Federer: "He didn't look hurt in any way. But the rules allow (MTO), what can you do"

[Chanwan]

Just to add a bit more context, doesn't sound like a sore loser to me:

But Federer still managed to win the set, and later he insisted, in an almost astonishing show of rationality that not only was the effect of the timeout inconsequential, it bothered Federer not at all that Gulbis took it. Given the choice between terrific liar and remarkably even-keeled guy, I’ll take the latter.

“I came through my career in the beginning where everybody used to take a toilet break at 5‑4 when you're serving for the match,” Federer said, denying that he suspected Gulbis of gamesmanship. “Everybody had to run to the bathroom at that point when I was younger. . .Then there was an injury timeout maybe just before that, or right after that, depending on how you used it.

“So now it's like a big deal when a guy goes to the bathroom like on the set breaks. Give me a break. When it's cold like this, you have to go to the toilet. Sometimes when you go deep in a match, you can have treatment because the rule allows you to.”

tennis.com
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/06/mouth-soared-gulbis-topples-federer/51638/#.U4uvOZR_uQY

 

[dominikk1985]

I think the best solution would be to give any player one time out whether he is injured or not.

if he can't continue to play after those 3 minutes he loses the match.

that way there is no discussion about injured or not, you have one time out and if you have used it up you don't get another one even if you are really injured.

so a player could use the TO for tactics but then he risks to not have it when he is really injured.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Precisely. Fed is the only one who doesn't take strategic MTO's or cries about injuries. Which is more than I can say about faking cheater you've chosen as your name and avatar.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Oh boy, a new low! :shock:

For you?

:roll:

 

[checkmilu]

If I were Fed, I would take MTN after winning that 4th set too. He was irritated by Gulbis's dirty trick. He can get rid of irritation by taking a MTN himself but he didn't.
Fed can lose some matches but he will not lose his fans.

 

[agreed]

Ernie needs to trick federer? He's no yearly sportsmanship award winner.
There is something he did------ overpower ball basher federer again. Lmao!

 

[sureshs]

Federer shots were too weak compared to Gulbis'. Tennis is a one-on-one game and disrupting your opponent's rhythm is part of it. Since no one can tell whether pain is genuine or not, Fed has to learn to face such timeouts. He did win the 4th set, so clearly this was not the reason for his loss.

 

[sureshs]

Gulbis did what everyone should have done to Federer:

"The plan was to play more to his backhand and then with my backhand go for down‑the‑line shots"

Fed's backhand takes so much effort to get in half-decently that he is drained when the ball comes to his forehand next. If opponents had figured this out before Nadal did, Fed would not have achieved much success at all. He represents sort of the limit to which 1 handers can hit the BH in the modern game.

 

[Bartelby]

People usually lobby politicians to create tax loopholes, so you can blame them.

Tennis players however don't come with such power, but tournament directors do.

And they don't want injured players forfeiting, so they like to be generous to keep the show on the road even if some cheat.

As long as the rules allow MTO, players will use it for strategic advantage.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's like the tax code; as long as certain loopholes exist, people will take legal advantage of them, and you can't blame them for doing so.

 

[Bartelby]

That's about it. The whole Chokerer explanation is too flattering, in a strange sort of way, as well as wrong even if he squanders more as he gets older.

Gulbis did what everyone should have done to Federer:

"The plan was to play more to his backhand and then with my backhand go for down‑the‑line shots"

Fed's backhand takes so much effort to get in half-decently that he is drained when the ball comes to his forehand next. If opponents had figured this out before Nadal did, Fed would not have achieved much success at all. He represents sort of the limit to which 1 handers can hit the BH in the modern game.

 

[SpinToWin]

Gulbis did what everyone should have done to Federer:

"The plan was to play more to his backhand and then with my backhand go for down‑the‑line shots"

Fed's backhand takes so much effort to get in half-decently that he is drained when the ball comes to his forehand next. If opponents had figured this out before Nadal did, Fed would not have achieved much success at all. He represents sort of the limit to which 1 handers can hit the BH in the modern game.

not really, in his prime he was hitting his backhand better and the decisive factor was his movement. He probably had the best footwork on tour and could get into position for a shot very quickly. He also could run around his backhand better and back then his forehand was more potent. Playing to Federer's backhand was difficult because of all this. Furthermore, in his prime, the court were faster and had lower bounces and Federer just happens to have one of the best slices on tour, which is a very unpleasant shot on such surfaces.

Anyways, that Federer had a weak backhand in his prime is a myth. Look at old footage and you'll see a consistent shot with great diversity and accuracy (and power as a matter of fact). Nowadays, playing neutral shots to his backhand is enough to force a short ball or error, but back then Federer hit winners off of such shots, something he no longer is capable of doing consistently.

 

[West Coast Ace]

one short session… What, 15 minutes? Also, the patients don't go to play a high intensity sport immediately after their treatment

QFT.

I'd like to hear Gulbis' reaction to this.

I would hope it would be "that's one stupid looking hat he's wearing."

Gulbis acknowledged that it was a tough decision to take it at 5-2 - but he said he had pain so he had to. Only he knows for sure. It's a non-issue. Let's all let go.

 

[Enga]

Gulbis did what everyone should have done to Federer:

"The plan was to play more to his backhand and then with my backhand go for down‑the‑line shots"

Fed's backhand takes so much effort to get in half-decently that he is drained when the ball comes to his forehand next. If opponents had figured this out before Nadal did, Fed would not have achieved much success at all. He represents sort of the limit to which 1 handers can hit the BH in the modern game.

No, I dont think so. If it were as simple as that, he would never have won as much as he did, and still does. He has always been the sort to allow cross court backhand rallies to happen, because he wants to wait for the chance to circle around and hit a forehand with good angles.

Its a tactic that works against Federer. Its rarely the tactic used that matters, but the execution of the tactic, makes no difference if you use a 1hbh or 2hbh, serve and volleyer or defensive baseliner. There a million tactics to win, but managing to execute a tactic and win is the main difference. Gulbis executed well.

Everyone knows about Nadals tendency to move to his right, and sometimes get pinned to his backhand corner, allowing an opportunity to attack his forehand. But its rare someone executes the tactic perfectly and beats him.

Everyones got their weaknesses



Every player has their go to pattern, and the CC waiting for a forehand opportunity is Feds.

 

[rh310]

Gulbis did what everyone should have done to Federer:

"The plan was to play more to his backhand and then with my backhand go for down‑the‑line shots"

Fed's backhand takes so much effort to get in half-decently that he is drained when the ball comes to his forehand next. If opponents had figured this out before Nadal did, Fed would not have achieved much success at all. He represents sort of the limit to which 1 handers can hit the BH in the modern game.

Yes, no one had ever thought to target the BH over the FH in the history of tennis, before Nadal did it to Federer.

 

[agreed]

A decade ago, top 10 players were tennis fans, not athletic backhand and forehand strikers.
Fed just found out this year.... That's embarrassing to him.

 

[The Green Mile]

No, I dont think so. If it were as simple as that, he would never have won as much as he did, and still does. He has always been the sort to allow cross court backhand rallies to happen, because he wants to wait for the chance to circle around and hit a forehand with good angles.

Its a tactic that works against Federer. Its rarely the tactic used that matters, but the execution of the tactic, makes no difference if you use a 1hbh or 2hbh, serve and volleyer or defensive baseliner. There a million tactics to win, but managing to execute a tactic and win is the main difference. Gulbis executed well.

Everyone knows about Nadals tendency to move to his right, and sometimes get pinned to his backhand corner, allowing an opportunity to attack his forehand. But its rare someone executes the tactic perfectly and beats him.

Everyones got their weaknesses



Every player has their go to pattern, and the CC waiting for a forehand opportunity is Feds.

“Walking to the net, I’m certain that I’ve lose to the better man, the Everest of the generation. I pity the young players who will have to contend with him. I feel for the man who is fated to play Agassi to his Sampras. Though I don’t mention Pete by name, I have him uppermost in my mind when I tell reports: It’s real simple. Most players have weaknesses. Federer has none.”

:shock::shock::shock:

 

[Bartelby]

Nadal: left-handed, most spin on forehand in tennis history, high looping balls to backhand. That's quite a novel combination.

Yes, no one had ever thought to target the BH over the FH in the history of tennis, before Nadal did it to Federer.

 

[wmrhawk]

How about this--
Allowed once per match:
0 to 3 minutes: one medical timeout
Add'l minute: point penalty
Add'l minute: game penalty
Add'l minute: set penalty

 

[Tony48]

Federer won the set (even though Gulbis was the better player throughout). Why this is even a point of discussion is beyond me.

 

[The Green Mile]

How about this--
Allowed once per match:
0 to 3 minutes: one medical timeout
Add'l minute: point penalty
Add'l minute: game penalty
Add'l minute: set penalty

Lol no. That will NEVER be allowed, im sorry... especially the bolded part

 

[wmrhawk]

Lol no. That will NEVER be allowed, im sorry... especially the bolded part

Then, how about none (I was trying to be reasonable). I hate the notion of these med timeouts. At least in men's tennis

 

[The Green Mile]

Then, how about none (I was trying to be reasonable). I hate the notion of these med timeouts. At least in men's tennis

No, I believe you should be allowed a short MTO at LEAST once a match. Imagine your in the final of a grand slam and you sprain your ankle, and you just need to get it stretched and maybe some cream put onto it and that's it... it takes only 3-4 minutes, and you resume play alright.

Imagine how **** it would be if there were none and you had to retire cause of that...

 

[dpli2010]

Just to add a bit more context, doesn't sound like a sore loser to me:

But Federer still managed to win the set, and later he insisted, in an almost astonishing show of rationality that not only was the effect of the timeout inconsequential, it bothered Federer not at all that Gulbis took it. Given the choice between terrific liar and remarkably even-keeled guy, I’ll take the latter.

“I came through my career in the beginning where everybody used to take a toilet break at 5‑4 when you're serving for the match,” Federer said, denying that he suspected Gulbis of gamesmanship. “Everybody had to run to the bathroom at that point when I was younger. . .Then there was an injury timeout maybe just before that, or right after that, depending on how you used it.

“So now it's like a big deal when a guy goes to the bathroom like on the set breaks. Give me a break. When it's cold like this, you have to go to the toilet. Sometimes when you go deep in a match, you can have treatment because the rule allows you to.”

tennis.com
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/06/mouth-soared-gulbis-topples-federer/51638/#.U4uvOZR_uQY

Glad you posted this mate - blind people say an elephant is like a cylinder when touching its legs, others say a fan when touching its ear, while others may say it's like a wall when touching its body... "What can you do?"

 

[Bobby Jr]

If you take an MTO, you should forfeit a service game if not a set. It would prevent abuse while allowing for actually injured players a chance to continue.

On a similar slant, perhaps you shouldn't be able to do it before your opponent's serve at all. Or, if it's when they're serving for the set you should forfeit the next game.

 

[The Green Mile]

On a similar slant, perhaps you shouldn't be able to do it before your opponent's serve at all. Or, if it's when they're serving for the set you should forfeit the next game.

I fully agree here...

 

[Djokodal Fan]

reminds me of the timeout he took against Bennateau during Wimbly 2012 when he was s sets down.

Don't be a cry baby Fed. You have done it in your career to upset opponent's rhythm, why complain now?

If anyone believes his back pian was a true, I'm not buying it.

No one wins a wimbledon championship with back pain!

 

[SpinToWin]

reminds me of the timeout he took against Bennateau during Wimbly 2012 when he was s sets down.

Don't be a cry baby Fed. You have done it in your career to upset opponent's rhythm, why complain now?

If anyone believes his back pian was a true, I'm not buying it.

No one wins a wimbledon championship with back pain!

he had back pains which were especially obvious in the next round against Malisse. Look at Federer's movement in that match, he let half of the balls go and was moving at more of a trot than a sprint. Also, he often used incomplete technique where he didn't rotate his upper body much on groundstrokes (and serves too). It was blatantly obvious he was hurting against Malisse, and I doubt he injured or strained himself after the match against Benneteau…

If he was moving normally throughout both matches… That would be a different story.

 

[Bartelby]

A yodell from djokodal.

reminds me of the timeout he took against Bennateau during Wimbly 2012 when he was s sets down.

Don't be a cry baby Fed. You have done it in your career to upset opponent's rhythm, why complain now?

If anyone believes his back pian was a true, I'm not buying it.

No one wins a wimbledon championship with back pain!

 

[booson]

If you're injured and went on to win the match and maybe even the tourny, you weren't injured in the first place, or you had a very minor pain that doesn't warrant an MTO.

Using that logic, MTOs shouldn't exist.

 

[mtommer]

Considering Federer admitted a few years ago to taking a bathroom break at the Aussie Open to give some time for the shadow to cover a lot more of the court, I think Federer's overall comments about everything were fine. These guys play to win. Plain and simple. Do what you have to do as long as it's within the rules.

 

[mtommer]

and I doubt he injured or strained himself after the match against Benneteau…

Anyone who's every played sports competitively and dealt with injuries knows this just isn't the case many times. You can turn an ankle, for example, and not really "feel" it until after you sit down and the muscles have enough time to relax or you wake up after a night's sleep and are IN PAAAIIINNNNNN!!!!!

 

[snapple]

Does anyone know if painkillers such as vicodan or oxiconton are allowed to be adminerstered during MTO? If so that could be a very plausible explanation of how often allegedly injured players are able to turn things around so swiftly.

 

[newpball]

Does anyone know if painkillers such as vicodan or oxiconton are allowed to be adminerstered during MTO?

Those are narcotics and as such they are classified on the WADA list as prohibited substances.

 

[booson]

Does anyone know if painkillers such as vicodan or oxiconton are allowed to be adminerstered during MTO? If so that could be a very plausible explanation of how often allegedly injured players are able to turn things around so swiftly.

Opiates painkillers are prohibited and are extremely easy to detect. But if the ITF keeps the same extremeley flawed doping control scheme (loser testing), one can get away with it during a grand slam during the first week, as long as you don't lose. That's why some great champions are able to dope so easily and test clean during the second week.

 

[snapple]

And would that be the case even with a physcians prescription? That doesn't seem fair since these substances certainly are not "performance enhancing", and what about those players, a la Agassi during his retirement year, who received cortisan shots to deaden pain?

 

[newpball]

And would that be the case even with a physcians prescription? That doesn't seem fair since these substances certainly are not "performance enhancing", and what about those players, a la Agassi during his retirement year, who received cortisan shots to deaden pain?

You are apparently not listening, narcotics are not allowed, no exceptions!

 

[omniexist]

To be fair..Fed has a nasty habit of the backhanded compliments though not sure if that's the case here.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

what the hell is federer talking about ?

the man won 17 grand slams for f sake and he will still lose focus because of a 5minutes break ???,
he still won that 4th set anyway and now he's complaining ???
This MTO was great for him, he's 38 years old and it's always good to have a 5 minutes break.

Sorry to say but Fed is getting pathetic here.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

If you take an MTO, you should forfeit a service game if not a set. It would prevent abuse while allowing for actually injured players a chance to continue.

Gulbis still lost that set so i don't get it why everybody (Federer included) are crying.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

The MTO was sketchy but had zero factor in the outcome of the match. Fed should have been up 2-0 but threw away the 2nd set. Fifth set was there for both players to take, Gulbis took it. Game, set, match.

+100
best post of the topic

 

[sbengte]

Federer once took an extended toilet break when a set down against Davydenko at 2010 AO!

A newspaper report on the match said:

"Federer opted for the bathroom break after the first set. Judging by the prolonged time it took to go through his ablutions the principal motive for the hiatus was not the need to spend a penny." ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...s-Nikolay-Davydenko-to-reach-semi-finals.html

I thought you were a decent poster but you have reached N-S-K level troll territory with this one. Actually, scratch that. N-S-K may be a lot of things but I don't recall him say something as stupid. I know you are just quoting a newspaper report probably written by someone who lacks a brain or is a rabid Fed hater, because s/he chose to dub a valid bathroom break between sets as gamesmanship because Fed made a self deprecating joke about it. If this writer's intent was to call out real gamesmanship, we would have seen him making a lot of noise about the hundreds of dubious breaks which interrupt play and the perpetrators choose to act injured/distressed rather than joke about how their break was an act of gamesmanship.

Not your fault really, because I have seen people claiming to be Fed fans routinely call the bathroom break gamesmanship without exercising their brain to see if it even makes sense. And this is my usual reply to them :

I can understand this coming from VB, but what makes YOU think that going to the bathroom during a scheduled set break, as per the rules, without stopping play (and later making a joke about it in the on court interview) amounts to gamesmanship ?! According to you , every player who takes a bathroom break between sets and without stopping play is indulging in gamesmanship ?

Tomorrow if Fed 'admits' in one of his jokey jokey on court interviews that he changed his shirt to a different color to throw the opponent off , will you too agree with the VB that it was gamesmanship ?

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

lol @people thinking federer is not seeking an excuse here.

lol

we know how federer is...

it's like stating nadal would not be seeking an excuse, here i like nadal a lot but i have no problem admitting that the guy always has excuses when he lose.

that's exactly the same thing with federer, always an excuse.
No he didn't lose because Gulbis played better, he lost because Gulbis took a MTO in the 4th set (set that Federer won by the way, lol)
-

 

[sbengte]

what the hell is federer talking about ?

You would do well to read his interview and see for yourself before you unleash your vitriol assuming things he hasn't even said.

the man won 17 grand slams for f sake and he will still lose focus because of a 5minutes break ???,
he still won that 4th set anyway and now he's complaining ???
This MTO was great for him, he's 38 years old and it's always good to have a 5 minutes break.

Sorry to say but Fed is getting pathetic here.

You are the one who is pathetic here since you haven't read the interview and making false allegations.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

That's about it. The whole Chokerer explanation is too flattering, in a strange sort of way, as well as wrong even if he squanders more as he gets older.

Who said, that noone had "done it" to Federer (before/after Nadal)?

That is exactly what the match-up issue between Nadal and Federer is. Nadal's natural strengths beat on Federer's (relative) weaker side.

All of them.

IF Nadal was a right hander the picture would have been very different.

So, in short, "no, that is not the answer"

If everybody was doing that to Federer earlier, he would have won as much, unless everybody was possessing the same match-up advantage as Nadal.

 

[sbengte]

Gulbis still lost that set so i don't get it why everybody (Federer included) are crying.

In case it is hard for you to comprehend, it is because people are debating MTO abuse in general and not the specific case of Gulbis' potential abuse of it in yesterday's match.

 

[dafinch]

what the hell is federer talking about ?

the man won 17 grand slams for f sake and he will still lose focus because of a 5minutes break ???,
he still won that 4th set anyway and now he's complaining ???
This MTO was great for him, he's 38 years old and it's always good to have a 5 minutes break.

Sorry to say but Fed is getting pathetic here.

38? Exaggerating....don't like it!!!!!

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

i get it

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

38? Exaggerating....don't like it!!!!!

.

 

[SoBad]

LOL what a sore loser, I am starting to lose all respect for Feder. The empty excuses and false accusations are starting to get a little too familiar and predictable at this point!:lol:

How about “Gulbis had clearly been struggling with an injury throughout that set, which is why I was up 5-2 against this superior player in that set. If I were him, I would have taken multiple MTOs earlier in that same set. I was clearly outclassed by Gulbis today, but I am fully committed to train even harder and improve even more going into Wimbledon.”

Now, is it asking too much to just state the obvious truth and move on with the interview?

 

[smash hit]

Magnus said, "
If you're injured and went on to win the match and maybe even the tourny, you weren't injured in the first place, or you had a very minor pain that doesn't warrant an MTO. "


Federer should know.

QUOTE.
2012 ESPN.com news services

WIMBLEDON, England -- The Centre Court crowd, buzzing with casual conversation during a changeover, suddenly went silent when the chair umpire uttered words rarely heard at Wimbledon, or anywhere else.

"Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "Mr. Federer is taking an off-the-court medical timeout."

"After an eight-minute delay, Federer resumed whacking winners and went on to beat Xavier Malisse 7-6 (1), 6-1, 4-6, 6-3. "