Karma Tennis
Legend
... with legs !!!
Fergus Murphy should be suspended.
- Thread starter Slimerer
- Start date
... with legs !!!
The psychosis is among the fans that support him because of his talent and the train wreck entertainment value regardless of how treats people, denigrates the sport and is an overall dispicable person.
I wrote this in reply to someone way back in April, 2014,
I accept that there is a time rule, but I cannot accept that it is fairly imlemented. When does the timing start? Is it when the ball is dead or when the umpire calls the point? There is quite a lot of discrepancy between the two. How can we ensure that every umpire uses the same criteria for starting the timing? Some umpires call the point very quickly, others not so fast. I have observed that Fergus Murphy usually calls the point as soon as the ball is dead, but especially when Nadal is playing. A shot clock wouldn't make any difference because each umpire could start it at a different time. I don't know what the answer is, but IMO if there is a rule for the players then there should also be a standard rule for umpires. one that is explicit, unambiguous, and clear for all to see.
Nick Kyrgios was absolutely wrong in that assumption. Nadal does not get special treatment from Fergus Murphy and I make that point from years of observation.
Was Kyrgios even serious in making the point about Nadal as per Murphy's timing in announcing the score? He was just being an obtuse wanker trying to rationalise his behaviour by running a red herring about Nadal. $113k is a touch light in terms of the sanction, but at least it's a start.
Do you think that players are closer to being within the 25 second rule now that we have a time clock or no? The rule is that the 25 second begins as soon as the ball is out of play and the point is over. The umpires calls the score and then starts the clock. The delay can happen at the end of the point when the crowd is cheering loudly and the delay is so the players can hear the score before they prepare for the next point. Not a perfect system but close enough that professional tennis players should be able to function.
Kyrgios got upset that the rule was being followed with him and also that the umpire paused the 25 second clock when the crowd was moving behind him. That is customary and Kyrgios’ complaints were about the rules being followed by this umpire.
What would be the solution, let Kyrgios do whatever he wants? Think about it?
If the players have a problem with Nadal or Djokovic on the 25 second rule there is an ATP meeting for the players at every event. ***** and complain there but attacking an umpire for actually following the rule is misplaced and quite frankly stupid on Kyrgios’ part. $113 worth of stupid. Needs a coach and needs to listen.
Last edited:
tennis tom
Legend
Likee these
--BRING BACK THE LIKE BUTTON--and MODS, quit expunging ANY thread here that has sirena's name in it, erase a "bad" post but NOT a whole thread, or you'll be killing the forum.Have you guys played a tennis event where there are officials? Ever gotten a warning? I sure have and it means absolutely nothing accept reel in whatever you are doing. Not a big deal.
Have a test for you, stand at the net as if a point just ended. Set your watch for 25 seconds and walk to the back of the baseline and towel off. Remember, someone is running toward you with the towel and the balls. Getting set up and serving within 25 seconds is easy. That’s why the majority ATP and WTA players have no issue.
Have a test for you, stand at the net as if a point just ended. Set your watch for 25 seconds and walk to the back of the baseline and towel off. Remember, someone is running toward you with the towel and the balls. Getting set up and serving within 25 seconds is easy. That’s why the majority ATP and WTA players have no issue.
Last edited:
NONSENSE! Fergus was much too lenient with Nick, who deserves NO special treatment from the chair umpires.
I agree. Who could know what Kyrgios is serious about, he certainly seems to have an obsession.with Nadal. As for the fine, I don't think paying a fine will have any effect on the behaviour of Kyrgios. He is a millionaire, thanks to tennis which he says he doesn't enjoy.$113k is small change to him, he will pay up and come back and do it all over again. It's a start, as you say but for any sanction to be effective, it has to hit him where it hurts.
tennis tom
Legend
The key is if his mommy quits doing his laundry for him--as she does written in an article about him--and he has to start changing his own diapers--with all those tweeners he likes hitting, things could get nasty for him fast!--first a warning like for dropping a hat or a bead, and then point penalties--ewh!
Player leaves the court without it being legal the chair umpire has to radio the referee. Has to do with player security as well. You guys are searching for a way that Kyrgios has no responsibility.
Last edited:
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
I disagree. 100 K is a hefty fine for him. He's only made a million bucks this year and has expenses like everyone else.
tennis tom
Legend
At the rate he's going, he'll blow through his wad of millions, lose his job at the car wash for pilfering quarters from under seats, and living in L.A.'s squid row--maybe he could hand out towels at a club if he sees the light and reforms.
tennis tom
Legend
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Is that a poster on your wall? Just kidding, couldn’t resist.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Saw where Federer and Djokovic had..no comment..they would let the authorities, the tournament and the ATP handle his behavior.
Wonder why they didn’t comment on the time clock and the umpiring which are apparently such a travesty on the ATP Tour. This was all of Nick’s making.
Wonder why they didn’t comment on the time clock and the umpiring which are apparently such a travesty on the ATP Tour. This was all of Nick’s making.
Last edited:
Slimerer
Rookie
Maybe because Djokovic is benefiting from unfair application of the rules and privilege as well as Nadal? And Federer was asked directly after the Rublev loss...
You have drunk the Kyrgios cool aid. I hope you don’t apply this line of thinking to your own life. Bringing a serious consequence on yourself and then blame other people. Kyrgios is not a victim.
Last edited:
Slimerer
Rookie
United States Professional Tennis Association Roger Federer 97, please come run my life for me. I’m in dire need of someone to tell me how to think.
Blade0324
Hall of Fame
Totally Agree here. ATP and ITF should ban him for life from any event.
They guy is a total head case and has no respect for anyone but himself.
Your thinking is wrong about this for sure.We can start there. It’s a good start.
Last edited:
Slimerer
Rookie
United States Professional Tennis Association Roger Federer 97, can we please respectfully disagree? My brain cannot take anymore thinking for today.
That’s funny, this is why they have ESPN Sports Desks. Polarizing topics. Kyrgios may be the most polarizing topic that has come around in tennis.
In time you may realize that we were witnessing the three greatest male players to ever play the game and the greatest woman athlete and tennis player that has ever existed. Nick will only be remembered for his stupid antics and that he was a wasted talent.
Last edited:
Karma Tennis
Legend
Laver - TWO GRAND SLAMS!
Borg - Changed the Sport by introducing Topspin as a weapon.
Sampras - Changed the Sport by emphasising the importance of the Serve as a weapon. (With respect to Pancho Gonzalez)
Agassi - Changed the Sport by emphasising the importance of the Return of Serve as a weapon.
As great as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are, none of them have introduced anything new to the Sport. They have just taken what came before and used modern sports science and equipment to take it to higher levels on more sanitised tennis courts and more controlled playing conditions.
When all the "Recency Bias" is removed. Djokovic will probably go on to be remembered as the greatest of the Big 3 with the superior H2H over the other two, a Dual Career Grand Slam, and the greatest number of Major Titles. (If Novak were to win another couple of French Open Titles, he certainly challenges Laver for GOAT status.)
Kyrgios will be remembered as a middle of the road player with great hand-eye co-ordination and a temper that results from white line fever. The only difference between Kygrios and McEnroe is that McEnroe won a few Major Titles and their accents.
Slimerer
Rookie
Have been blessed to see Borg, Agassi, Sampras, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic throughout their entire careers. Laver was a completely different era and hard to measure and compare today’s players with him. Federer has the most complete game of any player that has existed.
My point was that if someone thinks the only good thing about tennis today is Kyrgios they are missing the forest for the trees.
The games of the big three are more complete than the games of any of the previous players. Have watched them all up close besides Laver but have seen video and it is tennis at an entirely different level. Laver watches Federer in amazement. Anyone who can’t see what Federer brings to the court, now at even 38 years old, has no idea what they are seeing.
Serena is absolutely the greatest woman athlete and tennis player that has ever lived. Here she is under scrutiny playing at the end of her career through many injuries and health problems. Might want to take notice because seeing that again probably won’t happen again in many of our lifetimes. History is being played out in front of us and for people to think Kyrgios is the highlight of professional tennis..bizarre.
Last edited:
Slimerer
Rookie
So we can agree on something, United States Professional Tennis Association Roger Federer 97.
You and I probably agree on most things. Kyrgios is one of the most polarizing figures tennis has seen.
Karma Tennis
Legend
I guess you two guys are Americans
You cannot really compare players from different eras for a host of reasons (different Sports Science, Playing Conditions, Equipment Technology)
IMO (!) On that basis, you can only really compare players using the following criteria ...
1/ Mental Prowess
2/ Achievements during their own Era based on the level of Competition in that Era.
3/ Achievements at the Extreme ends of the spectrum ... (Fast Natural Grass and Slow Red Clay.)
On that basis, no one really comes close to Laver. He was the dominant player of his own era.
(As for Serena? Name one player that has been at Serena's level in the past 20 years? I can't think of any. She is a great player for sure. But the Greatest? I don't think so. She didn't have a Margaret, Chrissie, Martina, or Steffi to have to deal with Week In Week Out over several years.)
Like I said .. "Recency Bias" is a very strong thing.
Nick won Washington DC. Most people were praising him. Two weeks later, he crashes out. Many of those same people who praised him two weeks ago are now attacking him.
How about just letting the Players play the game? Leave it to the officials to sort out.
Like he has said countless times ... if you don't like the way he goes about his Tennis ... DON'T WATCH HIM !!!
You cannot really compare players from different eras for a host of reasons (different Sports Science, Playing Conditions, Equipment Technology)
IMO (!) On that basis, you can only really compare players using the following criteria ...
1/ Mental Prowess
2/ Achievements during their own Era based on the level of Competition in that Era.
3/ Achievements at the Extreme ends of the spectrum ... (Fast Natural Grass and Slow Red Clay.)
On that basis, no one really comes close to Laver. He was the dominant player of his own era.
(As for Serena? Name one player that has been at Serena's level in the past 20 years? I can't think of any. She is a great player for sure. But the Greatest? I don't think so. She didn't have a Margaret, Chrissie, Martina, or Steffi to have to deal with Week In Week Out over several years.)
Like I said .. "Recency Bias" is a very strong thing.
Nick won Washington DC. Most people were praising him. Two weeks later, he crashes out. Many of those same people who praised him two weeks ago are now attacking him.
How about just letting the Players play the game? Leave it to the officials to sort out.
Like he has said countless times ... if you don't like the way he goes about his Tennis ... DON'T WATCH HIM !!!
I guess you two guys are Americans
You cannot really compare players from different eras for a host of reasons (different Sports Science, Playing Conditions, Equipment Technology)
IMO (!) On that basis, you can only really compare players using the following criteria ...
1/ Mental Prowess
2/ Achievements during their own Era based on the level of Competition in that Era.
3/ Achievements at the Extreme ends of the spectrum ... (Fast Natural Grass and Slow Red Clay.)
On that basis, no one really comes close to Laver. He was the dominant player of his own era.
(As for Serena? Name one player that has been at Serena's level in the past 20 years? I can't think of any. She is a great player for sure. But the Greatest? I don't think so. She didn't have a Margaret, Chrissie, Martina, or Steffi to have to deal with Week In Week Out over several years.)
Like I said .. "Recency Bias" is a very strong thing.
Nick won Washington DC. Most people were praising him. Two weeks later, he crashes out. Many of those same people who praised him two weeks ago are now attacking him.
How about just letting the Players play the game? Leave it to the officials to sort out.
Like he has said countless times ... if you don't like the way he goes about his Tennis ... DON'T WATCH HIM !!!
I guess you two guys are Americans
You cannot really compare players from different eras for a host of reasons (different Sports Science, Playing Conditions, Equipment Technology)
IMO (!) On that basis, you can only really compare players using the following criteria ...
1/ Mental Prowess
2/ Achievements during their own Era based on the level of Competition in that Era.
3/ Achievements at the Extreme ends of the spectrum ... (Fast Natural Grass and Slow Red Clay.)
On that basis, no one really comes close to Laver. He was the dominant player of his own era.
(As for Serena? Name one player that has been at Serena's level in the past 20 years? I can't think of any. She is a great player for sure. But the Greatest? I don't think so. She didn't have a Margaret, Chrissie, Martina, or Steffi to have to deal with Week In Week Out over several years.)
Like I said .. "Recency Bias" is a very strong thing.
Nick won Washington DC. Most people were praising him. Two weeks later, he crashes out. Many of those same people who praised him two weeks ago are now attacking him.
How about just letting the Players play the game? Leave it to the officials to sort out.
Like he has said countless times ... if you don't like the way he goes about his Tennis ... DON'T WATCH HIM !!!
No woman has ever been the level of Serena in her prime.
Again my point was that if the poster is thinking that Kyrgios is the only thing good about tennis there are things going now that we may not see again.
Don’t care if people think Andrea Jaeger and Aaron Krickstein are the two greatest players ever.
I am fairly sure that the void will be obvious when Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Serena are retired.
Last edited:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
tennis tom
Legend
This is the meatspin of tennis opinions.
What is "meatspin" pray tell?--I couldn't find it in my 1963 Unabridged Webster's Dictionary.
Karma Tennis
Legend
Serena is pretty much already Retired. She is a spent force.
Roger is pretty much already Retired. He is also a spent force. By his own admission, he has said that if he is not being scheduled to play in front of big crowds on the big courts he will leave the game pretty quickly. IMO, if the Olympics were three years away, he would be done by the end of this year.
Nadal and Rafa have several more years to play if they want to and their bodies hold up. In that period we should be entertained with many matches that involve them against each other and other decent players.
There will be no void. The Game is much greater than any individual player. The Void pretty much occurred during the period Lleyton was #1. Sampras was on the way out. Agassi was in the process of finding himself. And Roger began to start his rise.
The Sport's biggest problem going forward will be participation rates. The sport is way too expensive for most people now. Team sports are much more attractive to most junior players or more importantly the parents of the junior players. The sport appears to be becoming very "Elitist" again.
Guys like Kyrgios keep the Media engaged which is good for the Sport. If tennis turns into a bunch of Robots endlessly hitting balls back and forward across a net, juniors will get bored with it and look to other things ... if they have not already. The ITF / ATP / WTA could change this by regulating the equipment the players can use in order to bring variety back to the game and give a larger range of players a chance to be successful. Alas that will not suit the Racquet or String manufacturers.
There is also the issue of money in tennis. Most other sports return around 50% of their revenues to the Players as Prize Money. Tennis returns 15%. That is a huge joke. People are starting to wake up to that.
Karma Tennis
Legend
NVM
Tennease
Legend
I remember watching Roddick playing in ATP Brisbane against Soderling. Roddick was arguing constantly with Fergus. It went on and on and on. Maybe there is something in Fergus that players don't like.
Tennease
Legend
van_Loederen
Professional
without serve clock, players don't know exactly how much time they have left, so the rule couldn't be enforced strictly and thus really effectively.
afaik, Nadal and DJ are not getting preferential treatment anymore since the introduction of the clock.
it's just that after long rallies or when the audience is sheering, umpires will wait with starting the clock. Kyrgios deliberately ignored that fact (with his comparison).
aside from a few players sometimes abusing their time for the second serve, so far the clock didn't cause problems that i'm aware of.
bitcoinoperated
Professional
So you're saying the master troll got trolled?
Karma Tennis
Legend
You would be correct if every Umpire called the score at exactly the same moment after a point ended AND then started the Serve Clock as soon as they called the score.
Or,
If every Umpire started the Serve Clock at the exactly the same moment after a point ended.
But they don't. There is a lot of variation between Umpires.
If you consider what I said above, it could be construed either way.
junior74
Talk Tennis Guru
I agree. Saw it, too. And Kyrgios is well under the limit 99% of the time, so there's no reason to give him warnings. Warnings should be given if you're constantly just over the limit.
I also agree with OP implying Murphy didn't control the match. I know many disagree, because the hate for Kyrgios outshines their reason. But ultimately, the umpire's job is to lead the match according to the rules, which also means treating all players the same way. And they don't.
