Federer wins the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award for the 11th time

TMF said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is 1) disagreeing with something means putting oneself in an unfriendly and subjective point of view; 2) prize-giving is inherently virtuous and should never be contested. Well, I am of a different opinion. I think disagreeing with you can mean something else: that you're the one with a subjective opinion and I'm the one espousing an objective viewpoint (since I have no invested interest in Federer or his direct rivals) that has been presented with objective factual evidence. And I don't think prize-giving is inherently virtuous either, or that we should necessarily bow to the status quo: I'm sure the prizes and medals given to British soldiers fighting American rebels in the 18th century were very well deserved in the opinion of the British government and the colonial institutions (I'm trying to avoid the reductio ad hitlerum), but that doesn't mean they were objectively good or indeed justifiably earned in the eyes of the colonized.
 
Of course this - indeed - joke of an award is nothing more than a marketing/PR job, but still, it's obvious that Fed is much more regarded in terms of bringing the sport to the attention of the world than is Djok.
Like it or not, it's a fact.


StannisTheMannis said:
There's no discussion. If federer got to play Baghdatis, philipsoussis, broken Hewitt, old man Agassi ( why is this never brought up when people make fun of Novak for beating old federer), and Fernando Gonzalez for slams, you're not allowed to make fun of anyone else's era. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

StannisTheMannis said:
If Marcos Baghdatis makes it to a slam final, you can be sure that you're playing a challengers level field.
Click to expand...

StannisTheMannis said:
If you read( I know this can be hard for some of you) you can see I only lashed out because someone called it Novak.
Click to expand...

StannisTheMannis said:
So I guess Chang didn't peak from 18-20?
Click to expand...

Okay. Which total troll's double account is this? :rolleyes:
 
Congrats to Federer (again). I had wished for a lesser known player to win it, but this sort of award seems to always gravitate towards the big name player that most embodies the class that other players aspire to. In men's tennis, that's probably going to be Federer until he retires. It's what he's earned, and it's just what it is... unless something extraordinary happens, like Smyczek rushing to save a kitten from a burning building after conceding championship point to Kyrgios.

@ScentOfDefeat I agree with the points you're making, but it's also perhaps relevant to remember that definitions and meanings are dynamic and shifting, just by virtue of being embedded in language. Federer's example might inspire other/young players to be better sportsmen, even if he isn't the perfect example that Edberg is/was.
 
dfsa.jpg
 
BeatlesFan said:
Of course, his haters will claim Moet "stole" the award for him or stuffed the ballot box.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/atp-awards-page-2015
Click to expand...

There's no objection to this. Federer is a straight shooter. Not even a slightest hint of gamesmanship.
Handles losses gracefully. I don't recall he quit or tank a match, giving full respect to the winner.
He is also straight talker, I do not see his comments as arrogance. very respectfull representative of the sport.
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Groundhog day! :p Same argument as last year. Not taking sides. Just find it ironic/funny. :) Really don't give a damn about this "award." Wish they would've given it to Tim Smyzcek (sp?) as has been mentioned already, tbh.
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Haha, you've managed to knit in the proclaimed dreadful development of "our culture" in quite a few contexts lately.

The truth is that this is a vote among the players themselves about which player they think showcase the best sportsmanship, not whom they think is the most popular. You're seemingly quite annoyed with the fact that it's left to the players' judgement of sportsmanship instead of being left solely to your judgement.

Are there conceivable cons to having the award arranged the way it is? Sure. Could it conceivably have been arranged in other ways as well? Sure. Is it some perverted sham that Roger wins the award? Nah.
 
Sysyphus said:
Haha, you've managed to knit in the proclaimed dreadful development of "our culture" in quite a few contexts lately.

The truth is that this is a vote among the players themselves about which player they think showcase the best stsmanship, not whom they think is the most popular. You're seemingly quite annoyed with the fact that it's left to the players' judgement of sportsmanship instead of being left solely to your judgement.

Are there conceivable cons to having the award arranged the way it is? Sure. Could it conceivably have been arranged in other ways as well? Sure. Is it some perverted sham that Roger wins the award? Nah.
Click to expand...

At this point, the fact that Federer just keeps winning it is a joke though, really. And you know me. I say that as a fan. At this point it looks more like a publicity stunt by the ATP just because Federer happens to be the most popular active player with the fans. If Federer really did receive a majority of player votes then fine, but 11 of the last 12 years (or whatever ungodly number it is now) looks suspicious for sure. It's like the "draw rigging" theories that go on around here. Nobody will be able to prove it, but some stuff looks mighty suspicious (like Federer and Djokovic being drawn for the SF's in like 16 of 21 slams over a certain period of time, for example).
 
Steve0904 said:
At this point, the fact that Federer just keeps winning it is a joke though, really. And you know me. I say that as a fan. At this point it looks more like a publicity stunt by the ATP just because Federer happens to be the most popular active player with the fans. If Federer really did receive a majority of player votes then fine, but 11 of the last 12 years (or whatever ungodly number it is now) looks suspicious for sure. It's like the "draw rigging" theories that go on around here. Nobody will be able to prove it, but some stuff looks mighty suspicious (like Federer and Djokovic being drawn for the SF's in like 16 of 21 slams over a certain period of time, for example).
Click to expand...

It's a consequence of the format—in a vote, Fed will be a very common denominator. Had the format been a fixed jury, then I agree, Fed winning so many years would have been silly. So the real question of value is whether having it a vote or a jury is the better choice. I can absolutely see arguments for the latter, no doubt, and I wouldn't personally award it to Fed every darn year either. But the complete indignation that some show, leading to claims of a whole culture in decline etc, that's way, way OTT in this context.
 
Sysyphus said:
It's a consequence of the format—in a vote, Fed will be a very common denominator. Had the format been a fixed jury, then I agree, Fed winning so many years would have been silly. So the real question of value is whether having it a vote or a jury is the better choice. I can absolutely see arguments for the latter, no doubt, and I wouldn't personally award it to Fed every darn year either. But the complete indignation that some show, leading to claims of a whole culture in decline etc, that's way, way OTT in this context.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree that the culture thing is OTT. I had almost the same argument with @ScentOfDefeat last year. Not about culture, but you get the idea. I can see where he's coming from, don't get me wrong, but I was saying much the same as you were, last year. Not that I'd have lost any sleep if Federer didn't win it last year. It was just arguing for the sake of arguing. All friendly of course. Now I just don't care to argue whatsoever. :)
 
Steve0904 said:
Yeah I agree that the culture thing is OTT. I had almost the same argument with @ScentOfDefeat last year. Not about culture, but you get the idea. I can see where he's coming from, don't get me wrong, but I was saying much the same as you were, last year. Not that I'd have lost any sleep if Federer didn't win it last year. It was just arguing for the sake of arguing. All friendly of course. Now I just don't care to argue whatsoever. :)
Click to expand...

There have been way less back and forth arguments recently on TT. Long gone are the days of The Order and abmk going at it tooth and nail, as well as SpicyCurry1990 vs the world in absolutely brain numbing quote wars.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
There have been way less back and forth arguments recently on TT. Long gone are the days of The Order and abmk going at it tooth and nail, as well as SpicyCurry1990 vs the world in absolutely brain numbing quote wars.
Click to expand...

Don't remind me. That's the greatest thing about this new forum. Now when you ignore a poster they really are gone.
 
Garhi Shot First said:
@ScentOfDefeat I agree with the points you're making, but it's also perhaps relevant to remember that definitions and meanings are dynamic and shifting, just by virtue of being embedded in language. Federer's example might inspire other/young players to be better sportsmen, even if he isn't the perfect example that Edberg is/was.
Click to expand...

I'm of course willing to concede that, you're absolutely right. My problem here is with the powers in charge and the way people (players, fans, commentators alike) tend to reproduce the interests of power structures believing them to be their own opinions or wishes. You see, whenever institutions like the ATP, the Catholic Church, the State, the school system, etc, choose language to be conservative, then it is conservative and insists upon things like "natural law", "tradition", what is "normal", that which has become "consensus", while describing innovation, change, ambiguity, difference, among other things, as foolishness, recklessness, madness, anarchy, etc.

But when institutions directly benefit from a change of paradigm, they will, on the contrary, espouse multiculturalism, progress, subjectivity, opinion, freedom, etc, even against its members or society itself, while depicting those who don't adhere as backwards, reactionary, atavic, etc. In the two examples I just described, the institution survives precisely because it's contradictory but nobody ever denounces it.

The Church, historically, has been against the Franciscans and Theresa d'Ávila in the past, when it became convenient these "revolutionaries" became saints and respected within the Church; many authors children wouldn't be allowed to read in the past become part of school curricula centuries later, etc. The ultimate objective of any institution is to contain, absorb and domesticate dissent, both current and historical - there has never been an institution that was created to disappear, they always function as if they were eternal. Having said this, I always feel a certain inclination towards dissent and sometimes I do that by recalling the voices of the defeated, so to speak. The things that have been conveniently forgotten. This is one of such cases where bringing back a definition, not allowing it to be tampered with, brings discomfort to the majority and to consensual opinion which happens to be the current law of the ATP (and why wouldn't it be, Federer brings attention to tennis like nobody else).
 
Steve0904 said:
Yeah I agree that the culture thing is OTT. I had almost the same argument with @ScentOfDefeat last year. Not about culture, but you get the idea. I can see where he's coming from, don't get me wrong, but I was saying much the same as you were, last year. Not that I'd have lost any sleep if Federer didn't win it last year. It was just arguing for the sake of arguing. All friendly of course. Now I just don't care to argue whatsoever. :)
Click to expand...

Well, in my defense, I didn't characterize this cultural trend as decadent or as a sign of decline. That's what every new generation is accused of by the older generations when they've more or less lost touch and don't quite know what they're talking about. I'm just saying - and I'm not trying to be scientific about it, far from it - that I see a correlation between current trends of consumerism and the need to constantly be bombarded with images of almost divine excellence (you can clearly see it in the media standards for women's bodies, etc, but I don't want to get into that). I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, I try not to attach moral values to societal changes. But there's definitely a link between the kind of champions a certain moment in time produces, the way they're publicized, and the demands of the public at large. That's all I'm saying.
 
Who else is a better judge than your fellow players to determine the sportsmanship award ?

It just seems that some folks have a hard time accepting that Fed wins the award every time. Tough luck.

I would accept fellow players to determine the award than some corporate or past players or tennis analysts.
 
tennisaddict said:
Who else is a better judge than your fellow players to determine the sportsmanship award ?

It just seems that some folks have a hard time accepting that Fed wins the award every time. Tough luck.

I would accept fellow players to determine the award than some corporate or past players or tennis analysts.
Click to expand...

In this context, I don't think corporations, past players or tennis analysts would disagree with the players' votes. It's precisely this consensus - based on a very specific transformation of the idea of sportsmanship - that I question. It has nothing to do with being a fan of player A or player B.
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
In this context, I don't think corporations, past players or tennis analysts would disagree with the players' votes. It's precisely this consensus - based on a very specific transformation of the idea of sportsmanship - that I question. It has nothing to do with being a fan of player A or player B.
Click to expand...

Do you have an idea for a better process ? What do you think is wrong with the current process ? Do you think players have some kind of obligation to choose Federer ? And it is not that Fed is holding any official position at this time in the player council.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
I'm still yet to ignore anyone. Who will be my first victim?
Click to expand...

I've heard it through the grapevine (AKA on this forum, which is gospel if you didn't already know) that @GabeT is against ALL of us. I told him it was alright and that we never liked him anyway (jokingly of course). So, officially from this point on you don't like Gabe because I said so. You can put him on ignore as the first victim in what I'm sure will be a long list (not really). ;)
 
Sysyphus said:
It's a consequence of the format—in a vote, Fed will be a very common denominator. Had the format been a fixed jury, then I agree, Fed winning so many years would have been silly. So the real question of value is whether having it a vote or a jury is the better choice. I can absolutely see arguments for the latter, no doubt, and I wouldn't personally award it to Fed every darn year either. But the complete indignation that some show, leading to claims of a whole culture in decline etc, that's way, way OTT in this context.
Click to expand...

A jury would probably "feel bad" about giving it to Federer every single year, so they would perhaps bring in other players to give it to here and there, while still presenting the Swiss with the majority of them. But do we really want this calculated PC vote that would be eerily similar to the Eurovision Song Contest, except it's Federer who always wins? I'm ok with him winning every award available - although I do question this increasing tendency of over-indulging our "heroes" - but I take exception with calling this a sportsmanship award, especially when it's called after Stefan Edberg. Players who are more similar to Edberg in their demeanor and behavior on court should be the standard-bearers for such an award, not the king-of-everything-including-sportsmanship.
 
tennisaddict said:
Do you have an idea for a better process ? What do you think is wrong with the current process ? Do you think players have some kind of obligation to choose Federer ? And it is not that Fed is holding any official position at this time in the player council.
Click to expand...

I don't have an idea for a better process. That's precisely why I make my voice heard. I disagree, but all I have is my opinion. You can't kill the monster, as Kafka would say. You have to learn to live with it. But never bow to it.
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
A jury would probably "feel bad" about giving it to Federer every single year, so they would perhaps bring in other players to give it to here and there, while still presenting the Swiss with the majority of them. But do we really want this calculated PC vote that would be eerily similar to the Eurovision Song Contest, except it's Federer who always wins? I'm ok with him winning every award available - although I do question this increasing tendency of over-indulging our "heroes" - but I take exception with calling this a sportsmanship award, especially when it's called after Stefan Edberg. Players who are more similar to Edberg in their demeanor and behavior on court should be the standard-bearers for such an award, not the king-of-everything-including-sportsmanship.
Click to expand...

Look, I very much agree with your general points on a lot of fronts here. The problem is just that you're inferring rather grand conspiring motives into this vote when a rather simple explanation will suffice: the winner is voted forth by the players. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that very many players feel that Roger indeed in general exhibits things like "a sense of fellowship with one's competitors", " virtues such as fairness, self-control, courage, and persistence, and has been associated with interpersonal concepts of treating others and being treated fairly, maintaining self-control if dealing with others, and respect for both authority and opponents", among other facets. It's also reasonable to assume that the players have a decent conception of what sportsmanship is, and that many of them chose to vote for other players. The votes on other players are likely to be spread a lot, though—Tim Smyczek probably doesn't figure in the forefront of every player's consciousness, whereas Federer by virtue of being such a high-achieving player is a name that will readily come up in most players' minds. So yes, due to such basic facts, clearly popularity is something that will affect the results in a vote. This does not entail, however, that the players do not understand or vote from a conception of sportsmanship but instead for who they feel is most popular.

As for a jury, well, that too could absolutely turn out bad if founded poorly. But it's very much possible to have juries that are quite well-functioning an incorrupt. Granted, I'll happily agree that such a case is unlikely to spring forth from the ATP's initiative tho'.

I see no reason that the winners should have to be specifically "similar to Edberg in demeanor and behavior", just like the winners of the Ibsen Awards do not have to write social realist plays. It's an award for sportsmanship period, and while you personally may not find Freddie to be an exemplar in that virtue, a heap of others quite clearly do. Should he be given it every year? No, I do not think so at all. Is it a perversion of the whole notion of sportsmanship? Hardly.
 
Last edited:
Sysyphus said:
Look, I very much agree with your general points on a lot of fronts here. The problem is just that you're inferring rather grand conspiring motives into this vote when a rather simple explanation will suffice: the winner is voted forth by the players. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that very many players feel that Roger indeed in general exhibits things like "a sense of fellowship with one's competitors", " virtues such as fairness, self-control, courage, and persistence, and has been associated with interpersonal concepts of treating others and being treated fairly, maintaining self-control if dealing with others, and respect for both authority and opponents", among other facets. It's also reasonable to assume that the players have a decent conception of what sportsmanship is, and that many of them chose to vote for other players. The votes on other players are likely to be spread a lot, though—Tim Smyczek probably doesn't figure in the forefront of every player's consciousness, whereas Federer by virtue of being such a high-achieving player is a name that will readily come up in most players' minds. So yes, due to such basic facts, clearly popularity is something that will affect the results in a vote. This does not entail, however, that the players do not understand or vote from a conception of sportsmanship but instead for who they feel is most popular.

As for a jury, well, that too could absolutely turn out bad if founded poorly. But it's very much possible to have juries that are quite well-functioning an incorrupt. Granted, I'll happily agree that such a case is unlikely to spring forth from the ATP's initiative tho'.

I see no reason that the winners should have to be specifically "similar to Edberg in demeanor and behavior", just like the winners of the Ibsen Awards do not have to write social realist plays. It's a bit sportsmanship period, and while you personally may not find him to be an exemplar in that virtue, a heap of others quite clearly do. Should he be given it every year? No, I do not think so at all. Is it a perversion of the whole notion of sportsmanship? Hardly.
Click to expand...

I understand the logic of it. And yes, it is simple. It's just that I'm on the side of dissent on this issue (for the reasons I've stated, most of which are philosophical in nature). It's not a matter of seeing a grand conspiracy: as I said, I understand why it happens and it does happen through people's own opinions and not at all through the image of a puppet-master that controls us. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it. The Ibsen argument is specious because theatre encompasses many styles, whereas sportsmanship has a very precise, limited meaning, that Edberg represented to a great extent. Popularity or "fan favorite" has another set of meanings, a broader set of meanings, and it's certainly a more mobilizing concept than sportsmanship nowadays. It's easy to understand how both have merged.
 
Last edited:
StannisTheMannis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Congratulations! When the day comes that you've watched enough matches that you feel you can make a statement without having to look it up, maybe you'll be less inclined to accuse someone of lying about a stat which they, quite understandably, felt they had right and therefore had no need to look it up.

I've been following tennis since the early 60's. If I looked up every single stat and didn't ever rely on my memory - even though on the odd occasion it might prove faulty, I'd never write a post - too busy looking up 50+ years of stats... but I guess you automatically look up stats when you've only actually seen 3 or 4 months of tennis :rolleyes:

Edit: Well judging from your join date here, I may be too magnaminous in crediting you with having watched as much as 3 or 4 months of tennis :p
 
Yes, I agree that handing it over to Federer so many times over beats the purpose of the award. Here is a hypothetical discussion.

First time tennis fan (FTTF): A good award over there. Stefan Edberg sportsmanship award.
Old seasoned tennis fan (OSTF): Yes, it was named after Stefan Edberg who was famous for being sportive.
FTTF: Was the award then existing before him?
OSTF: Yeah, Edberg won it 5 times and hence it was named after him.
FTTF: Fab, that must be the most times won by anybody then.
OSTF: No, I am afraid so.
FTTF: What? The other person may have six max.
OSTF: No, I am again afraid.
FTTF: How much then?
OSTF: I am afraid, its 11 times :( :mad:
FTTF: WTF :eek:
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
I understand the logic of it. And yes, it is simple. It's just that I'm on the side of dissent on this issue (for the reasons I've stated, most of which are philosophical in nature). It's not a matter of seeing a grand conspiracy: as I said, I understand why it happens and it does happen through people's own opinions and not at all through the image of a puppet-master that controls us. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it. The Ibsen argument is specious because theatre encompasses many styles, whereas sportsmanship has a very precise, limited meaning, that Edberg represented to a great extent. Popularity or "fan favorite" has another set of meanings, a broader set of meanings, and it's certainly a more mobilizing concept than sportsmanship nowadays. It's easy to understand how both have merged.
Click to expand...

Great post n°119. It's not often we can argument like that here. However I still with Sysyphus who too has great argument: your idea that Federer has been nominated because of his popularity instead of his sportsmanship is unsupported. We do know he is the most popular player, but it doesn't mean that he was nominated for this sole reason. Also the sportsmanship shouldn't be measured only for their behavior on court, but everywhere. And this is something that the players themselves can evaluate much better than anyone else.

Now I think awarding systematically a sportsmanship award, every year, transform the award into a rather empty public relation operation. It would be better if the award was given only on special occasion, when an action from someone stand out.
 
Guys say Federer was voted for Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Awards so many times because he is popular.

But why he is that popular?

Because he has great sportmanship.
 
Flash O'Groove said:
Great post n°119. It's not often we can argument like that here. However I still with Sysyphus who too has great argument: your idea that Federer has been nominated because of his popularity instead of his sportsmanship is unsupported. We do know he is the most popular player, but it doesn't mean that he was nominated for this sole reason. Also the sportsmanship shouldn't be measured only for their behavior on court, but everywhere. And this is something that the players themselves can evaluate much better than anyone else.

Now I think awarding systematically a sportsmanship award, every year, transform the award into a rather empty public relation operation. It would be better if the award was given only on special occasion, when an action from someone stand out.
Click to expand...

I agree with your last paragraph. As for the rest - sportsmanship and off-court behavior - I redirect you to post #79, where I discuss why the sportsmanship award was named after Edberg and not someone like Agassi, for example, who was very well known for his off-court endeavors, or indeed Corretja, who was often celebrated for his work in representation of the players.
 
StannisTheMannis said:
has he ever won 6 masters in a year? Novak had to beat federer, federer, and Murray. Fed had to beat....who? Baghdatis and baby nadal on grass? Educate yourself.
Click to expand...
As opposed to playing Murray, Wawrinka and 34 year old Federer. Please...
If you wanna call Fed's 2006 competition weak, I don't know what 2015 competition is... 2006 Nadal was better than anyone in 2015 (except Djokovic of course).
 
Lol at haters being sour over this every year.

Deal with it.
 
This award is actually not voted on by the the players. A well known player put it on blast a few years ago. The ATP just decides who they are gonna give it to and make it sound like the other players decided, so it's basically PR crap. I thought everyone already knew this. But congrats to Federer, I guess. But here is the link:

http://i.imgur.com/P2seP4R.png?1
 
StannisTheMannis said:
There's no discussion. If federer got to play Baghdatis, philipsoussis, broken Hewitt, old man Agassi ( why is this never brought up when people make fun of Novak for beating old federer), and Fernando Gonzalez for slams, you're not allowed to make fun of anyone else's era. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
This era is the biggest joke ever. All this so called tough opposition of peak Fed (Blake, Gonzalez, Bagdhatis, Hewitt) was first exposed and then heavily dominated in the later years by the new teen generation of Nadal,Djokovic and Murray. How some Federer fans can say with a straight face that 2004-07 is not a joke era is really beyond me...
 
I wish they just take Federer's name out. Embarrassing for everyone including him. Time for some others to get recognition.

NoleFam said:
This award is actually not voted on by the the players. A well known player put it on blast a few years ago. The ATP just decides who they are gonna give it to and make it sound like the other players decided, so it's basically PR crap. I thought everyone already knew this. But congrats to Federer, I guess. But here is the link:

http://i.imgur.com/P2seP4R.png?1
Click to expand...

That is about the shortlist. Not the winner...
 
RF20Lennon said:
LOL what?
Click to expand...


You don't think Federer is slightly embarrassed at winning this award for a 11th time? He is a great sportsman and gut but there is plenty of others who are as well. 11 time winner is over the top and name recognition is one of the factors in why he gets the award.

He gets more votes than Djokovic and Nadal for good reason, and he deserves to. But his profile is what sets him apart from the lower ranked players when it comes to voting time in the locker room.
 
Chicharito said:
You don't think Federer is slightly embarrassed at winning this award for a 11th time? He is a great sportsman and gut but there is plenty of others who are as well. 11 time winner is over the top and name recognition is one of the factors in why he gets the award.

He gets more votes than Djokovic and Nadal for a reason, and he deserves to. But his profile is what sets him apart from the lower ranked players when it comes to voting time in the locker room.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with all of that except I don't get why he would be embarrassed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

uliks
Roger Federer is the winner of the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award for 2014
2 3
Replies
127
Views
10K
cknobman
cknobman
Nadal_Django
It's that time of the year! The 2018 ATP awards nominees!
Replies
43
Views
2K
Mainad
Mainad
P
Bryans, Chung, Djokovic, Federer, Paire & Zverev Honoured In 2015 ATP World Tour Awards
Replies
27
Views
990
Aussie Darcy
Aussie Darcy
Nadalator
Nadal not nominated for the Stefan Edberg Sportmanship Award???
2 3
Replies
135
Views
14K
Deleted member 3771
D
peRFection
Stefan Edberg Award & Fan's favorite award
Replies
32
Views
4K
lawrence
L
Back
Top