“And if you are an avid reader of SI you know where tennis stands on their sporting hierarchy. ”

“I think if Fed were to have won the French Open he would have got it for certain. His Wimbledon title was worthy of such acclaim, it’s just that the David Beckham circus rolled into the U.S. around that time, and Venus (an American!) also won at Wimbledon.”

What a bunch of non-sense? The same SI, which didn’t care for 12 slams, 5 Wimbledons in a row, 4 US opens in a row, 4 Wimbledon and US Open pairs in a row, will somehow suddenly care for French Open? (which comes well after Wimbledon and US Open among US tennis fans).

Venus winning Wimbledon is somehow the same as Roger winning it for fifth straight time? This is jingoism at its ugliest.

David Beckam circus is such a lame excuse. If they want to get Roger on the cover they will.

Had Roddick or Blake accomplished what Roger has, would SI dare ignore him? Will it matter “where tennis stands on their sporting hierarchy.”

We are a sad and pathetic nation who, as Frank Deford said, “If it’s not our star and our sport, U.S. just doesn’t care”

It is high time we examine and purge this deep rooted metastacis. Otherwise, we will sadly continue to wallow in glorifying our classless and overpaid sports celebrities and completely miss out on enjoying tennis - or for that matter any sport - at its greatest glory.

I agree that Federer probably should have gotten it last year, last year was a really weak year for the athletes in major sports. This year, however, I’ve seen more and more people who normally don’t cover tennis rave about Federer’s skills and his record(s).

The only person who you can realistically place above Federer is Peyton Manning (as you mentioned.)Perhaps Tony Dungy for being the first African-American coach to win the Super Bowl. Other then these two……

I remember last year when Roy Johnson, a former SI editor, leaked the name of Dwayne Wade as SI Sportsman of the Year on his blog. He personally thought Federer should have gotten it but he talked about meetings that used to take place in the SI offices and that tennis players were rarely put on the cover of SI because in one editor’s (not Johnson) words….”Tennis covers don’t sell.” He went on to say that the covers with tennis players are among the lowest-selling covers, no matter whom the player is. Therefore, SI is wary of putting tennis players on the cover or giving them Sportsman/Woman of the Year. Of course this year could be different……

I believe the last tennis player to get the cover was Maria Sharapova for winning Wimbledon in 2004. If Agassi had won the 2005 U.S. Open he might have gotten the cover.

Sharapova made the cover after her Wimbledon victory…

Come on, what kind of journalism is this?

I was just about to say I was surprised that Sharapova never made the cover–we all know how American media loves a pretty face–until I saw tennis_freak’s posting above. Yeah it’s a pity Federer never graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. But on the other hand, isn’t it just Americans who care about Sports Illustrated anyway? Fed is European; his fans are all over the world. Who cares whether or not some American sports magazine runs his photo as long as everyone knows he is the greatest player ever to pick up a tennis racquet?

Look, TennisMasta,I adore Roger Federer. He’s a great ambassador for tennis. But the fact of the matter is SI has to cater to its audience. There’s nothing “American” about that. It’s common sense and good business. As for your Frank Deford (“If it’s not our star and our sport, U.S. just doesn’t care”) quote. Come on. Stop pandering to non-Americans. If Germany’s Stern Magazine were to highlight an athlete/sport team do you think its editors would select a NFL team or player? Do you think Europeans care about the NFL? I lived in Berlin for more than a year. During that period, the only time I heard German sportcasters highlight the NBA was when Dirk Nowitzki (a German) did something extraordinary. I know Fed isn’t German. But that’s just an example of how the media, no matter the country, focuses on what “its” audiences are interested in most. That’s it. Plain and simple. Personally, I would look at Fed on the cover of anything. Not only is he the greatest tennis player of all time…he’s gorgeous!

Fed’s record stands - and will stand - on its own. It doesn’t need the approval of an American ’sports’ magazine, whose lack of maturity is such that its main yearly issue is about women in bathing-suits…

Maria Shreekapova is not American. She is Russian. In fact she even said that Quote: It is great to beat the Americans on America soil.

So she made the cover with one Wimbledon win just because she has a pretty face and the loudest orgasmic scream on court.

I am American. I love tennis. And I am very cheeze about this.

I agree with Tennismasta.

Anyone noticed the quotes of federer in SI’s wrap-up story? I think it’s weird to hear him talk like that. He starts getting cocky, it seems to me. He was called a humble guy earlier in his career, but i guess you can no longer say that. All the praise finally seems to have gotten into his head. Bad for him. He’s reading too many tennis articles in his spare time. He even knows many stats from the atp homepage (i.e. 2nd serve winning percentage) and lets them out frankly. Please Roger, keep it to yourself, it almost looks pathetic. Of course, if you’re supposed to address topics like complete dominance, the GOAT, what are you supposed to answer without sounding cocky. Pretty hard task I admit. But still, i don’t like it.

Screw SI who cares. Good news is I have been able to see more tennis on tv this year than ever, which is great. Kids are also playing the sport. We are on the right track.

Sharapova likes to pretend she’s not American, she’s Russian, etc. However anyone who has met her or listened to her talk has to know that she’s more American than Andy Roddick. Come on, the Russians don’t even consider her a Russian (ask Kuznetsova, Petrova, Myskina), who are we kidding here? She made the cover because she is a de facto American and she is pretty. Simple as that.

in response to critic,
it is not that Fed’s success is getting to his head, i think the only reason he said all that is because the american media never gives him credit and they always try to make excuses for Sampras and players of the past and the depth of tennis in the past, so in my opinion he was in a way trying to get back at them by saying “well it is not that there is no depth but it is because i won them all, it is not my fault” and he is right. If it was an american winning everything do u realy think they would be questioning the depth of tennis? i mean think of it, the best match Fed played in the US open was against Roddick, with the whole crowd cheering for Roddick dont u think he was sending a message? or is is coincidental that he plays his best tennis in New York especially against the americans apart from wimbeldon. I think u have to look at the hidden meaning and dont blame the fed blame the american media

To hell with SI, apologists for Michael Vick.
The Spanish and Argentine men, the Belgian women, all the Russians and now the Serbs, but more than anyone Roger Federer, have taken tennis right out of the American mentality. We are also-rans when it comes to tennis superiority, and to think that someone as great as Federer would give a damn about being on the cover of an American sports rag is ridiculous.

Tennis is the second most popular and widespread sport in the world, after soccer. Who cares about the Superbowl, less than 5% of the world pays any attention to it.

More people in the world follow cricket than the so-called “football”.

go go roger go go roger kick novaks ass and hand down ur crown to the king off clay wen u finish

Roger Federer has made history by winning the Laureus World Sports Award for the last 3 years in a row by taking the top honors as Sportsman of the Year. The awards are voted on by the world’s leading sports writers, editors and broadcasters from over 80 countries. It puts him in the best company with previous winners of that category Tiger Woods, Michael Schumacher and Lance Armstrong, other internationally known and revered athletes. Being of Swiss/South African descent and growing up in Switzerland, I would think that this recognition of his amazing accomplishments is the pinnacle for him. And with his incredible results of this season, he should probably win his fourth.

to critic

Fed’s responses, as dbh perfectly put it, are coincidentally to the one American sports magazine that gives him no credit for his accomplishments.
Randy Moss as a SI’s latest cover is perfect for the American society.
Perhaps Fed should date one the American female celebrities and he would make the SI cover and so many other magazine’s covers…only Fed is such a class act guy on and off the court. I love the fact the guy sticks to his old time girl perhaps one of the main reason for his astonishing success in addition to his natural talent.

Thanks for correcting me, Maria Sharapova did make the July 12, 2004 cover following her Wimbledon title. For some reason that cover is not listed under “tennis covers” on the SIcovers.com website!

As for Sharapova, yes, she’s an American who happens to be from Russia. If she had a hint of a Russian accent I think things would have been different for here from a marketing standpoint but since she doesn’t she can be easily sold as a hot blond American who won Wimbledon.

Now if Federer was American he surely would have been on the cover by now, perhaps multiple times. And he would have also won the Sportsman of the Year. No question in my mind.

But SI, like most other mags, are in business to make money and to do so they need to get people to buy there issues and a lot of that has to do with the cover. Obviously they feel that tennis doesn’t drive sales, hence the lack of tennis players on the cover in recent times - especially men!

The quote provided by TennisMasta from Deford is dead-on.

Fed has a non-American accent…maybe he should fake it lol

Fed was on the cover of SI next to Tiger Woods and some other guy after USO 07. It wasn’t a big picture but it was there nonetheless.

Fed’s been talking smack for ages, it’s not a new thing. “I’ve taken them all” sounds cocky but when you consider the context of the conversation and that the guy has won 11 out of 12 non-clay slams from 2004-2007 (and was only one point away in Australia 05 from winning 12/12) it’s pretty much a statement of fact rather than an empty boast.

Roger Federer does not get his due on Sports Illustrated covers because he is not American and is not a major sports celebrity in the U.S., rather than because he’s a tennis player. Dick Enberg recently suggested that if Federer were American, he’d probably get the same amount of respect as Tiger Woods in the U.S. Probably more, in my opinion. Read Sports Illustrated’s Frank Deford: “If It’s Not Our Star And Our Sport, U.S. Just Doesn’t Care.” It’s amusing that one or two wise SI writers are able to see the truth clearly, while their profit-minded and jingoistic bosses lack integrity to make the right decisions on SI covers. No wonder Federer — who doesn’t have an entourage of publicists — has to be straightforward and clear about his place at the top of the sportsworld.
http://tinyurl.com/2skogc

You can view the past SI covers featuring tennis players in this link. There was a time in which SI had the integrity to put even foreign tennis stars on its cover, like Mary Pierce, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker and Bjorn Borg. Of course, it doesn’t compare with local sportsmen like Tiger Woods, who has been on 20 SI covers, while Michael Jordan has been on almost 50 covers. While Tiger has been on more SI covers than any other active sportsman, it’s interesting that there have been a number of newspaper articles over the past year asking who is better — Roger or Tiger — and a number have suggested it’s Federer.
http://tinyurl.com/25jvfm

There is no compelling reason for SI to snub Federer. Roger is currently on the AP Male Athlete of the Year shortlist, along with Tiger Woods, Alex Rodriguez and Peyton Manning.
http://tinyurl.com/2bhwr5

Even more significant than AP or SI awrds, the world’s sports legends as well as leading sports editors, writers and broadcasters have recognized that Roger Federer is the world’s most outstanding sportsman since 2004, all sports considered. They have awarded him the Laureus World Sportsman of the Year Award an unprecedented three consecutive times (2005, 2006 & 2007) and he was a finalist in 2004. Roger has a good chance to win it again in 2008 for what he’s accomplished so far this year. Tiger Woods, who won in 2000 and 2001, was a finalist in 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, losing out to Federer the last two years. The Laureus Awards are like the Academy Awards of the international sports world. The 45-member Laureus academy — which votes by secret ballot to select the award winners – is made up of the who’s who of the world’s greatest sports legends, including golf greats Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player and Severiano Ballesteros, as well as American sports greats Michael Jordan, Dan Marino, Mark Spitz, Edwin Moses (current chairman of the Laureus academy), Michael Johnson, Tony Hawk, Robby Naish, John McEnroe, Martina Navratilova, Monica Seles and of course Nicklaus.
http://www.laureus.com/winners?q=node/418
http://tinyurl.com/35e66s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureus_World_Sports_Awards
http://www.laureus.com/awards
http://tinyurl.com/2bwvce

If SI was a serious sports magazine, they would not be putting Anna Kournikova on a cover, and omitting Federer! The problem with SI in recent years, with its swim-suit mentality, is that it’s given in to commercialism opportunism and entertainment at the expense of journalistic integrity on sports issues. We can’t take it seriously anymore.
What’s interesting is that on the day of the US Open finals, football (NY Jets) still won the TV ratings race in New York, but tennis (Federer-Djokovic) beat baseball (Yankees and Mets) and golf (Tiger in FedEx Cup playoffs).
http://tinyurl.com/23ecdz

Thank goodness Tiger Woods, Nike and Gillete are helping to raise his profile in the U.S., if sports magazines like Si aren’t dpoing their job.

SI doesn’t understand how popular and well liked Roger Federer is with Americans. Roger is one in a million and they don’t get it.

I have a feeling that this SI issue bothers Federer’s fan more than Fed himself.

Perhaps there is some journalistic integrity among the writers of SI, but it is essentially a POP culture magazine. I think you will always be disappointed if you compare it to NYTimes or Washington Post…etc. Heck, even those guys struggle with what to put on their headlines

S I is still published? Who cares? They probably sell 12 copies a month and give the rest away - except for the swimsuit edition which ought to answer everyones’ questions about the women having made the cover.

Slamming SI is pointless, they are not the culprit. The real culprit is the American public. Did anyone happen to notice the TV ratings, the Men’s final drew a 4.2, while the Giants-Cowboys drew a 13.6. And if I werent lazy, I could probably find the ratings for males, aged 18-49 (SI’s most targeted audience)and the difference between those ratings would be even larger. I love tennis, go to most of the big events, write a blog on it, but I’m rational about it as well. Bottom line is it’s just not that popular in the US. So why should SI, a US publication, go out of their way to put him in the cover?

Jeremy, your point is so dead on. I’m at a loss why this concept is so difficult for everyone else to understand. At the end of the day, SI’s job is to sell magazines, not tennis.

It’s up to US tennis organizations to promote the sport to Americans, not SI. And, as someone else wrote, I doubt Roger is losing sleep over SI covers. He knows he’s the man. Tennis fans and his competitors know it too.

And until, Peyton Manning who is without a doubt one of the most incredible QB’s to touch a football, is on the cover of some sports magazine in the UK…I’d go easy on American audiences. That’s what makes the world beautiful…differences in what appeals to cultures.

first of all fed was never humble. Ha has used every oppotyunity to say how great he plays. Now he has started to believe he is great! good for him.

as far as the American media, look at tennis magazine and see how Fed is worshiped. So what if SI doesn’t choose Fed as the sportsperson of the year? I think they care more about selling their magzine. look at the tennis coverage in America. How many people even care about tennis compared to football, baseball and basketball or Golf? who’s picture will sell more? Tiger Woods or Roger Federer?

This is not Oscars. It is SI’s loss that can’t acknowledge an athlete’s success. It doesn’t take anything away from fed.

Also just being curious. Do non-American sport magazines acknowledge American atheletes often ? I want to know if this is just SI or is it a universal trend.

In the US, sports are driven by TV/radio and TV/radio sports shows. Lots of TV coverage drives the fans and then the fans in turn drive the TV coverage.

It’s hard to be a tennis fan in the US, while it’s easy to be a baseball or a football fan.

This is slowly changing. The internet helps and the Tennis Channel keeps getting better. The TC’s live coverage of the Fed Cup this weekend, from my point of view, was excellent. (An aside: For those interested, like Davis Cup, there were unlimited challenges. Very nice.)

This year, for the first time, the TC had French Open coverage. I believe they had one match of the US Open. This will likely improve. I’m hoping for early-round coverage of all the Grand Slams and then complete coverage.

It’s my opinion that ESPN2’s coverage is like SI. If it’s not US, it’s not going to sell. There missing the part that they drive their market and then their market drives them.

The TC pitches a “world market” and their market will in turn drive them.

I prefer “world tennis” (i.e. the TC) to “US tennis” (e.g. ESPN2).

Trivia question: Who will be next on an SI cover: Fed or Donald Young (ranked 173)? Clue: Pat McEnroe probably knows the answer.

John;
answr to your trivia question: Isner!

how many people in America even know Federer?

TC is doing a fantastic job and I was happy with USA and CBS too. but the point is that sports should be on national channels. when it is on CAble you have to pay to get it and I can’t imagine any non-tennis fan buying cable to watch some sports they don’t like. But if it i on national TV ( at least the DAvis cup), then people might get interested .

I think that the Sharapova *cover* was not really a cover, just a small picture of her in the bottom corner, right? That may be why, as someone mentioned, it wasn’t on a list of SI covers. But they could give at least that type of *cover* to the outstanding #1 player of one of their minor sports.

it’s all about the ad money, tennis isn’t a major interest amongst the audience that SI’s primary advertisers are looking for. if it was all about great stories in sport, Roger would have been on the cover and won sportsman of the year multiple times already.

Just a serious question that maybe someone can answer. As a subscriber to SI, I’ll get the magazine no matter who is on the cover. So, does SI make more money with subscribers? Or off-the-rack magazine purchases? I mean, if they are so concerned about making money, as a subscriber, I get the magazine regardless of it they put Mickey Mouse on the cover. My point is that why would putting Roger on a cover not sell the magazine? Regular SI fans are already subscribers, and loyal ones that purchase the magazine off the rack would not decide NOT to purchase it just because Roger would be on the cover.

Heck, I got my magazine today and barely glanced at the football player on the cover. But I did see Roger, Tiger and A-rod’s small picture at the top. I guess any little publicity is better than nothing…

While I don’t think Federer cares that SI hasn’t put him on the cover, I do think he is getting frustrated over the lack of respect he gets from the American media overall. Hence his comments after he won the U.S. Open which some are construing as “arrogant.”

People like to be recognized when they achieve great things and Federer is no different. Sampras never got on the cover of SI either as far as I can recall (correct me if I’m wrong please) and he was openly upset about it. of course SI means more to American fans and athletes then it does to non-American athletes. being on the cover of SI is still seen as a badge of honor to many athletes.

allcourt:

Sharapova’s 2004 cover for winning Wimbledon was the full cover. She got a little corner cover when she won the U.S. Open in 2006.

http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/2004/0712.html

If I had to choose one:

A) putting Federer’s image on the cover of Sports Illustrated

B) getting rid of Dick Enberg

That’s a no-brainer. To hell with an SI cover!

Lizzy,

I checked, and Sampras has been on the cover of Sports Illustrated TWICE.
The 1st time: July 11, 1994, after Wimbledon.
The 2nd time: July 14, 1997, after Wimbledon.

Thank you johnnhoj for the correction. I knew it couldn’t be true that Sampras never made it on…….He was still pissed, however, that he didn’t get on for his Wimbledon win in 2000.

FoT,
I am no Rupert Murdoch, but I think most of the money comes from the subscribers. The newsstands perhaps work better in the airports. It is true that you have already paid for it. but they want you to renew next year as well . That’s why football and basketball and great bodies of beautiful women often occupy that front cover. “DAS RENEWAL”!

now I have a question to Fot and Sean:

I looked at SI.com and I did not find this infamous ” I am the great” comment of Federer in his interview. Has he not said it or is it in the print version and is omitted in the e-version?

America only cares about american–which could generally lead to medicority. A couple of years ago in Colarado (not sure if it still happening) the FIRST American to pass the finish line in the marathon received something like $10,000. The FIRST american came in 12th TWELFTH!!!! He got more money than the winner–who was African. Go figure! U-ESS-AAA!!! U-ESS-A!!!!Yeah!!

The reason is obvious - SI isn’t really a sports magazine, it’s actually an entertainment and gossip one. Federer gets the credit he deserves at the right places, e.g. Laureus.

johnnhoj….thank you for finally bringing to light the biggest problem in american tennis coverage, dick enberg. why he is covering a sport he clearly knows nothing (hyperbole) about has me mystified.

I thought Zola would get excited by those notorious Fed quotes. Good bit of shit stirring there by Sean. Never mind anything slightly subtle like the context, such as some posters have brought up.

Here we have it , black and white. No need for no more!

Or - do we? Come on, somebody, don’t leave Zola in a state of anxiety , and confirm the quotes are for real!

Quite a tribute to Fed, really. He has antifans as well as fans and they seem - in their own special way, of course - to be just about as devoted.

grendel

I am not an anti Fed. Don’t get too excited. but it is no secret that I don’t like comments where people brag about themselves. I have written it many times here and many other places.

Anyway, these are pretty fancy quotes and it is only fair to Fed and us to confirm if they are true or not.

“I’ve taken them all.” That’s quite a quote from Fed!

he is merely stating the obvious…

if it weren’t true then you could accuse him of grandstanding…otherwise, we accept the truth and it it comes from the mouth of the individual that has accomplished this feat rather than from a third party it shouldn’t be cast in a different light.

nadal’s website says he is ‘the undisputed king of clay’. i think we all agree for the past three years he certainly has been. should we consider this less truthful if nadal utters those words?

it’s all how you want to spin it.

andrea,
don’t try to stir things up. what is said in NAdal’s website is not the same that comes out of Nadal’s mouth. the site is written and managed by a company. No one is bringing quotes from Federer’s website here. what are you trying to do?

What Fed has said (if true), are his own words and what he thinks about himself. He thinks he is great! As I said before, good for him!

Yes, the quotes I pulled are real. Not sure if they appear in the online version of the story but they certainly do run in the magazine.

As for Fed being cocky, he certainly has a little of that in him, and he’s earned that right. And if he keeps on winning he’ll have even more reason to toot his own horn.

IMO Federer can come across as rather “blunt” when it comes to discussing his abilities and/or achievements. Personally, I can’t decide if he’s downright conceited (and some will argue if he is, it’s justified because he is so great etc) or if he is merely restating what he’s heard in the media so much, or what he believes to be true about his “tennis,” as separate from himself as a person (your theory grendel).

Either way, people who are Fed fans will excuse him, people who dislike him will fault him, and others won’t care either way. Guess I’m the latter, mainly because we can never know how/what Fed means by his comments unless he tells us.

Maybe some journalist should ask him if he thinks he’s conceited - LOL: How’d that be for stirring up shit?

Admittedly, context would help in the interpretation (case in point: “piece of cake” comment).

Still, we can never *really* know if Fed is actually arrogant (or what any player is like, for that matter) unless we hang out with him for a while. Media sound bites and interviews are too misleading.

For critic:
I guess, u missed Sampras recent interview. He was talking about racquet technology. I was shocked after reading that. What about the racquet he used compared to laver or bjorg. I guess, what ever you said would be more apt to sampras. As far as for federer fans- No for tennis fans, he is an icon

“Pam Says:
SI doesn’t understand how popular and well liked Roger Federer is with Americans. Roger is one in a million and they don’t get it. ”

I am with Pam. I am not a SI reader, but would have become one if they started covering Roger. They are missing out on a golden opportunity on their hands here.

Looking at the phenomenal interest in Federer worldwide, I’d be shocked if folks in the US resolutely decide not to want to learn about him. It’s an opportunity for media to capitalize.

Roger Federer won Athlete of the Year Award sponsored by our own USAToday.com and MSNBC.com two years in a row. He beat out Armstrong, Woods and Tim Duncan for 2005. And he beat out Woods, Fabio Cannavaro, and Jimmie Johnson for 2006.

And Federer won’t sell magazines in the US?
Sound more like jingoism than capitalism to me.

Zola, again you calmly describe Federer as bragging, simply on the basis of quotes taken out of context. Thanks to Tony (on Sean’s other blog), we now have a bit of context: http://tinyurl.com/3dkhre.

For instance:”I’m chasing down Sampras,” Federer said afterward — and he’s already got an answer for people, such as Sampras himself, who question the level of his competition. “I disagree,” Federer said. “I think the depth [on the men’s tour] is much better now, 1 to 100.” The competition might look weaker, he said, simply “because I’ve taken all the Grand Slams with Rafa. If [Marat] Safin or Roddick and all these other guys would’ve gotten more, people would think there is much more depth now. But they didn’t. Because I’ve taken them all.”

Now, those lines which naughty Sean quotes OUT of context (and which do have the effect of making Federer seem a bit ridiculous) suddenly start to make sense. They are explanatory, are they not? Which doesn’t mean you have to agree with the explanation,of course, because Sampras may still be right about the relative weakness of competition, but it does mean that “bragging” is just the wrong word to describe what’s going on.

A person who is bragging is pointing to himself and saying:”look at me! aren’t I just the bees knees!” Federer is pointing out that nobody else has won grand slams because he (and Rafa - he brings him in initially) have won them all. A fairly simple bit of logic.

Federer may or may not be given to bragging - I’ve already argued earlier why I don’t think he is. However that may be, he’s definitely not bragging here.

It only goes to show, you’ve just got to look at things in context. Or peoples’ reputations get hammered unjustly. Does anyone really want that?

Thanks for the whole story Grendel.

As for TennisMasta, I can’t help but wonder if you’ve just learned a new word and are happy to write it whenever possible…or if you actually believe that the editors at SI have a patriotic agenda to put unworthy American athletes on the cover.

Yes, those who subscribe to SI will read it no matter who’s on the cover. Those readers are a sure thing. It’s the opportunity to get the attention/money of others editors are probably considered about. That’s capitalism. It drives Americans and business decisions. I have had to write plenty of news stories where I thought “Who gives a sh*t?” Well, I’ll tell you who…advertisers and the hair-brained audiences in the “Heartland” they are trying to appeal to. Maybe they’re blind patriots, unfortunately for SI sport editors they’re also customers. That, TennisMasta, is capitalism.

How is it bragging when you’re merely stating facts? What I find amazing is Roger’s lack of ego, or his ability to keep it in check. He’s so ridiculously dominant and every match he plays the commentators blather on and on about if he is or isn’t the best to have ever played. It’s phenomenal that he manages to stay so level headed about things…particularly when you consider the tremendous pressure that comes from everyone assuming you’re always going to win and assuming you’re going to keep breaking records.

Cut the guy some slack. If he’s not the best tennis player of all time he’s certainly one of the best. How would you rather he acknowledged that? What’s the guy supposed to say?

I don’t understand anti-fans. Root for the underdog all you want, but there’s no need to trash the #1 player; particularly someone as classy as Federer.

One should also keep in mind that Federer is not prone to high degrees of subtlety with the English language, though he’s OK with it on occasion. If he were having these conversations and making these comments in Swiss-German, for example, his attempts at humorous banter and his jesting would be more obvious, and these criticisms about bragging and arrogant demeanor would not stand. Some people are trying to make this out to be something it isn’t, as far as any thinking human being can infer. It’s a nonsense topic to grumble about. What about the tennis?

grendel,
I did not want to comment on Roger’s quotes before confirming that they were right. Now that sean has confirmed it, I just quote from federer:

““It’s important that people respect what I do, and I think over the past couple years that has happened. … But now I almost have the feeling [they know] they’re watching greatness.”

that should be all.

johnnhoj - true - it could be a matter of language, although by now one would think Federer would have a good grasp on english and tone, etc. as he’s been at the top for so many years and done reams of press too.

jane,
believe me it is not a matter of language. The guy knows what he is talking about. It is not like he has just learned how to speak English.

It’s really too bad you can’t (or won’t) see the admirable qualities that most of us do. And it’s certainly your loss.

“because Sampras may still be right about the relative weakness of competition,”

It is not a question of whether Sampras is right or wrong. It is whether you agree with him or not.

I for one disagree. Because it is not borne out of any facts, which in fact show the contrary - that competition was never greater. It is an established consensus that over time with technology, fitness, coaching, and the worldwide growth of tennis the depth of tennis is only increasing. There is no temporary anamoly that somehow suddenly just between 2004 and 2007 competition decided to take time off. BTW, Roger turned pro in 1998 when he was the world junior champion (perhaps a weak year for junior tennis). But coincidentally, Pete must have had the mis-fortune of playing in a relatively tougher era in junior days also as he never was the world junior champion. He never won Wimbledon as a junior either. Obviously there must be a reason (other than that Pete could not beat his opponents).

On what basis would one say that the competition is weaker? Because Roger does not loose as many matches as Pete did in his prime? Because Roger is so much more dominant than Pete ever was? Could it be that Roger is something very very special. Afterall, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Agassi, and Courier among many others to a man all said that Roger is the most complete tennis player of all time? Could they all be “wrong?”

There is reason for Sampras to say things he says. He wants to protect his 14 GS record even if by way of undermining Roger and any other greats that comes along during Pete’s lifetime. This weaker competition is a clever if specious one. With one loose statement Pete (thinks he can) dismiss everything that Roger and the current generation of players have accomplished.

For more in-depth discussion on this topic of competition you can refer to:
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/newsday/TRODVH5IPIDM06IEH/p7

I never understood the discussion of comparison between eras. usually when you compare things to each other, many things are constant, one or mostly two things change and based on those variables you can compare things.

In tennis, what are we coparing with what? the players have changed, the equipment has changed, the techniques, the phisique of the players…many things. The only thing one can use to compare the players of different ears, is their results and the numbers.

Sampras’s efforts to undermine “the field” and subtly Fed, is becoming very obvious and don’t really look good. no one forced him to retire . he could have stayed and show to everyone how weak this field is.

Just curious…does Tiger get hammered the same way Roger does for the lack of competition in golf? It’s obvious that none of those guys on the tour now can play since Woods is so dominant!

And even if it were true, do you think it is so easy to win day in and day out and keep motivated for 11 months a year? That’s an achievement in itself.

zola -

true, he should have a firm grasp on english by now, as mentioned. and as i’ve said elsewhere, it’s tough to tell, but sometimes it does seem like roger is arrogant (i’m not saying whether that is justified or not) - certainly in the quote you’ve provided, he can come across that way.

Sorry, Zola, can’t leave it there. Your “that should be all” is a bit cryptic, but it looks as if you are saying (with your quote) - this proves my case about the bragging (if you didn’t mean that, my apologies).

This is the extended quote:”It’s important that people respect what I do, and I think over the past couple years that has happened,” Federer said late Sunday night. “There were times I felt people were like….” He shrugged. “It was a bit strange. But now I almost have the feeling [they know] they’re watching greatness. Especially after that fifth Wimbledon, that really put me in a different league. That Wimbledon and this U.S. Open are going to change a lot of things.”

That simply is not bragging. It is true that we, especially of the Anglo-Saxon variety, feel uneasy when people refer to them selves as possessing greatness but that, in a sense, is our problem. You have to make a judgement. Is this person just sounding off, or is he convinced of his own particular genius and wishes it to be acknowledged? It’s no different, really, to great painters and writers, who have not been acknowledged in their day, but are convinced that one day the injustice will be put to right. Some of these people are delusional - but there are plenty who are not.

Incidentally, of course Johnnhoj is correct about the language issue - we’re talking here about subtleties and nuance, and Federer’s English although confident, is quite basic. Even so, that should not interfere with the point that Federer essentially is concerned with putting the record straight. You can disagree with that, of course (about his interpretation of the record, I mean). But if you insist that he was showing off, then you are showing a poor comprehension of some quite simple psychology - and words, too. It’s not, of course of course of course, that Fed is beyond criticism. But criticise him for the right things, where he deserves it.

grendel -

Seems like Federer is saying that he deserves respect because he is great; he is, as he puts it, in a “different league” because of his numerous wins.

I am wondering what your opinion is on this point, which came up on another thread (and which was not raised by me).

Was it distasteful for Federer to wear Swiss flags on his shoes to demarcate all of his wins at the USO, or to wear crests on his “blazer” at Wimbledon to indicate each of his wins there? In other words, to wear “badges” of his wins, notches on his belt.

Had any other player done so - Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Connors, or Rafa at RG for that matter - would it have been seen as tacky by the press or by fans, or maybe even as boasting? I wonder, but frankly, I think so.

Sean
I wish there was a comments section for Amer Delic’s post. I wish him best of luck in Bangkok and he should know that many praise his tennis.

Jane,
I like tennis a lot and I usually read or listen to the players’ comments after matches. This is the way federer talks. He tones down during clay season, where he can lose, but afterwards he is just like that. You have to read his quotes after winning Blake in mastercup last year, Roddick in AO 07, etc.

grendel:
thanks for providing the whole quote. I write it here as well:
“This is the extended quote:”It’s important that people respect what I do, and I think over the past couple years that has happened,” Federer said late Sunday night. “There were times I felt people were like….” He shrugged. “It was a bit strange. But now I almost have the feeling [they know] they’re watching greatness. Especially after that fifth Wimbledon, that really put me in a different league. That Wimbledon and this U.S. Open are going to change a lot of things.”

It might be allright to you. to me, someone saying people are now watching greatness, is bragging. but it is also “weapons of self destruction”. Usually when someone gets to this stage, the only way to go is down and it a pitty. Let’s see what happens from here.

Funny how most people here are so worked up over Roger’s comments about taking slams and acknowledging his greatness as if he were some snotty spoiled brat.

Dammit, if you’re good, then you’re good. As JT mentions above, if everyone else - media, commentators, bloggers and the rest of the human race - acknowledges time and time again of your abilities and prowess and the one time you allude to these same abilities yourself, you’re pegged as arrogant?

Give me a break!

This guy has decimated the men’s tennis field for the past four years to the point that he has taken almost all of the Grand Slams. (as he so deftly pointed out).

If that don’t give you bragging rights then nothing will. North Americans love to extole the virtues of geniuses but somehow elict backlash on these same geniuses if they dare acknoweldge themselves.

I think it’s great that Roger finally commented on all of this hype - acknowledging the pressure he has felt from all the accolades heaped on him and how he now think about Pete’s record. It probably was a bit of a release for him.

jane: What do you think the red, white and blue stripes on Jimmy Connors’s tee shirt stood for (see link)?
http://www.collectr.com/tn/images/tpconnorsj.jpg

Was it distasteful for John McEnroe to wear a color-matched warmup jacket with the huge letters “USA” on the back? Was it distasteful of Bjorn Borg to be the first tennis player to have so much commercialism stamped all over his attire? Is it tacky for Nadal to have a bull on his shoes, to show he is such a big bull on the court?

Gosh, those are tiny flags of tiny Switzerland on his shoes, not huge flags of the US, Russia or China on his shirt for goodness sake. Those tiny Swiss flags on his shoes can only be seen by an inquisitive zoom camera. It’s such a minor issue or non-issue that it is silly to bring up unless we want to make a mountain out of something tinier than a molehill. Regardless, as McEnroe and others have said, Federer’s last four years of dominance are unprecedented in modern tennis history. Yet, although Sports Illustrated has had 78 covers featuring tennis players over the years — including the legendary Anna Kournikova — SI has never featured Federer even once. If Fed wants to remind some of us of what he’s accomplished, he has a right to do so.

As well, Federer claims that the editor-in-chief of Vogue — the world’s most influential fashion magazine — loves his attire the US Open and at Wimbledon (certainly it’s perfect for the All England Club). You think Anna Wintour and Fed’s new-found fashion friends wouldn’t be the first to criticize his fashion taste? Given some of the attire that Venus/Serena Williams and other players sometimes wear, perhaps fashion criticism should be directed elsewhere.

Pete Sampras has repeatedly said that Federer is a humble person and a class act. I was lucky to see Federer close up at one of the Masters tournaments last year. A small crowd of us watched his pre-match warm up. After finishing the practice, he left the court by himself (no entourage) and stopped to chit chat with fans and sign autographs. Compared to some other players, Federer seems to be a pretty humble and down to earth guy. Certainly not arrogant or conceited in that brief encounter, with no identifiable press present.

Two articles:

- New York Times: It’s Time to Welcome a Symbol of Substance
http://tinyurl.com/2jh3wl

- Looking for a hero? Try Mr. Federer
http://www.thestar.com/article/245004

I agree with Jeremy’s comments.

Grendel is right. Before jumping to conclusions about Roger Federer based on partial quotes, have the decency to find out the context.

First, the Sports Illustrated author S.L. Price himself would probably disagree with mis-interpretations of the quotes based on what he wrote in an earlier article about Federer: “What has all that winning taught us about Roger Federer? We know he isn’t a loudmouth… We know he values good manners.” (Sports Illustrated writers like Richard Deitsch, S.L. Price and Frank Deford would have taken Federer to task if they felt this non-American was a loudmouth blowing hot air; it’s not the fault of these excellent writers that SI’s decision makers don’t put Fed on SI’s cover).

Second, read S.L. Price’s original article in full (see link, with excerpts below) and interpret Sean Randall’s two partial quotes in that context: “Without Peer: In winning his fourth straight U.S. Open crown and 12th Grand Slam title, Roger Federer left little doubt that no one in the world does anything as well as he plays tennis.”
http://tinyurl.com/3dkhre

- ‘Two games later Federer punished Djokovic for caving on the seven set points he had squandered in the first two sets, breaking him with the same vicious backhand that had torn up every other opponent this fortnight, and reclaiming the U.S. Open title and the crowd’s collective awe. “It’s important that people respect what I do, and I think over the past couple years that has happened,” Federer said late Sunday night. “There were times I felt people were like….” He shrugged. “It was a bit strange. But now I almost have the feeling [they know] they’re watching greatness. Especially after that fifth Wimbledon, that really put me in a different league. That Wimbledon and this U.S. Open are going to change a lot of things.” The Open has long been the tennis year’s defining event, and this fortnight was no exception. Both Federer and fellow No. 1 Henin… emerged as the class of their respective tours.’
[Sean partially quoted: ‘Fed was candid when talking about his place in the game: “It’s important that people respect what I do, and I think over the past couple years that has happened. … But now I almost have the feeling [they know] they’re watching greatness.” ’]

- ‘Federer outplayed Djokovic on nearly every big point, won his third major of the year and passed 11-time Slam winners Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg on the alltime list. “I’m chasing down Sampras,” Federer said afterward — and he’s already got an answer for people, such as Sampras himself, who question the level of his competition. “I disagree,” Federer said. “I think the depth [on the men’s tour] is much better now, 1 to 100.” The competition might look weaker, he said, simply “because I’ve taken all the Grand Slams with Rafa. If [Marat] Safin or Roddick and all these other guys would’ve gotten more, people would think there is much more depth now. But they didn’t. Because I’ve taken them all.” In other words, world, take your consolation where you can. Federer has no rival, not really, not anywhere. And he’s ready to make the case, with his game and with his mouth, until you understand.” ’
[Sean partially quoted and emphasized: ‘He also addressed the competition issue, saying “If Safin or Roddick and all these other guys would’ve gotten more [Slams], people would think there is much more depth now. But they didn’t. Because I’ve taken them all.” “I’ve taken them all.” That’s quite a quote from Fed!’]

So now it should be clear what Federer meant. It is a fact that Federer and Nadal — that UNDISPUTED KING of clay — have taken all the Grand Slams since 2004 (who wants to quibble that Federer left out Safin’s AO slam?). In addition, Federer is rightly aware that, despite his unprecedented success over a four-year span, he initially wasn’t accorded the respect he deserved in the U.S., though he has been getting more recognition only relatively recently. As the U.S. is the world’s largest sports market, obviously it’s an important issue to the world’s leading sportsman (voted the Laureus World Sportsman Of The Year an unprecedented three consecutive times over other non-tennis sports stars). This excerpt from the New York Times gives further context (see link at top of post): ‘ “In some ways, yes, what I’m looking for is definitely recognition in the States,” Federer said. “I hope they appreciate my achievements and results, but I don’t want to force it on the public because that is always up to them to decide.” He is not David Beckham, imposing his global celebrity and Posh wife and exposed pecs on America’s soccer simpletons for the profit of Brand Beckham. Instead, Federer has moved judiciously into our culture, with more ads and more victories, becoming an excellent houseguest’. (Btw, Zola, Fed is hardly “worshipped” in Tennis Magazine; for some writers it seems more a grudging acceptance of the obvious. Arguably, there is relatively more enthusiasm for Nadal in some writers).

Given the larger context, what Federer said is factual and should be acceptable to an objective person. Unlike other top sportsmen with a large entourage, including public relations assistants, Federer does a lot of his own communication and public relations himself with Mirka’s help (when she’s not doubling as his coach). Isn’t it refreshing we’re not getting superficial and insincere pat answers prepared by PR experts? In addition, Federer spoke late at night in a foreign language, in which he has developed basic fluency but is not perfect about nuance and diplomat speak in English (it’s absurd how the English comments of foreign players like Davydenko are sometimes misused by people who can’t even understand Russian or German). Regardless, Federer was stating the truth and the obvious, and he isn’t a loudmouth given his incredible record of accomplishments.

Andrea is right to expose the obvious double standards in making a mountain out of a molehill about the partial Federer quotes. Nadal’s official website emphatically proclaims: “3-TIME FRENCH OPEN CHAMPION… THE UNDISPUTED KING OF CLAY” (see link). Sorry Zola, but this is not a Federer quote made late Sunday night after drinking champagne for winning four US Opens or spontaneous quotes taken from Federer’s website (see link).
http://www.rafaelnadal.com
http://www.rogerfederer.com

As a Nadal fan, you should know that this is Nadal’s fundamental slogan — it is how Nadal wants you to think of himself, deliberately highlighted everyday on his official website. As a major professional athlete, Nadal is like the owner of a small business organization. As the boss, Nadal ultimately authorizes what’s on his website and easily could have changed his slogan a long time ago with one phone call to his manager or to his official website administrator. This is not an unofficial website managed by some unauthorized third party.

If you criticize and make assumptions about Federer bragging and lacking humility, why are you so willing to overlook Nadal’s more emphatic and deliberate claims? After all, Federer stated the obvious (he already is one of the three or four “greatest” tennis players of all time and is considered the world’s top sportsman by sports legends). On the other hand, Bjorn Borg has good reason to believe he is the undisputed king of