Fed Called out for Cheating?!.

#1
#2
Roger's response:
Federer was asked about Cash’s comments in his post-match press conference. Here is his reply.

Q. The medical timeout, there were some quite adverse comments about that.
ROGER FEDERER: What is 'adverse comments'?

Q. Critical comments. I think Pat Cash said it was legalized cheating. Can you tell us what was going on there, what the reason was.
ROGER FEDERER: Look, I mean, I explained myself a couple of days ago after the Stan match. Yeah, my leg has been hurting me since the Rubin match. I was happy that I was able to navigate through the pain. For some reason against Stan I had it from the start on both sides of the groin.

After he took a medical timeout, I thought I could also take one for a change and see if actually something like a massage during the match is actually going to help me. It did a little bit potentially. I'm not sure.

And then today after probably -- well, I felt my quad midway through the second set already, and the groin started to hurt midway through the third set. I just told myself, The rules are there that you can use them. I also think we shouldn't be using these rules or abusing the system. I think I've led the way for 20 years.


So I think to be critical there is exaggerating. I'm the last guy to call a medical timeout. So I don't know what he's talking about.
 
#9
As much as I would like to bash Fed for many things, this was not a big deal to me. They pretty much have all taken advantage of this rule at some point and if I'm going to rake him over the coals for it I'd have to do it with Nadal, Stan and everyone else as well. Was it a bit cheesy? Yes. Was it any worse than what anyone else has done? No . Now, as you'd expect I admire Wilander for not just kissing up to Fed like everyone else even if a lot of his points are off-base, but Cash has always just seemed jealous to me and has a serious complex with today's players. Let's not forget he was the guy who was "50 %" certain he had an affair once...
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
#13
Cash looks really weird when he is playing his senior doubles, like he is about to snap.
 
#14
I think people are too quick to jump on Cash. Unless he has some personal grievance against Fed I don't know about and he's using this as an opening to attack. He has a point.(a point that applies to more than fed here)

Tennis players experience pain on court a lot of the time they're playing. It's a common experience, but you don't see a mto every match. Isn't a mto for something that's actually a serious hindrance that might cause you to retire? Not because your big toe is hurting and you want a hug and a quickie under the towel.

Where does it go from here? players get a rubdown every match from their hot personal masseuse. A towelling, a back rub and a drink after every point?
 
#16
Pat Cash:
"You can't just stop a marathon if you're tired... I can't stress how bad this (tournament) has been supervised or looked at by the medical team here in the whole tour," Cash told BBC’s Radio 5 Live in the aftermath of Federer's 6-4 3-6 6-1 3-6 6-3 victory over Nadal. "It's wrong, wrong and wrong... It's cheating and it's being allowed. It's legal cheating but it's still not right," added Cash.

http://tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/February-2017/Federer-Answers-Cash’s-Claims-that-He-Cheated-by-T.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=READ MORE.&utm_campaign=News-2-2-2017
If its legal - it isn't cheating. It is simple as that. Federer had an injury and was quite entitled under the rules to get it treated. Pat Cash should know a lot better than that.
 
#17
I think people are too quick to jump on Cash. Unless he has some personal grievance against Fed I don't know about and he's using this as an opening to attack.
Does. Has been at it for thirteen years when he for no reason threw massive shade on Mirka, suggesting she'd ruin Fed's career (we all know how that turned out), likening her to a Svengali-like figure — all this while never having met her. She responded by publicly handing him his behind for keeps, and one suspects that the Fed family hasn't given him much time of day ever since and that just maybe he suffers from some itching in his inferior rectal nerve because of it.
 
#18
Normally I don't attack the source without examining the meat of his point, but come on. Cash made some unflattering comments about Mirka's role in Federer's career in '04 and Federer has probably never given him the time of day since then. Could you blame him? It's hard to go much lower than that. He's probably butthurt about getting the cold shoulder. **** Cash.
 
#19
Does. Has been at it for thirteen years when he for no reason threw massive shade on Mirka, suggesting she'd ruin Fed's career (we all know how that turned out), likening her to a Svengali-like figure — all this while never having met her. She responded by publicly handing him his behind for keeps, and one suspects that the Fed family hasn't given him much time of day ever since and that just maybe he suffers from some itching in his inferior rectal nerve because of it.
Heh, nice timing. Exactly this.
 
#20
I think may be they should have a mandatory 15 minute break after set 4 , unless both players decide they don't want it.

This way , it is a level playing field and the guy who won the 4th does not have the adrenaline rush and momentum for the 5th
 
#24
I'll have to look up Cash's comment on djokovic's medical timeouts in last year's us open final. I'm sure he's consistent in criticism.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#26
Pat Cash:
"You can't just stop a marathon if you're tired... I can't stress how bad this (tournament) has been supervised or looked at by the medical team here in the whole tour," Cash told BBC’s Radio 5 Live in the aftermath of Federer's 6-4 3-6 6-1 3-6 6-3 victory over Nadal. "It's wrong, wrong and wrong... It's cheating and it's being allowed. It's legal cheating but it's still not right," added Cash.

http://tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/February-2017/Federer-Answers-Cash’s-Claims-that-He-Cheated-by-T.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=READ MORE.&utm_campaign=News-2-2-2017
Pat Cash is the worst Australian player to have ever won a major.
 
#28
what the hell does this have to do with djokovic?do fed fanboys have an instant trigger when anything bad is said about federer ,to just bring up either djokovic or nadal up?And I would understand bringing up djokovics MTO s ,but this picture?so irelevant.
You have to understand federer fans thought federer would be undisputedly the greatest ever. Nadal and djokovic have ensured there will always be a debate. Obviously there is alot of enmity and jealousy towards nadal and djokovic.

Federer deservedly won in australia. However if nadal beats fedefer at the french open you can be sufe he federer fan base will say it doesnt matter as conditions didnt suit federer. I havent seen any mention that nadal was on his worse surface.

In respect of djokovic wins over federer at wimbledon apparently they dont count as federer was too old.

That picture of djokovic is the lowest of the low and you are right to slam it
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#30
You have to understand federer fans thought federer would be undisputedly the greatest ever. Nadal and djokovic have ensured there will always be a debate. Obviously there is alot of enmity and jealousy towards nadal and djokovic.
Nadal and Djokovic aren't close to him (especially Djokovic, who like Federer took advantage of a "weak period") with the bar being set to 18. 14 slams and the H2H advantage doesn't do it, and 12 slams + 4 in a row (with nobody to stop Djokovic mind you) won't do it either. Both need 19 slams to surpass Federer, although Djokovic could do it with 18 and a more balanced resume.

Drlexus said:
Federer deservedly won in australia. However if nadal beats fedefer at the french open you can be sufe he federer fan base will say it doesnt matter as conditions didnt suit federer. I havent seen any mention that nadal was on his worse surface.
It's not that it "doesn't matter". It's that it is expected at this point. Federer is 35 years old, him winning his latest major was a huge surprise.

Drlexus said:
In respect of djokovic wins over federer at wimbledon apparently they dont count as federer was too old.
Considering he was 32 and 33 when Djokovic beat him (and Federer's return stats have been going down yearly at Wimbledon) it's a fair argument to say Djokovic benefited from Federer being past his prime (especially in 2015).

Drlexus said:
That picture of djokovic is the lowest of the low and you are right to slam it
Perhaps it's because his fans act like he's the greatest ever when in reality he has 12 slams and won half of them in a transitional period?
 
#33
Perhaps it's because his fans act like he's the greatest ever when in reality he has 12 slams and won half of them in a transitional period?
Is tennis transforming into a robotic species? Are tennis courts donning a pair of sexy legs, with the nets as stockings, and heading to the nearest beach for some well needed sunbathing?

The same group of guys who have dominated tennis for the past decade are still competing for and dominating all the big tournaments. Doesn't there have to be new guys on the tour actually winning things of import, for there to be transitioning from the status quo.

When the same 6 guys, who have taken all the slams bar 1 in the past 12 years, are still in the top 10, the only thing that's in transition is the type of argument used to devalue one of that groups achievements.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#34
Federer's record of using MTOs is spotless.

He has never abused the rule (as opposed to other players), so there is no reason to believe that this is the case now.

Maybe Mr.Cash should look into his 5setters in GS tournaments at the age of 35 and draw some experience from there.

Oh, wait ...

:cool:
 
#35
He got a thread or three on here, though. Does he know? Legitimated!

Enjoyed his interview with Borg. He and Wilander seem to be nice little conversationalists. I'm sure he would scamper through all sorts of magma pools to do a piece on Fed.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#36
Is tennis transforming into a robotic species? Are tennis courts donning a pair of sexy legs, with the nets as stockings, and heading to the nearest beach for some well needed sunbathing?

The same group of guys who have dominated tennis for the past decade are still competing for and dominating all the big tournaments. Doesn't there have to be new guys on the tour actually winning things of import, for there to be transitioning from the status quo.

When the same 6 guys, who have taken all the slams bar 1 in the past 12 years, are still in the top 10, the only thing that's in transition is the type of argument used to devalue one of that groups achievements.
Sounds like you're mad because you think I'm somehow undervaluing Murray. Don't worry, he's not being undersold.

It is a transitional period, the "transitional players" just aren't good enough to displace their older, better counterparts. Or you could look at it like they are too good (still) to be displaced; but that argument becomes fodder when you realize just how bad some of the top players have been performing recently.

For example, 2001 was seen as a "transitional period" and Andre Agassi was 3 in the world, and for the most part Sampras was still a top 10 player. Does that mean that it really wasn't a transitional period because they both still happened to be top 10 players?

Your argument makes no sense in context.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
#38
You have to understand federer fans thought federer would be undisputedly the greatest ever. Nadal and djokovic have ensured there will always be a debate. Obviously there is alot of enmity and jealousy towards nadal and djokovic.

Federer deservedly won in australia. However if nadal beats fedefer at the french open you can be sufe he federer fan base will say it doesnt matter as conditions didnt suit federer. I havent seen any mention that nadal was on his worse surface.

In respect of djokovic wins over federer at wimbledon apparently they dont count as federer was too old.

That picture of djokovic is the lowest of the low and you are right to slam it
Even 60s weed said the final decided the goat debate. You are more stubborn than 60s weed.
 
#39
Sounds like you're mad because you think I'm somehow undervaluing Murray. Don't worry, he's not being undersold.

It is a transitional period, the "transitional players" just aren't good enough to displace their older, better counterparts. Or you could look at it like they are too good (still) to be displaced; but that argument becomes fodder when you realize just how bad some of the top players have been performing recently.

For example, 2001 was seen as a "transitional period" and Andre Agassi was 3 in the world, and for the most part Sampras was still a top 10 player. Does that mean that it really wasn't a transitional period because they both still happened to be top 10 players?

Your argument makes no sense in context.
yeah no. There was nothing mad about my post, the one person I was talking about was Djokovic. Given that it was his achievements that you were attempting to smear.

Your comment that the top players are too good and the new players are not good enough is, like, evidence for my argument. thanks for the help, I really don't need it.

In 2001 new young players were winning slams and getting to number 1. You could just concede your argument is bogus and trolling, instead of ignoring 75% of mine and searching for 1 tiny little datapoint that conflicts with one part of my argument if taken out of context and removed from its whole. but whatevs
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#40
yeah no. There was nothing mad about my post, the one person I was talking about was Djokovic. Given that it was his achievements that you were attempting to smear.
I wasn't attempting to "smear" anything. My opinion doesn't detract from his legacy, or do you actually think so?

Dope Reign said:
Your comment that the top players are too good and the new players are not good enough is, like, evidence for my argument. thanks for the help, I really don't need it.
Is it my reading comprehension that needs reworking or yours? I offered two different view points and went with the one that contradicted the argument you cited.

Dope Reign said:
In 2001 new young players were winning slams and getting to number 1. You could just concede your argument is bogus and trolling, instead of ignoring 75% of mine and searching for 1 tiny little datapoint that conflicts with one part of my argument if taken out of context and removed from its whole. but whatevs
So I take it Marin Cilic and Stan Wawrinka winning slams doesn't count, or is that because they're too old?

Like I said, the new generation just is not good enough. It is not the fault of the older generation but if they were good enough, they'd be running the gauntlet right now -- especially since Federer is still winning majors at the age of 35.
 
#43
Cash has no clue because he's never done what Federer has been doing - being consistent for over a decade and not just winning but reaching the F/SF/QF of slams with ease, ranked consistently highly for over a decade, winning slams in his 30s, especially as a 35 yo, etc.... I mean, Cash didn't push his body like Federer did at 35, so I would just ignore him for commenting on something he has no idea about. Maybe that guy is just purely dumb.
 
Top