tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 29 Jan 2009 04:31:09
From: Giovanna
Subject: LOL @ Roddick
Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set, the umpire or chair engaged you
when you carried on, and he said neither you nor him were going to win
here. That didn't affect you at all?

ANDY RODDICK: What?


Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set.

ANDY RODDICK: I was already down two breaks in that set.


Q. I get that.

ANDY RODDICK: Then get it.


Q. It was an unusual stage for the chair to engage you and carry on a
dialogue after two breakpoints went against you.

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, what do you want from me? The guy made a judgment
call. I didn't agree with the judgment call. I made it known. I asked
pointed questions that when he answered them they completely
contradicted what he said before. What do you want me to say?


Q. Well, I guess you didn't beat yourself here, you were beaten by a
better player.

ANDY RODDICK: Have you been here for the entire press conference?


Q. Yes.

ANDY RODDICK: I feel like I've gotten that point across.


Q. You handled that quite well. I'm impressed.

ANDY RODDICK: Thank you. You make a lot of statements and don't ask
any questions.






lol he's funny




 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 08:58:00
From: DNA
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Jan 29, 9:10=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > I must comment on THAT point.
>
> > Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
> > do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
> > by me in my life ?
>
> > Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?
>
> > Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
> > *was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
> > LAME!
>
> > Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
> > he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.
>
> > It was a lame argument really.
>
> I think it was a tough call. Roddick was really close to it and it is
> very hard for the umpire to judge whether he could have reacted to it. I
> was actually a bit surprised that the point didn't have to be replayed.
>

No, it was the correct call. The key being the call was late. Roddick
thought that it was going to be out, did not take a shot, the ball
passed him and then the linesperson called out. Had the linesperson
not called out, Roddick could not have changed anything there,
irrespective of what he has done over his 10 year career. I watched it
at least a couple more times after that.



  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 00:46:34
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:58:00 -0800 (PST), DNA <susenets2@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 29, 9:10 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> > I must comment on THAT point.
>>
>> > Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
>> > do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
>> > by me in my life ?
>>
>> > Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?
>>
>> > Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
>> > *was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
>> > LAME!
>>
>> > Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
>> > he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.
>>
>> > It was a lame argument really.
>>
>> I think it was a tough call. Roddick was really close to it and it is
>> very hard for the umpire to judge whether he could have reacted to it. I
>> was actually a bit surprised that the point didn't have to be replayed.
>>
>
>No, it was the correct call. The key being the call was late. Roddick
>thought that it was going to be out, did not take a shot, the ball
>passed him and then the linesperson called out. Had the linesperson
>not called out, Roddick could not have changed anything there,
>irrespective of what he has done over his 10 year career. I watched it
>at least a couple more times after that.


correct.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 07:51:29
From:
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Jan 29, 7:56 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 5:31 pm, Giovanna <giovana...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set, the umpire or chair engaged you
> > when you carried on, and he said neither you nor him were going to win
> > here. That didn't affect you at all?
>
> > ANDY RODDICK: What?
>
> > Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set.
>
> > ANDY RODDICK: I was already down two breaks in that set.
>
> > Q. I get that.
>
> > ANDY RODDICK: Then get it.
>
> > Q. It was an unusual stage for the chair to engage you and carry on a
> > dialogue after two breakpoints went against you.
>
> > ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, what do you want from me? The guy made a judgment
> > call. I didn't agree with the judgment call. I made it known. I asked
> > pointed questions that when he answered them they completely
> > contradicted what he said before. What do you want me to say?
>
> > Q. Well, I guess you didn't beat yourself here, you were beaten by a
> > better player.
>
> > ANDY RODDICK: Have you been here for the entire press conference?
>
> > Q. Yes.
>
> > ANDY RODDICK: I feel like I've gotten that point across.
>
> > Q. You handled that quite well. I'm impressed.
>
> > ANDY RODDICK: Thank you. You make a lot of statements and don't ask
> > any questions.
>
> > lol he's funny
>
> He gives perhaps the wittiest answers. Too bad he has to do
> this even after such losses but impressive that he can retain
> his sense of humour in such situations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The best was after the 07 AO match.

Q. What was it like for you just being there at the end of that?
ANDY RODDICK: It was frustrating. You know, it was miserable. It
sucked. It was terrible. Besides that, it was fine.

Q. Can you just take us from 4-All on. Up to 4-4, you're in the match.
Then you got broken.
ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I got broken. Then I got broken three more times.
Then I got broken two more times in the third set. Then it was over 26
minutes later. Is that what you saw, too?

LOL. Good stuff.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 07:40:04
From: vjg
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Jan 29, 6:56=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:31:09 -0800 (PST), Giovanna
>
>
>
> <giovana...@bol.com.br> wrote:
> >Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set, the umpire or chair engaged you
> >when you carried on, and he said neither you nor him were going to win
> >here. That didn't affect you at all?
>
> >ANDY RODDICK: What?
>
> >Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set.
>
> >ANDY RODDICK: I was already down two breaks in that set.
>
> >Q. I get that.
>
> >ANDY RODDICK: Then get it.
>
> >Q. It was an unusual stage for the chair to engage you and carry on a
> >dialogue after two breakpoints went against you.
>
> >ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, what do you want from me? The guy made a judgment
> >call. I didn't agree with the judgment call. I made it known. I asked
> >pointed questions that when he answered them they completely
> >contradicted what he said before. What do you want me to say?
>
> >Q. Well, I guess you didn't beat yourself here, you were beaten by a
> >better player.
>
> >ANDY RODDICK: Have you been here for the entire press conference?
>
> >Q. Yes.
>
> >ANDY RODDICK: I feel like I've gotten that point across.
>
> >Q. You handled that quite well. I'm impressed.
>
> >ANDY RODDICK: Thank you. You make a lot of statements and don't ask
> >any questions.
>
> >lol he's funny
>
> I must comment on THAT point.
>
> Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
> do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
> by me in my life ?
>
> Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?
>
> Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
> *was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
> LAME!
>
> Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
> he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.
>
> It was a lame argument really.

Besides, the call came after the ball had already gone by him. Roddick
was completely wrong on this point (pun intended) and as soon as he
started arguing, I knew he had lost any chance of attaining the
composure he would need if he were to have *any* chance of pushing
Federer.


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 12:21:00
From: mimus
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:40:04 -0800, vjg wrote:

> Roddick was completely wrong on this point (pun intended) and as soon as
> he started arguing, I knew he had lost any chance of attaining the
> composure he would need if he were to have *any* chance of pushing
> Federer.

Yep. Pure frustration.

I don't mind him tangling with the chair, but I didn't like him getting
on a baseline-judge over a missed call.

Like Roddick always gets his challenges right, huh?

Or like every time a study is made the line-judges don't far outperform
the players in calls as adjudged by mechanical means.

(Even though I personally feel that on those millimeter-in or -out calls
you might as well flip a coin, and if the judge gets it right it's pure
luck.)

--

Take a deep breath, take a walk, cool off, plot a bit, and serve again.



   
Date: 29 Jan 2009 13:47:36
From: Ted S.
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:21:00 -0500, mimus wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:40:04 -0800, vjg wrote:
>
>> Roddick was completely wrong on this point (pun intended) and as soon
>> as he started arguing, I knew he had lost any chance of attaining
>> the composure he would need if he were to have *any* chance of
>> pushing Federer.
>
> Yep. Pure frustration.
>
> I don't mind him tangling with the chair, but I didn't like him
> getting on a baseline-judge over a missed call.

I didn't see the match, but this sounds like what Roddick did in the
Kohlschreiber match last year. Remember his talking really slow to the
umpire?

--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 06:47:57
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Jan 29, 9:10=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > I must comment on THAT point.
>
> > Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
> > do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
> > by me in my life ?
>
> > Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?
>
> > Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
> > *was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
> > LAME!
>
> > Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
> > he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.
>
> > It was a lame argument really.
>
> I think it was a tough call. Roddick was really close to it and it is
> very hard for the umpire to judge whether he could have reacted to it. I
> was actually a bit surprised that the point didn't have to be replayed.
>
> PS.

Usually marginal calls like those are replayed - so I was kind of
surprised as well.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 12:56:34
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:31:09 -0800 (PST), Giovanna
<giovanapel@bol.com.br > wrote:

>Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set, the umpire or chair engaged you
>when you carried on, and he said neither you nor him were going to win
>here. That didn't affect you at all?
>
>ANDY RODDICK: What?
>
>
>Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set.
>
>ANDY RODDICK: I was already down two breaks in that set.
>
>
>Q. I get that.
>
>ANDY RODDICK: Then get it.
>
>
>Q. It was an unusual stage for the chair to engage you and carry on a
>dialogue after two breakpoints went against you.
>
>ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, what do you want from me? The guy made a judgment
>call. I didn't agree with the judgment call. I made it known. I asked
>pointed questions that when he answered them they completely
>contradicted what he said before. What do you want me to say?
>
>
>Q. Well, I guess you didn't beat yourself here, you were beaten by a
>better player.
>
>ANDY RODDICK: Have you been here for the entire press conference?
>
>
>Q. Yes.
>
>ANDY RODDICK: I feel like I've gotten that point across.
>
>
>Q. You handled that quite well. I'm impressed.
>
>ANDY RODDICK: Thank you. You make a lot of statements and don't ask
>any questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>lol he's funny


I must comment on THAT point.

Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
by me in my life ?

Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?

Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
*was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
LAME!

Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.

It was a lame argument really.


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 15:10:48
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
Dave Hazelwood wrote:

> I must comment on THAT point.
>
> Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
> do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
> by me in my life ?
>
> Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?
>
> Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
> *was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
> LAME!
>
> Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
> he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.
>
> It was a lame argument really.

I think it was a tough call. Roddick was really close to it and it is
very hard for the umpire to judge whether he could have reacted to it. I
was actually a bit surprised that the point didn't have to be replayed.

PS.


   
Date: 30 Jan 2009 00:49:46
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:10:48 +0100, Petter Solbu
<pettermann1984@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>
>> I must comment on THAT point.
>>
>> Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
>> do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
>> by me in my life ?
>>
>> Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?
>>
>> Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
>> *was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
>> LAME!
>>
>> Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
>> he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.
>>
>> It was a lame argument really.
>
>I think it was a tough call. Roddick was really close to it and it is
>very hard for the umpire to judge whether he could have reacted to it. I
>was actually a bit surprised that the point didn't have to be replayed.
>
>PS.


the thing is the SAME thing happened on the previous point and it was
replayed. Fed won both so what are you going to do ? Make Fed win a
point THREE times because the official makes a bad late call ? that
sucks too.

i actually thought the first point should *not* have been replayed
either.


   
Date: 30 Jan 2009 00:45:58
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:10:48 +0100, Petter Solbu
<pettermann1984@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>
>> I must comment on THAT point.
>>
>> Andy argued that he was RIGHT there ON THE LINE and asked the Umpire
>> do you think I would let any ball go by me ? Have I ever let a ball go
>> by me in my life ?
>>
>> Then if he saw it was "in" why didn't he return the sucker ?
>>
>> Obviously, he thought it *was* out and let it go but it turned out it
>> *was* in so his argument that he could have returned it is totally
>> LAME!
>>
>> Perhaps he could have returned it but even if it was not "called" out
>> he would have NOT returned it then challenged it and lost.
>>
>> It was a lame argument really.
>
>I think it was a tough call. Roddick was really close to it and it is
>very hard for the umpire to judge whether he could have reacted to it. I
>was actually a bit surprised that the point didn't have to be replayed.
>
>PS.


If Roddick thought it was in he should have played it. Period.



 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 04:56:30
From: ahonkan
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Jan 29, 5:31=A0pm, Giovanna <giovana...@bol.com.br > wrote:
> Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set, the umpire or chair engaged you
> when you carried on, and he said neither you nor him were going to win
> here. That didn't affect you at all?
>
> ANDY RODDICK: What?
>
> Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: I was already down two breaks in that set.
>
> Q. I get that.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Then get it.
>
> Q. It was an unusual stage for the chair to engage you and carry on a
> dialogue after two breakpoints went against you.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, what do you want from me? The guy made a judgment
> call. I didn't agree with the judgment call. I made it known. I asked
> pointed questions that when he answered them they completely
> contradicted what he said before. What do you want me to say?
>
> Q. Well, I guess you didn't beat yourself here, you were beaten by a
> better player.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Have you been here for the entire press conference?
>
> Q. Yes.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: I feel like I've gotten that point across.
>
> Q. You handled that quite well. I'm impressed.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Thank you. You make a lot of statements and don't ask
> any questions.
>
> lol he's funny

He gives perhaps the wittiest answers. Too bad he has to do
this even after such losses but impressive that he can retain
his sense of humour in such situations.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 04:33:01
From: Quincy
Subject: Re: LOL @ Roddick
On Jan 29, 1:31=A0pm, Giovanna <giovana...@bol.com.br > wrote:
> Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set, the umpire or chair engaged you
> when you carried on, and he said neither you nor him were going to win
> here. That didn't affect you at all?
>
> ANDY RODDICK: What?
>
> Q. When it was 5-2 in the first set.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: I was already down two breaks in that set.
>
> Q. I get that.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Then get it.
>
> Q. It was an unusual stage for the chair to engage you and carry on a
> dialogue after two breakpoints went against you.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, what do you want from me? The guy made a judgment
> call. I didn't agree with the judgment call. I made it known. I asked
> pointed questions that when he answered them they completely
> contradicted what he said before. What do you want me to say?
>
> Q. Well, I guess you didn't beat yourself here, you were beaten by a
> better player.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Have you been here for the entire press conference?
>
> Q. Yes.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: I feel like I've gotten that point across.
>
> Q. You handled that quite well. I'm impressed.
>
> ANDY RODDICK: Thank you. You make a lot of statements and don't ask
> any questions.
>
> lol he's funny

Yes. Is was good for him to slim down. Roger is very pleased.