Tennis writer exposes blatant favoritism and conflicts of interest in Australia Open

Elektra

Professional
A tennis writer/critic writes a piece exposing the blatant favortism and conflicts of interest in Australia Open. The decision making, the lack of closing of the roof during Monfils vs Djokovic match and conflicts of interest in Federer getting prefered treatment.

Remember Saturday night, when women’s runner up Simona Halep played for just under three hours in the heat? She also had to play for 3 hours and 47 minutes against American Lauren Davis in the heat of the day, with the Romanian claiming she was “almost dead” after the match. Not only that, but she played on Wednesday evening against sixth seed Karolina Pliskova and then the very next day session to beat 2016 champion Angelique Kerber 9-7 in the decider.

Regardless of all the battles the women’s #1 seed went through and the toll it was taking on her body, the Australian Open refused to play the women’s final indoors; instead they opted for a 10-minute break after the second set so Halep and Wozniacki could cool down in the locker rooms. Unfortunately, after the match Simona Halep was taken into hospital for dehydration, something I can’t say was too unsurprising given the scheduling and organising decisions she was subject to (photo in tweet).

Or how about Novak Djokovic vs Gael Monfils in the second round? A match where the temperature reportedly reached 69 degrees Celsius on Rod Laver Arena. But even despite the flamboyant Frenchman looking like he was going to collapse on court and barely show any emotion at all, the Australian Open organisers refused to close the roof. The official Australian Open Twitter account actually went on to tweet this:


They clearly state the “health of our players is of paramount concern.” Clearly not the case for evident reasons, some mentioned above. They have three roofs here in Melbourne. If they actually cared about players health, they would close the roofs on hot days and postpone outside court matches to the evening where they’re playable.

They also go on to say “so some don’t get an unfair advantage.” If this is true then why are some players being treated so badly with scheduling? Such as Halep having to play one evening then the very next day during the day, or how about all of Federer’s bigger rivals in his section of the draw playing during the day? No wonder the likes of Del Potro and David Goffin, the last man to beat the 36-year-old, lost. Maybe they would have lost early anyway, but the extreme heat made if far more likely.

When it comes to the men’s final, it’s clearly a completely different ball game to those in charge at the Australian Open. If you look at that tweet above again it clearly states the referee will initiate the extreme heat policy if temperatures reach 40 degrees Celsius; the funny thing is today that wasn’t even the case, so why was the roof shut? The tournament did give the official explanation that the reason was because the WBGT was over 32.5, which they claim it hasn’t been above any other day of the tournament. That still doesn’t match up with the tweet, though.

The simple reason is two words: Roger Federer. For the second year in a row, the Swiss man was entering the championship match with five of his six matches having been played at night, with him even admitting he asks and wants evening matches when possible. On the other hand, Marin Cilic was coming into the final with just three of these matches being at night, one of those not even being on Rod Laver Arena.

The Croatian himself said he was “preparing for a hot day” and that playing with the roof closed “was difficult to adjust,” evidently shown with his horrid start to the final going down 0-4. He also claims the officials didn’t ask for his opinion on whether the final should have been played indoors, “They didn’t ask me. They just came to me to tell me that they are thinking about decision.” While all of this was happening and Marin Cilic was practicing for the final outdoors and defending champion Roger Federer indoors. Surely that’s not a coincidence?

Some of you might now be wondering why the Australian Open would choose to play the final indoors because of Roger Federer and that’s simple. As mentioned earlier, with the matches he’s had to make the final he’s played mostly at night thus being used to the cooler conditions, with the roof closed here that would keep the conditions cool even on a hot night–thus giving the Swiss man an advantage without having to adapt to rapidly different conditions despite it being indoors.

Furthermore, Federer has the best indoor record of any player born after 1961 and also the most indoor titles of any player in the history of tennis, highlighted by his six World Tour Finals titles. If you want Roger Federer to win a match, your safest bet is to have him play it indoors. Just look at the Wimbledon 2012 final for example, against Andy Murray. Once the rain came it was an insanely different match from the two previous sets.

Why is this the case? 1987 Wimbledon champion Pat Cash said, “The way Roger plays and takes the ball so early means any wind making the ball move is detrimental to him,” not even mentioning that the Swiss’ serve is one of the best on tour and even harder to deal with indoors. It was always going to be a hard task for Marin Cilic to beat Roger Federer but the match being indoors was always going to make it nigh impossible.

Roger Federer also has more connections with the Australian Open than most others. His management company, TEAM8, was in association with Tennis Australia in creating the Laver Cup. Tennis Australia being the governing body of the Australian Open with CEO Craig Tiley being the director of the grand slam. This could have possibly led to favouritism for the six-time champion due to a conflict of interests. No wonder John McEnroe joked, “What’s the difference between privilege and blatant cheating?”

To conclude, it’s obvious, the reason the final was played indoors was to benefit Roger Federer. When it comes to every other player in the singles draws, no one gets the preferred treatment that Federer does. To win his last two titles here he’s played 12 of his 14 matches on Rod Laver Arena at night; while he is a superstar and tennis’ main attraction it’s somewhat expected, but to an extent such as this it’s simply unfair on his fellow competitors. Tennis will never be fair for everyone involved, but shouldn’t we at least be aiming to make it more fair?

The fact we didn’t get earlier round matches like Monfils vs Djokovic or the women’s final indoors is funny in itself, but when you consider we got the men’s final indoors for no good reason, and clearly in a way that benefited one of the finalists more, it’s truly laughable. They might as well just rename Rod Laver Arena to Roger Federer Arena soon as the bias clearly has no limit.

http://lastwordontennis.com/2018/01/28/reason-australian-open-final-indoors-roof-closed-roger-federer/
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
A tennis writer/critic writes a piece exposing the blatant favortism and conflicts of interest in Australia Open. The decision making, the lack of closing of the roof during Monfils vs Djokovic match and conflicts of interest in Federer getting prefered treatment.

Remember Saturday night, when women’s runner up Simona Halep played for just under three hours in the heat? She also had to play for 3 hours and 47 minutes against American Lauren Davis in the heat of the day, with the Romanian claiming she was “almost dead” after the match. Not only that, but she played on Wednesday evening against sixth seed Karolina Pliskova and then the very next day session to beat 2016 champion Angelique Kerber 9-7 in the decider.

Regardless of all the battles the women’s #1 seed went through and the toll it was taking on her body, the Australian Open refused to play the women’s final indoors; instead they opted for a 10-minute break after the second set so Halep and Wozniacki could cool down in the locker rooms. Unfortunately, after the match Simona Halep was taken into hospital for dehydration, something I can’t say was too unsurprising given the scheduling and organising decisions she was subject to (photo in tweet).

Or how about Novak Djokovic vs Gael Monfils in the second round? A match where the temperature reportedly reached 69 degrees Celsius on Rod Laver Arena. But even despite the flamboyant Frenchman looking like he was going to collapse on court and barely show any emotion at all, the Australian Open organisers refused to close the roof. The official Australian Open Twitter account actually went on to tweet this:


They clearly state the “health of our players is of paramount concern.” Clearly not the case for evident reasons, some mentioned above. They have three roofs here in Melbourne. If they actually cared about players health, they would close the roofs on hot days and postpone outside court matches to the evening where they’re playable.

They also go on to say “so some don’t get an unfair advantage.” If this is true then why are some players being treated so badly with scheduling? Such as Halep having to play one evening then the very next day during the day, or how about all of Federer’s bigger rivals in his section of the draw playing during the day? No wonder the likes of Del Potro and David Goffin, the last man to beat the 36-year-old, lost. Maybe they would have lost early anyway, but the extreme heat made if far more likely.

When it comes to the men’s final, it’s clearly a completely different ball game to those in charge at the Australian Open. If you look at that tweet above again it clearly states the referee will initiate the extreme heat policy if temperatures reach 40 degrees Celsius; the funny thing is today that wasn’t even the case, so why was the roof shut? The tournament did give the official explanation that the reason was because the WBGT was over 32.5, which they claim it hasn’t been above any other day of the tournament. That still doesn’t match up with the tweet, though.

The simple reason is two words: Roger Federer. For the second year in a row, the Swiss man was entering the championship match with five of his six matches having been played at night, with him even admitting he asks and wants evening matches when possible. On the other hand, Marin Cilic was coming into the final with just three of these matches being at night, one of those not even being on Rod Laver Arena.

The Croatian himself said he was “preparing for a hot day” and that playing with the roof closed “was difficult to adjust,” evidently shown with his horrid start to the final going down 0-4. He also claims the officials didn’t ask for his opinion on whether the final should have been played indoors, “They didn’t ask me. They just came to me to tell me that they are thinking about decision.” While all of this was happening and Marin Cilic was practicing for the final outdoors and defending champion Roger Federer indoors. Surely that’s not a coincidence?

Some of you might now be wondering why the Australian Open would choose to play the final indoors because of Roger Federer and that’s simple. As mentioned earlier, with the matches he’s had to make the final he’s played mostly at night thus being used to the cooler conditions, with the roof closed here that would keep the conditions cool even on a hot night–thus giving the Swiss man an advantage without having to adapt to rapidly different conditions despite it being indoors.

Furthermore, Federer has the best indoor record of any player born after 1961 and also the most indoor titles of any player in the history of tennis, highlighted by his six World Tour Finals titles. If you want Roger Federer to win a match, your safest bet is to have him play it indoors. Just look at the Wimbledon 2012 final for example, against Andy Murray. Once the rain came it was an insanely different match from the two previous sets.

Why is this the case? 1987 Wimbledon champion Pat Cash said, “The way Roger plays and takes the ball so early means any wind making the ball move is detrimental to him,” not even mentioning that the Swiss’ serve is one of the best on tour and even harder to deal with indoors. It was always going to be a hard task for Marin Cilic to beat Roger Federer but the match being indoors was always going to make it nigh impossible.

Roger Federer also has more connections with the Australian Open than most others. His management company, TEAM8, was in association with Tennis Australia in creating the Laver Cup. Tennis Australia being the governing body of the Australian Open with CEO Craig Tiley being the director of the grand slam. This could have possibly led to favouritism for the six-time champion due to a conflict of interests. No wonder John McEnroe joked, “What’s the difference between privilege and blatant cheating?”

To conclude, it’s obvious, the reason the final was played indoors was to benefit Roger Federer. When it comes to every other player in the singles draws, no one gets the preferred treatment that Federer does. To win his last two titles here he’s played 12 of his 14 matches on Rod Laver Arena at night; while he is a superstar and tennis’ main attraction it’s somewhat expected, but to an extent such as this it’s simply unfair on his fellow competitors. Tennis will never be fair for everyone involved, but shouldn’t we at least be aiming to make it more fair?

The fact we didn’t get earlier round matches like Monfils vs Djokovic or the women’s final indoors is funny in itself, but when you consider we got the men’s final indoors for no good reason, and clearly in a way that benefited one of the finalists more, it’s truly laughable. They might as well just rename Rod Laver Arena to Roger Federer Arena soon as the bias clearly has no limit.

http://lastwordontennis.com/2018/01/28/reason-australian-open-final-indoors-roof-closed-roger-federer/

Fraud and corruption personified.
 
S

santiago_rios

Guest
A tennis writer/critic writes a piece exposing the blatant favortism and conflicts of interest in Australia Open. The decision making, the lack of closing of the roof during Monfils vs Djokovic match and conflicts of interest in Federer getting prefered treatment.

Remember Saturday night, when women’s runner up Simona Halep played for just under three hours in the heat? She also had to play for 3 hours and 47 minutes against American Lauren Davis in the heat of the day, with the Romanian claiming she was “almost dead” after the match. Not only that, but she played on Wednesday evening against sixth seed Karolina Pliskova and then the very next day session to beat 2016 champion Angelique Kerber 9-7 in the decider.

Regardless of all the battles the women’s #1 seed went through and the toll it was taking on her body, the Australian Open refused to play the women’s final indoors; instead they opted for a 10-minute break after the second set so Halep and Wozniacki could cool down in the locker rooms. Unfortunately, after the match Simona Halep was taken into hospital for dehydration, something I can’t say was too unsurprising given the scheduling and organising decisions she was subject to (photo in tweet).

Or how about Novak Djokovic vs Gael Monfils in the second round? A match where the temperature reportedly reached 69 degrees Celsius on Rod Laver Arena. But even despite the flamboyant Frenchman looking like he was going to collapse on court and barely show any emotion at all, the Australian Open organisers refused to close the roof. The official Australian Open Twitter account actually went on to tweet this:


They clearly state the “health of our players is of paramount concern.” Clearly not the case for evident reasons, some mentioned above. They have three roofs here in Melbourne. If they actually cared about players health, they would close the roofs on hot days and postpone outside court matches to the evening where they’re playable.

They also go on to say “so some don’t get an unfair advantage.” If this is true then why are some players being treated so badly with scheduling? Such as Halep having to play one evening then the very next day during the day, or how about all of Federer’s bigger rivals in his section of the draw playing during the day? No wonder the likes of Del Potro and David Goffin, the last man to beat the 36-year-old, lost. Maybe they would have lost early anyway, but the extreme heat made if far more likely.

When it comes to the men’s final, it’s clearly a completely different ball game to those in charge at the Australian Open. If you look at that tweet above again it clearly states the referee will initiate the extreme heat policy if temperatures reach 40 degrees Celsius; the funny thing is today that wasn’t even the case, so why was the roof shut? The tournament did give the official explanation that the reason was because the WBGT was over 32.5, which they claim it hasn’t been above any other day of the tournament. That still doesn’t match up with the tweet, though.

The simple reason is two words: Roger Federer. For the second year in a row, the Swiss man was entering the championship match with five of his six matches having been played at night, with him even admitting he asks and wants evening matches when possible. On the other hand, Marin Cilic was coming into the final with just three of these matches being at night, one of those not even being on Rod Laver Arena.

The Croatian himself said he was “preparing for a hot day” and that playing with the roof closed “was difficult to adjust,” evidently shown with his horrid start to the final going down 0-4. He also claims the officials didn’t ask for his opinion on whether the final should have been played indoors, “They didn’t ask me. They just came to me to tell me that they are thinking about decision.” While all of this was happening and Marin Cilic was practicing for the final outdoors and defending champion Roger Federer indoors. Surely that’s not a coincidence?

Some of you might now be wondering why the Australian Open would choose to play the final indoors because of Roger Federer and that’s simple. As mentioned earlier, with the matches he’s had to make the final he’s played mostly at night thus being used to the cooler conditions, with the roof closed here that would keep the conditions cool even on a hot night–thus giving the Swiss man an advantage without having to adapt to rapidly different conditions despite it being indoors.

Furthermore, Federer has the best indoor record of any player born after 1961 and also the most indoor titles of any player in the history of tennis, highlighted by his six World Tour Finals titles. If you want Roger Federer to win a match, your safest bet is to have him play it indoors. Just look at the Wimbledon 2012 final for example, against Andy Murray. Once the rain came it was an insanely different match from the two previous sets.

Why is this the case? 1987 Wimbledon champion Pat Cash said, “The way Roger plays and takes the ball so early means any wind making the ball move is detrimental to him,” not even mentioning that the Swiss’ serve is one of the best on tour and even harder to deal with indoors. It was always going to be a hard task for Marin Cilic to beat Roger Federer but the match being indoors was always going to make it nigh impossible.

Roger Federer also has more connections with the Australian Open than most others. His management company, TEAM8, was in association with Tennis Australia in creating the Laver Cup. Tennis Australia being the governing body of the Australian Open with CEO Craig Tiley being the director of the grand slam. This could have possibly led to favouritism for the six-time champion due to a conflict of interests. No wonder John McEnroe joked, “What’s the difference between privilege and blatant cheating?”

To conclude, it’s obvious, the reason the final was played indoors was to benefit Roger Federer. When it comes to every other player in the singles draws, no one gets the preferred treatment that Federer does. To win his last two titles here he’s played 12 of his 14 matches on Rod Laver Arena at night; while he is a superstar and tennis’ main attraction it’s somewhat expected, but to an extent such as this it’s simply unfair on his fellow competitors. Tennis will never be fair for everyone involved, but shouldn’t we at least be aiming to make it more fair?

The fact we didn’t get earlier round matches like Monfils vs Djokovic or the women’s final indoors is funny in itself, but when you consider we got the men’s final indoors for no good reason, and clearly in a way that benefited one of the finalists more, it’s truly laughable. They might as well just rename Rod Laver Arena to Roger Federer Arena soon as the bias clearly has no limit.

http://lastwordontennis.com/2018/01/28/reason-australian-open-final-indoors-roof-closed-roger-federer/
He's right in most, I just don't think Federer has any say in this things. It is more commercial TV interests, ticket sales, etc.
Not much he can do except play who is put in front of him.

Djokovic Monfils match should have been stopped, that was criminal to my eyes. Goffin too, and more. ENded by that dangerous heat.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
So the heat apparently only affects Federer's biggest threats and not who they played? Obviously del Potro would have been a massive threat to Federer after he looked like a sloth against Berdych, who is 3 years older. Not to mention Goffin lost to freakin 56 year old Benneteau, a guy he should have grinded down in the heat 10/10 times. Write of the article loses all credibility right there.

And I'm sure that mental mess Cilic sure would have been thriving in the heat. Not to mention that they clearly have a metric based on heat AND humidity (which is worse than heat) that was satisfied for the final and not for the other days. But yeah, EXPOSED. Joke of an article. The 55 year old man wins a 20th major and they still have nothing better to do.

Maybe I should write an article about how Wimbledon is clearly biased against Federer because they never play him court 1 which suits him more because the grass is faster there. Would have about as much basis in logic and facts as this piece of crap.
 
Last edited:

Meles

Bionic Poster
I don't have beef with Federer here but what the Australian Open did to the women in the final is disgusting. Halep ended up in hospital. They wouldn't shut the roof for the women but the men get it closed? Pathetic.

This is what is called loser cheap.:confused:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
That Federer *may* have benefited from the underhanded behaviour of certain officials doesn't make him complicit. That being said, it's also something we should take seriously. At best the Australian Open looks silly and incompetent - in the worst case...there are questions that need to be answered.
No need to investigate; 100% guilty without a doubt.:D Rigged tournament draws; conspiracy theory. Rigged schedules are a fact of life and part of the necessary control for the local yokels who of course also rig the surface in many cases.:rolleyes:
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
A tennis writer/critic writes a piece exposing the blatant favortism and conflicts of interest in Australia Open. The decision making, the lack of closing of the roof during Monfils vs Djokovic match and conflicts of interest in Federer getting prefered treatment.

Remember Saturday night, when women’s runner up Simona Halep played for just under three hours in the heat? She also had to play for 3 hours and 47 minutes against American Lauren Davis in the heat of the day, with the Romanian claiming she was “almost dead” after the match. Not only that, but she played on Wednesday evening against sixth seed Karolina Pliskova and then the very next day session to beat 2016 champion Angelique Kerber 9-7 in the decider.

Regardless of all the battles the women’s #1 seed went through and the toll it was taking on her body, the Australian Open refused to play the women’s final indoors; instead they opted for a 10-minute break after the second set so Halep and Wozniacki could cool down in the locker rooms. Unfortunately, after the match Simona Halep was taken into hospital for dehydration, something I can’t say was too unsurprising given the scheduling and organising decisions she was subject to (photo in tweet).

Or how about Novak Djokovic vs Gael Monfils in the second round? A match where the temperature reportedly reached 69 degrees Celsius on Rod Laver Arena. But even despite the flamboyant Frenchman looking like he was going to collapse on court and barely show any emotion at all, the Australian Open organisers refused to close the roof. The official Australian Open Twitter account actually went on to tweet this:


They clearly state the “health of our players is of paramount concern.” Clearly not the case for evident reasons, some mentioned above. They have three roofs here in Melbourne. If they actually cared about players health, they would close the roofs on hot days and postpone outside court matches to the evening where they’re playable.

They also go on to say “so some don’t get an unfair advantage.” If this is true then why are some players being treated so badly with scheduling? Such as Halep having to play one evening then the very next day during the day, or how about all of Federer’s bigger rivals in his section of the draw playing during the day? No wonder the likes of Del Potro and David Goffin, the last man to beat the 36-year-old, lost. Maybe they would have lost early anyway, but the extreme heat made if far more likely.

When it comes to the men’s final, it’s clearly a completely different ball game to those in charge at the Australian Open. If you look at that tweet above again it clearly states the referee will initiate the extreme heat policy if temperatures reach 40 degrees Celsius; the funny thing is today that wasn’t even the case, so why was the roof shut? The tournament did give the official explanation that the reason was because the WBGT was over 32.5, which they claim it hasn’t been above any other day of the tournament. That still doesn’t match up with the tweet, though.

The simple reason is two words: Roger Federer. For the second year in a row, the Swiss man was entering the championship match with five of his six matches having been played at night, with him even admitting he asks and wants evening matches when possible. On the other hand, Marin Cilic was coming into the final with just three of these matches being at night, one of those not even being on Rod Laver Arena.

The Croatian himself said he was “preparing for a hot day” and that playing with the roof closed “was difficult to adjust,” evidently shown with his horrid start to the final going down 0-4. He also claims the officials didn’t ask for his opinion on whether the final should have been played indoors, “They didn’t ask me. They just came to me to tell me that they are thinking about decision.” While all of this was happening and Marin Cilic was practicing for the final outdoors and defending champion Roger Federer indoors. Surely that’s not a coincidence?

Some of you might now be wondering why the Australian Open would choose to play the final indoors because of Roger Federer and that’s simple. As mentioned earlier, with the matches he’s had to make the final he’s played mostly at night thus being used to the cooler conditions, with the roof closed here that would keep the conditions cool even on a hot night–thus giving the Swiss man an advantage without having to adapt to rapidly different conditions despite it being indoors.

Furthermore, Federer has the best indoor record of any player born after 1961 and also the most indoor titles of any player in the history of tennis, highlighted by his six World Tour Finals titles. If you want Roger Federer to win a match, your safest bet is to have him play it indoors. Just look at the Wimbledon 2012 final for example, against Andy Murray. Once the rain came it was an insanely different match from the two previous sets.

Why is this the case? 1987 Wimbledon champion Pat Cash said, “The way Roger plays and takes the ball so early means any wind making the ball move is detrimental to him,” not even mentioning that the Swiss’ serve is one of the best on tour and even harder to deal with indoors. It was always going to be a hard task for Marin Cilic to beat Roger Federer but the match being indoors was always going to make it nigh impossible.

Roger Federer also has more connections with the Australian Open than most others. His management company, TEAM8, was in association with Tennis Australia in creating the Laver Cup. Tennis Australia being the governing body of the Australian Open with CEO Craig Tiley being the director of the grand slam. This could have possibly led to favouritism for the six-time champion due to a conflict of interests. No wonder John McEnroe joked, “What’s the difference between privilege and blatant cheating?”

To conclude, it’s obvious, the reason the final was played indoors was to benefit Roger Federer. When it comes to every other player in the singles draws, no one gets the preferred treatment that Federer does. To win his last two titles here he’s played 12 of his 14 matches on Rod Laver Arena at night; while he is a superstar and tennis’ main attraction it’s somewhat expected, but to an extent such as this it’s simply unfair on his fellow competitors. Tennis will never be fair for everyone involved, but shouldn’t we at least be aiming to make it more fair?

The fact we didn’t get earlier round matches like Monfils vs Djokovic or the women’s final indoors is funny in itself, but when you consider we got the men’s final indoors for no good reason, and clearly in a way that benefited one of the finalists more, it’s truly laughable. They might as well just rename Rod Laver Arena to Roger Federer Arena soon as the bias clearly has no limit.

http://lastwordontennis.com/2018/01/28/reason-australian-open-final-indoors-roof-closed-roger-federer/
Nice speculation, but just wondering ... how many AO titles has Roger won without a roof ?
Was last year against Rafa with or without a roof ?

It is possible that after the women's final, they thought it over and decided to keep the roof for the final. To say they did it for Roger is a stretch considering that they both are pretty flat hitters, Cilic probably more flat and big, and would benefit more.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
No need to investigate; 100% guilty without a doubt.:D Rigged tournament draws; conspiracy theory. Rigged schedules are a fact of life and part of the necessary control for the local yokels who of course also rig the surface in many cases.:rolleyes:
How come the French people who love Federer so much don't rig the FO to guarantee Fed winning. Surely they could make the clay blue, for instance :D
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
I thought that Roger's 18th provoked several butthurt reactions last year. I'm starting to guess that Federer's 20th is gonna break up that record for sure.
Also worth mentioning, the women's finals should have been played indoors.
 

reaper

Legend
Nice speculation, but just wondering ... how many AO titles has Roger won without a roof ?
Was last year against Rafa with or without a roof ?

It is possible that after the women's final, they thought it over and decided to keep the roof for the final. To say they did it for Roger is a stretch considering that they both are pretty flat hitters, Cilic probably more flat and big, and would benefit more.
How the decision was made and who was informed at what time should be made public. Federer practiced indoors during the day, Cilic practiced outdoors. Did Federer receive a hint the final might be played indoors, or was he simply avoiding the heat during his practice session.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Also, for the guys that say that Federer got an advantage playing the finals on indoors. First, let's take a look at Cilic's outdoor and indoor record:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/marin-cilic/c977/fedex-atp-win-loss
According to the ATP website (not the most reliable, but still), Cilic has a 328-179 W/L record on outdoors with 9 titles, which is a 64,7% winning %, while having a 109-54 W/L on indoor coupled with 8 titles, which gives us a 66,9% winning percentage.
Advantage Federer with the roof closed my a.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
What he's achieved is unimaginable. Only RF could have done it and he did it. That being said, you can't brushed aside the favoritism and criticism over his requests for night matches, and getting the roof closed for the final. Just because you like and support him, you shouldn't turn blind to a fault.
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
I agree that Federer is gicen preferential treatment at Australian open and also Wimbledon.

But then he is Roger Federer
 

cluckcluck

Hall of Fame
I don't have beef with Federer here but what the Australian Open did to the women in the final is disgusting. Halep ended up in hospital. They wouldn't shut the roof for the women but the men get it closed? Pathetic.

Is that picture when Halep was getting blood drawn...for testing. Maybe?
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
What he's achieved is unimaginable. Only RF could have done it and he did it. That being said, you can't brushed aside the favoritism and criticism over his requests for night matches, and getting the roof closed for the final. Just because you like and support him, you shouldn't turn blind to a fault.
Requesting night matches sure, that's favouritism though the guy has certainly played his fair share of day matches at AO. I certainly don't remember all this whining when he played 4 day matches in 2011 AO for example.

Closed roof? That's just WGTB index:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_globe_temperature

Not based on who's playing the final.

Both him and Cilic were notified that there's a possibility of match being played indoors (read Cilic's interview if you don't believe me) but Marin didn't want to break his training routine while Fed decided to train indoors just in case.

Not to mention that Cilic (like most big serving Croatian players) is excellent indoors, he's not a Murray or Nadal where the roof clearly favours Fed.
 

Feather

Legend
Requesting night matches sure, that's favouritism though the guy has certainly played his fair share of day matches at AO. I certainly don't remember all this whining when he played 4 day matches in 2011 AO for example.

Closed roof? That's just WGTB index:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_globe_temperature

Not based on who's playing the final.

Both him and Cilic were notified that there's a possibility of match being played indoors (read Cilic's interview if you don't believe me) but Marin didn't want to break his training routine while Fed decided to train indoors just in case.

Not to mention that Cilic (like most big serving Croatian players) is excellent indoors, he's not a Murray or Nadal where the roof clearly favours Fed.
Imagine Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal playing under the roof on a relatively fast Australian Open final :D

this forum will explode after the match :eek:
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Also, for the guys that say that Federer got an advantage playing the finals on indoors. First, let's take a look at Cilic's outdoor and indoor record:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/marin-cilic/c977/fedex-atp-win-loss
According to the ATP website (not the most reliable, but still), Cilic has a 328-179 W/L record on outdoors with 9 titles, which is a 64,7% winning %, while having a 109-54 W/L on indoor coupled with 8 titles, which gives us a 66,9% winning percentage.
Advantage Federer with the roof closed my a.
You're wasting your time. I've tried to make that same point to no avail, people continue acting like Fed is some indoor demi-god who was facing Nadal in the final.

If people want to see a conspiracy they'll always find it.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
What he's achieved is unimaginable. Only RF could have done it and he did it. That being said, you can't brushed aside the favoritism and criticism over his requests for night matches, and getting the roof closed for the final. Just because you like and support him, you shouldn't turn blind to a fault.
I don't think there's any suggestion that he asked for the roof to be closed is there?
 

Mr Feeny

Hall of Fame
I don't think there's any suggestion that he asked for the roof to be closed is there?
There isn't. Fed preferred an open roof and he said as much in his post-match interview. He thought the heat could bother Cilic more than it would him as the match progressed. However,upon arrival, he and Cilic were both notified that there was a possibility that the roof would be closed.

Federer chose to practice indoors and Cilic chose to do otherwise. Federer said that he was getting himself mentally ready to deal with either situation.

When the wet bulb test came our , both participants were informed that the roof would be closed, much to Federer's chagrin. He took it on the chin and came our firing.
 

VaporDude95

Banned
I don't have beef with Federer here but what the Australian Open did to the women in the final is disgusting. Halep ended up in hospital. They wouldn't shut the roof for the women but the men get it closed? Pathetic.

Lol @ insinuating that the heat policy is somehow “sexist” xD

I think it needs looking at for sure, but don’t use it to create sexism where it doesn’t exist :rolleyes:
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
The real question is which players benefit if Federer weren’t around. Djokovic’s dad and Uncle Phony will sure to tell you.

oh wait....
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
You're wasting your time. I've tried to make that same point to no avail, people continue acting like Fed is some indoor demi-god who was facing Nadal in the final.

If people want to see a conspiracy they'll always find it.
AO 2017 doesn't count because he got an extra day's rest. Wimby 2017 doesn't count because mugs. AO 2018 doesn't count because of the roof.

No worries, the VB PR machine's got everything under control. ;)
 
Top