explanations for repeated foot-faults but should be their own separate topic.

The Karlovic saga is just a sidebar, and has very little relevance to what NITB and I had originally started discussing.
++++++++++++++++++

Did you read words like 'preferential draws' and 'molly-coddle' aimed at Murray? If you have not, I would beg your indulgence and suggest you read them first.

1. The gist is that Murray, despite not having won a slam yet, was given preferential treatment, and hence played the first SF (the conditions were far worse compared to the Djokovic-Ferrer match). Murray was given very similar accommodations at W (aka the Karlovic reference).

2. US Open organization sucks, because of Stupid Saturday (which does not account for weather). My point is that it is an outdoor tournament and players should be mentally prepared to handle adversity. Berdych played very well, given the circumstances. I wanted him to push Murray to a fifth set.

3. Djokovic has not shown that he can handle such adverse conditions as well as I had expected him to. The 5-2 scoreline so far seems to reflect that. It is to his advantage to play the remainder tomorrow, in calmer conditions, in more than one sense, where he has a better chance.

Veejay wrote:Poor Ferrer,the momentum was clearly with him,I wont be surprised if he ends up losing the 1st set now

summerblues wrote:Nole may be ok with the interruption - he did not look so great out there.

4. The argument that Murray gets 'extra' day off leads me to believe that there are adherents of the Fognini effect (strengthened by Federer's loss to Berdych) who think it may somehow change Djokovic's slam fortunes and counts which are cumulative towards GOATness (as opposed to greatness).

5. The match was stopped 30 minutes earlier than rain and strong winds showing up, due the US requirement for evacuations of a public facility under severe weather conditions. The objections are no longer a topic of discussion.

6. I am being 'accused' of favouring Murray, despite my very clear inclination to see the better player on the day winning the title. The 'unfair' advantage that Murray has, of a few extra hours of rest, are somehow considered crucial to the outcome of final. USO 2011 has been quickly forgotten as has been USO 2008. Athletes in such peak conditions are already mentally prepared.

7. Given the current 4 SF contestants, IMVHO, Ferrer's playing style is the optimal for today's conditions, but he will lose that advantage tomorrow.

Your serve?

laverfan wrote:
So let us address the Karlovic issue, first. I did not listen to either Karlovic or Lloyd.

1. Karlovic suggested on Thursday that 11 calls were made against him but yesterday revised the number to nine.
2. 'The woman line judge called six or seven and someone else three. Maybe she doesn't know the rules. Who are they hiring here? She didn't look old so her reflexes and eyes should be OK. I'm not saying I would have won because he played unbelievably. But I was not given an equal chance.'
3. The tournament have vowed to look into the issue when Karlovic lodges his complaint while the BBC have vehemently denied claims they deliberately didn't show replays of the foot faults, instead promising any help they can provide to assist the investigation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2166752/Wimbledon-2012-Andy-Murrays-victim-Ivo-Karlovic-makes-official-protest.html

At the end of the match, he goes to argue with the umpire. Can the umpire change anything at this point?

Karlovic is unhappy about the foot-fault given against him during the tie-break and is having a fractious conversation with the umpire, steam coming out of his ears.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/28/andy-murray-ivo-karlovic-live-wimbledon

Why not have such a conversation after 3 or perhaps 4 calls from the same linesperson? Perhaps the chair umpire could have asked another linesperson to replace the one who called 6 faults and put them on a side-line rather than the baseline.

This is what is very annoying about you. You always move the goal post of the discussion and take it in a totally different direction.

Did I ask you to provide details on the Karlovic's wimbledon foot-fault incident? NO. I can myself find it on the internet.
Did I say umpire can change the results after the match? NO . you make up your own stories and laugh at it. Strange.

So what did I ask you?

I specifically and very specifically asked you that do you have one iota of evidence that Karlovic was treated correct? And what have you posted here. Useless facts. I don't need those. How many times have I said don't post useless facts. Answer to the point. I need the evidence that you have which proves that Karlovic was given correct decisions. You have tossed nitb's comment saying she has no evidence. So you do you have any? Answer only and only in yes or no. If yes, please provide it and only the evidence, no useless crap.

laverfan wrote: I have seen more of this 'nationalistic' fervour in DC matches. Very rarely have I seen it in Slams. I recall some very famous matches with a US player named Stan Smith being involved. You can find it in his biography, too. Laver DC matches definitely had them.

* If you have seen it rarely in slams, doesn't mean on those rare occasions it didn't happen. So what's your point? I didn't say it regularly happens. I said I have seen it many times ( slams, master everything included ) that on certain important points, linesmen do give biased decisions ( some of them are bizzare like the FEd-fish cincy 2012 e.g. I gave )

laverfan wrote:
ROTLA... read my statement again, walked away, defaulted, ask for a linesperson change. You just arbitrarily picked the defaulted option and wrote your viewpoint about it. Do you remember Jeff Tarango?

You are looking to defend your point by showing I didn't read your comment properly? Okay lets see.

*Did you write defaulted? YES. I put so many questions giving examples where a player felt absolutely frustarted about a lines call, argued to any limit yet didn't default the match. Where are are your answers. If you think defaulting was one correct option, why are you not answering me instead of accusing me of not reading your points clearly. defaulting, walking away, calling for a lineman change are 3 totally different points and have to inter-dependency for their individual validity.

* Did you write walked away? YES. What is the meaning of walked away? Walked away and do what? Walked away from whom? from the match? walked away and march out of the stadium? How is walking away going to help? Clear your meaning about this walked away, then I'll answer this point.

* Did you say anything else? Yes. Asked for the linesman change.
1. What makes you think umpires will certainly abide to such requests. They don't entertain the change of balls so easily and they'll change the official just because Karlovic asks it? Funny you think that. Remember hewitt? Do we not have enough evidence of preferential treatment by umpires towards top ranked players and how clearly its different towards lower ranked players.

2. The new linesman may not be any different from the first one, they both maybe biased. I don't say they do it all the time, but like I have said, on important occasions, certain times, they all do. I've seen it many times.

laverfan wrote:
We are not debating the accuracy of Hawkeye, are we? the 3.6mm vs 1 mm. discussion needs to be a separate topic about the technology, etc. Let us not muddy the water. Hawkeye gives the players a better ability to question lines person, for example the Federer-Fish example. I saw some abuse of such a right in the Djokovic-Del Potro match, where Del Potro was challenging in frustration, rather than focus on his play.

Why accuse me of trying to muddy the water? I didn't question the accuracy of HE. I just asked why Fed didn't default the match when he absolutely felt hard done by HE call. You suggested player's defaulting as a good option. As I see I'm on the point, nothing else.

But now you are trying to muddy the water. Lets see how. The above content in RED is useless irrelevant fact which has nothing to do with your "default the match" point. Player abusing HE has NO relevance to players defaulting a match. So why is it here? This is nothing but your attempt to muddy the water. Now we are clear on who is muddying the water. Don't accuse me please. I answer only and only to the point.

laverfan wrote: We are also not talking about a single call, but 9 foot faults, 6 from a specific lines person. As I suggested, after 3, if you are convinced that the linesperson is biased, go talk to the umpire. Why bother arguing at the end of the match and then take your case to the media? Media wants a story, rather than any semblance of logic.

Did he not talk to the umpire? YES he did. What makes you think he didn't? Did you even watch the match?
Did he not suggested in anyway that he was not liking the linesman's calls on those foot-faults? YES he did.
What did the the umpire do about it? NOthing.

laverfan wrote:
He corrected 11 to 9 as the unreliable link I have posted suggests. These 9 were divided between 2 specific line judges. After the one who called a total of 6, has called, say, 3, which Karlovic felt were incorrect. That, during the match, was the appropriate time for discussion, not after the match. The Chair Umpire cannot rollback the scores and ask Murray-Karlovic to start from that point, can he, or can the chair umpire 'overrule'? That timeliness is gone. I am surprised at his timidity and speech impediment being offered as an excuse. Did he not argue with teh umpire after the match. Did these aforementioned qualities somehow change at the end of the match? His country affiliation is also now considered a disadvantage. Why? Is someone penalising Djokovic because he is Serbian? It is an international sport, FFS.

Useless point. Is this the only time when something happened in a match and a player discussed it in his media interviews? If everything that happens in a match is only to be kept in the match, why have any media interviews at all.

Yes talking about it won't change the result of the match. That doesn't mean he has no right to even talk about it or express his thoughts on it to media or anyone.

Yes his country affiliation was his disadvantage. You are acting too naive here. His disadvantage wasn't in being a Croat. It was being a Croat and playing against a British player at wimbledon who is so desperate to have Brit champion and in the match, Murray wasn't able to dominate and it was all very close. If it wasn't his disadvantage he wouldn't have been handed those foot-faults at all. If his country affiliation wasn't his disadvantage he would have to face it at all. I can never think if a Foot-fault was given to Murray at wimbledon and he spoke about it, he would have anyways faced the rage what Karlovic had to.

laverfan wrote: BTW, I have seen Roddick play for years, and I do not recall him foot-faulting, and yet, in USO matches he was called for it.

Was he foot-faulted 11 9 times.

laverfan wrote: The Karlovic saga is just a sidebar, and has very little relevance to what NITB and I had originally started discussing.

++++++++++++++++++

So why didn't you keep it to that? Why started accusing nitb of not having any evidence?

What stupid logic that UsO wants a British champ?? Why not American then? I like the neutral attitude of the posters here.

Nole has the best doctor-NHTB would not have been throwing all these accusations had Nole played first or if Murray had lost.

It's very clear that Murray haters have suffered a setback as a result of his second successive GS final and are unable to digest. I only have three words for haters- LIVE WITH IT!

Come on Ferrer! Beat the shite out of NHTB and prove that your doctor is better than his.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
So let us address the Karlovic issue, first. I did not listen to either Karlovic or Lloyd.

1. Karlovic suggested on Thursday that 11 calls were made against him but yesterday revised the number to nine.
2. 'The woman line judge called six or seven and someone else three. Maybe she doesn't know the rules. Who are they hiring here? She didn't look old so her reflexes and eyes should be OK. I'm not saying I would have won because he played unbelievably. But I was not given an equal chance.'
3. The tournament have vowed to look into the issue when Karlovic lodges his complaint while the BBC have vehemently denied claims they deliberately didn't show replays of the foot faults, instead promising any help they can provide to assist the investigation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2166752/Wimbledon-2012-Andy-Murrays-victim-Ivo-Karlovic-makes-official-protest.html

At the end of the match, he goes to argue with the umpire. Can the umpire change anything at this point?

Karlovic is unhappy about the foot-fault given against him during the tie-break and is having a fractious conversation with the umpire, steam coming out of his ears.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/28/andy-murray-ivo-karlovic-live-wimbledon

Why not have such a conversation after 3 or perhaps 4 calls from the same linesperson? Perhaps the chair umpire could have asked another linesperson to replace the one who called 6 faults and put them on a side-line rather than the baseline.

This is what is very annoying about you. You always move the goal post of the discussion and take it in a totally different direction.

Did I ask you to provide details on the Karlovic's wimbledon foot-fault incident? NO. I can myself find it on the internet.
Did I say umpire can change the results after the match? NO . you make up your own stories and laugh at it. Strange.

So what did I ask you?

I specifically and very specifically asked you that do you have one iota of evidence that Karlovic was treated correct? And what have you posted here. Useless facts. I don't need those. How many times have I said don't post useless facts. Answer to the point. I need the evidence that you have which proves that Karlovic was given correct decisions. You have tossed nitb's comment saying she has no evidence. So you do you have any? Answer only and only in yes or no. If yes, please provide it and only the evidence, no useless crap.

laverfan wrote: I have seen more of this 'nationalistic' fervour in DC matches. Very rarely have I seen it in Slams. I recall some very famous matches with a US player named Stan Smith being involved. You can find it in his biography, too. Laver DC matches definitely had them.

* If you have seen it rarely in slams, doesn't mean on those rare occasions it didn't happen. So what's your point? I didn't say it regularly happens. I said I have seen it many times ( slams, master everything included ) that on certain important points, linesmen do give biased decisions ( some of them are bizzare like the FEd-fish cincy 2012 e.g. I gave )

laverfan wrote:
ROTLA... read my statement again, walked away, defaulted, ask for a linesperson change. You just arbitrarily picked the defaulted option and wrote your viewpoint about it. Do you remember Jeff Tarango?

You are looking to defend your point by showing I didn't read your comment properly? Okay lets see.

*Did you write defaulted? YES. I put so many questions giving examples where a player felt absolutely frustarted about a lines call, argued to any limit yet didn't default the match. Where are are your answers. If you think defaulting was one correct option, why are you not answering me instead of accusing me of not reading your points clearly. defaulting, walking away, calling for a lineman change are 3 totally different points and have to inter-dependency for their individual validity.

* Did you write walked away? YES. What is the meaning of walked away? Walked away and do what? Walked away from whom? from the match? walked away and march out of the stadium? How is walking away going to help? Clear your meaning about this walked away, then I'll answer this point.

* Did you say anything else? Yes. Asked for the linesman change.
1. What makes you think umpires will certainly abide to such requests. They don't entertain the change of balls so easily and they'll change the official just because Karlovic asks it? Funny you think that. Remember hewitt? Do we not have enough evidence of preferential treatment by umpires towards top ranked players and how clearly its different towards lower ranked players.

2. The new linesman may not be any different from the first one, they both maybe biased. I don't say they do it all the time, but like I have said, on important occasions, certain times, they all do. I've seen it many times.

laverfan wrote:
We are not debating the accuracy of Hawkeye, are we? the 3.6mm vs 1 mm. discussion needs to be a separate topic about the technology, etc. Let us not muddy the water. Hawkeye gives the players a better ability to question lines person, for example the Federer-Fish example. I saw some abuse of such a right in the Djokovic-Del Potro match, where Del Potro was challenging in frustration, rather than focus on his play.

Why accuse me of trying to muddy the water? I didn't question the accuracy of HE. I just asked why Fed didn't default the match when he absolutely felt hard done by HE call. You suggested player's defaulting as a good option. As I see I'm on the point, nothing else.

But now you are trying to muddy the water. Lets see how. The above content in RED is useless irrelevant fact which has nothing to do with your "default the match" point. Player abusing HE has NO relevance to players defaulting a match. So why is it here? This is nothing but your attempt to muddy the water. Now we are clear on who is muddying the water. Don't accuse me please. I answer only and only to the point.

laverfan wrote: We are also not talking about a single call, but 9 foot faults, 6 from a specific lines person. As I suggested, after 3, if you are convinced that the linesperson is biased, go talk to the umpire. Why bother arguing at the end of the match and then take your case to the media? Media wants a story, rather than any semblance of logic.

Did he not talk to the umpire? YES he did. What makes you think he didn't? Did you even watch the match?
Did he not suggested in anyway that he was not liking the linesman's calls on those foot-faults? YES he did.
What did the the umpire do about it? NOthing.

laverfan wrote:
He corrected 11 to 9 as the unreliable link I have posted suggests. These 9 were divided between 2 specific line judges. After the one who called a total of 6, has called, say, 3, which Karlovic felt were incorrect. That, during the match, was the appropriate time for discussion, not after the match. The Chair Umpire cannot rollback the scores and ask Murray-Karlovic to start from that point, can he, or can the chair umpire 'overrule'? That timeliness is gone. I am surprised at his timidity and speech impediment being offered as an excuse. Did he not argue with teh umpire after the match. Did these aforementioned qualities somehow change at the end of the match? His country affiliation is also now considered a disadvantage. Why? Is someone penalising Djokovic because he is Serbian? It is an international sport, FFS.

Useless point. Is this the only time when something happened in a match and a player discussed it in his media interviews? If everything that happens in a match is only to be kept in the match, why have any media interviews at all.

Yes talking about it won't change the result of the match. That doesn't mean he has no right to even talk about it or express his thoughts on it to media or anyone.

Yes his country affiliation was his disadvantage. You are acting too naive here. His disadvantage wasn't in being a Croat. It was being a Croat and playing against a British player at wimbledon who is so desperate to have Brit champion and in the match, Murray wasn't able to dominate and it was all very close. If it wasn't his disadvantage he wouldn't have been handed those foot-faults at all. If his country affiliation wasn't his disadvantage he would have to face it at all. I can never think if a Foot-fault was given to Murray at wimbledon and he spoke about it, he would have anyways faced the rage what Karlovic had to.

laverfan wrote: BTW, I have seen Roddick play for years, and I do not recall him foot-faulting, and yet, in USO matches he was called for it.

Was he foot-faulted 11 9 times.

laverfan wrote: The Karlovic saga is just a sidebar, and has very little relevance to what NITB and I had originally started discussing.

++++++++++++++++++

So why didn't you keep it to that? Why started accusing nitb of not having any evidence?

Thanks rotla!
I could not have said it any better!

LF,

to answer your question, I think stopping Nole Ferrer match last night actually favours Ferrer.
He gets a day of rest after that 5 setter against Tipsarevic.
Nole would've won the match had it been played last night.
Now he has a fresh Ferrer and 2:5 to catch up with, grind a few hours agains him and then play another even fitter and fresher grinder tomorrow

Congratulatiosn to Andy,who could better adjust his game to the wind.Tomas said that the conditions were so bad that organizers should move that match to another day. He felt his chance but could not rely on his serve, which is a base of his game. His game was just broken up due to this. To play in such a windy conditions is likewise to play when raining. So, next time they wlll play with raincoats and we see a "sliding" show. That was not a good match.

paulcz wrote:Congratulatiosn to Andy,who could better adjust his game to the wind.Tomas said that the conditions were so bad that organizers should move that match to another day. He felt his chance but could not rely on his serve, which is a base of his game. His game was just broken up due to this. To play in such a windy conditions is likewise to play when raining. So, next time they wlll play with raincoats and we see a "sliding" show. That was not a good match.

Absolutely right. Though better adjusting to playing conditions can be argued and some players are better at it but something the conditions are just not suitable for playing at all. Too windy conditions aren't dangerous for player's safety, but it doesn't remain a game of tennis any more. This is what it was yesterday.

At least Muzza and Berdych got on with it without moaning, unlike Djoko - I'm losing, can we stop playing for a bit?

No doubt if the Smug One has won a windy match it would be all about what a genius he is in all conditions. When Murray wins, you're all , sorry, that's just not tennis.

paulcz wrote:Congratulatiosn to Andy,who could better adjust his game to the wind.Tomas said that the conditions were so bad that organizers should move that match to another day. He felt his chance but could not rely on his serve, which is a base of his game. His game was just broken up due to this. To play in such a windy conditions is likewise to play when raining. So, next time they wlll play with raincoats and we see a "sliding" show. That was not a good match.

Agreed 100%. Shame we couldn't see Berdych paly his game as he seemed to be in the form of his life. He'll have a great indoor season.

mikeyM1000 wrote:At least Muzza and Berdych got on with it without moaning, unlike Djoko - I'm losing, can we stop playing for a bit?

No doubt if the Smug One has won a windy match it would be all about what a genius he is in all conditions. When Murray wins, you're all , sorry, that's just not tennis.

Noone is discrediting Murray's win or that he adjusted better to the "conditions". But we don't watch and love tennis because players can adjust to the unplayable conditions, do we?
We all wanted to see Berdych's attacking game and beautiful, sizzling groundstrokes last night, a proper fight, meaty tennis.

What did we see instead: chairs and plastic bags flying around the court, both players struggling to get the ball in play, grandma's style of ball-pushing. Murray may have well beaten him if it was played in normal conditions, but due to greedy organisers, the players were not given the chance to show what they know.
Hopefully the conditions will be better in the final.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I specifically and very specifically asked you that do you have one iota of evidence that Karlovic was treated correct? And what have you posted here. Useless facts. I don't need those. How many times have I said don't post useless facts. Answer to the point. I need the evidence that you have which proves that Karlovic was given correct decisions. You have tossed nitb's comment saying she has no evidence. So you do you have any? Answer only and only in yes or no. If yes, please provide it and only the evidence, no useless crap.

Yes, he was treated within the rules, by being offered a route to a complaint. You ignored my question for the official investigation outcome. You have no evidence or information on such an investigation, do you? He was treated fairly within the available framework. Since you saw the match, did he ask for the Tournament Referee to come on court and did he talk to the Chair Umpire and the lines person?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: I have seen more of this 'nationalistic' fervour in DC matches. Very rarely have I seen it in Slams. I recall some very famous matches with a US player named Stan Smith being involved. You can find it in his biography, too. Laver DC matches definitely had them.

* If you have seen it rarely in slams, doesn't mean on those rare occasions it didn't happen. So what's your point? I didn't say it regularly happens. I said I have seen it many times ( slams, master everything included ) that on certain important points, linesmen do give biased decisions ( some of them are bizzare like the FEd-fish cincy 2012 e.g. I gave )

It does, and you seem to ignore the availability of hawkeye, an unemotional, detached machine as an aid to players. Just because Federer dislikes it does not make it a useless tool.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
ROTLA... read my statement again, walked away, defaulted, ask for a linesperson change. You just arbitrarily picked the defaulted option and wrote your viewpoint about it. Do you remember Jeff Tarango?

You are looking to defend your point by showing I didn't read your comment properly? Okay lets see.

*Did you write defaulted? YES. I put so many questions giving examples where a player felt absolutely frustarted about a lines call, argued to any limit yet didn't default the match. Where are are your answers. If you think defaulting was one correct option, why are you not answering me instead of accusing me of not reading your points clearly. defaulting, walking away, calling for a lineman change are 3 totally different points and have to inter-dependency for their individual validity.

* Did you write walked away? YES. What is the meaning of walked away? Walked away and do what? Walked away from whom? from the match? walked away and march out of the stadium? How is walking away going to help? Clear your meaning about this walked away, then I'll answer this point.

* Did you say anything else? Yes. Asked for the linesman change.
1. What makes you think umpires will certainly abide to such requests. They don't entertain the change of balls so easily and they'll change the official just because Karlovic asks it? Funny you think that. Remember hewitt? Do we not have enough evidence of preferential treatment by umpires towards top ranked players and how clearly its different towards lower ranked players.

2. The new linesman may not be any different from the first one, they both maybe biased. I don't say they do it all the time, but like I have said, on important occasions, certain times, they all do. I've seen it many times.

If you want to question the framework, this is not the right context within this thread. Let us have a separate discussion.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
We are not debating the accuracy of Hawkeye, are we? the 3.6mm vs 1 mm. discussion needs to be a separate topic about the technology, etc. Let us not muddy the water. Hawkeye gives the players a better ability to question lines person, for example the Federer-Fish example. I saw some abuse of such a right in the Djokovic-Del Potro match, where Del Potro was challenging in frustration, rather than focus on his play.

Why accuse me of trying to muddy the water? I didn't question the accuracy of HE. I just asked why Fed didn't default the match when he absolutely felt hard done by HE call. You suggested player's defaulting as a good option. As I see I'm on the point, nothing else.

But now you are trying to muddy the water. Lets see how. The above content in RED is useless irrelevant fact which has nothing to do with your "default the match" point. Player abusing HE has NO relevance to players defaulting a match. So why is it here? This is nothing but your attempt to muddy the water. Now we are clear on who is muddying the water. Don't accuse me please. I answer only and only to the point.

laverfan wrote: We are also not talking about a single call, but 9 foot faults, 6 from a specific lines person. As I suggested, after 3, if you are convinced that the linesperson is biased, go talk to the umpire. Why bother arguing at the end of the match and then take your case to the media? Media wants a story, rather than any semblance of logic.

Did he not talk to the umpire? YES he did. What makes you think he didn't? Did you even watch the match?
Did he not suggested in anyway that he was not liking the linesman's calls on those foot-faults? YES he did.
What did the the umpire do about it? NOthing.

The foot faults/Karlovic discussion and bad line calls are related to HE, and since you mention the accuracy, hence the discussion. Hawkeye allows players to question a linesperson's call, which you seem to ignore. Hawkeye can also be used to detect foot faults and would allow players the option to challenge foot faults when they are called. And you consider it irrelevant to this discussion?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
He corrected 11 to 9 as the unreliable link I have posted suggests. These 9 were divided between 2 specific line judges. After the one who called a total of 6, has called, say, 3, which Karlovic felt were incorrect. That, during the match, was the appropriate time for discussion, not after the match. The Chair Umpire cannot rollback the scores and ask Murray-Karlovic to start from that point, can he, or can the chair umpire 'overrule'? That timeliness is gone. I am surprised at his timidity and speech impediment being offered as an excuse. Did he not argue with teh umpire after the match. Did these aforementioned qualities somehow change at the end of the match? His country affiliation is also now considered a disadvantage. Why? Is someone penalising Djokovic because he is Serbian? It is an international sport, FFS.

Useless point. Is this the only time when something happened in a match and a player discussed it in his media interviews? If everything that happens in a match is only to be kept in the match, why have any media interviews at all.

Yes talking about it won't change the result of the match. That doesn't mean he has no right to even talk about it or express his thoughts on it to media or anyone.

Yes his country affiliation was his disadvantage. You are acting too naive here. His disadvantage wasn't in being a Croat. It was being a Croat and playing against a British player at wimbledon who is so desperate to have Brit champion and in the match, Murray wasn't able to dominate and it was all very close. If it wasn't his disadvantage he wouldn't have been handed those foot-faults at all. If his country affiliation wasn't his disadvantage he would have to face it at all. I can never think if a Foot-fault was given to Murray at wimbledon and he spoke about it, he would have anyways faced the rage what Karlovic had to.

Were there any other matches involving Murray which had similar footfaults? By your suggestion, international play will always smack of bias to nationalistic and patriotic flaws inherent in humans. Is there a need to invent machines without country affiliations to take up tennis on Mars?

There are many other less influential countries, which had participation at W. It is very sad to see such accusations against a specific nation.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: BTW, I have seen Roddick play for years, and I do not recall him foot-faulting, and yet, in USO matches he was called for it.

Was he foot-faulted 11 9 times.

laverfan wrote: The Karlovic saga is just a sidebar, and has very little relevance to what NITB and I had originally started discussing.

++++++++++++++++++

So why didn't you keep it to that? Why started accusing nitb of not having any evidence?

I find it interesting that my points 1-7 were ignored in favour of a contentious Karlovic discussion, which is only marginally within the context.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:He is really trying to mess up the rhythm shouting way after hitting the ball. That shoudl not be allowed.

I know, it's pathetic. Lendl has taught him all dirty tricks...

Never discredited Murray. Hypocrites

noleisthebest wrote:LF,

to answer your question, I think stopping Nole Ferrer match last night actually favours Ferrer.
He gets a day of rest after that 5 setter against Tipsarevic.
Nole would've won the match had it been played last night.
Now he has a fresh Ferrer and 2:5 to catch up with, grind a few hours agains him and then play another even fitter and fresher grinder tomorrow

We have differing opinions, and let the resumption prove one of us wrong today.

BTW, did you read the comments from SB and Veejay that I had quoted?

Djokovic was down 5-2 yesterday and he was visibly unhappy, yet you are claiming that he would have won? I find that interesting.

If Ferrer is fresh, so is Djokovic. Djokovic beat him in 2007, and Djokovic is playing better than 2007, so why this concern for Djokovic? Let the best player on the day given the conditions as they are, win? Like Murray did against Berdych or Berdych did against Federer or Ferrer did against Tipsarevic.

noleisthebest wrote:Murray may have well beaten him if it was played in normal conditions, but due to greedy organisers, the players were not given the chance to show what they know.

Yes, it was clear that players need ideal conditions to show case their stuff, should we have all Tennis inside O2?

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Djoko has been unlucky this year with the weather conds. FO and now USO. Was also very windy in that OG semi I read.

Cheap excuse Tenez. Do you remember Federer-Soderling USO 2009 or Federer-Agassi USO 2004 or 2005? :chin: 40 mph winds in the Federer-Agassi match. This is an outdoor tourney.

Remember Federer against Nadal at IW 2012.

BTW, did you read this comment that I had made earlier?

And you are the one talking about preferential treatment and molly-coddling. As others have said, Berdych got on with it, Ferrer did, Murray did. Why not Djokovic?

PS:
It is shocking to find that this the entire world against one innocent little Djokovic is still being favoured?

He said he has matured, he can deal with it. He is a strong individual.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Murray may have well beaten him if it was played in normal conditions, but due to greedy organisers, the players were not given the chance to show what they know.

Yes, it was clear that players need ideal conditions to show case their stuff, should we have all Tennis inside O2?

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Djoko has been unlucky this year with the weather conds. FO and now USO. Was also very windy in that OG semi I read.

Cheap excuse Tenez. Do you remember Federer-Soderling USO 2009 or Federer-Agassi USO 2004 or 2005? :chin: 40 mph winds in the Federer-Agassi match. This is an outdoor tourney.

Remember Federer against Nadal at IW 2012.

BTW, did you read this comment that I had made earlier?

And you are the one talking about preferential treatment and molly-coddling. As others have said, Berdych got on with it, Ferrer did, Murray did. Why not Djokovic?

LF,

You really have no leg to stand on in any of your arguments above. I find it embarrassing to have to repeat the same stuff all the time.
You obviously have some agenda and push it regardless of what anybody you disagree here with say and do it either by ignoring the replies or by diverting the point onto something totally different.
It's difficult, time-consuming, draining and pointless go go around in circles. You may enjoy it, but it's not everyone's cup of tea.

I look forward to hearing you say something good about Djokovic or Federer, rather than continually try to defend the honour of Anglo-saxon tennis. That's the players' job kind of thing.

Media only make it worse by shoving it down everyone's throat. Nobody's stupid.

Hypocrites cannot logic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by6pvCEbJkY