StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
When you start citing age as evidence of peak/form I know you've conceded the argument.
[/QUOTE]Male athletes physiologically don't ever peak at 20. I see you don't know simple biology.
Federer wins the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award for the 11th time
- Thread starter BeatlesFan
- Start date
[/QUOTE]Male athletes physiologically don't ever peak at 20. I see you don't know simple biology.
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
So you're just gonna ignore the fact that you straight up lied to make a point?
What's Ferrer's record, even against Grandfatherer?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Male athletes physiologically don't ever peak at 20. I see you don't know simple biology.[/QUOTE]When you start citing age as evidence of peak/form I know you've conceded the argument.
So I guess Chang didn't peak from 18-20?
What about Becker?
Keep up, it's becoming plainly obvious you don't know anything about tennis, which is why you won't admit 2015 is one of the weakest years ever!
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
So I guess Chang didn't peak from 18-20?
What about Becker?
Keep up, it's becoming plainly obvious you don't know anything about tennis, which is why you won't admit 2015 is one of the weakest years ever!
[/QUOTE]You're gonna take the 2 exceptions as your evidence? we have seen nadal was physically better from 2008 to 2012 then he was in 06 and 07. There's nothing to be discussed there unless you think you can argue against facts. Also. You're still ignoring your lie.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Lied about what? That Hewitt/Fed had an extremely close match that should have gone to 5? Dude, it's the truth. Not my fault you're too busy holding Novak's jockstrap to admit it.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
So I guess Chang didn't peak from 18-20?
What about Becker?
Keep up, it's becoming plainly obvious you don't know anything about tennis, which is why you won't admit 2015 is one of the weakest years ever!
You're gonna take the 2 exceptions as your evidence? we have seen nadal was physically better from 2008 to 2012 then he was in 06 and 07. There's nothing to be discussed there unless you think you can argue against facts. Also. You're still ignoring your lie.[/QUOTE]
So why isn't Nadal an "exception"?
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
2 tiebreakers is a lie. And now you're denying you lied. Excellent debate skills you have.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
The reason the award has become a joke - where even Federer fans don't care for it - is because they've turned it into this consensual madness of mistaking sportsmanship (something people should aspire to) for popularity (something that has no intrinsic moral value and can be the effect of good or reprehensible behavior). I guess it's a good example of where our culture is heading to.
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
So why isn't Nadal an "exception"?[/QUOTE]
Because we have seen he was better in later years. Or you want to ignore that too? I literally spelled it out for you. No comprehension?
pame
Hall of Fame
Keep singing the song the cow dead 'pon - lmao -- Hope it keeps you warm on nights
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He's been in crap form for years, yet you'll count that time as his prime.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Congratulations to the not only the people's champion, but the player's champion as well.
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
He's been in crap form for years, yet you'll count that time as his prime.
[/QUOTE]yup. 2008-2013 was crap form right? Winning those slams in crap form? Beating federer in crap form? If you say that he was in crap form all those years and fed still lost to him, you've now joined my side of the argument. Fed fans talk themselves into a hole with this weak era stuff and then go nuclear to try and get them selves out. Always a pleasure watching it happen.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I forgot an exact score from over 10 years ago! I must be lying!
I swore that match had 2 set tiebreakers, welp, even though it didn't Hewitt was still 5 times the player Cilic was when he played your idol this year in the SF.
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
Yes you were lying. All you had to do was look it up to support your argument and you'd didn't. I found it in 15 seconds. But you lied. Because that's the only way you could have any hope of arguing for FedererI forgot an exact score from over 10 years ago! I must be lying!
I swore that match had 2 set tiebreakers, welp, even though it didn't Hewitt was still 5 times the player Cilic was when he played your idol this year in the SF.
I didn't see Edberg play but from his demeanor and tidbits I have heard, I can tell he was a good sportsman and a nice guy. I think the that question in bold was asked in jest. I have never really thought about it the way you explained it. But, you raise some good points, even though I don't really think it's about confirming Federer's greatness.
So what do you think should be done? Scrap the award? Tell the players they can't nominate Federer? Change the name of the award? Those options don't look like they would work. I would be happy to hear your thought.
Thanks.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
yup. 2008-2013 was crap form right? Winning those slams in crap form? Beating federer in crap form? If you say that he was in crap form all those years and fed still lost to him, you've now joined my side of the argument. Fed fans talk themselves into a hole with this weak era stuff and then go nuclear to try and get them selves out. Always a pleasure watching it happen.[/QUOTE]He's been in crap form for years, yet you'll count that time as his prime.
Crap form since the end of 2013. Just when your idol started becoming more successful.
He also missed half of 2012 due to injury, truth be told he was better back when he was 20 years old and playing Federer. At least he was on tour for more than 7 months at a time.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Perhaps I knew I didn't need to "look it up" to support my argument given it's almost a fact this year is one of the weakest ever, one you're trying so hard to dispute.
yup. 2008-2013 was crap form right? Winning those slams in crap form? Beating federer in crap form? If you say that he was in crap form all those years and fed still lost to him, you've now joined my side of the argument. Fed fans talk themselves into a hole with this weak era stuff and then go nuclear to try and get them selves out. Always a pleasure watching it happen.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing this year is weak and it is only reason Fed reaches slam finals anyway,but once you look at the big picture 2011 between 2015 still 10 times stronger era than Fed between 03 and 07.
The funny thing this year is weak and it is only reason Fed reaches slam finals anyway,but once you look at the big picture 2011 between 2015 still 10 times stronger era than Fed between 03 and 07.
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
Crap form since the end of 2013. Just when your idol started becoming more successful.
He also missed half of 2012 due to injury, truth be told he was better back when he was 20 years old and playing Federer. At least he was on tour for more than 7 months at a time.[/QUOTE]
Why do you ignore 2011? When he was beating everyone else at a better rate than 2010 other than Novak who pulverized him? Don't wanna hurt your fickle little argument do you? I mean, you're using Safins statements as proof of a weak era. How desperate is that.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Keep singing the song the cow dead 'pon - lmao -- Hope it keeps you warm on nights
I love how your avatar couldn't be more fitting with the quality of this thread.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Why do you ignore 2011? When he was beating everyone else at a better rate than 2010 other than Novak who pulverized him? Don't wanna hurt your fickle little argument do you? I mean, you're using Safins statements as proof of a weak era. How desperate is that.[/QUOTE]
That was one year, what about every other year since then?
2012-2015 was so weak Nadal didn't even need to play all the slams to end the year at No. 1.
pame
Hall of Fame
You're singing to the wrong choir - (most of the posters on TW are like you - have never passed the time of day with Fed). You need to go up to each and every one of Fed's peers - his fellow players who voted for him - and slap them round their heads - or throw mud pies at them. I suspect you haven't come within a few thousand miles of Fed, and if you have it's probably from the distance of the stands watching him play live once or twice -- that of course puts you in a far better position to determine whether he should get the vote for Sportsman of the Year than any of the players who come into contact with him on and off the court for the best part of 52 weeks each year, and who are the ones required to vote.
Next you'll be accusing Fed of effecting mass hypnosis on the other 1500 or so players of the ATP tour
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
Nope. It's as simple as that. You lied thinking is believe you. And now the only thing I'll remember you as is a delusional fanboy who has to lie to protect his God.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I think it should be renamed as a popularity award. Or maybe have a popularity award (fan favorite award, which I think still exists) and a sportsmanship award. Then we would see whether players are still getting these two things mixed up or if they're being accurate. But I really think the two notions have been merged, so there's not much we can do about it. Except me voicing my unpopular opinion whenever the issue is brought up.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Why would I care if you believe me? Dude, you think way too much of yourself if you honestly believe that.
I forgot the exact match-stats. Big deal, I don't see how that supports your argument.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
And this is the more detailed analysis on the difference between "popularity" and "sportsmanship":
This is no longer a sportsmanship award, but a popularity award designed to crown Roger Federer almost every year. There is a clear distinction between sportsmanship and popularity: sportsmanship was what Edberg (Federer's coach) represented, and that's why the award was named after him; popularity is what Federer represents (from the players' opinions to the general public), and that is why I think the award should be renamed "Roger Federer popularity award".
Sportsmanship doesn't always reward the best players or the most popular ones, and while Edberg may at some point in time have been one of the best players, he was certainly never the most popular one. He won the award because he was a sportsman on the court: you would never hear this guy shout, curse at the umpire, demean an opponent, engage with the crowd or with his opponents' families or staff, break a racquet, challenge a call, tank a match, display arrogance - the list could go on and on and on.
He was for many years the paradigm of sportsmanship not because he was a great player (which he was) but because he was an amazing sportsman. This has nothing to do with popularity. The award should be renamed because it has been awarded on the basis of a fundamental misapprehension of what sportsmanship means. The fact that the Swiss player has won it more times than the player it's named after is bizarre in two fundamental ways: 1) if Federer has ever shouted, cursed, engaged in a discussion with an opponent's family or staff; if he has challenged a call or broken a racquet - even once - it doesn't make sense, on this basis only, that he could win it more often than Edberg; 2) if the assumption is that Federer is a "nice guy" (which he seems to be) then the award should be given the name I proposed earlier, as it would then be - at least - plausibly deserved.
Edberg wasn't even known for being a "nice guy", nor would anyone in the 80's or 90's willingly fuse together the ideas of sportsmanship and congeniality. But somehow I believe most Federer aficionados aren't willing to let this one be Edberg's territory - the Swede has never even talked about it, which again seems to show his class and self-effacement - because the greatest player of all time inherently deserves to be the greatest sportsman of all time in his sport (I believe the media and the sponsors are also comfortable with this idea).
This is no longer a sportsmanship award, but a popularity award designed to crown Roger Federer almost every year. There is a clear distinction between sportsmanship and popularity: sportsmanship was what Edberg (Federer's coach) represented, and that's why the award was named after him; popularity is what Federer represents (from the players' opinions to the general public), and that is why I think the award should be renamed "Roger Federer popularity award".
Sportsmanship doesn't always reward the best players or the most popular ones, and while Edberg may at some point in time have been one of the best players, he was certainly never the most popular one. He won the award because he was a sportsman on the court: you would never hear this guy shout, curse at the umpire, demean an opponent, engage with the crowd or with his opponents' families or staff, break a racquet, challenge a call, tank a match, display arrogance - the list could go on and on and on.
He was for many years the paradigm of sportsmanship not because he was a great player (which he was) but because he was an amazing sportsman. This has nothing to do with popularity. The award should be renamed because it has been awarded on the basis of a fundamental misapprehension of what sportsmanship means. The fact that the Swiss player has won it more times than the player it's named after is bizarre in two fundamental ways: 1) if Federer has ever shouted, cursed, engaged in a discussion with an opponent's family or staff; if he has challenged a call or broken a racquet - even once - it doesn't make sense, on this basis only, that he could win it more often than Edberg; 2) if the assumption is that Federer is a "nice guy" (which he seems to be) then the award should be given the name I proposed earlier, as it would then be - at least - plausibly deserved.
Edberg wasn't even known for being a "nice guy", nor would anyone in the 80's or 90's willingly fuse together the ideas of sportsmanship and congeniality. But somehow I believe most Federer aficionados aren't willing to let this one be Edberg's territory - the Swede has never even talked about it, which again seems to show his class and self-effacement - because the greatest player of all time inherently deserves to be the greatest sportsman of all time in his sport (I believe the media and the sponsors are also comfortable with this idea).
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
That was one year, what about every other year since then?
2012-2015 was so weak Nadal didn't even need to play all the slams to end the year at No. 1.
He's continued to dominate. Maybe I should make this simpler for you. 11-23 vs 22-23. Case closed.
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
I can't believe you won't even admit to a clear as day lie.
MarcusInKensington
Hall of Fame
Biggest title he's won this year. Congrats.
The fan favorite award, I think represents the popularity award. That's voted by the fans not the players though. I don't really see what they can do about it.
But cheer up, Federer is only planning to play until 2018, if his body cooperates. So not too long now!
But I agree the players may be mixing the two up. Quite a few players have Federer as their favorite player. I'm sure they all vote for him without thinking too much about things.
It's all good.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Tell me how H2H outweighs the fact that Nadal can miss half a year and still end the year at No.1?
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Explain what you mean by "competing with Edberg". If you mean that by way of how many Sportmanship awards each collects indicates the level of their sportsmanship, I suppose I take your point, but the award is (supposed to) compare the winner's level of sportsmanship to that of the rest of the tour, not to the man that the award is named after.
With regards to the Sportsmanship award being a nonsense glamorized version of a popularity contest (and given many people on this thread don't seem to understand what sportsmanship is), you are 100% correct.
It's a dumb nonsense award whose merit doesn't meet it's criteria for selecting a winner. An anachronistic way to laud upon players even more awards than they've already receive.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I still can't believe you won't admit that today is one of the weakest eras ever.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
You're singing to the wrong choir - (most of the posters on TW are like you - have never passed the time of day with Fed). You need to go up to each and every one of Fed's peers - his fellow players who voted for him - and slap them round their heads - or throw mud pies at them. I suspect you haven't come within a few thousand miles of Fed, and if you have it's probably from the distance of the stands watching him play live once or twice -- that of course puts you in a far better position to determine whether he should get the vote for Sportsman of the Year than any of the players who come into contact with him on and off the court for the best part of 52 weeks each year, and who are the ones required to vote.
Next you'll be accusing Fed of effecting mass hypnosis on the other 1500 or so players of the ATP tour
Players are as prone to fanboyism as anybody else, perhaps even more so because they needed role models within the sport when they started playing and those are usually the most successful players. Wouldn't you agree? And they're probably not the most educated people on earth about the subtleties of words and meanings. When they see "sportsmanship" they think "nice guy", which many posters here have confirmed. In my lengthy post above I describe the difference between sportsmanship and popularity, which seemed to be clear back in the 90's and nowadays isn't so clear in people's minds. But I guess you'll continue to say Federer deserves everything he gets simply because you're a fan of his, shunning any type of objective analysis in the process. That's fine, you're in the majority anyway. It's not like you'll ever feel you've "lost" the argument because most people agree with you - but most people are wrong about this. That's all I'm saying.
roger presley
Hall of Fame
No need to choose.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Fair enough. I guess by "competing with Edberg" I mean the contemporary obsession with records. And this obsession - which is transversal and affects fans, players and commentators alike - tends to install in collective imaginations the narrative that we can compare across eras, while providing data to increasingly make people believe they're witnessing the best there has ever been, all the time, every day, in the present. In that sense, people would be prone to think "Federer has won even more sportsmanship awards than Edberg, he's the best at everything", which I think is not only misguided in the sense you described (that sportsmanship relates to an era rather than to an absolute) but also inaccurate because I don't believe this award rewards what it's supposed to. I don't believe Federer is the best sportsman in the game, he's just the most popular player.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
The fan favorite award, I think represents the popularity award. That's voted by the fans not the players though. I don't really see what they can do about it.
But cheer up, Federer is only planning to play until 2018, if his body cooperates. So not too long now!
But I agree the players may be mixing the two up. Quite a few players have Federer as their favorite player. I'm sure they all vote for him without thinking too much about things.
It's all good.
It's all good because Edberg is a good sport about it and is not obsessed with or defensive about his legacy in any way (unlike, say, Navratilova). He will always be the "quiet man" of tennis. But it's not as pretty if we look at it from an ethical point of view.
If it's not impressive to you, let see if you can win 11th Sportsmanship Award and 13th straight ATPWorldtour Fans' Favourite Award !
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
mavsman149
Hall of Fame
How did this thread about sportsmanship turn into a thread about peak Djokovic (who isn't mentioned by OP) vs peak Federer? Now we're back to silly weak era arguments in a thread that has nothing to do with that! Woot!
SoBad
G.O.A.T.
Nadal too classy to get near this marketing snakepit, but I don’t see why Djokovic agents can’t come up with some Boris Becker award.
You are not classify as a hater but since you have a beef about award by saying it's a "joke" doesn't put you in a friendly and/or objective stand point. All sports hand out awards...a special remark of recognition given in honor of an achievement.
Murrayfan31
Hall of Fame
Lol What a joke of an award. It's about winning. Nothing else. Djokovic is the winner. And Roger is the loser.
Similar threads
