2012 US Open

[LukeParkerno1]

Wow, can see why you like him then.

If you name an instance Roddick was wrong go for it, most are about that line call which Roddick was right and court conditions which are fair enough

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

If you name an instance Roddick was wrong go for it, most are about that line call which Roddick was right and court conditions which are fair enough

Twice at AO, he pulled out of the shot when the ball was called out. Opponent challanged, the linesman is wrong, call is overturned, i.e. the opponent gets the point because Roddick did not attempt to hit the ball. He thought it was a replay because he "could've" hit it, but that doesn't matter because you actually didn't. He had the same argument two years in a row and was wrong both times.

 

[Caesar]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but that doesn't sound like Roddick was wrong there.

If a player is in a position where they have the opportunity for a legitimate play on the ball, and play is interrupted by an out call by the linesman, any overrule is supposed to be a replay. It doesn't matter if the player pulls out of the shot or not.

That's not to say Roddick has never been wrong before. He gave a lineswoman hell for foot faulting him at the USO one year when she was 100% correct.

 

[juzzo]

Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, you accept the decision and move on. Can't believe people could think otherwise.

 

[Caesar]

Easy to say when your pay cheque isn't riding on the result.

Again, don't endorse arguing with officials, but it's a rather silly reason to write off someone generally acknowledged as one of the nicest guys on tour.

 

[Caesar]

To be honest, as a former official myself, I have to say that most officials don't have much of an issue with guys like Roddick for a few reasons:

1) They know where the line is - no heavy personal abuse, no threats
2) They have their tantrum, then put it behind them and get on with the match like professionals
3) They generally accept responsibility for their behaviour after the fact

There is a pro tennis umpire who posts on TTW who says that Roddick is actually fairly well liked by officials, mostly for the above reasons.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

To be honest, as a former official myself, I have to say that most officials don't have much of an issue with guys like Roddick for a few reasons:

1) They know where the line is - no heavy personal abuse, no threats
2) They have their tantrum, then put it behind them and get on with the match like professionals
3) They generally accept responsibility for their behaviour after the fact

There is a pro tennis umpire who posts on TTW who says that Roddick is actually fairly well liked by officials, mostly for the above reasons.

So would you fear for your safety if you had to officiate a Serena Williams match?? I do see what you mean about Roddick though, he does seem to be reasonable (even if he's wrong).

 

[Caesar]

I wouldn't say I'd fear for my safety. But it's just nasty.

Same goes for how she called that umpire ugly on the inside.

Maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense objectively but there's an extra level of viciousness there that goes beyond calling me stupid or blind or any of the regular insults. It's hard to explain.

 

[Spitta09]

Murrays grand slam to lose. No Nadal or federer only djokovic is in his way. I don't see berdych as a threat.

 

[matt_897]

Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, you accept the decision and move on. Can't believe people could think otherwise.

You've never played tennis then? I never understood players should have perfect behaviour, the sport is very frustating at time and people are born differently, some have a temper, some are more even keeled. That's just human nature. You can't tell me you haven't disagreed with an opinion from an ump in sport or a boss at work and said you're opinion.

As others have said Roddick never threatened an umpire in any way, always the nciest guy off the court and usuallya dmitted he was in the wrong. I don't understanwhat's abig deal about a few arguments here and there, it's add to the excitement. Don't want a 100 clones out on tour which is more and mor elikely happening.

 

[juzzo]

You've never played tennis then? I never understood players should have perfect behaviour, the sport is very frustating at time and people are born differently, some have a temper, some are more even keeled. That's just human nature. You can't tell me you haven't disagreed with an opinion from an ump in sport or a boss at work and said you're opinion.

As others have said Roddick never threatened an umpire in any way, always the nciest guy off the court and usuallya dmitted he was in the wrong. I don't understanwhat's abig deal about a few arguments here and there, it's add to the excitement. Don't want a 100 clones out on tour which is more and mor elikely happening.

No I haven't played tennis at more than a casual level, relevance? I hate when people bring up the robot/clone argument. Of course we want emotions, but being angry at umpires isn't one of them.
I can 100% guarantee you I have never argued with an umpire before. I get along well with my boss so don't argue with him either, but if I did disagree with something I would discuss it in a civil manner, not act like a child.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No I haven't played tennis at more than a casual level, relevance? I hate when people bring up the robot/clone argument. Of course we want emotions, but being angry at umpires isn't one of them.
I can 100% guarantee you I have never argued with an umpire before. I get along well with my boss so don't argue with him either, but if I did disagree with something I would discuss it in a civil manner, not act like a child.

If you have millions of dollars riding on a result then you might think differently, and the reality is line judges make absolute blunders an Roddick and any other person has every right to be frustrated.

 

[Maryusdemetry]

Ferrer - Tipsarevic: 6-3,6-7,2-6,6-3,5-5

 

[red+black]

Pre-emptive question, although it probably won't eventuate today.

Last Grand Slam where the semis didn't include any of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

EDIT: just looked it up. Looks like the 2004 French Open

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Finals

 

[absy]

Man I hate the 5th set tiebreak. Ruins it, miss out on seeing some great tennis

 

[JolyV]

Djokovic won the first 6-2

 

[toptigers]

Wow, some pretty impressive tennis in the second set there, a shame that Del Potro couldn't take it. Some of the hitting was amazing.

 

[red+black]

Can someone predict when Fed is likely to be displaced as #1?

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

Can someone predict when Fed is likely to be displaced as #1?

Well, the gap would've been closed slightly because Roger made SF last year, but Djokovic can only lose points and not win them and there's about 900 points between them so probably not for a bit. WTF will probably Novak's chance to make up a fair bit of ground, seeing as he did very little there last year.

Can the ITF actually make the USO remove the final set TB? Its just such an an anti-climax and shit way to end a great match. Typical USO all about money all the bloody time.

 

[red+black]

Interesting article about the tiebreak at the US Open

http://www.nj.com/tennis/index.ssf/2011/09/us_open_unique_fifth-set_tiebr.html

 

[love_balls]

Can someone predict when Fed is likely to be displaced as #1?

Maybe by the time Paris comes around. Assuming Djokovic wins, he'll be trailing by 535 points.

Federer has 3000 points to defend: WTF W (1500), Paris W (1000), Basel W (500).
Djokovic only has 560 to defend: WTF RR (200), Paris QF (180), Basel SF (180).

Haven't seen either schedule, so don't know if either is playing Shanghai but despite being an indoor beast it's unlikely Federer will keep it.

 

[red+black]

Fed will hit 300 weeks at #1 next month. If he can hold on for year end, he'll tie Sampras for 6 times year end #1. For comparison, in the women, Steffi Graf was 377 weeks (8 times year end), Martina Navratilova was 332 weeks (7 times year end) and Chris Evert was 260 weeks (5 times year end).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players#Weeks_at_number_1

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Murrays grand slam to lose. No Nadal or federer only djokovic is in his way. I don't see berdych as a threat.

Did you see the QF against Federer? Given that performance and his H2H record against Murray, he really should advance to the final. Anything less would be a disappointment.

Can someone predict when Fed is likely to be displaced as #1?

If Federer skips the Asian swing as he did last year, he'll lose it there and fall short of 300 weeks. That's the most likely scenario IMO.

 

[Caesar]

Being YE#1 would be somewhat impressive. Not only would Federer tie with Sampras for most YE#1s, but he would also be the first person to regain the YE#1 ranking twice after losing it (and from two different opponents, no less).

That said, I doubt he cares enough about it to alter his schedule. He's proven he can get back to the top, and he's overtaken Sampras for most total weeks. Those were the two big achievements he was gunning for. Now, I suspect he will mostly focus on staying top 2 in order to ensure he is favourably seeded at Slams.

 

[love_balls]

Just checked the schedule, they're both playing Shanghai but Djokovic is also playing Beijing.