Wawrinka unprofessional behaviour was disgusting

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Lovely_Bone

Teenager in an under 12 final?

Probably an eleventeen year-old.

[Paullaconte1]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Probably an eleventeen year-old.

Or a teenteen.... sorry about that!

[The Bawss]

Give stan a break you trolls. Tomic tanked harder against Roddick at this year's USO.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by merwy

Yeah very unprofessional from Wawrinka to give the last set away like that. For some reason I always like seeing tennis players show normal human emotions like that (racket throwing, yelling, giving up and saying f*** this ****) but still, this is a lack of discipline and work ethic and does not fit a professional athlete.

On another note, I do not agree with what was written in the tennis.com article



I don't feel like Wawrinka lives in the shadow of Federer. Of course Federer is better than Wawrinka, but by that logic everyone is living in the shadow of Federer. When I think of Wawrinka, I just think of him as the person Stanislas Wawrinka not the "#2 of Switzerland, behind Roger Federer". Besides, Wawrinka is the #17 of the world, it's not like he's the #2 of the world and is very unlucky to have Federer in front of him. It's easily possible that someone else from your country is ranked higher than you if you are ranked #17. He should thank his lucky stars that he got that Olympic gold medal because of Rogi.

Rogi wouldn't have won sh*t without Wawrinka. Wawrinka actually has great doubles skills.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Rogi wouldn't have won sh*t without Wawrinka. Wawrinka actually has great doubles skills.

While this is true, the converse is also. Wawrinka needed Roger and Roger needed Wawa. Without eachother, who were they going to win it with? Chiudinellli? LOL

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Rogi wouldn't have won sh*t without Wawrinka. Wawrinka actually has great doubles skills.

I try to be as objective as possible from the perspective of a Federer fan, but Fed is a far superior doubles player. The Swedes focused their efforts on breaking down Stan in the gold medal match and it nearly worked. It did work for the Americans in Davis Cup earlier this year.

[batz]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Give stan a break you trolls. Tomic tanked harder against Roddick at this year's USO.

Yeah trolls - leave Stan alone. Him not giving of his best is not an excuse for hating on him. Now if Stan had been moaning to himself, maybe the odd swear word - that would be an excuse for hating on him - right Bawss?

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by batz

Yeah trolls - leave Stan alone. Him not giving of his best is not an excuse for hating on him. Now if Stan had been moaning to himself, maybe the odd swear word - that would be an excuse for hating on him - right Bawss?

Irrelevant. Maybe he just got beaten by a better player in the last set after having been mentally fatigued. If may well have been out of his control. If Wawrinka had chosen to be whiny, rude and abnoxious then maybe I wouldn't be defending him.

[Wilander Fan]

I saw the match and the second set was an absolute war. Alot of defending and prolonged rallies.

[RF20Lennon]

He just didnt give a damn anymore he was just slamming balls and missing

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by Paullaconte1

I have found Wawrinka's behavior disgusting in the 3rd set with Federer.

He tanked badly in the third set without giving a damn of people watching the game. Something really horrid. I understand that he was deeply disappointed, but if you are a pro and you are not a teenager anymore you should have a proper behavior.

The commentators said many times that Federer gave a lesson of tennis and professionalism and I personally agree.

A couple of interesting thoughts about that
http://shanghai.tennistonic.com/view...ghai---Youtube
http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/10/d.../#.UHeEp8XMjy0

You mean there were people in the stands, the matches I've seen all week had little to nobody in the seats.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by ledwix

The crowds also make their prize money possible...obviously they're paying to see high-level tennis with guys trying their best. That's professionalism as well.

If the crowds in China make their prize money possible, the guys would go broke.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by ledwix

The crowds also make their prize money possible...obviously they're paying to see high-level tennis with guys trying their best. That's professionalism as well.

The crowds do NOT make the prize money possible. Millions of consumers, most of whom don't care about tennis, make the proze money possible by purchasing products and services from the tournament sponsors.

The crowds at tennis events are tiny outside of the Big Four as they near the quarter and semi-finals. If advertisers could only reach the crowds in the stadiums the players would be competing for lunch money. It's the television audience and the overall market well beyond the friendly confines of a masters 500 or 1000 event that drive the prize money.

[sureshs]

That is why some think that Fed was blessed with mentally weak competitors in his era who lost matches to him before getting on the court. Fed struggled when someone with belief faced him, like Nadal and Djokovic.

I watched the match, and could not believe how many short and weak sitters Fed was putting up, and Stan was overhitting on them. It is almost as if he wanted to lose. Nadal would have crushed every one of these weak balls.

[Wilander Fan]

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is why some think that Fed was blessed with mentally weak competitors in his era who lost matches to him before getting on the court. Fed struggled when someone with belief faced him, like Nadal and Djokovic.

I watched the match, and could not believe how many short and weak sitters Fed was putting up, and Stan was overhitting on them. It is almost as if he wanted to lose. Nadal would have crushed every one of these weak balls.

I think its because Federer can read Wawrinka's strokes and Stan knows this so he has to either change it up or go for broke.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Wilander Fan

I think its because Federer can read Wawrinka's strokes and Stan knows this so he has to either change it up or go for broke.

No, it doesn't explain why he did not punish those sitters.

[Emet74]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I watched the match, and could not believe how many short and weak sitters Fed was putting up, and Stan was overhitting on them. It is almost as if he wanted to lose. Nadal would have crushed every one of these weak balls.

Well maybe that's why Nadal has been ranked much higher than Wawrinka for the past many years, and why this was a second round match and not a final. What's your point?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Emet74

Well maybe that's why Nadal has been ranked much higher than Wawrinka for the past many years, and why this was a second round match and not a final. What's your point?

That Fed is one lucky dude

[cork_screw]

I seriously don't think he was thinking of the people who were watching when he played that 3rd set. And if he thought about it at all, that would be a dumb reason to find motivation to play a good set. I'm sure he was emotionally empty when he lost that 2nd set, which is pretty ******** because now things were just level. He wasn't even behind in the match. The way his mentality was, he made it seem like he was now down 2 sets when in fact, he was a set all. That's why he'll never win a slam or even make it top 5.

[Wuppy]

Wawrinka was demoralized, deflated and exhausted when he lost the 2nd set in a tie-breaker. I don't think he was "unprofessional," he was just thoroughly beaten. He came out sprinting, knowing he had to win in 2 or he'd lose. He almost did, and expended 100% of his energy on those first two sets. After that he was done, physically, mentally and emotionally.

I think it was a very professional performance. I'm sure he and his coach thought it out and said basically, "You have to come out with all guns blazing and win it in 2. Don't leave anything for the third set, because he'll pick you apart if it goes that long."

Wawrinka tried and came close, but came up just short. His performance in the first set was amazing, but it was obvious he was playing at 100% with no holding back. It was clear to me (and the announcers) that if it went to three he would lose.

I don't think there's anything wrong with how he played, he came very close to winning.