Federer Haters Feeling the Pain
by Sean Randall | July 31st, 2009, 3:29 pm
  • 268 Comments

Let’s be honest, the headline statement is true. For the many of you out there who to a core despise Roger Federer or just generally dislike the man, this must have been a very rough last few months for you. These are indeed tough times. I feel for you guys – I do – and I see the hate and anger boiling into the comments, conversations and reactions I read on this site and elsewhere. And to a degree I can understand it: He’s not your guy.

Further compounding said suffering is when you look back from where Roger has come to where he is now, and we don’t have to look back very far.

Flashback to just four months ago. Federer was floundering, mired in arguably his worst slump since claiming the No. 1 ranking back in 2004. The Swiss could get close, but couldn’t close a win against his main combatants – Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, coming up empty behind a game that would almost on cue come unglued at all the wrong times.

And while Fed was exiting his “window of opportunity”, others where just entering their own window. Nadal was becoming more dominant, Murray was rising fast, Andy Roddick had a spark and then Djokovic drove the what many thought was the final nail into Fed’s coffin, beating Federer on that “Black Friday” on the Miami hardcourts in early April.

Ah, the sight of Federer smashing his racquet in disgust. The anguish on Roger’s face as he slid off the court in such a sad wreck that he forgot to even shake the umps hand. For many of you the skies were blue that day. The grass was green and there was an overwhelming sense that Federer’s best days were now over. It was almost a fitting, Hollywood-esq confirmation/conclusion watching Federer try to dent Miami’s center court with his Wilson.

For the Anti-Federer’s of the world, that Friday was bliss, it must have been. It was Christmas, New Year’s, St. Patty’s Day, hell Arbor Day all rolled into one. The King was dead. He had cratered. It was all but official.

The future looked even bleaker for the mighty Rog. Federer had kids on the way, but before then he’d surely have to endure a painful, titleless clay season courtesy of the unstoppable Nadal. And with his confidence so low Wimbledon would be just to big an ask against the likes of the improving Nadal, Murray and others.

The baby would pop out in mid-summer stifling any hope of him being fully ready and motivated to win a sixth US Open, leaving the once great world No. 1 starring at a plunging ranking and a Slam-less 2009. The realization would set in, that at 28, with two kids, new priorities, getting to No. 14 let alone 15 was no certainty anymore.

And I was right there with you guys. My chips were not on red.

But how things change…

Off those “April lows” Federer has roared back like a lion enjoying one of the greatest personal and professional patches any tennis player or even athlete has ever been fortunate enough to have.

Just consider what’s happened since that Miami defeat:
• He gets married to Mirka
• He beats Nadal on clay
• He wins the French Open to complete the career Slam and tie Pete
• He wins his sixth Wimbledon in an epic breaking the in-attendance Pete’s 14
• He gets his No. 1 ranking back
• He becomes a father to twin girls 2.5 weeks later

And that’s all in less then four months! Can life be any better for Federer? Can it be any worse for the legion of Fed haters (vomit)? Fortunately or unfortunately, yes and yes.

After all this, Federer’s rivals who seemed to have passed him earlier in the year appear to now be back at the starting line.

Nadal remains an iffy proposition going forward as the Spaniard battles his nagging knees and the emotional scars of his parent’s divorce. One has to wonder how Roddick will mentally recover from that devastating defeat at Wimbledon. Murray has a lot of pressure on this summer, will he finally live up to the great on the US hardcourts or will he cave in again like did Wimbledon. And for Djokovic, the Serb’s last Top 20 victory was that Federer win in Miami, and his play since that crushing loss to Nadal in Madrid seemed to have taken some wind out of his sail.

Meanwhile, it’s easy street for Roger. It’s all smiles. No more due date speculation, that’s out of the way so he can concentrate on tennis. Expectations are off, questions have been answered now that he has the French in his pocket and he’s passed Pete, which means he’ll play more relaxed, more loosely than ever. Then again, that could be a bad thing, we’ll see.

But the point of this is is that if you hate Federer, which you are perfectly entitled to do, your time will come again to sound your horn. There will be another “Black Friday”, another busted frame and many more losses to come. Hell, in 10-15 years whatever Roger (or even Rafa) does end up with may be surpassed by some kid sitting in a class room today learning how to dot his i’s and cross his t’s. It’s just hard right now to take swipes at the guy after all he’s accomplished in the last few months.

Now you will say that I’m a Fed fanatic (which I get a lot of when Roger’s winning and I’m left with having to write Roger’s winning, imagine!). Not true. I like the guy, I like watching him play but I’m not a diehard.

I actually like watching him lose, watching him slither and see what he says afterward. And I don’t think he’ll win all the time. I picked Murray to beat him at the US Open last year. I picked Rafa to Wimbledon before Federer would win the French. I even ripped Fed’s competition during his “glory” years.

I’ve called him arrogant and smug (he is!), and showy (wearing a Liberace outfit on a tennis court is clear evidence of that), but he seems to be a decent guy who doubles as a great ambassador to the sport of tennis. So I give him his due.

I’m not asking that you give the same, but I’m just saying this lovefest he’s riding now will end and you’ll have your day in the sun again. Don’t worry. So just be patient, sit tight and while you wait you better hope and pray Rafa’s knees return to full capacity, and fast! Otherwise you may want to disconnect your TV, shut down your internet, throw your cell in the river and go live in a ditch because more pain may be on the way.


Also Check Out:
Rafael Nadal Explains How He Got His Knees Better, But Still Critical Of Hardcourts
Stanislas Wawrinka Is Still Getting Treatment For His Thigh, But For Now It’s OK
Uh Oh, Juan Martin del Potro’s Left Wrist Is In Severe Pain
Juan Martin Del Potro Withdraws From Indian Wells: My Left Wrist Is Still Hurting A Lot
Federer Wins Cincy; Bryans Blow 8 Match Points in Loss

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

268 Comments for Federer Haters Feeling the Pain

Fed is GOAT Says:

Nice post, Sean!!


Fed is GOAT Says:

Now SG, Von, Voicemale1, Skorocel, and others will out come out full force with their venom (as classy as Sampras). Watch out Sean!


methos Says:

I agree with everything you said, nice write up.


Von Says:

Hate, per the dictionary:

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.

–verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

–noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.
——————————————————————————–
Origin:
bef. 900; ME hat(i)en, OE hatian (v.); c. D haten, ON hata, Goth hatan, G hassen

Related forms:

hater, noun
Synonyms:
1. loathe, execrate; despise. Hate, abhor, detest, abominate imply feeling intense dislike or aversion toward something. Hate, the simple and general word, suggests passionate dislike and a feeling of enmity: to hate autocracy. Abhor expresses a deep-rooted horror and a sense of repugnance or complete rejection: to abhor cruelty; Nature abhors a vacuum. Detest implies intense, even vehement, dislike and antipathy, besides a sense of disdain: to detest a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Abominate expresses a strong feeling of disgust and repulsion toward something thought of as unworthy, unlucky, or the like: to abominate treachery.
________________
Hate is what the Graf fan did to Seles, and Tonya Harding did to Nancy Kerrigan. I honestly hope that no one, and I mean NO ONE, posting on Tennis.X is actually capable of such a destructive and/or corrosive emotion, but then again, it’s possible from the demonizing that I see written in some posts.


steve Says:

It’s strange that the more Federer wins, the more he proves his caliber, the more people act like someone’s trying to con them or trick them.

“He can’t possibly be that good,” “His luck’s got to run out sometime,” etc.

It’s like they can’t believe that someone could be able to do what he does without showing some visible signs of effort.

And part of the reason people feel like he’s somehow not doing anything is that Federer’s approach is to hide the hard work. He trains as hard as anyone else (and harder than most), but on court he never sweats.

It’s the old-school mentality that it’s unprofessional to show the preliminary work that went into the finished product; the audience came to see you play tennis, not to see you work hard trying to play tennis. Just like a musician only wants you to hear the song, not all the painstaking effort that went into composing it.

In addition, his style is so varied that he can limit his opponent’s options by his shot selection instead of simply overpowering them. So it looks like he’s not doing anything to beat them, when in fact, he’s forcing them to play risky shots or getting the ball into places they can’t easily reach.

So it’s not magic; it’s just that what he does is hard to see.


topspin Says:

yep, don’t worry, got plenty of HATE reserved for the FedTard, just one slip, ONE tiny slip and I’m back!!!

he’s too arrogant for his own good, damn I hate this guy.


Lynne Danley Says:

How sad that sports fans feel the need to HATE! For me, that ruins the sport. I am a Fed lover but I don’t HATE Rafa, Murray (I actually like him) or even Djokovic (though he’s far from my favorite). These are all human beings who happen to be the best tennis players in the world. Without the others, each of them alone would be nothing. I can’t understand why fans of the Oregon Beavers in my home state feel they have to HATE the Oregon Ducks (aren’t we all Oregonians?) or why you can’t like both the Raiders and the 49ers if you live in the CA Bay Area. Whether Roger Federer is your favorite player or not, think about what a privilege it is to be alive and a tennis fan so that you can watch if not THE best tennis player of all time, certainly one of the top two or three. He makes shot nobody ever thought about. He has brought legions of new fans to tennis. He loves tennis, loves the fans and respects and appreciates the other players. And the same can be said for the other top players. I feel sorry for people who waste their time and energy hating someone who doesn’t deserve it. He’s not a serial killer, he’s an astonishing tennis player.


Dan Martin Says:

Quick things – Federer achieved #1 in 2004 not 2003 and Djokovic beat Federer at Rome too.

I guess this leaves me as the Federer fanatic on Tennis-x as Sean says he isn’t and likes watching Federer slither off the court after he loses.

Anyway, going into last year’s U.S. Open I recall saying in one of these threads that Roger was not playing that badly. That his 2008 results looked a lot like Novak’s 2007 results headed into the Open and 1 was written off and 1 was looked at as a serious threat. I remember saying Roger’s 2008 hard court losses to Simon, Karlovic and Blake might have gone differently had it been 3 out of 5 matches like the ones being played in NY.

This is where I would say to the non-Fed fans that Djokovic really has played well this year and it can take a player time to adjust after winning his first major title. Murray has his best FO and Wimbledon ever and should be very solid this Summer. Nadal is a warrior kind of a wolverine with a racket and if he can play he will play hard. No time to panic.


Von Says:

“Ah, the site of Federer smashing his racquet in disgust.”

What’s the name of the website?


tennisontherocks Says:

‘Von Says:
“Ah, the site of Federer smashing his racquet in disgust.”

What’s the name of the website?’

http://www.haters.com …lol


Von Says:

FIG: Just because I defend Sampras against your relentless attacks does not mean I ‘hate’ federer. Please show me where I’ve ever stated that ‘I hate Federer’. I see more hate in what you write about Sampras, where you don’t see any good in him as a player and a person, than in any of my posts defending Sampras. Please come down to earth.
___________________
Dan Martin:

“I guess this leaves me as the Federer fanatic on Tennis-x as Sean says he isn’t and likes watching Federer slither off the court after he loses.”

Actions speak louder than works. Case in point, this thread could only be written by a huge Federer admirer/lover.


Sean Randall Says:

Von/Dan, thanks, gaffs noted.

Re: Hate. Let’s not get carried away. I’m not referring to hate crimes or the such. But there’s nothing wrong with not liking somebody or in this case some player. (drinking the hate-o-rade)

If you hate/dislike Federer, there’s nothing wrong with that per se. And in fact I can see reason to do so as many people have a disdain for the “winners” in society, especially here in the U.S. where the media culture is becoming more and more about toppling the kings and queens.


Sean Randall Says:

Von, you are right. I do admire Roger. Love him? I’ll pass on that one.


tennisontherocks Says:

‘Von Says:
a huge Federer admirer/lover.’

either you called Mirka fat or Roger has some secret lover :)

(sorry, not picking on you…just need humor to digest another round of ‘Roger is GOAT, you love him only if you agree and a hater if you disagree’ debate).


ava Says:

Um, Nadal’s parent’s are not divorced yet. Separated, not divorced. It’s not legal yet.
And as a die-hard Nadal fan who has followed him faithfully for many years I know he will not be affected by it beyond an extent. It’s sad for sure and it definitely upset him(see Miami)but no it won’t derail his career as many hope. He himself said so in a recent interview with Spanish television. He’s a big boy and as close as he is to his family he’s not a fool to let it destroy his career. Even when things were not right in Mallorca he won IW, MC, Barcelona and Rome.

The main issue is the knees. Things at the moment are not looking very bright. But the positive is that Rafa has grown a lot as a player and a person the last few months. He had to go through a lot and it has resulted in a person so much more mature and independent as reflected in his recent interview. I was scared before the interview whether he will ever be ‘RAFA’ again on court. But after hearing his comments which were amazingly realistic and insightful, I think we will. Not this year; he’s not ready yet. But I think next year Rafa will be a smarter and a wiser player. He has already done much to address his knee problem lately and if he gets hold of it, Rafa will be back. Contrary to the popular belief, I think he will be around a lot longer than many would like to believe. This year is going to be pivotal in his career. It could either make or break him. I think it will be positive. Knowing Rafa for the past 6 years makes me think so.

So, I’m optimistic he’ll be back to challenge Federer.

I’m a self-confessed Federer ‘hater’ but only a fool would say his achievements over the past two months are insignificant. I have no probs admitting Rafa is much inferior to Federer in terms of tennis achievements. What he’s done as a player is nothing short of breath-taking and I have all the respect in the world for his abilities and achievements. It’s just that I think he’s a pompous scumbag in other respects and I hate him for it. Doesn’t take away anything from who he is as a player..

Federer fans should simply ignore all the haters. Seriously, you know how good your man is. There are very few who ‘hate’ him. The general public is absolutely in love with this guy. You should hear Nadal’s detractors. Much much worse and obviously more accepted than Federer haters. But people are free to hate whoever they want to and there is not much we can do as fans. Be it Federer’s or Nadal’s.


Dan Martin Says:

Being at Indy last weekend really reminds me of just loving the game and enjoying seeing it played at a high level. Ginepri’s down the line backhand and serve returning was great. Isner’s serve was special. Querrey really can play well too as he is doing in LA and did in Indy and Newport. I like Fed due to his game really coming the closest of any player to idealizing how I would like to play. Still, I find it hard not to really like the games of all of the top players. They excel in so many phases. My mom and youngest sister being huge Nadal fans keeps me honest as well. I think we all have biases and I try to be upfront about mine. Maybe that helps.


Dan Martin Says:

Sean,

I always catch gaffs and errors after I submit my stuff for posting. I wish I had access to edit even after posting. Luke – give me editor powers please (joking).


tennisontherocks Says:

Dan, I am glad to hear that you had good time at Indy. many times such smaller events do provide more intimate setting to appreciate tennis.

Are you going to Cincinati also?


evie Says:

Who would compare Graf to Tonya Harding? Geez, get a perspective.


Von Says:

Sean Randall:

“If you hate/dislike Federer, there’s nothing wrong with that per se. And in fact I can see reason to do so as many people have a disdain for the “winners” in society, especially here in the U.S. where the media culture is becoming more and more about toppling the kings and queens.”

I hope you’re speaking in general and the above is not meant for me specifically. If it is, please remember this, I don’t hate anyone — I don’t know how to do so, as it’s not part of my personality. I dislike some people, but gosh, hate is not a word I use often in my vocabulary. And, whether you believe me or not is immaterial to me, but just remember this, I’m not angry at Federer because he wins, I just don’t like his smug behavior when he wins and his poor loser comments when he loses, and that’s a whole different enchilada from what you or others seem to imply when it comes to ‘hate’.
_____________________
Dan Martin:

“Luke – give me editor powers please (joking).”

Tell him to reinstate the smileys. This is the only site that does not have smileys. I know of a poster (friend) who’s stopped posting here because he stated this site is too bland with nary a ‘smiley’ in sight. LOL.
_____________________
Tennisontherocks:

“either you called Mirka fat or Roger has some secret lover :)”

Lest someone misinterprets your post, I’ve never called Mirka fat. If I did, I’d be dead by now and put out to greener pastures. LOL.


I like tennis bullies Says:

tennis-x drooling federer fanboys, sean needs a bib.

fyi federer is the gloat -greatest luck of all time.

macho man nadal to return and put the swiss miss back in his rightful place.

nadal brings back the pain to federer and tennisx fanboys bring an appetite.


SG Says:

LOL!!! The previous thread triggered this Sean Randall rant. I should have seen it coming. Sean…you must have been grinning ear-to-ear while writing this. I’ll see you on one of Dan’s threads. This article is a gratuitous swipe and I’m not falling for it.


Dan Martin Says:

On the Rocks,

I will be at Cincy the first two days of the men’s event. They gave me two days of credentials. I may go on the 3rd day as a fan, but we shall see. I am most looking forward to seeing Tom Gullickson. His foundation has a booth there and he is kind enough to talk to pretty much anyone. I always try to buy a hat or shirt from his foundation. Maybe he will let me interview him about the work he is doing for children who lost a parent to brain cancer.

Dan


Jamie Says:

Absolutely superb article.


jock Says:

Why is it all right to call Federer a pompous scumbag? Most critics of Nadal talk about his playing not his character.All right then i’ll give my opinion Nadal is a twofaced, sly, gurning,stringy haired git .Roddick is an obnoxious ill mannered oik.


Von Says:

SG; Nah it was the beating Sean got from the three ladies last night, which was too hot to handle, and that provoked this act –comeuppance. LOL. This article certainly has ‘hits and more hits’ written all over it. LOL.


Dan Martin Says:

more hits than going green


Von Says:

“more hits than going green”

Didn’t you know, Sean’s the ‘Don’ of Tennis.X? LOL.


Dan Martin Says:

I think Sean is great – never met him in person – but Sean carries the load for tennis-x. I can write 2-3 times per month most months if I push maybe 4 times per month. Sean does that every week during the slams.


JoshDragon Says:

Lol, Greatest post of all time. I agree completely.
I do like Roger, but I hope Nadal beats him at the US Open and brings some interest back to their rivalry.


tenisbebe Says:

SG Says: “LOL!!! The previous thread triggered this Sean Randall rant. I should have seen it coming. Sean…you must have been grinning ear-to-ear while writing this. I’ll see you on one of Dan’s threads. This article is a gratuitous swipe and I’m not falling for it.” You are oh so right SG! Nailed him


tenisbebe Says:

Von Says: “SG; Nah it was the beating Sean got from the three ladies last night, which was too hot to handle” Yeah and he never responded to my posts calling him on it: http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-07-30/1876.php

What’s up with that Sean?


dizza Says:

Fed will win more slams
yes nadal will too
but nadals knees
we will see
is he making itup?
prob not dont sure
but dont think he will have same impact


grendel Says:

Steve mocks those saying things like:” “His luck’s got to run out sometime,” – well, I’m one of those who’ve pushed this line. It’s the simple truth. Apart from disaster areas like me (sob), luck runs in cycles.Fed had a bad run, then a good run, hallo – methinks it’s bad run time again. Only thing is, dunno when. None of this says anything about the quality of Federer – I agree with those like Steve who think he’s tops.

As for the “hate” thing, I found myself on this site by accident two or three years ago, and I mosied around at the same time on other tennis sites out of curiosity. I was startled by the level of hatred and devotion directed to various players. I have always been a George Orwell man, so I was well aware of how sport reflects the various hatreds teeming in our society – among other things, for there are good things too, of course, but that’s for another thread. But the sheer vindictiveness on display was an eyeopener. What an amazing cacophony! In retrospect, a sad irony that I was to contribute to this raucous noise.

It was immediately noticeable that at the centre of all this frantic hubub was the unlikely figure of Roger Federer. A mild mannered, ordinary person (who happened to be a tennis genius), with many obvious failings of character (quite unlike we posters), but nothing too special really – and yet somehow he generated all this venom. Why? Who was he threatening? For naturally, the self-righteous explanations are worthless, they always are. There is a genuine puzzle here.


tenisbebe Says:

Ava – good post at 4:49 pm.
——————-
tennisontherocks Says: “‘Von Says: a huge Federer admirer/lover.’ either you called Mirka fat or Roger has some secret lover :)”

That was not Von – if fact she, I, Fed is Afraid and others verbally upbraided the person who did post it (I will not mention who as to avoid more conflict).
—————-
tennisontherocks Says:”…you love him only if you agree and a hater if you disagree’ debate.” You said it brother! That’s how Pete got dragged into the ring, because he didn’t slobber all over Roger – and why in the hell should he? Or Laver for that matter – the only man to win 2 Grand Slams? People need to get real.


Dan Martin Says:

Grendel – great post and I think Roger is liked and disliked by many for one simple fact. He is kind of like a Platonic form of a certain type of tennis that has come to life. If you like that approach to tennis, he is “bloody near a religious experience.” If you don’t like that style, then he is a guy who does not project eros out on the court. A co-worker who loves Nadal said Federer versus Nadal is like seeing a guy who is a genius just hitting crazy shots versus a guy spilling his guts and ruining his joints before the age of 25. This guy likes seeing guts spilled on court. Roger I think does spill his guts at times as he did vs. del Potro or Haas in Paris or Roddick at SW 19, but would prefer to just blow his opponent off the court hit some shots that almost break his opponent’s will. This is why I think Nadal has had his share of success versus Federer – Rafa tends to treat each point like a chance to wear his opponent out so a great shot does not mesmerize or demoralize him. I think Rafa has forced Roger to get better and vice versa but they are like avatars for two potential approaches to tennis. I liked Connors growing up so Nadal is a lot of fun to watch – all of Connors’ fight with none of the negative energy. I liked Pete and Edberg and other smooth players so Fed is fun to watch as well.


Skorocel Says:

LOL and LOL! This definitely has a potential to be another of those 500+ posts threads :-) Sean, you certainly know a thing or two about how to draw some attention!:-) What can I say? Long live you & the rest of tennis-x.com staff!


Veno Says:

Von says: “I’m not angry at Federer because he wins, I just don’t like his smug behavior when he wins and his poor loser comments when he loses, and that’s a whole different enchilada from what you or others seem to imply when it comes to ‘hate’.”

Aren’t you implying that you dislike him as a person by saying that? Just a question, not a criticism my dear. Agree with you on the inappropriateness of the word “hate”

The fact Fed’s makes questionable comments, sometimes after losing, makes me like him more. Thank god he messes up sometimes(in my opinion anyway) because next to being a great tennis player, the hours he puts in to talk to all media in 4 languages and how likable he is(ask the players and people who know him personally) IT MAKES HIM HUMAN!!! And he says stupid things, cries an awful lot win or lose and he wore an outfit at Wimby I wouldn’t dare put on a stable-bound pig and I love him for that!!!!!!


Veno Says:

Right on Dan. I’m a big Fed fan, but Nadal(and to a smaller effect the Andy’s, Novak, Delpo) certainly makes me enjoy watching Federer and tennis more and more because of what he brings to the table. Contrasting styles and character that drive and force eachother to extend the limits and boundaries of their capabilities. What more can you want or ask for if you’re a tennis fan?! Am expecting fireworks at the USO this year….also that all the top players are 100% fit and well prepared….can’t wait!!!!


Von Says:

Veno: “Aren’t you implying that you dislike him as a person by saying that? Just a question, not a criticism my dear. ”

Not at all, only a small part of the person on some of the stuff he says, but not the whole person, because I don’t know the man to dislike him entirely. It’s not possible to like ‘everything’ about anyone, and I’m sure you feel that way about many people, don’t you, unless you love them with unconditional love. Hope this answers your question.


FoT Says:

I liked the article. Was laughing as I read it. Good post Sean (and I don’t say that too many times either) lol!

I guess it’s good to have tennis posters to be so passionate about their favorite players. I, for one, is regarding Roger. But I can’t understand why some are so ‘hateful’ to the players, as if they have personally met them and that the player has personally hurt them in some way. That has puzzled me so much. I’ve seen posters on many threads say stuff like “I hate Federer”, “Federer is so arrogant and I can’t stand his attitude”, “Federer doesn’t respect the players”, etc. Yet, from reading what people who have actually MET the guy said – it’s just the opposite.

The players love Roger. Even Roddick said he’d love to hate the guy but he’s just too nice. When the player get knocked out of the tournament and the reporter ask “who are you rooting for now”, I’ve constantly read that the players said “well, since I’m out of the tournament, I want Roger to win it. I’ll be pulling for him”. To me that says a lot about the person and this is coming from people who know him – not just angry fans who don’t like him.

But things go in cycles. Roger was riding high then he hit a low now he’s high again and I am enjoying every bit of it. Even during the ‘low times’ I never wavered because I said Roger had done enough for me that even if he didn’t win another match I would still be his fan. So all of this that has happened in the past month or so is a big bonus for us fans and we are enjoying it. Nothing last forever, but I’m going to enjoy all of Roger’s success to the highest. Then when he starts to skid again, no problem – I will still continue to be a fan of his and congratulate whatever player is taking over the tennis courts at that time.

So like Sean said, if you’re not a Federer fan – just hang in there. Roger can’t dominate forever (although I want him too for as long as he can)! lol!


Von Says:

Veno:

“The fact Fed’s makes questionable comments, sometimes after losing, makes me like him more. Thank god he messes up sometimes(in my opinion anyway) because next to being a great tennis player, the hours he puts in to talk to all media in 4 languages and how likable he is(ask the players and people who know him personally) IT MAKES HIM HUMAN!!! And he says stupid things, cries an awful lot win or lose and he wore an outfit at Wimby I wouldn’t dare put on a stable-bound pig and I love him for that!!!!!!”

Now, the above is the true definition of “unconditional love”, and you are capable of so doing, unfortunately I’m not. But then again, it’s why you’re a Fed fan and I’m not.


FoT Says:

If people are only fans of players who never messes up, never say anything ‘wrong’, then what player can you be a fan of?


Veno Says:

nah Von, has nothing to do with unconditional love(although I am capable of having that, but only for people close to me)
I love him as a tennis player and he seems like a guy who is very likable…..but I don’t know him persoanlly, so to me it’s just irrelevant to talk too much about his behaviour off court. He seems to handle all the attention and pressure of being number 1 and in the limelight very well and I respect him for that.


Von Says:

This thread has ‘incongruence’ written all over it, where the same people who seem to deplore hatred toward some players with such vehemence are the ones guilty of so doing. LOL. It’s time to move on. Next …..


Kimmi Says:

Sean, I enjoyed your post, funny too ! could not stop laughing when I read it.

Too many good things happened to Fed, sometimes its hard to believe when I think about how he struggled before Madrid. Hope for “the good things” to continue.


Dan Martin Says:

My top 15 favorite players to watch and follow as a fan in order –
1. Federer – Genius/Sustained excellence
2. Guga – The friendly warrior
3. Boris Becker – 1985 win got me to play tennis
4. Jimmy Connors – Old Blood and Guts
5. Stefan Edberg – Great Hands
6. Richard Krajicek – I played like a pre-96 RK
7. Goran Ivanisevic – 3 Gorans in 1 – Trinity
8. Jim Courier – Grinder
9. Patrick Rafter – Zinc Oxide and volleys
10. Pete Sampras – The Consummate Champion
11. Marat Safin – What could have been …
12. Juan Martin del Potro – I like his upside
13. Novak Djokovic – Brutal Efficiency
14. Rafa Nadal – Connors said he plays like he’s broke – sounds about right – love the fight
15. Carlos Moya – Great forehand and movement


Joe Karlin Says:

Great post! Really well written and very true.
Why do people need to be Fed-haters? Just accept what he has achieved and apreicate it, even if you dont like the guy for whatever reason.

@I like tennis bullies: Federer didn’t win 15 majors by “luck”, Idiot. ;)


Tusker Says:

• He becomes a father to twin girls 2.5 weeks later

And that’s all in less then four months!

HILARIOUS!!! dude all because NADAL was injured.. he should thank NADAL for all this… moreover he could beat Roddick in straight sets… This time he did not WIN he just scraped through and a 5 setter with Roddick!! CMON!!!


NachoF Says:

Von,
You want to talk about incongruence?

First you start giving definitions of hatred and how unlikely it is to find it here…. giving the example
“Hate is what the Graf fan did to Seles, and Tonya Harding did to Nancy Kerrigan. I honestly hope that no one, and I mean NO ONE, posting on Tennis.X is actually capable of such a destructive and/or corrosive emotion”

I agreed completely with you.

But then you go on to take such a light approach to the word/emotion and say
“the same people who seem to deplore hatred toward some players with such vehemence are the ones guilty of so doing. LOL.”

I understand that the word ‘hater’ can be taken in a lighter sense than to relate it to the exact definition of hate…. I just found it ironic you were complaining about the thread being
‘incongruent’.


vared Says:

Well Dan
I agree with all those on your list except number 1. LOL


funches Says:

I never understand why people tried to judge Federer through the prism of past greats.

As much as he was struggling earlier this year, he still has a better, more complete game than anyone who ever played. It’s why he has obliterated the mark of consecutive grand slams semis made. It’s why he always was going to set the record for slams won. Think about it. In his worst stretch, he lost a five-set Wimbledon final, won the U.S. Open final in straight sets and lost a five-set Aussie Open final.

It’s beyond my comprehension how anyone could watch Murray or Djokovic and think they are as good as an in-form Federer. Nadal gives him problems even when he plays well, but Rafa is far more vulnerable to other players than Fed.


margot Says:

Dan Martin: was that a list in order of preference? If so how can you possibly put Del Potro over Djko or Nadal for that matter, and what about Nastase, Santoro, Pioline etc etc? BTW in two years time my own A. Murray will be on your list!


Faisal Says:

shame on writer of this topic, i dont really know what is he upto, is he trying to make those ” federer haters ” as he called them, to hate federer even more or is it some sort of provocative act, whatever it is, it makes me not to enter this site again ,,,
ive been a regular follower of this site but from and on id feel shame entering it after reading such a ridiculous article,
u must be a freak, get well soon,


Kamaraj Retnasami Says:

If only Nadal (who is 13-7 against Federer) had not been suffering from tendinitis in both knees during the last 2-3 months, and his parents were not going through a divorce, would Federer have won the French Open and Wimbledon? Greatest tennis player of all time? How about luckiest tennis player of all time?


vivekm Says:

Only Pete fans are so jealous of Federer’s achivement, I dont think Rafa fans have any problem with Fed and the viceversa.

Roger is a Tennis gift by GOD to us, we should be privileged to be in his generation to see the king of tennis play.

Last but not least, when did Rafa’s injury come to limelight after loss to Soderling, thats ridiculous give Robin some credit for the great win, even if Rafa would have played with full fitness Soderling would have won the match that day.


Lee Says:

Kamaraj,So just blamed Nadal and his parents…don’t Federer.
You should create a petition….
If Roger win six consecutive matches in a GS, than NADAL got the bye and waiting in the FINAL.


Brad Says:

Kamaraj, and if Federer didnt suffer from mono and a bad back, would Nadal have won the FO and Wimbledon 08? Give me a break. This kind of argument doesnt hold. A win is a win. The battle is to beat the guy across the net. period


PietjeP Says:

Dan, you are looking for trouble :) Posting Fed as number one will get you the wrath of Nadal fans here :)

Interesting list. Nice to see you put on nr 6 Richard Krajicek, my countrymen. Although the general opinion here in Holland is that he is a big under achiever. Too many injury and mental issues.

You know who I miss on your list? Agassi…


PietjeP Says:

@ Kamaraj Retnasami

You are coming up with the lamest excuses possible again.
At first you show complete disdain to all other players out there. What are they? Background actors? It’s not like Federer got the trophies without competing…
Second; you are assuming that Rafa would have been at his absolute best. That’s why there are tournaments. To prove that in competition. In Paris, he just lost fair and square to Soderling.

I’m a Fed fan. But yes; I hope Rafa will be back and wins some more slams. And especially the US Open someday. Great for the sport. Great for the fans and great for the topics and discussions!


Rfederer Says:

how the hell is federer arrogant


Monisha Says:

I am a die hard fan of Roger Federer.
Maybe when Federer was losing,it was the time of his lovers to feel the pain.No one cared about that and to add fuel to the fire,everyone put up the most disgraced comments about him and not to forget started comparing Nadal with Pete saying Nadal is closer to Pete than Federer.
It was not the fault of Roger that Nadal had to withdraw due to tendinitis.And fitness is a player’s responsibility.It is not a joke that Federer has been able to remain fit for last so many years because of his smart schedule and not so energy consuming game!

And anyways,why cannot you accept the fact that Soderling was too good for Rafa during Roland garros and by the way,Federer did not pay Rafa or promise the trophy for him for getting eliminated!


andreain nyc Says:

The argument that
Roger won cuz Rafa was out is my fave haters argument. Doesn’t it matter that the point is to win and if Rafa can’t get to the finals (or the quarter-finals) that isn’t Roger’s problem. And oh by the way, when Roger was seriously ill last year he still made it to every final except one and every semi-in the slams. That needs to be respected.
As for being arrogant-give me one pro- athlete that isn’t.
Come on kids “don’t hate the player-hate the game!”


Lenny Says:

I’m a fan of many players – I use the term “fan” here in the same sense that Dan does above. But I am first and foremost a fan of tennis – and here I use the word in its literal sense of “fanatic”. Which is why, even though I support Rafa and Roddick over Fed, I can still say I am a Fed fan. I have been since his 4th round Wimby win over Sampras. Because it is unfathomable to me how you cannot be if you love this sport.

You may dislike the man – or whatever you think you know of him from his public appearances – but how could you possibly not enjoy and admire what he does on a tennis court?

At Wimby, the Rafa fan in me felt something was missing, and the Roddick fan in me was heartbroken. BUT. The tennis fan in me felt the goosebumpy-thrill of watching history being made. The tennis fan in me feels incredibly fortunate to BE a tennis fan in the time of Roger Federer.

Adore him or despise him, the fact that he is something magical on a tennis court cannot be denied.


Veno Says:

Lenny, great to see a fellow true tennis fan write a great post. Kudos to you!

@Pietje: As a fellow Dutchie I egree about Richard Krajicek. Still a great achievement in ’96 winning Wimbledon, but overall his results are disappointing.

@Kamaraj: “you cannot be serious!”
you write: If only Nadal (who is 13-7 against Federer) had not been suffering from tendinitis in both knees during the last 2-3 months, and his parents were not going through a divorce, would Federer have won the French Open and Wimbledon? Greatest tennis player of all time? How about luckiest tennis player of all time?

How can you take yourself seriously if you write absolute nonsense like that?…it’s beyond me.


Dan Martin Says:

I like Agassi a lot as a person but can hardly think of a match where I was pulling for him – Lendl at the Chang at the 87 USO, USO in 88 and 89 and his 2006 run at the USO is about it. Something about his style was so different from how I played that I could not really root for him too much. Really the two USO matches vs. Connors earned Andre an unfair stigma as I was a diehard Jimbo fan and too young to have much perspective. If I went on to 20 Wilander, Leconte, Slobodon Zivojenovic (sp?), Murray, Mecir and Kafelnikov would be in my top 20. Kafelnikov did something pretty nasty at Cincinnati one year while playing doubles with Guga.


Dan Martin Says:

That should read Chang at the 87 US Open and Lendl at the 88 and 89 US Open. Of course I need to save some space for Grigor Dimitrov …


PietjeP Says:

@ Veno

We both agree then :) Although Richard K was the best Dutch tennis player in history, sometimes you felt something was not right.

I remember him in matches where after 1 set, you could see his head starting to hang and you knew already what the result would be. He just lacked mental firepower and fighting spirit at times.

Having said that; his body wasn’t helping him at times either… some bad luck/bad injuries.

But his Wimbledon triumph was great! Specially since he beat the King en route…


Veno Says:

@Pietje: To quote the great Morpheus: “I know exactly how you feel”

I always had trouble watching Richard, cause of his body language,flegmatic movement and somber facial expressions. I never had the idea that he enjoyed being on the tennis court. And of course his body gave him problems too, although I have never been able to shrug the impression he wasn’t really prepared to condition his body(he hardly had an athletic body) to make it stronger like for instance Andy Murray has done.

But his Wimbledon win was huge and I respect him for that.


Polo Says:

pe·dan·tic

Date:circa 1600
1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant
2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3 : unimaginative, pedestrian

You (and everybody else here) know who you are.


Polo Says:

Sean,

Everything in your article is true. Fed and non-fed fans know that. You did not have to rub it in. Non-Fed fans are hurting already since he has raised the bar too high and at the moment, none of them could realistically get near to it.


Von Says:

Faisal Says:

“shame on writer of this topic, i dont really know what is he upto, is he trying to make those ” federer haters ” as he called them, to hate federer even more or is it some sort of provocative act, whatever it is, it makes me not to enter this site again ,,,
ive been a regular follower of this site but from and on id feel shame entering it after reading such a ridiculous article,
u must be a freak, get well soon,”

I agree with you and it’s one of the reasons I mentioned this thread has incongruence written all over it. The writer is incongruent.

Sean Randall is a writer who speaks openly of his dislike (who knows maybe his ‘hatred’ since he uses the word) with respect to some players and in this article he has no qualms whatsoever writing about that which he indulges in so frequently and with unbridled enjoyment.

Additionally, we have some posters who deplore any type of criticism towards Federer, but freely indulges and wishing evil and criticism, without restraint, even mentioning the word ‘hate’ when speaking about other players. I see comments viz: “I hate (fill in the name) player”, and go on and on lambasting the ‘hated’ player. Yet, on the other hand, these same posters are ready to crucify another poster if they dare mention anything that’s perceived be unkind towards Federer. The first two posts of this article is written by a poster who has been criticizing Sampras ad nauseam and ad infinitum over the past two weeks, albeit uncalled for, but can’t handle one-tenth of if the was mentioned of Federer.

In sum, this article is nothing more than an attempt to stir up dissension among the posters and cause unnecessary friction, and reeks of incongruence, and I’ve yet to see such an article written by any writer in the sports world.


Von Says:

Colrection @ 12:03 pm, 4th para, last line:

“but can’t handle one-tenth of if the was mentioned of Federer”

should read: but can’t handled one-tenth of it if the same was mentioned of Federer.


jane Says:

Hilarious article! You’ve outdone yourself Don Sean.

Just one correction, you’re wrong here: “And for Djokovic, the Serb’s last Top 20 victory was that Federer win in Miami”

Djoko beat Fed in Rome too. I am not sure if it was a Friday, a la the “Black Friday” win. But I do recall some clouds. ha ha!!


Dan Martin Says:

Kafelnikov was in Cincy playing doubles with post-hip surgery Guga. They won against a Czech team on a side court. The Czech team attracted Stepanek and a few other Czech players to come watch. YK must have liked having an audience as he was the net man when Guga was returning and kept looking over at the Czech players and doing something vulgar with his racket handle. At the time I thought it was funny, but as a Dad I am not sure I’d want my kids watching Doubles after Dark with the comedic styling of Yevgeny Kafelnikov.


Ben Says:

Sean,
You are literally the biggest moron, and a part of the idiotic Federer haters club. He is by far still better than everyone on tour and will be for another year or two. People question him even when he just won the French Open and Wimbledon, seriously? It’s an absolute joke to read this article and I have absolutely no respect for you at all. Good job moron.


jane Says:

vared – where have you been?!

One thing about the “blue skies” Sean writes about: Fed has gone through a great stretch, but he’s “toughed” out a number of wins, for e.g., against Haas, JMDP and Roddick. All of those matches could’ve swung the other way, they were that close. Fed did not play Murray, Djoko or Nadal in any of the past two slams, and that was Murray, Djoko and Nadal’s faults, no doubt about it. I am merely saying that any of those guys *might’ve* had a good shot at winning if they had gotten to that point (minus Djoko on grass).

My point is not about luck either, as Fed does have a way of sticking matches out, he exceptionally mentally tough on the court, except maybe against Nadal sometimes. Rather, my point is the same one I made on the other thread about decline. I think his level of play is still lower than it used to be, and this will catch up to him, when a few of the other players step up, and they will, imo.

Dan Martin, if you agree, I’d love to hear how you think Fed’s game measures up to how it did at his most dominant. I feel he relies more on his serve now, and his serve is great. But there are areas that are maybe not quite as efficient as in the past, e.g., speed? Forehand? (consistency-wise anyhow), etc.

So, not matter who you cheer for, like Dan Martin says, there are plenty of things to be excited about in tennis right now. It’s a moment of possibilities.


jane Says:

And Djoko beat JMDP in Rome too. Sean, even you gotta admit that other than at RG Novak really rocked on clay this year. Too bad he couldn’t have capitalized on that run at the slam.


Sean Randall Says:

SG, Von, Tenisbebe, you guys are right. This post was triggered by the other thread. Instead of writing a response I thought screw it, I’ll just write a post.

That said, Von, I’m still awaiting your research on where I “ad nauseum” make excuses for Federer’s losses due to a bad back? Any luck, or have you given up.

And yeah, Von, I get that you are a Fed-hater. How could you not be when the guy has crushed your Prince Charming, Andy Roddick, now 19 of 21 times in the process taking how many Slam titles away from your boy? As I said, it’s understandable, there’s pain, they’ll be more! Plus, Roger ALWAYS gets the easy draw, always gets the best court times and plays always under the brightest of sunshine.

Meanwhile, poor Andy is the only player who never seems to get a break in the draw. He just darn doesn’t. And at the events he’s the only guy that has to deal with rowdy crowds, bad start times, poor lighting and injuries that just don’t properly heal.

But credit to Andy – and I like him – he doesn’t make excuses when things go bad. You do!

And you write, “I’ve yet to see such an article written by any writer in the sports world”. Thank you!

Jane, yes, Novak’s last top 5 win was against Roger at Rome, not Miami.

Regarding talk of Federer’s win at the French being “lucky”. True, when you win like he did – those five sets v. Haas and Del Po – there’s an element of luck, there always is, but I’m not buying the luck of Nadal’s injury there.

Again, someone please show me one credible media source that wrote Nadal’s knees were not 100% either during the Soderling match or leading up to in the rounds prior.

Can someone find me one? Doubt it.

For me, his knees looked fine the whole tournament and I give Robin credit for going after Rafa with abandon. Could the issue of his parents have played a role? Perhaps, but I don’t think his knees were a problem that day.

If you want to make a case that Fed was lucky to have avoided Rafa at Wimbledon, fine. But I don’t think Rafa would automatically have beaten Fed in the final had they have met.


grendel Says:

My understanding of Fed is GOAT’s having a go at Sampras on grounds of classiness is that it is a response to the absolutely endless attacks on Federer for being “unclassy” – and generally, Sampras is held up as the paradigm for classiness in this context. In other words, his position is defensive and not offensive.

Personally, I think all this stuff about “classiness” is just juvenile rubbish. Sampras and Federer are both fine. It’s the fans you have to worry about.


Dan Martin Says:

Federer at his best was probably 2006 for a calendar year and for a stretch Halle/Wimbledon 2006-Australian Open 2007. He won Halle. His Wimbledon win over Nadal in 06 was more 1 sided than his FO loss was in 06. He won MS Canada. His win over Davydenko in the US Open semifinals looked like a pro giving a kid a lesson and Davydenko was playing well. It just looked like any time Roger wanted to he could hit any of his shots 20% harder than usual with the exact same stroke production. He beat a pretty game Roddick in the final. Won Madrid (I think) and basel. Won the Masters Cup and won the Australian Open without losing a set and playing close to two perfect sets vs. Roddick in his 6-4, 6-0, 6-2 victory.

I think Roger in that stretch was moving so well his backhand’s upside of versatility easily outweighed the down side one handers face vs. high bounding shots. His forehand was lethal and consistent. Now it is lethal but can sometimes misfire and guns that misfire can hurt the person using them. His serve is maybe a little bigger now but it was solid then as well. I think his movement and consistency are less than they were. Really even Wimbledon 2007 we started to see greater reliance on the serve. Still if he has declined since Australia 2007 his record of 5 Slam titles since that no sets lost Australian Open, 4 Slam runner-ups, 1 slam semifinal, a couple of masters series titles and a masters cup is really sublime. It just makes that prime period of 2006 or Halle/Wimbledon 2006-Oz 2007 really even more interesting to look at. In that period of time Roger was 2-0 vs. Rafa and from Wimbledon 2006-Masters Cup 2007 he was 5-2 vs. Rafa which may be his golden era of the rivalry.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting era to watch. Tall guys coming up. The string generation in its prime. Federer, Roddick and to some extent Hewitt still very relevant. 30 somethings such as Haas and late bloomers such as Soderling making noise. I think every now and then you get a turning point on tour where the top guys are still in form and not OLD yet and the young guys aren’t playing like they are green any more – see the period when Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Stich, Goran I, Chang etc. were all in contention. Those are fun time periods for fans. Eventually the new gaurd takes over, but for awhile you get a lot of quality players all at once.


sjb Says:

Roger Federer is a great player, a bit of a crybaby, and yet he has some very good qualities. He is very generous with his fans and the press and generally shows a lot of class. However, if Rafa’s knees were in form Roger would not have “improved the record of 14 by Sampras” (as Rafa so sweetly encouraged him at the AO trophy ceremony.) Rafa approached the net at the end of the AO final and said, “Sorry”, followed by, “Are you okay?” This all before Fed’s outburst of sobs. Rafa has class, Rafa has guts, Rafa is generous, and Rafa truly admires (most of) his opponents (let’s leave Soderling out of the coversation). Roger is only as generous as he needs to be when commenting on his rivals. It’s always been a bitter pill to swallow when the Rafa rivalry has been brought up. Roger may have more natural gifts and elegance on the court, but Rafa beats him every day in every way!!! By the way, both Federer and Sampras have smashed racquets on the court…temper, temper. Rafa has never so much as dropped one (heck, even the gentle and sportsmanlike Rafter tossed a racquet once in a while). Class is a very multi-dimentional ideal and very few sports stars have even one dimension of it down. I wish there were more Uncle Toni’s around to form such strong foundations as the one he’s built under Rafa. I’m so sick of people cannonizing Roger when he just does his job and pouts when things are not hotsy totsy. Rafa gets my vote for best in tennis in ALL CATEGORIES!!!


Kimmi Says:

I agree that Federer is declining. A lot of athletes would at 27, 28.. it’s the same for everybody. But what is most amazing about Federer, even at his age, he is able to compete with the guys at their prime.. reaching finals of grand slams, one after the other and winning a lot of them. I thought he played much better at Wimbledon this year than RG but then you can argue that not so many players can play well on grass – Roddick was just too good in the final, any player would have struggled against Roddick in that form.

Jane: I agree; In a lot of matches Federer has been depending on his serve (which was not very good in the beginning of the year) but it’s also great to have something you can rely on when things are not as good as they used to be. I also agree that the other guys will soon catch up, like you have mentioned how close it was at RG.

I am looking forward to see which Federer will show up on the US hard courts, it will not be easy and I wish him all the best.


margot Says:

…and don’t forget Davydenko, he’s playing pretty well at the mo., which is good as he’s another one plagued by injury. Like him very much.


Kimmi Says:

Sean ” As I said, it’s understandable, there’s pain, they’ll be more! Plus, Roger ALWAYS gets the easy draw, always gets the best court times and plays always under the brightest of sunshine.”

can’t stop laughing LOL LOL.


Dan Martin Says:

Roger is not breaking serve as often as he used to either, but #1 is #1. I remember I saw a retrospect on Sampras’ career on ESPN a few days after Federer’s 2004 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 win over an in form Lleyton Hewitt. Anyway, part of me thought it was sad to think one day Roger is not going to play as well as he did in that final. It might even be soon I thought as that level seemed ridiculously high. Well seeing Federer win without that overwhelming comparative advantage has been interesting to watch as well. Players rise players decline. Think about Roger winning junior Wimbledon in 1998 when Pete was beating Goran again in the final. Dimitrov won junior Wimbledon when Nadal is beating Roger in the 5th set. Things shift. To paraphrase that guy in dazed and confused, “I get older and the players stay the same age.”


Von Says:

Sean Randall:

As I’ve previously said, you’re the ‘Don” and you hate to be proven wrong, and always have the upper hand due to your position of ‘power’, whereby you indulge in the wrong use of power, telling posters if they don’t like what you say, they know where to go and/or what to do. You can’t handle criticism, period., But then again, you’re not singular in that respect, aren’t we all guilty of such? However, as a writer, you should be able to handle it with more dignity and not be so caustic in your replies.

“And yeah, Von, I get that you are a Fed-hater. How could you not be when the guy has crushed your Prince Charming, Andy Roddick, now 19 of 21 times in the process taking how many Slam titles away from your boy?”

Sorry to disappoint you, but my mind is not wired to think like you do. I know you’d find it hard to understand that another, especially me, could be of that mind-set, but it’s true, as is evidence from the way I can forgive your written assaults and reprimands and still post on your thread, not to mention those who’ve insulted me and still interact with them.

You tarnish me as a ‘Fed hater’, due to the fact that I’ve expressed my thoughts on what I perceive to be your incongruence, also did the dirty deed of agreeing with another poster who blasted you. I can just imagine how much you’re still reeling from such a dirty deed. Your incongruence borders in essence to “don’t do what I do, but do what I tell you to do”. There are a few other posters who fall into the same category you’ve just painted me into ‘Fed hater’, and you know who they are, but they are males and guess what, I’m female, so why not beat up on the woman, as is done so often on these threads. I’m cool with that, because I know in my heart that I don’t ‘hate’ Federer. You see Sean, Tennis is not the only sport in my life, and it sure as hell isn’t the most important thing in my life, therefore, for me to be a ‘Fed hater’ would mean I’m a sports idolizer, and I eat breathe ans leep tennis. I can assure I’m not one of those.

Just for the record, I’ve always given props to Federer (if some of his fans care to be truthful) Nadal, Djokovic, Murray et al., and I’ve defended Federer as well as expressed my distaste. And, surprise, surprise, I picked him to win the USO in ’08, Madrid, and the FO and Wimby). I’m unlike some of the fans of those players I mentioned who don’t return the same favor to Roddick, especially you, Sean Randall, and you never cease to amaze me on how badly you like to discredit Roddick, and relish doing so. You never give him a chance of winning, period. I’m baffled as to what Andy Roddick has ever done to earn your sickening distaste of him and have enquired about this from you in the past.

“But credit to Andy – and I like him – he doesn’t make excuses when things go bad. You do!”

Please tell me you’re kidding, considering you wrote the following, again, another display of incongruence.

“As I said, it’s understandable, there’s pain, they’ll be more! Plus, Roger ALWAYS gets the easy draw, always gets the best court times and plays always under the brightest of sunshine.”

I think you got the wrong poster here, that was jane’s pet peeve during Wimby, not mine, and I think it was due to Djokovic’s match being postponed and being relegated to play on the other courts more often than Centre court, while the same wasn’t done for Federer. Perhaps jane might want to clarify this with you. I really don’t care if Federer plays with a halo on his head or Centre Court and Roddick doesn’t. All I care about is that when Roddick plays, he wins, unlike you who’ve got to expound on how many sets it took for him to win against inferior competition, as you did recently at Wimby.

Additionally, I’m not the only poster who talks about the draws , many do, and at both the FO and Wimby, you were the only writer who stated differenty with respect to Federer’s draw. The other writers all mentioned his draw was ‘soft’, but you said it was tough, and Roddick’s draw was soft. and, you say you like Roddick? I bet TD wouldn’t agree with you.

I’ve gotta hand it you Sean, you know exactly where you can trod without being attacked, and in Roddick’s case, his fans are few. You don’t need Roddick fans to post because there are so many Fed posters posting and you’ll always get tons of hits if you write the right stuff. for example, where are the Djokovic and Nadal fans? Ninety-nine percent of them, ALL GONE, but you get hits nevertheless, writing on Federer.

“That said, Von, I’m still awaiting your research on where I “ad nauseum” make excuses for Federer’s losses due to a bad back? Any luck, or have you given up.”

I have quite a list, but on second thoughts, I won’t do so now, due to your lovely post wherein I’m depicted as a ‘Fed hater’. I shouldn’t even have bothered to do so, as I’ve done so in the past only to receive a non-reply when I submitted the facts. Hence,let’s just say you’re right and I’m WRONG, and molst olf all I’M A ‘FED HATER’.

I knew the moment you wrote this article that it was a spin-off of what transpired Friday night. what’s funny, IS THAT my comments were not remotely addressed to you, but Daniel, however, you deemed it necessary to take up the sword. But, I’ll again reiterate, you are the ‘Don of Tennis.X’ and what does the ‘Don’ ALWAYS do but fight by the sword, yes, and if I might add, you do so with much savoir faire, but sadly not savoir vivre. Try the second, it might be helpful. Anyway, enjoy the ride and the kudos too. and, ik’m sure that there is a line of Fed fans just waiting to joing you now that you’ve established me as a ‘Fed hater’.

BTW, “And you write, “I’ve yet to see such an article written by any writer in the sports world”. Thank you!”

This really got your goat didn’t it? Admit it. I suppose after this post I’ll be queued up in moderation on any future posts, yes?

BTW,


sjb Says:

I’m not a “Fed-hater” but I am a Rafa Nadal lover and reiterate, Rafa is a man and Fed is a crybaby. Von, Rafans are alive and well, and praying for a quick and healthy return of our man. I don’t agree that anyone always gets easy draws (they are pretty well monitored and players actually participate in the ceremony of drawing names) but I DO AGREE that Fed whines around about match times and gets the best there. Rafa is a MAN and takes what he’s given (even if he has to miss his beloved football matches) and plays until 2am if that is what he has to do…When is the last time we saw crybaby Fed play past 10pm??????? I miss Rafa and I’m missing my old pal Andre (who lasted way past the “normal” prime). I hope Rafa does the same, no matter what the prognosticators say about his “style of play wearing him down”. Andre ran the hills surrounding Vegas in his thirties and played his heart out…Another man! (Pete and Fed are both slightly crybaby-ish…maybe that’s why they are pals).


Von Says:

Sean Randall: Footnote/addendum @ 2:44 pm

“But credit to Andy – and I like him – he doesn’t make excuses when things go bad. You do!”

I do no differently from you and most of the Fed fans. I mean you had the mono thing going for 18 months, and you still won’t acknowledge Djoko’s SF win at the ’08 AO over Fed as legit but due to Fed’s mono. Same goes for roddick’s win in ’08 Miami and anyone else who beat Fed during that time.

I defend Roddick as his injuries happen and then let go, and it’s mainly due to your incessant harping on how badly he plays after an injury which forces me to defend him. ’08 Wimby is a prime example where you showed zero compassion considering he injured himself so badly and was off the tour for close to six weeks. Why don’t you try playing perfectly after being laid up after six weeks.

During this year’s Wimby Andy talked about the ’08 Wimby match v. Tipsy, in which he mentioned he played against his doctor’s orders to rest the shoulder, but you knew differently, hence, your ‘Rodick stunk up Wimbledon’ article. Andy also mentioned that his shoulder injury lasted throughout the summer, and PMcEnroe verified that was so. You also said the same about Sharapova, and what happened? It was later diagnosed she also had a rotator cuff tear. So you see Sean, you’re not always right, but could be seldom wrong, and that’s putting it mildly with respect to the ‘seldom wrong’.

Lambaste me and Roddick how much you want, facts are facts and nothing can change them, not even Sean Randall, mono, bad back, et al.


huh Says:

Lots of surprise!


huh Says:

Anyway, my good wishes for all players and their fans!


Polo Says:

I think Von is angry. And I think she hates Sean, although she would rather use “dislike” and she is a lady so she would not admit to that. Although I find it incongruous that she does not have any room in her heart for hate while her posts so blatantly smell of hate for people who would not acknowledge the greatness of her Andy who she loves unconditional but would not admit she does. Would incongruous be a proper term for that? Hypocritical may be more appropriate.


Von Says:

Sean Randall:

This is for you from me ‘the Federer hater’.

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-02-17/861.php#comment-59284

_______________________

Polo: feel free to use the new words you learnt from me, especially ‘discombobulated’. BTW, did you have to look up ‘incongruent’?


Carolina Says:

I don hate anybody I JUST LOVE NADAL, THE WAY HE PLAYS, HIS ATTITUDE, HE IS SPECIAL AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT, we need him back soon, the tournaments without RAFA are not the same.
He is a real champ because he don´t presume anything, he shows how he can play and is as normal as you and me, feet on the ground.


Veno Says:

Von says: Polo: feel free to use the new words you learnt from me, especially ‘discombobulated’. BTW, did you have to look up ‘incongruent’?

Lol Von, I’ll remind myself not to get into a semantic or vocabularical debate with you!!!!
Especially not in your first language anyway!!!!


Steffi Says:

I had to comment. First, I have a dear friend whose family still lives in RF’s hometown and privately he according to them he has and will never be saint Roger when it comes to his behavior. Second, he does seem to have had the easier draws and been able to capitalize on the oppty (one in a life-time) given to him by Rafa’s injuries. Rafa was not smart to play the schedule he did. Bet you we see a photo op of the Federer twins in Vogue – my prediction. As far as Andy (Roddick) is concerned I as an American am so proud of how he has turned his game around and he gave Roger a real run for it at Wimbledon. Okay, maybe not this time, but Andy will beat Roger in a big final. As far as the GOAT issue, I go with the aussies and even Pete Sampras, if he cannot get a winning record against Rafa Nadal, he will never be a GOAT just a close maybe.


Dan Martin Says:

Steffi,

I am calling you on this one. Federer bought pizza for the ball kids at Basel the last 3 years after the final. Jon Wertheim recently used an eye witness report when he was honored in basel after Wimbledon – the eye witness said Federer showed up early signed autographs and stayed after the ceremony to sign anyone he missed in the early going. I will take Wertheim’s reporting and the visual evidence of ATP website photos of kids eating pizza and culling with Federer over a friend of a friend from his hometown. Steffi, I will save you the trouble of responding. Here is what you can cut and paste into your response – I am sure Wertheim is just a lover of Fed and the ATP used some fake moon landing techniques to make it look like the kids were smiling as they ate what was undoubtedly rancid pizza.


Dan Martin Says:

culling should read as chilling


Jock Says:

Nadal was not injured in Paris he lost. Perhaps you’ve forgotten. And IF photos of the Federer twins appear in Vogue the money will go to charity. So wheres the big crime? As far as the GOAT issue,Its impossible to compare across different generations and equipment.But federer has a better claim than Sampras who never even got to a final of the French.


fed is afraid Says:

i don’t hate roger, i just think he is the luckiest professional tennis player ever. even the weather seems to cooperate with him. but his luck might just run out when rafa returns.


Dan Martin Says:

Fed is Afraid is a respectable person. FiA congratulated Roger after winning Roland Garros and on the birth of his daughters. Nothing wrong with passionate rooting interests in sports.


scineram Says:

“However, if Rafa’s knees were in form Roger would not have “improved the record of 14 by Sampras” (as Rafa so sweetly encouraged him at the AO trophy ceremony.)”

Naddal getting through Hewitt, Stepanek, Roddick, Murray, Federer? In your dreams.


scineram Says:

You cannot be GOAT with a losing H2H against Krajicek.


Skorocel Says:

Steffi:

1. Fed not a saint? True.

2. Fed having easier draws? I don’t think so. They put up almost everyone in front of him, and (with some exceptions like Nadal, and maybe Murray) he usually succeeded. You just can’t reach 20 consecutive slam semis courtesy of easy draws. That’s impossible!

3. Fed lucky to not face Nadal at this year’s FO and Wimby? Certainly. Of course, we can only guess what would’ve happened had these two met there, but frankly, looking at their H2H, one has to admit that if not at Wimby, at RG it would probably make a BIG difference.

4. Fed needing to turn his H2H vs Nadal around in order to become the GOAT? Yes. I would say yes. I just can’t imagine someone being honored with this imaginary title whilst being (more or less) owned by some 23-year old fella…


grendel Says:

re:”this is for you from me “the Federer hater”" (comment 592840). There’s two things which need to be said about this: one, it is easy, for a certain sort of personality, to feel concern for the person he generally loathes when he is down. I have noticed this trait in Von more than once, and I understand it – that’s because I share this trait myself. Given that, the post proves nothing. The second thing is the pseudo claim to knowledge (e.g. “my training in human development and our fragile emotions”).This area is highly subjective and in no sense whatever constitutes science. Several times, Von has sneered at me when she feels I am encroaching on an area in which she imagines she has specialist knowledge. Not only does she not have specialist knowledge, strictly speaking, nobody does. The great embryologist Lewis Wolpert (who has written a fine book on clinical depression, which he contracted when quite old) has remarked that in this particular area, we are about where the study of physiology was 300 years ago. That’s a bit crude, but you get the picture. Von doesn’t know it, or she would go a bit easier on the sneering, but one way and another I have had a good deal to do with psychology, and what I have said will gain plenty of approval – although not universal, it is a highly contentious field.

I didn’t think to be posting in against Von again, God help us all. But I deeply dislike this bullying. She subjected Zola to a disgraceful vendetta which went on for several months, and all because Zola had made some comparatively mild criticism of Roddick. I had considered butting in – but with my history with Von, it would have been inappropriate. But now we have this bullying of Polo. A week or so ago, she quoted back to Polo posts the latter had made some months ago, in order to demonstrate a comical inconsistency. I was involved in this, b.t.w. – on this occasion, Polo was united with Von against me. But now Von’s done it again – it’s a plain tactic to shut someone up who happens to be annoying you. Not very nice. Perhaps Von would like me to refer to her post, when she said that the animus displayed by certain posters against Sean Randall amounted to harassment. Believe me, compared to Von, these posters were gentleness itself.

Then again, though it would be annoyingly time consuming, one could trawl back and get a whole anthology of Von quotes having a go at Federer. Some of the language is intemperate beyond belief, and certainly constitutes a brand of hatred. The point, incidentally, that Von makes about hatred is quie invalid. Consider people A and B. They both hate C, A even more corrosively than B. But A is the sort of person who can contain his hatred, maybe disperse it in violent polemics. B, on the other hand, is more direct. He goes in for bodily violence and no messing about. A is still the bigger hater, however.

I notice that Von agains refers to her female status, and I regard this as dishonest. If you are a feminist, you don’t want any special favours, although I have noticed that plenty of male posters have held back when arguing with Von simply because she is female. It is particularly inapposite given that Von uses her superior polemical skills to drown out anyone who attempts to engage her.


Skorocel Says:

Dan Martin: I guess you’re exaggerating here. Serving a pizza to ballboys or signing autographs to everyone and his brother can maybe MAKE you think of Fed as a nice person, but that’s about all…


Von Says:

grendel: Are you having fun lying? Tell me, what have I done to you? Nothing. For those who have been posting here for a while I think by now everyone is aware that this is the norm for you with respect to me. You know I wondered when my evaluation would happen — well it didn’t take very long this time, considering the last time it was on the morning of the FO final at which tikme you claimed you were leaving and won’t return. Deja vu all over again! LOL.

BTW, nice touch with the lying, exaggeration and the inclusion of Zola. Considering the many, many arguments you’ve had with her and jane over the years, everyone posting here since that time would know you’re lying, and you’re an expert in so doing. You just love to bully the women don’t you? I guess Zola and jane know better than to be flattered by your statements. But what can one expect from a man who uses a woman’s name? And, now you’re championing Polo’s cause? I hope he has a good memory also.

Anyway, have fun babe, because I guess the pubs are now closed and you need an outlet. So why not have a go at Von for old times sake.

BYE grendel, becaue I’m OUTTA HERE. I CAN’T BELIEVE TENNIS.X ALLOWS YOU TO DEMONIZE PEOPLE IN THE MANNER THAT YOU DO. However, you’re a Federer fan, and you guys own this site. Bye to all. Happy now grendel?


tenisbebe Says:

Sean Randall says: “SG, Von, Tenisbebe, you guys are right. This post was triggered by the other thread. Instead of writing a response I thought screw it, I’ll just write a post.”

An article which does not address or have any correlation to the mistakes and inconsistancies in your posts which were pointed out by myself, Jane & Von. You are proposing THIS as a response/explanation for those mistakes/ inconsistancies?


Dan Martin Says:

Sko –

Jon Wertheim says Federer is a nice guy. Pete Sampras says he is everything you read about him when you meet him in person. Boris Becker says Federer is a nice guy. Roddick said Federer was a nice guy after Wimbedon 2004 or 2005. Agassi likes Federer. Borg, Nadal, McEnroe, del Potro … should I go on? He wins sportsmanship awards voted on by a few of his fellow players. He is a UNICEF ambassador.

I can’t know if he is a nice guy never having spoken with him, but my read of the tennis community, general fan response and sports media is that he is a nice guy. If you think he isn’t, it is not like popularity matters. winning sets, matches and tournaments is what the sport is about not being liked. You are not going to shout him down at a town hall meeting on veteran’s benefits or something. If you don’t like him boo him or don’t clap for him or whatever.

I don’t think I am crazy to read the evidence and conclude that Federer is probably a nice person. I conclude this about a lot of the top players today and I think the old stereotype of the self-absorbed petulant tennis pro has been worn away by actions such as Moya giving all of his winnings to the tsunami relief in 2005 or Nadal and Federer being fan friendly and accessible or to Agassi’s well publicized foundation (or many of the less well known foundations such as Roddick’s and yes Federer). If you have video evidence of him spitting on people, cussing people out, yelling at the 7 star hotel in Dubai about needing an 8th star – send it to TMZ.com


Alicia Says:

I’ve been to a lot of tournaments and met a lot of players, and I can tell you honestly that no one is kinder or classier than Federer. He always talks to his fans and signs autographs for them far longer than any player. Even the security guards have told me that he’s the only player that asks them how they’re doing, and says than you. Like his tennis or not, the guy is seriously decent.


Soundaram Padmanabhan Says:

All the comments are just focussed on pro or anti Federer and pro or anti Nadal.

Not one word of Credit is given to Robin Söderling who knocked out the “King of Clay” in the French Open.

A lot of talk is being discussed about Nadal’s knees and how he fared badly and how he will bounce back after his recovery.

Perhaps, Robin Söderling should be given all the credit for defeating the defending champion in the French Open for the following reasons :

Robin had his first serious injury, eventually resulting in a knee operation in March 2005. But even though not fit to play many tournaments. After a mediocre and injury troubled season from there on, Robin reached just one good result (third round in the US Open), before going through another surgery in October 2005.

Söderling did not make it to an ATP final for the first time in 5 years in 2007, however he turned out consistent results all through out the year. Yet he missed the last 3 months of the main tour due to a left wrist injury. Söderling missed the Australian Open due to injury. Söderling missed the Australian Open due to injury in 2008.

With all the above frustrations and handicaps, Robin Söderling with a seeding of 23 managed to defeat Nadal in the fourth round and reach the French Open Final for the first time in his career. A great achievement indeed!!!

Credit should be given to Robin Söderling for achieving this feat and causing the great upset in the French Open 2009.


vared Says:

Jane, I haven’t been posting. Thought I would take a break between Wimby and Montreal/Cincy. I’ll be back.


margot Says:

why oh why oh why do we want these people to be: nice, humble, generous, classy, sweet, kind to dumb animals etc. etc. ad nauseum? Hi everybody we don’t know what goes on “behind closed doors.” How they play the game’s the thing.


Veno Says:

Soundaram, you are absolutely right and Robin deserved more praise than he got, unfortunately this is the way these things play out. If he had won the final and Nadal wouldn’t have mentioned afterwards that he was playing with pain for months in his knees, then the story would have been a lot different. But look at it this way…Every single time Robin reaches the latter rounds at Slams, he will be mentioned because of that result in the 4th of Roland Garros and reaching the final.

Von says: “However, you’re a Federer fan, and you guys own this site.”
Vonnie…don’t forget you have me :-D(a true Fed fan and a man hehehehe)


Veno Says:

and I’m with Margot, why oh why?
And when talking about whether players are nice or not, it remains speculation. In my book every player is nice and representative until he proves otherwise. I do however take what Dan wrote as reference, because it’s impossible if 95%(if not more) of the people in the professional tennis world like Fed and say he’s classy that he is not.


grendel Says:

Von – I never lie. But I can go back on what I have said, as you point out. I know that makes me look silly, justifiably so – but remember, you have done the same. i don’t know why you bring jane in, what has she got to do with anything? I used to argue with her a lot, and she punched back her full weight. So what? I agree, I have had arguments with Zola which have sometimes been fun, sometimes acrimonious.We have different sorts of strengths, and she sometimes wins. But I have not gone on and on and on the way you did, just wouldn’t let it drop. What do you imagine that must have been like for Zola?

You don’t seem to have much idea what you do. I do not exaggerate. And you rarely listen to a person’s argument. You show no interest in the give and take of argument – you just want to win, and you pursue this aim quite ruthlessly. To give you an idea, you mocked me for not taking joy in Federer, I was being masochistic apparently, so in response I detailed some of the stuff I love about him – and you then mocked that. My mistake was to imagine we were having a legitimate argument. Because you are a clever woman – and so one imagines you must enjoy the cut and thrust of debate. That is a mistake.

I don’t have any interest in bullying women. Sorry to upset your charicature. You are not women, you are Von – totally unique! And as I have always said, there’s plenty of good in you, you obviously have a good rapport with a lot of posters, certainly much more than I do. I call myself grendel because grendel is a monster and I see myself as something of a monster – in the sense that I just don’t fit. But not in the sense you think. I don’t drink because I am an alcoholic, haven’t touched booze for 20 years.

You are wrong to say I go after you, but you are so strangely oblivious of the effect you have that I can see why you might think I do. I just consistently find fault with certain positions you take, but the thing is, you iterate them so forcefully that instantly it seems to be fight time. To me, this is absurd. Why can one not just debate the thing through calmly and quietly? Look, I know perfectly well that I am an awkward cuss, probably not a very nice person, but I am fair, and I like a decent debate. And I don’t mind admitting I’ve lost, sometimes. At least, I do mind, it damn well irritates, but I sort of grit my teeth and accept it. I suspect that that’s what you’re not prepared to do, Von.

Why not try it out? On the business of Federer /Sampras and “classiness”, I believe you’ve got the wrong end of the stick as to what most of the Fed camp are trying to say. Surely this could be settled quite easily without anyone getting into a temper. I don’t mean we could settle what’s “classy” and what isn’t – that’s far too subjective. But we could settle whether the Fed people are having a go at Sampras or merely trying to hold the balance.

How about it?


sinnet Says:

WOW she is really gone, so finally some peace here.

Now her butt kisser tenisbebe will be all alone


Veno Says:

Sinnet, that’s uncalled for. I dont’agree on everything she has said, but I still respect and like her(same holds for bebe) Isn’t that the idea of a blog? Why take it so personal? No one gains from that.


joe Says:

i dislike federer also. I don’t really feel any passion or any emotion when he’s playing. he comes across as self centered and arrogant which doesn’t help his image aswell. his fans are also clueless and are glory hunters; most of them will tell you that they rooted for federer since wimbledon 2003


Skorocel Says:

Dan Martin said: “I can’t know if he is a nice guy never having spoken with him,”

There you go!

————

“I don’t think I am crazy to read the evidence and conclude that Federer is probably a nice person. I conclude this about a lot of the top players today and I think the old stereotype of the self-absorbed petulant tennis pro has been worn away by actions such as Moya giving all of his winnings to the tsunami relief in 2005 or Nadal and Federer being fan friendly and accessible or to Agassi’s well publicized foundation (or many of the less well known foundations such as Roddick’s and yes Federer).”

Oh, come on! Whether it’s Moya, Nadal, Roddick, Agassi or Federer, all these guys don’t need to move their fingers for their entire life, so a couple of 50k dollars here and there won’t make a difference to them… In other words, it’s a pocket money for them. It won’t make me believe they’re indeed as nice as you presume them to be. Who knows? Maybe they’re indeed nice, maybe not, but it won’t make me believe they’re like that just because they have a foundation, donated xy dollars for tsunami victims, served pizzas to ballboys, etc. Maybe you, but not me…

You see, Agassi was called by almost everyone as a great “ambassador” for the sport of tennis (boy, what a stupid term that was!), yet this same Agassi used to intentionally fire balls at the linesmen, berate them ad nauseum, etc. Nadal’s generally perceived to be humble, fair play, etc, yet this same Nadal didn’t have any problems to intentionally choose medical timeouts just to disrupt his opponent’s rhythm, write his main rival’s name on the camera and then scratch it (which, had someone done this to him, would set him to attack mode immediately), berate his opponents in his own language when they made a good shot, etc. The same for Federer – you can think of him whatever you want, name him classy, nice, humble, friendly, whatever – but we all know what an ass he can be.

I agree, none of this matters at the end of the day, nor it has something to do with their qualities as tennis players. These guys didn’t win 4 FOs, 4 AOs, or 6 Wimby’s because of intentional timeouts, cursing at linesmen, or by throwing empty bottles at ballboys. None of that helps you when you’re facing BPs or MPs, or when you play a grandslam final… You just have to have it, and these guys have it.

I just don’t get it how can anyone be so blind to think this or that player is “nice” just because he’s donated one tenth of his earnings to some poor people, served pizzas to ballboys, or said “Hello!” to security staff (?)… In order to find that out, you have to know him personally, be with him almost every day. Then you can probably judge. Also, Sampras and others may say Fed’s nice, but in the end, it’s YOU who decide whether he’s indeed nice or not. In other words, some may think of his shortcomings as not important, or forgivable, but some may view it more sensitively…


joe Says:

^^^ federer is a nice person when winning mathes, but when he’s login its a compltely different story. A true persons character is shown when that person is going through tough times.


Veno Says:

True Joe, but most of the times you take as reference his reactions right after the match. Of course he hates losing and is disappointed/angry after tough losses. And although there are other players who were better losers(immediately after the loss) Fed has told in interviews further in time that he didn’t mean to react so(think Ozzie Open ’09) that it would take away from other players…He just is imo sometimes a bit clumsy in his after the match speeches on court. Every player knows he respects them as they almost every time would tell you.
Thank god he’s fallable, my goodness, he would have been a lot more boring if he were smooth, perfect and robot-like in all the other aspects beside his tennis.


margot Says:

joe: show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.


Voicemale1 Says:

This article identifies the real culprits in the thesis it alleges. Using the term Federer “Haters” can only come from a Federer “Worshipper”. Identifying someone who is critical of or doesn’t like someone else for whatever reason as a “Hater” specifically to marginalize them, and the thrust of their arguments. In fact, using the term “hater” ipso-facto pre-supposes only one other alternative: one is required to get in line with the other Federer “Worshippers”, “Lovers”, “Kool-Aid-Drinkers” – for they’re the only ones who use the term “hater” to diffuse the Federer critics. It’s the Worshippers attempt to justify their worship by marginalizing the critics and their criticisms so that “all is right again” in their worshipping of their Idol. This marginalizing has one essential element throughout all of it’s various forms: invalidating the criticisms as untrue, irrelevant, unworthy or just plain discontent to justify the worship. After all, when one worships The Idol – it’s The Idol itself that cannot, and must not, be scrutinized, questioned or undermined. No dissent toward, or dissection of, The Idol can be permitted – it threatens the Worshippers love for The Idol. If such criticism is convincing to any degree of truth, it’s the Worshipper who suffers a visceral reaction. Their faith is now challenged as misplaced; their investment in The Idol is now at risk of unraveling into a sink hole of wasted love if any criticisms happen to be true. The mask of vicarious living exposing the futility of trying to justify their own value through the accomplishments of another – in this case, The Idol – cannot be dropped at any time by any valid critiques or questions about The Idol. To do so invalidates the Worshipper. Ergo critics, questioners and those who speak against The Idol are branded “Haters”, all for the sake of justifying and validating the Worshipper’s love for The Idol.

The Randall article makes this abundantly clear. In the eyes of The Worshippers, Federer (The Idol) cannot be called out as a crybaby sore loser in Australia – no, he was “just being human” suffering from the pressure of trying to win #14. Federer cannot be called out for the snarkiness of his press conferences after losing matches with either excuses for himself or playing down the rival who just beat him – no, he just can’t be expected to keep his level of greatness up ad nauseum (i.e. – he’s a victim of his talent). Federer cannot be labeled an Attention Whore, despite an endless stream of self congratulatory commercials and constant camera hogging via his “fashion statements” – no, he’s just basking in the glow of the wonder of being him. Federer cannot be said to have had a certain amount of luck in facing a generation of his own who remarkably underachieved – no, he’s just brilliant and they’re just unfortunate. Federer cannot be said to be a “poor sportsman” for not shaking an umpire’s hand – no, he just “forgot” due to the stress of losing a match. Federer cannot be scrutinized as to why, or even how, someone diagnosed with mono can not only continue to play but also never be forced to withdraw from one single event because of it – no, as Sean Randall once put it on this board, Federer said he had it, and thats that (The Idol has delivered the the edict “I am sick so that’s why I lose when I lose”; no Naked Emperors here). And the list of euphemistic justifications goes on ad infinitum.

So the real culprits in this debate are not the ones who can justifiably criticize or comically chide some of the ludicrous Federer behavior. The real culprits are the Federer Worshippers, that uber thin-skinned group of Faithful Flock who carry such a devotion to The Idol that any attempt to invalidate it brings forth some of the most visceral defensiveness that would make any preacher green with envy. I guess that’s why the call such Worshippers The Faithful. And like any religion, you don’t speak out against The idol, even if what’s said is true or valid. It’s too scary for The Faithful to believe anything other than what they want to believe about The Idol. The Worshipper’s level of investment demands their faith be unconditional love, and the more unconditional love The Idol gets from the flock, the better. Which is perfect for this particular The Idol – he wouldn’t want it any other way.


Dan Martin Says:

Sko,

I agree with you to an extent. Obviously we don’t know them. Agassi as an example did fire a ball and a lines woman after his 2000 or 2001 loss to Patrick Rafter in the Wimbledon semifinals. He went on to say that the lines woman needed to get laid or something to that effect. He did mock Kucrea at the 1998 U.S. Open to the point it had me cussing at my TV about the stuff that goes on in junior events and why I hated playing junior tournaments even if I love the sport in general. Agassi grew up from what I could tell, but now and then we’d see the “old Andre” rear his head to the point that yeah you or I are not sure if this is the new refined Agassi or if the refined stuff is just an act.

Junior tennis is really a mess. All of the pros saw a lot of gamesmanship coming up the juniors. Quick serving, calling bad lines, trash talking, stalling, even subtle tricks like telling a guy he’s crushing his serve at a changeover to get him to think about his serve and over hit rather than just keeping the rhythm he had going. I was advised coming up by more than one coach/adult hitting partner to engage in head games and aim at people if they lobbed me. I thought this stuff was pretty ridiculous advice and just thought if you are better show them on the court and win fair and square not by playing mind games. I subbed into a men’s over 50 doubles league a few years back when I was maybe 30 and I hit a few shots that the guys said were in but if it was a tournament they would have called the shots out. If this is going on at a 50 and over level or state level juniors (the highest level I played) what was going on at regional, national and international events? Most pros had entourages telling them how great they are from the age of 10. Frankly, I am surprised we don’t see more friction out there.

My read on Federer and Rafa is that they are pretty nice but not perfect people. I am allowed to have the intuition. You are allowed to disagree or say it is hasty.


Dan Martin Says:

As for Soderling, he beat Ferrer, Davydenko and Gonzo at the French Open in addition to Rafa (he cleared out a lot of good soft court players), played well at Wimbledon, and won the Swedish Open on clay. He is possibly going to make the Masters Cup to end the year. He could be a sleeper for the final four in NY. I think late blooming players are in some ways more interesting. I hope he maintains this form.


Kimo Says:

Here’s my two cents on the “easy draws for Fed debate”:

Fed has lopsided winning records against pretty much everybody on tour except Nadal and Murray (oh yes, and Hrbaty too, but we all know how their match would turn out if they play today). His records against Nalbandian and Djokovic are tight, but they’re still winning records.

What I’m trying to say is that no matter how the draw turns out, it will be an easy draw for Fed simply because he beats everybody who is not named Nadal and Murray. It’s almost a certainty. So in slams, Roger is almost a lock for the semis since he can’t meet Murray or Djoko before that and can’t meet Rafa before the final. That’s why his streak in semis is at 21. In slams, he doesn’t lose to anyone ranked outside the top 4 (He still hasn’t lost to Murray in a slam, but it’s gotta happen someday, hopefully not anytime soon though).

So yes, his draws are easy, but that’s simply because he can’t have tough draws. To anybody on the ATP tour, including Nadal, drawing Soderling, Karlovic and then Haas at Wimbledon is a tough draw. But not for Fed. He beats them with his eyes closed. Drawing Andreev, Djokovic and Murray at the USO is not any easy draw for anybody. Drawing Haas, Monfils and Del Potro at RG proved to be pretty hard for Fed, but he pulled through.

Give the guy his due. He’s not beating some no-talent hacks. He’s beating players with some serious weapons, but he has lopsided records against them. That doesn’t make his draw easy, it makes his H2H records against them that much more impressive.

I want those who claim that Fed doesn’t have tough draws to come up with a tough draw for him at the coming USO. I’ll bet you everything that they won’t be able to find enough players that trouble Roger to make such a draw. Who are they gonna pick? Soderling, Karlovic, Andreev, Djokovic, Del Potro, Haas? He has winning records against all of them. It is impossible for Fed to have tough draws. He’s not getting any favors. Do you think Rafa would have liked getting Roger’s draw at Wimbledon this year had he played? HELL NO.


Gordo Says:

Sean – you crack me up!

What better way to stir things up than to point out to the “Fed-bashers” that he is de man again? Ha!

To everyone – you know that guy to your left in the bar late at night? The guy who drops F-bombs adverbly and adjectively with every second verb and noun? (EG: “So I was f**king driving my car and it was f**king raining and I thought F**k! I’m gonna be f**king late for work!”)

Well – think of what it is like when he has to get REALLY angry. What exclamations and expletives can he conjure up to express himself? Woe be the rube who cannot speak properly.

This brings us to the interesting use in here of the word “hate.” Earlier, near the top of this post, Von wrote down the definition of the word.

As far as I can know, to hate Roger Federer is to really be mired in overkill. What did the man ever do to you? Or to anyone in fact? Dan Martin has posted numerous examples of him apparently being a nice fellow.

I mean honestly – Hate Hitler. (Sure!) Hate Osama Bin Laden. (Yep – let me tick that box!) Hate the guy who ripped off your parents of all their savings. (I’m there too.) But… Roger Federer???

Sheesh! What emotion do you have left for the drunk thug who runs over your dog and kills it?


Federer Streak Says:

v-mail says: “It’s the Worshippers attempt to justify their worship by marginalizing the critics and their criticisms so that “all is right again” in their worshipping of their Idol.”

So you are not culprit for not letting us worship our idol, why cannot we worship in peace, why do you want to defame our beliefs? You can believe in whatever you want to believe in. We won’t bother you. Don’t bother us. Peace.


Federer Streak Says:

grendel,
Congratulation for making the intimidating person leave the site. You are our club’s hero. Here is hoping the dude never comes back.
Can you do the same to other federer haters, too?
can you tell me where we can go tip you? A lot of us really want to.


Pointless Much Says:

… And what exactly was the point of this article again? So you’re saying that you’re not really a Federer fan but yet you’re still defending him… and then you go on to say that you like to see him lose? Right, that makes sense – the readers clearly get a view of which end of the boat you’re in. I mean, were you trying to satisfy both the haters and the lovers? Because it failed quite misserably cuz you come across as someone who doesn’t know what frame of mind they’re in. I’m not a Federer fan myself and I don’t hate him at all, but I don’t think he’s “arrogant, smug and showy”. Infact he’s one of the nicest and modest guy around right now. Yeah his outfit was a bit too much in Wimbledon (the only tournament where he dresses up!) but it’s not like he specially asked Nike to put him in that. He couldn’t care less what he wears, it’s what he does on court that matters. It’s also an intresting fact that Nadal’s shoes carry symbols of all his Grand Slams and he’s no where near Federer in terms of Grand Slams. True, no one else dresses quite like him but who else has won 15 Grand Slams? Who else is so consistant like him? He can pretty much do whatever he wants because he’s done it all and he’s going to remain unchallenged for quite some time now. I also agree that Monica Seales was the victim of hate, I don’t wish for that to happen to anyone.


Voicemale1 Says:

Federer Streak Says:

“So you are not culprit for not letting us worship our idol, why cannot we worship in peace, why do you want to defame our beliefs? You can believe in whatever you want to believe in. We won’t bother you. Don’t bother us. Peace.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

I couldn’t have written a better example on the nuttiness of Federer idolatry than this response. Thanks for that. And a friendly word of advice: seek psychiatric counseling. Quickly.


Lee Says:

Kimo,
I agreed.
Fed draws always looks easier than others.
He had positive H2H Vs all players accept Nadal and Murray.


Twocents Says:

Funy post, Sean.

I’m really with you on that I too pay much more interests on Fed when he went thru his low period. After that raining day in RG (and got Fed signe my final ticket), I could hardly find time to read your post :-)). Loser complex? Maybe.

But unlike you, Sean, I’m a diehard Fed (and Roddick) fan — does NOT mean I hate any other players, though. Living in the digital era does not mean one needs to classify everything in just two levels: 1 & 0. Example being thatI said and still stick to it that Fed’s aging, which is not to say that he would not or will not win anything. I just tend to ready myself for more disappointment and cut my players more slack.

margot, good to see you stay true to yourself. There’s a general feeling from many tennis fans I met around the world, that English speaking world headed by USA and GB holds some biggest begrudgement against a Swiss tennis icon. You certainly defy that conspiracy, even though you’re not a Fed fan :-)).

Von, I think you’re more a Roddick fan than a Fed hater (if there is such ‘hater’). Have fun here.


Federer Streak Says:

V-Mail1
I think the world would be a much better place if haters seek psychiatric counseling than lovers. We are the lovers, faithfuls, we have something in life to hang on to. The world is a safer place because of love. You are the hater the world should be worried about. The world is at great risk because of your intolerance to what we love and idolize. You cannot stand our love and our peace. How miserable must be your life for having nothing to love and nothing to admire but having to be in ceaseless search for all hateful ways to defame our love for the idol who has given so much meaning to tennis and our life? How sick does one have to be to constantly seek ways to threaten our love for Roger’s game and his admirable personality? You will even drive a psychiatrist nuts. The psychiatrist will also have to protected under certain Federal program from you. You will deteriorate, rot, and perish sooner than you are supposed to because of hate filled in your every vein. That is the law of nature. Hate is destruction, love is creation. Peace be with you and God have mercy on you to show the right path to return to home of love. Amen.


jane Says:

Sorry guys, I am on holiday and can pop in only when I can find wireless.

Anyhow, yep, Sean. Admittedly it was me who pointed out that Fed was playing only first and only on Centre Court at Wimbledon and mostly at the French. So I am guilty of that complaint. I conceded that Fed deserved center court, being a 5-time champion (now 6) but I couldn’t understand why only he –out of all the top players– didn’t have to play one later match. I was also a little perturbed, and the issue was raised in part due to this context, that Venus, another multiple winner, was relegated to outside courts, so that Wimbledon could schedule “babe” matches on Center court. So I took issue with the double standard. Anyhow, not to re-hash, but Von mentioned that I might clarify this and so I am.

———

Dan Martin and Kimmi, thanks for your replies on Fed’s current level of play. Dan I totally agree with you about Fed’s peak stretch in 06 – AO 07. I also agree with your assessment of where his game is at. One area he seems to have really dropped off is on the return, and I am not sure why that is. But he used to be up there in the stats, and now many have surpassed him. However, he can compensate with his excellent serve. And you’re right, number 1 is number 1. It’ll be interesting to see how long he can keep it this time round.


Long Live the King Says:

Von:

You know better than to stop posting here. Look at it this way – Who is the poster Sean replies most to? It is you – Dear Von. So keep firing away.

Just take it a bit easy on poor Rog, alright ;) I will cut A-rod slack, similarly. I am sure you will appreciate all his fashion statements, when you see me trying them out when we both play a tennis match :D

Fed haters = the bullies dude and TD. Will add more when other names come to mind.

VMale1 is treading on the edge of “Fed-hatred”, which as Rajah would say, is a pity. This guy used to post sane before Soderling clobbered Nadal. Looks like more things took the brunt of the beating than just Rafa’s knees. Here’s praying for a return to sanity for VM1 before he starts competing vehemently with the bullies guy in the who-will-hold-rafa’s-pants-when-they-fall-off-while-rafa-is-busy-scratching-his-ass category.

Great posts from Dan, and keep stirring the pot, Sean ;)


Long Live the King Says:

Here’s an interesting post from one of my favorite posters in our own tennis-x forum, louise. It is a bit old – after the Roland Garros Monfils-Fed match, but quite interesting and tells a lot about how most players love/respect Roger even though he regularly beats on them. Doesn’t sound like they would do that to an “unclassy” player like skorocel and Voicemale would have us believe.

Q. Now, don’t you think that the difference between you and Roger Federer is the experience he has in such matches?

GAËL MONFILS: Well, of course. You could look at things this way, certainly. You could look at things this way, but that’s not my point of view. I think today he played better than I did. He was stronger than I was, and he managed to read the game better than I could.

He’s got experience,okay. But I’ve been playing against him twice now more or less the same level, and I think the difference is based on the fact that his game is really a pain in the ass, you know, more than anything else, more than any other player.

Q. What did you say at the end of the match? You whispered to him.

GAËL MONFILS: No, I said, That was excellent. All the best to you. I hope that this time you win the tournament.

Q. What is it that bothered you in Federer’s game?

GAËL MONFILS: Well, how can I say? Well, when he plays against me, what he does is that he changes. He varies the way he plays.

Sometimes he’s very aggressive, between inverted commas. And when he hits the ball just after the bounce, I don’t really know where to place myself on the court. It’s the way I move around. You know, he’s one of the only guys who can make me slide a little.

I sometimes hesitate. He plays a lot of really wrong‑footed balls. Even though I know this, it’s so fast. He’s one of the only men who ‑‑ you know, when he is an attacker, when he attacks, I’m like anybody else.

Others can be attackers. I know I’m going to run, no problem, between inverted commas again. With him, I will try and slide on one side. He hides his shots, you see. You know, his short chip is like, oh, a pain in the ass, a real pain in the ass.

At the end of the day, it gets on my nerves. I think I’m going to get it. I’m going to get it. And, oh, like it’s the rotten shot again. It pisses me off. I can’t do anything. …


leo Says:

If Roger is smug and arrogant, I’d like to know who on the ATP Tour is actually humble.

Sure there have been the odd remark that may have been a bit much, but I’d venture to say that his graciousness is rivaled by very few on the ATP.

All you “Roger is arrogant” believers should remember that this is the same man who won the Sportsmanship award – voted by his peers!! – 5 years in a row.


leo Says:

Regarding the lop-sided H2h vs Nadal – aren’t many, or if not most of those matches played on clay, where Nadal is supposedly the best of all time?

So Pete had a great H2H vs Agassi, but I wonder how many times those matches where on clay… So by Pete being sooo bad on clay vs the rest of the elite, he ends up not playing them on that surface… hmm.. and this is the other GOAT nominee?


Voicemale1 Says:

Federer Streak:

You once again prove my point, and undermine your own in your 12:35 AM post. The thesis I made was the worshippers attack any critic of Federer for no other reason but that he’s their Idol – the truth of any criticism or comic genius of any chiding is irrelevant. To the Federer Sheeple no criticism or comic relief about The Idol is permitted – period. You made my point that The Federer Sheeple either say we all must love The idol or be branded as a “Hater” because we don’t (and most of us are grateful we have many more substantive things in life to “hang” on to than vicarious living idolatry, such as yourself). And you have the gaul to say I’m intolerant?


Max Says:

Nice article…Rafa seems to be better on clay, but on other surfaces they are pretty even. The Wimbledon 2008 final should have been partially discontinued and rescheduled due to unacceptable light conditions, regardless of whether the conditions were the same for Nadal and Fed. The Australian Open of 2009 could have gone either way because the points were close. As for Fed, he was extremely lucky against Rod at Wimbledon 2009. I thought A-Rod played much better than Fed. All said and done, I am truly impressed by Fed’s consistency at all slams year in and year out and that’s what makes him great in my opinion. Nadal has been consistent at the French and at Wimbledon but not quite so at the US open and the Australian. Also, it is not Fed’s duty to ensure that Nadal gets to grand slam finals so that he can beat him in the finals.


Fed is GOAT Says:

To all the Fed haters (Von, Voicemale, Skorocel, SG, etc):

None of you know federer personally. I don’t think anyone on this board would know federer personally. So its not possible for anyone on this board to say whether Federer is arrogant or not based on personal experiences.

So you have to rely on public statements, and statements of other players who presumably know Federer to some extent, since they meet him often.

Almost all of them like and respect Federer, say he is very sporting, and a humble guy.

NOw, if you have personal experience of interacting with Federer to refute this, then please do post. If you are just venting your hatred for Federer, then its pretty clear – its just venting your hatred.

I know Sampras fans are hurting badly because their boy lost the crown in less than 7 years, the shortest reign ever. But what can you do, life is tough! Just know that there are professional people who help with this kind of stuff.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Jane,

People tend to forget that Federer is now 28 years old. Reflexees slow down with age, starting almost at 21 or 22. So his return not being that great anymore is understandable.

With respect to Nadal, the 5 years age difference is significant. You can go back into history – every time a multiple slam champion has faced another multiple slam champion 5 years younger – they have had a losing record, especially if they played many times. In federer’s case, the losing record is only on clay, where Nadal is one of the best of all time.


Fed is GOAT Says:

And yes, as someone said earlier – Sampras was miserable on clay, so he never met the top players consistently on clay. For example, had he met Agassi a few more times on clay, he would have had a losing record to Agassi.

Being so miserable on clay allowed Sampras to play the top players only on his favorite surfaces – grass and hard. He would lose to low ranked players on clay in the earlier rounds – in earlier rounds, you mostly play different players all the time, so it doesn’t let you accumulate a bad H2H against any one player.

But if you add them up – Sampras had an awful head to head record against relatively bad players on clay.

Now Sampras, out of bitterness, is deriding Federer for his H2H against Nadal (which is negative only on clay). Seems like Sampras’s analysis of tennis is bad as that of his fans!


JadeFox21 Says:

As a Fed fan, the last few months have been a dream-come-true, but alot of that comes from the fact that the previous 18 months were torture for the most part. Tough times are what make the good times so great. Tough times are what really define a great champion. As painful as much of last year was for him and his fans, and as tough as the early part of this year was, it truly showed how much Federer loves this game and what incredible perseverance he has. Truly a wonderful role-model. I love tennis in general and I respect/admire all the players, but I’m truly grateful to have witnessed Federer for his entire career.


JadeFox21 Says:

H2H stats never tell the whole story. As for Fed/Nadal, I think their H2H says exactly what we all know – they are pretty even off clay, and Nadal has the advantage on clay. The fact that Fed was good enough on clay to continually meet Nadal in the finals is used against him in the H2H stat. Look at Djokovic in 2009 on clay. If you look at just the fact that he made the Madrid semis and the finals at Rome and MC… you would say that was fantastic (because it was). But he lost to Nadal on all three occasions (0-3) thereby worsening his H2H with him. So… would it have been better for Djokovic to lose earlier in those tournaments to avoid Nadal and a worse H2H? Absolutely not. That’s just stupid!


Fed is GOAT Says:

Well said Jade…

As for Federer’s victories at the FO and Wimbledon this year:

Nadal did play the FO. He lost in the 4th round. Convincingly in 4 sets. There was NO mention of any knee problems before that loss, either from him or from anyone else. If you watch the match against Soderling, there is NO hint of a knee injury. He just lost. It happens. It was his first loss at The FO.

Does that make Federer’s victory any less? Absolutely not. Nadal is the one who lost. Not Federer. Does Ivanisevic not deserve his 2001 Wimbedon, just because Sampras lost early? That’s ridiculous.

Now to Wimbledon. Nadal didn’t play. His knees were bad. Why? Perhaps because he plays just an inefficient game, that he wore out his knees in 5 years on the tour. Does that take anything away from Federer’s victory? Again, absolutely not. Nadal is the one who could now keep up with the grind – his body broke down.

There are tons of players who have won a first set against nadal, but then just went away since they couldn’t keep up with him physically. Should ALL these players say that – well, I won the first set, I am going to stop playing now, I have shown I am better than Nadal in one set? That would be ridiculous. You have to win 2 or 3 sets to win a match. There again, physical prowess matters, and Nadal has taken full advantage of that over the years, and legitimately so. But longetivity is also a part of physical prowess, and that he might now have.


I like tennis bullies Says:

federer is the gloat- greatest luck of all time

thats all you need to know, cant deny facts


Fed is GOAT Says:

Ya, Federer was really lucky to face a guy like Nadal, 5 years younger, repeatedly in slam finals, and that too after his prime years. Federer was so lucky to have been just two sets away from a grand slam twice in his career, and was lucky to face Nadal on clay on all of those occasions.

Sampras was the one who was really unlucky. Never faced someone with 5-6 slams and 5 years younger. Otherwise he would have really won more slams.

LOL!


Federer Streak Says:

vmail says” the worshippers attack any critic of Federer for no other reason but that he’s their Idol.”

Let me mention couple of your attacks (1)“It’s the Worshippers attempt to justify their worship by marginalizing the critics and their criticisms so that “all is right again” in their worshipping of their Idol.” Reread the last 12 words, you clearly do not want us to worship our idol. you don’t want it to be “all right again” for us to worship. you are not a member of this temple. you are an outsider and invading our temple and trying to vandalize it, and you expect us to let you rape our conscience? (2) when I disagreed with you, your attacked on me personally by telling me go see a psychiatrist
(3) your attacked on Roger’s family, his wife
All of your posts are attacks on our beliefs.
Roger is our idol, why does it bother you? Jesus is Christian God, why should Islam criticize Jesus, why should Baptists critique Mormons on religious grounds, or vice versa? If one religion negatively criticizes another for what its practitioners believe, it is called intolerance. That’s exactly what you are doing, refer to the cited pieces of evidence above, and we Federer fans don’t tolerate your intolerance. You worship your idol, and let us worship ours in peace. If you don’t have an idol does not mean that you should destroy others’ idols and convert us into life haters. Sorry that’s not going to happen. Once,again, may lord bless your twisted deviated soul and bring you back to the path of love. Amen.


MMT Says:

Fed is GOAT – I agree most of the FACTS AND CONTENTION of your arguments with one glaring exception – the age difference between Federer and Nadal.

Regardless of how much older Federer is than Nadal, I don’t think you can legitimately claim dimunition of his skills due to being older than 22 (and older than Nadal, for that matter) AS A MITIGATION of his record against Nadal. You play who you play – young, old, great pedigree or journeyman – it matters not. Federer’s results against Nadal are what they are, and regardless of what they are, they do not diminish his pedigree or claims to being the greatest of all time, in my opinion – particularly in light of Sampras’ comments to the contrary.

Another problem with this age argument is that Federer was not nearly the player he is (even now), before he turned 23, so you cannot argue that his record against Nadal past 23 is negatively affected by his age. The fact is Federer was totally dominant on the tour against everyone but Nadal AFTER turning 23. At his best, Nadal has had the better of him head to head – clay results included. Clay results excluded they are about even, but tennis is played on many surfaces, so while we can argue that it doesn’t reflect the superiority of his pedigree to Nadal’s, the results are what the results are.

I would also take issue with the contention that Sampras was “miserable” on clay – he was not. He won 3 titles on clay including the Italian Open in 1994 back when it was hands down the 2nd most prestigious clay court tournament in the world (possibly still the case). Let us not forget his Herculean efforts against Russia in the 1995 Davis Cup final against two great clay courters in Chesnokov and Kafelnikov.

I agree he had some bad results at the French Open, and on clay in general – certainly worse than Federer, and it doesn’t make sense to hold that against Federer, particularly vis a vis comparisons to Sampras. But as great a tennis player as Sampras was, he was also very good on clay. It’s just that when you compare it to his results on other surfaces it diminishes the lustre of his career more than it would enhance that of another player.

I understand you were making a point that Sampras was not as successful on clay as Federer, but that’s a far cry from being “miserable” on the surface.


Veno Says:

Ok, for anyone interested I’ll put the link below once more: Maybe some of you have read it already, but if you are able to refrain from personal preference and try to look at it from a statistical, scientific point of view…the article sheds an interesting light on the 13-7 H2H betwwen Rafa and Roger:

http://www.www.bleacherreport.com/articles/226249-logical-flaw-in-the-interpretation-of-rafas-13-7-h2h


Veno Says:

I agree MMT, with Sampras it was more the case of having a mental block(which increased year by year) to perform well at the French. He was good in all the other clay tournaments. The same way Nadal got into Fed’s head and won a lot of matches Fed would have won against any other player(not taking anything away from Rafa’s achievement), Roland Garros got into Pete’s head and unfortunately he was never able to turn that around. I would have loved for Pete to have won the French once.


MMT Says:

Steffi: “As far as the GOAT issue, I go with the aussies and even Pete Sampras, if he cannot get a winning record against Rafa Nadal, he will never be a GOAT just a close maybe.”

Which Aussie’s said this?


Fed is GOAT Says:

MMT,

I have never said that Federer’s record past 23 (against Nadal) is affected by age.

I have said that his record past 26 is affected by age.

By end of 2007 (Federer was 26 and few months), Federer was 6-8 against Nadal, including 5-2 outside of clay. That’s pretty darn even, I would say, overall, with Nadal ahead on clay, Fed ahead elsewhere. Even in slam finals, it was 2-2. Again, clay being the difference.

Look at what happened after that. Nadal went 5-0 on federer in 2008-09, before losing in Madrid. These were all matches when Federer was nearing 27, or was past 27. This is where age may have mattered a bit, since he was playing a prime Nadal who was 22, while he was around 27.

This is going to remain an issue for Fed for a few years. Until Nadal starts to feel the affects of age as well (perhaps in 2 years) – then it will be “who declines faster”.


Veno Says:

Have to give Fed is GOAT this argument MMT. It’s hypothetical, but could be a factor. Also factor in the variable “mono”(beginning of ’08) and the back injury(year end of ’08)


margot Says:

two cents Hi! As a matter of fact I think it is a privilege to watch Fed on song. However, I like many other players as well and would now obviously like Andy M to step up to the plate. It’s time for a new era, that’s all!


Fed is GOAT Says:

Look at how many players have won slams after turning 26 (mens side) – very very few. Around 25-26, decline starts to happen to everyone, its inevitable. What Agassi did was amazing, and an exception.

If you draw a histogram of slams won by age, the peak will be around 23, with a steep decline after 25-26.


Veno Says:

Rafa is playing Montreal!!!

Very very glad Rafa will play. Glad he’s back!!!!

Am a little surprised Toni Nadal had to add, he will not be at his best? What’s that about? Why does he keep putting emphasis on Nadal not being fit/100%?…I dont’get it!


Kimmi Says:

Veno, i am also glad Rafa will play…now i just want to know if Federer will play, that will add the icing on the cake.


MMT Says:

“People tend to forget that Federer is now 28 years old. Reflexees slow down with age, starting almost at 21 or 22. So his return not being that great anymore is understandable.”

I believe I misinterpreted this to refer to the rivalry with Nadal, so my apologies. I didn’t quite read carefully enough there. I guess I’m quite passionately against qualifications of accomplishments in tennis, including Nadal’s, so I read too much into it.

It is true that Federer’s level has clearly dropped since 2008, and this is perhaps due to aging, but he’s still winning slams and nobody on tour is 100% physically fit. If you’re fit enough to play, you’re fit enough to win or lose fair and square. And if those comments were intended to refute Jane’s contention that his level has dropped off, I’m not sure they really do that.

It is extraordinary that he he has won 3 slams, reacheed 3 other finals in the last 18 months despite the drop-off. But I too have felt he has become more reliant on his serve – as evidenced by how his results have wavered based on his ability to hold serve – ironically this is nothing specific to Federer. I think that could be said of anyone who plays tennis!

I do think there are technical problems with his topspin backhand – I think he puts too much spin on it today, and it has lost a lot of potency. In his best periods his backhand was a perfect combination of power and spin, but today he seems to just roll over it when he comes over the top of it, and his slice appears to be a far more reliable and useful backhand.

I also think the problems with his serve and backhand have made his forehand less consistent – after all, any player compensating for technical difficulties will wind up putting more pressure on their strengths, and this has happened to Federer.

Mind you, he’s still winning slams, so it’s not all doom and gloom, but I do agree that his game has fallen off it’s highest levels.


Veno Says:

Hey Kimmi, there are rumours Fed will skip Montreal, but I haven’t found any solid leads he won’t play. On his website they put his picture up with a green back ground and Roger’s Cup in letters through it. I think he’ll play…..Certainly hope he’ll play and knowing Mirka, she probably wants him to play :)


Kimmi Says:

Veno, I saw that in his website too. That looks like he is kind of signalling he will play… I hope so. Its only a week till Montreal..!some real tennis at last.


Veno Says:

When watching Fed’s tennis back to his prime, supposedly 2006-beginning 2007 and even before, I don’t really see a drop in level of play by Fed(maybe marginal because of a few injuries…hypothetical). But rather his opponents(hugely thanks to Nadal) learned about his game better and started executing a pre-that-time absent game plan to attacking his weaknesses more.(i.e. your mentioned backhand and because of that, to compensate for his backhand side being attacked with more zest, Fed was reluctant a long time to make the necessary changes to counteract this change-up imo.) Therefor he was tempted into more high-risk play with his forehand, playing it over aggressively and thus it became more error prone. That had an effect on his confidence and he started to cramp up a little on his serve, because he knew that in the rally, he wouldn’t be as dominant as he had been and was feeling the years before. Look back at his matches ’06-’07 and you see desperation in most of his opponents when playing him, because they were under the assumption nothing they would throw at him wouldn’t be reciprocated double by Fed. They did not have a game plan and let him play his shots, afraid to go toe to toe with strong belief they could upset him and keep him guessing. This is exactly what Nadal has used to his advantage and made into his strength against Fed, combined with his physicality, heavy top spin forehand hits wide to Fed’s Ad-court to unsettle the Swiss maestro. Look at Fed’s placement in the matches of the past 18 months and the period before. Fed covers a lot more ground in the ad-court than before players started to recognize fore mentioned vulnerability in Fed’s game.
Again, only my view of things, very subjective, but all I hear is Fed playing worse level than ’06-’07 and I really wonder if this is true…
What do you think?


Weekend Tennis Says:

Wow….I love tennis! Playing it and watching it. Federer is an amazing display skill and longevity. Love to watch him play. Rafa is an incredible scrambler who just does not quit and is amazing in his ability to turn what looks like a winner against him and turn it into a winner for him. I watch both of these guys with interest and enjoyment – especially when they play each other. I live with the result because the better player wins, in that moment.

Federer still has a lot of time ahead of him. I am a little nervous Rafa may fade before Fed simply because he is sacrificing his body to attain his incredible level of play. Hope they both continue.

I have a friend who finds Federer to be arrogant. I don’t see it. He is confident, very successful and experienced. I find him gracious. I would say the same of Rafa. He is fierce in battle and gracious in victory or loss.

The player I struggle with not appreciating very much is Roddick. I find him to be too much in the mold of Connors and McEnroe. A little bit cry-baby and….just something about him that rubs me wrong. I must say that his performance at Wimbledon 09 has made me much more impressed with him as a player than I have ever felt before. He could have won and I would have been pleased with the outcome. Fantastic display of mental toughness, skill and drive – very Nadal like.

AS a tennis fan, great tennis is great tennis. Personality preferences are human but it is only a great game played by ordinary humans. Enjoy it for what it is. Spend your energy on your loved ones. Save your hate for things that are truly of value to hate.

Let’s go Federer and come back strong Rafa!


Veno Says:

Nice, Weekend Tennis…Good to see a true tennis fan being so enthusiastic!!!


Skorocel Says:

JadeFox21: „As a Fed fan, the last few months have been a dream-come-true, but alot of that comes from the fact that the previous 18 months were torture for the most part. Tough times are what make the good times so great. Tough times are what really define a great champion. As painful as much of last year was for him and his fans, and as tough as the early part of this year was, it truly showed how much Federer loves this game and what incredible perseverance he has.“

LOL! What torture? If it really was THAT painful, then ask Djokovic or Murray (and their fans) what would they give for such „torturous“ 18 months ;-) I bet they wouldn’t lose that much sleep over it… Look, for example, at Djoker – he’s barely won Dubai (in the absence of Fed, Nadal & Roddick, btw) and Belgrade in 2009, yet no one of his fans seems to talk about “disaster”, “torture”, “pain”… Fed’s decline, as tough to swallow as it is, was inevitable. But I like it. I like it because now that he’s being more tested, it will not only keep him motivated, but it will also present a new challenge for him. A challenge to show everyone that, no matter if he’s 23 or 28, he can still win. Win BIG. So let’s do it, Roger!


Pehchan Says:

Interesting Sean does not touch upon why the Fed-haters hate him.

There are some die-hard Americans who cannot absolutely stand the fact that a Non-American has re-defined greatness in tennis. These are the Sampras fans, one of whom recently became an ex-Sampras fan the moment he came to watch the Wimby final and thus honor Federer’s 15th grand slam win.

These same people love Roddick because he is their “all-American hero.” I genuinely like Roddick, too, but not because he is American, but because he plays exciting tennis.

I am an American citizen and I chose to live here for all the fine things it stands for. But my liking a tennis player has nothing to do with whether he or she is American. I like someone simply because of the way he or she plays tennis and conducts himself or herself.

Before Federer came along, I was a huge Jimmy Connors fan. I started watching golf only after Tiger Woods appeared on the scene. I am a huge Larry Bird fan. I am citing these only to show that the nationality of player is not important to me at all.

Believe me, if Federer had been American, some of the same Fed-haters here would be idolizing him –and for the same reasons.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Excellent point Pehchan – you have hit the nail on the head.


Voicemale1 Says:

Fed is GOAT Says:
To all the Fed haters (Von, Voicemale, Skorocel, SG, etc):

None of you know federer personally. I don’t think anyone on this board would know federer personally. So its not possible for anyone on this board to say whether Federer is arrogant or not based on personal experiences.

So you have to rely on public statements, and statements of other players who presumably know Federer to some extent, since they meet him often.

Almost all of them like and respect Federer, say he is very sporting, and a humble guy.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

So lemme get this straight. You think those of us who have no desire to bear Federer’s children, as you clearly do, have no basis for drawing any conclusions about The Idol because we don’t know him personally. Yet you, a Devout Sheeple Worshipper of The Idol, admittedly also have no first hand knowledge of The Idol yourself but believe nonetheless you’re unshakably justified in pronouncing nothing more than the hearsay of others as indisputable evidence of The Idol’s true self? As I said, such religious devotion to The Idol looks to be a narcotic to those who wallow in it.

You admittedly don’t know him any more than I do, personally. Why is it you think you can malign any conclusions we draw based on what we observe of The Idols own often bizarre behavior yet say what others say about him is The Truth And The Light? How do you know that what these others say is a true reflection of what they really think? Maybe because he’s the toast of the tennis world today they say great things about him publicly because they want something from him – like an appearance at their tournament? Or a chance at an exhibition for mega dollars? Or an endorsement contract? How do you know they just don’t wanna glom onto him because he’s the Flavor of the Month? Maybe it’s as simple as saying great things about him publicly because they know if they do it’ll get their own names in print – which is what they truly like seeing. The truth is you don’t know anything more about their motives than The Idol does.

To say none of us has any insight into The Idol because we don’t know him personally and yet give us your pronouncement that the judgement of others is irrevocably accurate just because they say what you wanna hear is more than BS. It’s delusional. The mere fact that non Worshippers of The Idol are labeled “haters” by the worshipping sheeple is the clearest testament to the idea that it’s the sheeple, not those who choose to exercise more objective views of The Idol, who clearly are the more neurotic. Like I said – the sheeple can tolerate absolutely no dissent of their Idol. To do invalidates their worship. And without their worship to validate them – they have nothing.


@Voicemale1 Says:

Its people like you that make Federer’s achievements stand out
:)


Jay Charles Says:

Sean – A fun, well-written piece. Keep up the good work.
btw -what other sport has had such a dynamic and dramatic competition for the top spot for 5+ years?


Giner Says:

I think I’ll have to side with Von. ‘Hate’ is a strong word.

‘Dislike’ is a bit better. But I think ‘not a fan of him’ describes most people who well.. are not fans of him. Few would hate him. He hasn’t done anything deserving of true hate.


tenisbebe Says:

Pehchan Says: “There are some die-hard Americans who cannot absolutely stand the fact that a Non-American has re-defined greatness in tennis.”
“Some” is the keyword here. I for one have never cared what the nationality of the tennis player – if I like his style of play & other aspects of his game, I root him. You are making a HUGE generalization with this statement and I believe nationality is not the predominating factor with the subject of tennis fans affections. Other sports, perhaps, tennis, no.

“These are the Sampras fans, one of whom recently became an ex-Sampras fan the moment he came to watch the Wimby final and thus honor Federer’s 15th grand slam win.” You misinterpret some posts imo wherein the argument was whether it was wise/advisable for Sampras to attend, given that the opponent was a fellow countrymen & “friend”. I thought it was wonderful and appropriate that Pete, Borg & Laver made the trip. To clarify, I was NEVER (repeat NEVER) a Sampras fan (I was an Borg & Agassi fan) but respect his, Laver & of course Borg’s accomplishments & thought it very disrespectful for them to be asked (cornered?) if Fed was now the GOAT by the media. This was the essence of many posts regarding these events.

“These same people love Roddick because he is their “all-American hero.” Dude, you have a very warped sense an “all-American hero” because Roddick was at the bottom of that heap for many years due not to his inability or lack of trying to win but his atrocious behavior. I will not get into this discussion now as it has been hashed over on many, many threads (see posts after his loss at USO ’08 or AO’09). However many people, not only Americans, have come to respect Andy for his tendency (in the top 10 for 8+ years, constantly trying to improve, coaching changes), humor/wit (pressers), standing up for his values despite the costs in dollars & ranking (Dubai) & are genuinely encouraged by and supportive of his recent successes (as are you it seems). This is truly a phenomenon – to turn public opinion (and that of Tennis-X’s harshest critiques) around.


tenisbebe Says:

sinnet Says: “WOW she is really gone, so finally some peace here. Now her butt kisser tenisbebe will be all alone”

LOL – The only butt I kiss is my own – when I can reach it…


Fed is GOAT Says:

Voicemale1,

Don’t get your panties in a bunch, its just a tennis discussion forum!

I know, I know, it kills you to see Federer win, but what are going to do, life is tough….. And on top of it people keep on praising the guy. Ouch!


Fed is GOAT Says:

(this is for Voicemale1, since s/he doesn’t seem to have understood it the first time)

None of us know Federer personally.

So none of us can really say for sure whether he is arrogant or not.

We can only make a “semi-informed” judgement based on publicly available informtion.

Public information refers to comments of other people (players) who know him, and his own statements in interviews, etc.

Yes, these are not 100% conclusive of anything.

However, the large body of public evidence suggests (note the word SUGGESTS) that he is a humble guy.

Again, we, as outsiders, cannot be sure.

All we can say is – he “seems” to be a humble guy.

There is hardly any evidence to suggest that he is arrogant.

Infer whatever the hell you want to infer from this strand or arguments above!

I hope Voicemale1 is able to understand this.

Now, if you want to dream up something and infer something else from it, sure, please do so, delusion is quite common….


Fed is GOAT Says:

MMT earlier said that Sampras was not “miserable” on clay, since he had 3 titles on clay and the 1995 davis cup match against russia.

Well, his 3 titles on clay were:

1. 1992, Kitzbuhel, beat Mancini (not really a top player)
2. Rome, 1994 – he beat becker (who never won a clay title in his LIFE)
3. 1998, Atlanta, beat Jason Stoltenberg.

Not really strong credentials at all.

Add to it his 24-13 record at the French, the most important clay tournament, and the one that is best of 5. For someone with the stature of Sampras, that is pretty darn miserable – its such a big blemish on his record. Yet people really don’t point to it as much, just happy to ignore it because its Sampras.

As I had said earlier, you would be hard pressed to find ANY player who has won a slam (just one slam) who has such a bad record at the FO. For someone with 14 slams, its unbelievably bad.


MMT Says:

Veno said: “Again, only my view of things, very subjective, but all I hear is Fed playing worse level than ‘06-’07 and I really wonder if this is true…”

This is a great point – as I mentioned, I agree that Fed’s level has come down from the heights, but you are also correct in that it has something to do with his opponents. Coincidental to his drop in performance was Djokovic’s win in Australia, Murray’s rise to prominence, Roddick’s resurgence and the best 12 months of Nadal’s career. We do have a tendency to focus on Federer, when in fact, his opponents are improving all the time. The mix is less relevant of impact/influence is less relevant than the results and at the end of the day, he is not as dominant as he once was – if he is even still dominant.


MMT Says:

Pehchan said: “Believe me, if Federer had been American, some of the same Fed-haters here would be idolizing him –and for the same reasons.”

I’m not so sure about that – Americans are patriotic about their country, but we also tend to star gaze, and Federer has been the recipient of unbelievable fan support at the US Open, particularly last year. In fact, I was just at the Hewitt Young match yesterday and I would say the crowd were about 50/50 in terms of support for each player, even though Donald Young is an American, and an African-American at that, playing in one of the most African-American cities in the country.

On a side-bar; this whole theory of “belief” has become so pervasive amongst tennis fans it’s really amazing. More than once, IN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND SERVES, someone in the audience hollered out to Young something like, “We believe in you – Believe in Yourself”, etc. Not that I don’t think self-belief is important – it is – it’s just amazing how pervasive is the perception that Young doesn’t believe in himself, and this is why he had a hard time with Hewitt yesterday.

Of course, watching a match live is not really the time for a fan to pontificate on the trials of Donald Young, but even those around me didn’t have any input into technical failings that could plague his game and could equally be the reason why he doesn’t “believe” in himself.

In my opinion, most psychological problems in tennis are born of technical inadequacy, which manifests as players compensating by either over or under hitting on certain shots and/or crazy tactical circumventions.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Win-Loss records of some of the other top players in the open era at the French Open (I am not including the top clay courters – just “other” slam champions):

Becker: 26-9
Stich: 22-8
Hewitt: 24-9
Mcenroe: 25-10
Safin: 25-10
Edberg 30-13
Krajicek: 22-10

In comparison, Sampras was 24-13 (worse than all of the above), quite like Ivanisevic at 21-12.

Its really quite a big blemish on his record. Before slinging mud at Federer for his record against Nadal, Sampras should look at his abysmal record not just against one player but against many players combined, on clay. Federer’s 2-9 against Nadal on clay (with a winning record of 5-4 otherwise) is not really that bad in comparison, since Nadal is one of the best clay courters of all time.

And Federer already has 39-10 record at the French, 4 consecutive finals, one title, 5 consecutive semis (even Borg and Nadal don’t have this one). And this is his worst slam record of the 4 slam tournaments!


MMT Says:

You know, I wasn’t going to say anything, but it looks to me like Sampras has more wins than Stich, and Krajicek, the same number as Hewitt and one less than McEnroe – I think you’ve over played your hand here. That he has more losses means he played there more years (13 to be precise), and that should not be held entirely against him. None of that lot every won the French.


MMT Says:

I forgot to include on less win than Safin – and if I return to your original assessment that his record on clay was miserable, I continue to disagree. Unless everyone else here also had miserable records on clay. I concur that his record on clay is miserable compared to grass and hard courts, but if it weren’t, if he had won the French Open even twice, I don’t think we’d be having a GOAT debate with Federer…yet.


Marcus Says:

I personally do not think there is such a thing as a GOAT because tennis evolves. It is dynamic. But if such a person exists, I would say that the closest thing to a GOAT would be Federer. I have watched players over the years and I have admired those who were great champions during their times, from Borg, to McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Agassi. At some point in time, each of them was the best in the field. But I have not seen any of them accumulate a record on all surfaces as well as Federer. Federer hardly losses to anybody and in almost all tournaments, he goes all the way to the finals. I am so amazed by that. None of the other greats had such consistency in all surfaces.


MMT Says:

The other article about Lendl I found more sympathetic, but not entirely complimentary.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064771/index.htm


Fed is GOAT Says:

24-13 means less than 2 wins per tournament played. So an average performance of not even reaching the third round. That’s why I called it miserable.

And just one semi.

Becker had 3 semis, edberg made the final once, Mcenroe made the final once, and almost won it. I think Stich also made the final at FO.

So just one semi in 13 tries, with less than 2 wins per tournament – pretty bad (if you don’t like the word miserable). Or use whatever word makes you happy.

For someone being touted as a GOAT candidate (Sampras), and for someone with such a strong record on grass and hard – its just amazing how weak a record it is at the FO. That’s a big weakness, a big hole, whatever you want to call it. That’s all.

A big deal is being made of federer’s 2-9 record against Nadal on clay, especially by Sampras. This should provide some perspective on that. Federer’s 2-9 against nadal on clay is MUCH LESS of a blemish than Sampras’s record on clay. Wouldn’t you agree?


Fed is GOAT Says:

This is from a link that was posted above (regarding the false H2H comparisons between federer and Nadal), but it has some useful information about Sampras being MISERABLE on clay (yes, miserable does seem appropriate in light of the information below:

———————————————
How about Sampras, who reached RG semi only once? Sergi Bruguera has better H2H against Sampras because of clay, and it could have been more lopsided had Sampras advanced to semis and finals on clay. Thomas Muster, who won six Masters on clay and one RG, was known as “the King of Clay” at his peak and would have leveled his H2H with Sampras (9-2), had Sampras been as good as Federer.

The same could be said of Courier, Rios, Medvedev, Costa, and Kuerten, other clay court specialists of his time: Had Sampras been good enough to advance to semis and finals on clay, each would have improved his H2H against Sampras.

All together, Sampras did not participate in 17 clay Masters. Should we give Sampras higher mark for maintaining his H2H against his rivals because he escaped 17 Masters and did not advance beyond the third round except on eight occasions, clay Masters Series and RG combined (eight out of 36 in 13 years) and punish Federer for consistently reaching four RG finals and 11 Finals at the Masters on clay (advancing beyond third round on 25 out of 37 occasions in 11 years)?
————————————–

The key part is “(Sampras) did not advance beyond the third round (on clay) except on eight occasions, clay Masters Series and RG combined (eight out of 36 in 13 years)”

8 out of 36. Did not advance beyond third round. Missed 17. Wow. If that’s not miserable, what is?


Veno Says:

Still, I won’t go into the whole GOAT discussion, because for me it holds no relevance whatsoever.
But if I try to look at the arguments through the eyes of a non-tennis sports fan I would have to agree with FED is GOAT’s arguments when putting Pete’s remarks about Rafa-Rog H2H against his own Clay record.
At 90-54 W-L is not too good, but not miserable. You may account it as dismal when compared to his HC, Carpet and Grass W-L. He won 1 Super 9 on Clay, 3 in total and was finalist 2 more times. That’s only 5 finals he reached on clay….That’s quite disappointing when you put it against Fed’s record:
Already 139-42 W-L for Fed:
1RG, 5MS’s, and 3 ATP’s on Clay won, 10 times a finalist(3RG,all lost to Nadal, 6 MS,all but 1 lost to Nadal and 1 ATP)


Fed is GOAT Says:

That’s all I am saying – “If you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones at others” – Sampras is doing just this, throwing stones while living in a pretty shattered glasshouse himself.

Denigrating Federer for being 2-9 against Nadal on clay (again, remember, Federer has a winning record against Nadal outside of clay), while himself having such a poor record on clay (far inferior to Federer, or even many other top players), is crazy.

90-54 (with 3 titles) – that means 90 matches won in 57 tournaments played on clay, by Sampras. That is quite pathetic, not even 2 matches won per tournament on average.


Veno Says:

Fed is GOAT,

rest assured in thinking the following, since it is obviously very important to you(no disrespect intended) while Fed is still playing(let’s hope he will for many years) there will always be a lot of people highlighting his “weaker” statistics to take away from his claim to GOAT, but after he hangs up his racket with 20 slams everyone will call him GOAT.

If he wouldn’t have had a 13-7 H2H with Rafa(solely because he is that good on clay to have faced Rafa 11 times) they would have used another statistic to downplay his claim to GOAT.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Not important for me!! These arguments are fun…. Personally, I couldn’t care less about what happens to one sports personality or another. I have enough to care about in my own life!

But this is fun…..


Veno Says:

It’s the same that most people give Tiger Woods the edge when comparing the 2 great athletes…Please…Tiger is great, but not comparable to Fed imho.

I’m a decent golfer and tennis player and although Tiger’s records are impressive and he is very dominant in his sport, for years. Mentally he’s very strong and has that aura of invincibility and he plays against 150 every tourney and they can get to him from all different sides(1 further back can play a 62 to put him under pressure) and he can’t directly influence the other player’s play. Next to that golf takes an enormous amount of skill to execute well all the time, with a very small margin of error.

All that said, every serious athlete knows it doesn’t even come close to top level tennis and for more than 1 reason.
Let’s see how Tiger would fare if there was someone in his face, distracting him while he had to play….just the fact he hits(albeit a very small one)a stationary ball and he has time to line up, conver with his caddy, choose out of a variety of clubs, measure distance, look at the wind, address the club(except in the bunker or water hazard) and play the whole course at a slow heart rate(so fatigue never comes into play when the player is in good physical shape) makes me think it’s almost ridiculous to state it’s more impressive to win a major in golf than it is to win one in tennis.

I don’t take away anything from Tiger, he’s awesome. You can compare their dominance in their sports respectively, but to state Tiger’s is more impressive than Fed’s is stretching it imo.

The fact longevity in golf is about twice as long as in tennis and a greater variety of body types and fitness levels can compete against eachother(imagine a less than top-fit athlete playing tennis, even blessed with great talent; he wouldn’t win 1 best of 5 match) means that an average person starting playing golf as a boy and trying to make it to the professional level(say the European Tour or the USPGA) has a greater chance to make it, when talented en motivated enough, than a comparable boy putting his teeth in tennis.


Veno Says:

Ok Fed is GOAT, sorry for assuming it is important to you….and yes, it is fun sometimes, but hardly relevant…Nice to debate it though, for sure


Skorocel Says:

Fed is GOAT: “A big deal is being made of federer’s 2-9 record against Nadal on clay, especially by Sampras.”

LOL! Where did Sampras state that? If I reckon it correctly, all he said was that Fed should improve his overall H2H against Nadal, not his clay H2H… Am I missing something?


Veno Says:

Lool Skorocel, Fed is GOAT made an analytical correct correlation and posted the 2-9 Clay H2H cause that’s what the 7-13 boils down to. I would have thought you wouldn’t miss that…..


Skorocel Says:

What “boils down to”, Veno? Are you people blind or what? From what I read here, almost every single Fed fan who tries to play down the importance of the H2H between Roger and Rafa usually says “it’s because of clay” and all this stuff, whilst overlooking the plain fact: OF THE 20 MATCHES THEY’VE THUS FAR PLAYED, 11 WERE ON CLAY AND 9 WERE OUTSIDE OF CLAY. That’s almost 50:50, yet their H2H is, despite Fed already beating Nadal TWICE (2) on clay, FAR from being like that… Any suggestions as to why it is like it is?


Veno Says:

Skorocel, you are entitled, like everyone is, to draw your own conclusions on the data of their H2H.
You are right that the absolute stat is 13-7 in Rafa’s favour(9-2 Rafa on clay and 5-4 Roger on the rest) I will never deny that Fed has a poor H2H against Rafa(I’m a Fed fan and have acknowledged this many times)
But…if you were to make inference from the statistical data of the H2H and compare it to other player’s statistics then it’s up to interpretation and Pete calling on the 13-7 in Rafa’s favour is not the smartest thing for him to say.
I know what he meant by his statement and I don’t blame him for stating it, but he could have said: Regarding Fed’s H2H with Rafa, I can imagine he would like to improve on that as I would have wanted….
When Pete was playing and I was a big fan of him, he couldn’t care less about his H2H’s against whomever…He wanted to win Slams and big tourneys…Wins when it most counted!! And good for him….Truth is that the point Fed is Goat made is valid when analysing that made inference about the clay H2H playing a big part in the 13-7 score in Rafa’s favour, because if Pete had been better on clay, probably his H2H against Andre would look different, and so for a lot of other clay court specialists he hardly faced when in their prime….Just look at the players that beat him at the French… This doesn’t take away from the greatness Pete was and is. I love the guy!
See the difference?


Skorocel Says:

Veno:

To be honest, I don’t care that much about their clay matches… Yes, 9-2 is pretty much a domination, but Fed could’ve easily erased ALL of those (and even future) defeats, HAD he beat Nadal in just one (1) of those 3 FO finals… As we all know, he failed, but hey, it’s not the end of the world for him, is it? After all, he finally got that darn FO title in 2009, even though I have to admit that I BADLY wanted him to beat Nadal here (but well, that would be for another story)…

What I consider more worrying for Fed (especially when it goes to that GOAT debate) is his H2H vs Nadal outside of clay. Again, the casual Fed fan would probably say they didn’t play as often on hard or grass than they had played on clay, but the numbers didn’t lie. 11-9 is not 15-5. It’s as close to a tie as it gets, so all those “arguments” like “Fed’s trailing to Nadal only because of clay” simply don’t hold water…

As we all know, Fed leads Nadal 5-4 outside of clay. That’s all fine, but unfortunately for him, 2 of those defeats occured in slams. Had it happened, say, in Miami or Dubai, then OK. But a slam is a slam. There isn’t any bigger stage in tennis. Forget about Olympics, Davis Cup, Masters Series, or YEC – it all comes down to slams, especially among such players like Fed and Nadal.

The point is, every tennis fan NOT WEARING BLINDERS is more than aware of what those 2 losses (especially the one at Wimby) have done to his legacy… In other words, Fed simply HAS to return the favor! He can no longer pull out the “clay card” (which so many of his fans here tend to do) and say “he’s beaten me mainly on clay”… He got beaten at SW19 and AO, fair and square. No excuses anymore. Now it’s up to him to redeem himself for those 2 losses. Redeem himself against a guy, who, at the very latest since that Wimby 2008 final, was HANDS DOWN the best tennis player in the world, till the injury got better of him…


Scottish Says:

This is such an old, tired topic. Can we drop the Fed discussion and let these guys play tennis? Who cares which player any of us support? That’s the whole point of sports. People cheer for players and teams for a number of reasons. For anyone to hate a player or team that has done nothing personally to a fan to deserve hate is immature. Fed-haters get over whatever it is you hate about him. Fed-lovers quit fueling the fires of such a useless debate.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Veno,

there’s no point arguing with Skorocel. Either he doesn’t get it, or doesn’t want to get it – perhaps he is still too hurt by Federer overtaking Sampras. Who knows? Certainly, logic is not his forte.

1. H2H doesn’t really mean that much in tennis. Read this article (also posted above) – http://www.www.bleacherreport.com/articles/226249-logical-flaw-in-the-interpretation-of-rafas-13-7-h2h.

By Skorocel’s logic, Hrbaty is GOAT! he has a winning H2H against both Federer and Nadal. And while we are at it, Federer has a winning H2H against Sampras. but that’s not why he is better than Sampras. He is better because of all his other records, foremost of which is the 15 slams including wins in all 4 slams.

2. Skorocel is wrong in saying its not a clay thing. It is a clay thing. OUtside of clay, Federer is 5-4 on Nadal, INCLUDING 2-2 in slam finals. So how does Nadal have an edge on Federer outside of clay, including in slams? Again, even smart toddlers might be able to understand this.

7-13 is PURELY because its 2-9 on clay.

And we have already hashed out all the clay arguments.

3. I will still highlight the age issue. Till end of 2007, Federer was 6-8 against nadal, all surfaces included. 2008 and later, when Federer was a bit below and a bit above 27 years of age, while Nadal was a prime 22, that Nadal accumulated this lead. Anybody in their right mind knows that a tennis player at 27 is definitely past his prime, whereas a tennis player at 22 is right on top of his prime.

Sampras was lucky he never had to face a 6-slam champion (or more slams, we don’t know where Nadal will end up) 5 years younger, once he was past 26. Sampras NEVER had to face top notch young players throughout his years, until the end when Safin and Hewitt showed up in 2000. Sampras only faced aging top players like Becker, Edberg. Sampras was the Nadal for some of them. But Sampras never had to face a “Nadal”.

But don’t try arguing with Skorocel. He is set in his mind about what he wants to think – so be it!

I bet you he cannot find even one sentence that is incorrect in the article link that I have reposted above.


Voicemale1 Says:

Fed is GOAT Says:
“That’s all I am saying – “If you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones at others” – Sampras is doing just this, throwing stones while living in a pretty shattered glasshouse himself.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

Now whose panties are in a bunch? See? You can’t stand the slightest criticism of your Idol, now matter what it is or where it comes from (as i keep saying, any criticism of your Idol de facto invalidates YOU).

Regarding Nadal-Federer H2H, since you Worshipping Sheeple keep telling the rest of us Federer is the alleged GOAT because of his number of Majors, then here’s an indisputable fact. Federer hasn’t beaten Nadal in a Major in over 2 years, despite three chances on three different surfaces to do so. The only Major where Federer’s beaten Nadal is Wimbledon. So slice up Sampras any way you like, he’s right. Federer has a distinct problem with Nadal competitively. Nadal, and now Murray (who owns Federer) make a serious mockery of any GOAT pretensions Federer has – no matter how many commercials he keeps making trying to sell us on the idea :)


Fed is GOAT Says:

Ha ha ha!!

Wow, it really hurts, ha? You Sampras fanatics are just boiling over. there are medicines for this kind of stuff, you know!

Let me reiterate what sean randal had said:

15 > anything else

(oh sorry, you are not going to read the line above, since facts are your sworn enemy…..)

What would you guys do if it becomes, 16, or 17, or 18, or maybe even more? Its just gonna destroy you.

Eventually you guys are even capable of saying “14 is the best number. Any less, and you haven’t won enough. Any more, you didn’t face enough competition. 14 is the magic number. GOAT is the one who gets to 14 and retires”.

Its really fun to hear such stuff…..


Fed is GOAT Says:

Sean Randall,

Actually, you had the right title to this article, as proven by the comments of so many people on this board:

“Federer Haters Feeling the Pain”.


tenisbebe Says:

FiG – I think you are the one who’s “boiling over” because the great champion Pete Sampras will not/does not acknowledge UNCONDITIONALLY that another great champion, Federer, is GOAT. The H2H vs Nadal is clear: Nadal owns Fed. He knows it, Raf knows it and so does Pete. You are the one ignoring the obvious. Doesn’t make you a “Pete” hater or me a lover (NOT!).

Ok – now truly off to yoga.


Fed is GOAT Says:

I am having fun – aren’t you?

“He knows it, Raf knows it and so does Pete”.
Oh Yeah? You know what’s in these people’s mind, to know what they know? Are you their shrink?

As for Sampras acknowledging Fed as GOAT – he did do that at Wimbledon, then did a 180 some time later. I can’t know what’s in his head – but that’s as clear a contradiction as you will ever see.

No hate or love for any player here, from my side. I couldn’t care less! I am just having fun dismantling your poor logic and pathetic arguments.


Sean Randall Says:

Voicemale1, just who is your guy?

True, right now Nadal owns Fed. Fed did beat Rafa in their last meeting, on clay, but that’s a “yeah but” match.

Nadal beat Fed in Australia and at Wimbledon and of course at the French. So yes, he’s had the upper hand, etc.

And true Pete dominated or at least was level with all his rivals.

But you could argue that Fed and Rafa never played at at their respective peaks at the same time. Remember Fed’s five years older than Rafa so his playing arc and Rafa’s is different.

Federer was already in full bloom when Rafa came onto the scene. Rafa gained strength, closed the gap on the non-clay surfaces then finally overtook Roger.

The same will happen to Rafa. Who it will be is the question. Hypothetically, when Rafa turns 26 and Grigor Dmitrov starts pounding him into the ground on clay does that make Grigor better than Rafa? What if Grigor dominates? If it comes to pass Rafafans would argue “Rafa’s not the same play, he’s knees are bad etc.”

So it’s touchy. There’s no clear answer. That’s why the default reigns: “15 > everything else”.


Veno Says:

My goodness, I’m soooooo happy Nadal has that 13-7 over Fed(and totally owns him big time mega one-sided Fed is no competition for Rafa and Pete would have destroyed Rafa also on clay because the clay courters in Pete’s time offered way more competition :):):):):):):):))
for just this reason: imagine Fed also owned Rafa on clay…how boring would tennis have been the past 4 years?!!!! Imagine how many great matches between the 2 we would have missed if Rafa hadn’t been able, not even on clay, to take over from Fed…. Let’s all rejoice they have had great battles and so what Rafa has a better H2H against Fed? Derive from that whatever you like and throw it in as con or pro in the whole GOAT-argument…it doesn’t change the fact that Roger has won a career slam, has surpassed Pete and is only 27….Just take the numbers as a given and enjoy the next years of tennis in which hopefully all the guys are fit and play great matches…..


Sean Randall Says:

And also true, Murray’s dominated Fed. But I’m guessing Murray would cash in those wins he does have for the win he didn’t get, the US Open.

Should Fed and Murray meet next week or in the Nati, I’ll probably pick Murray. But at the US Open or in a Slam I wouldn’t be so quick. I get the feeling Murray still needs some “help” to win against the big guys in the majors. He just seems too afraid to play his game.


jane Says:

Sean says “Federer was already in full bloom when Rafa came onto the scene. Rafa gained strength, closed the gap on the non-clay surfaces then finally overtook Roger.”

Actually, there was no gap to close. Rafa and Fed’s first match, which was on hard courts, when Fed was at his peak, was won by Rafa 6-3, 6-3.

Rafa has ALWAYS, from the get-go, had Fed on his heels. He just “gets” how to take it to Fed, and if he loses, he adjusts and wins.

Hence, as Voicemale1 accurately points out, “Federer hasn’t beaten Nadal in a Major in over 2 years, despite three chances on three different surfaces to do so. The only Major where Federer’s beaten Nadal is Wimbledon…Federer has a distinct problem with Nadal competitively.”

Nadal has the upperhand in their rivalry, and he deserves it; same with Murray.

It remains to be seen if Federer really made the kinds of adjustments he needs in his win over Rafa at Madrid, because although some people don’t believe it, to me it was quite clear that Nadal wasn’t at his peak form in that Madrid final. He tweaked his knees in his epic semi with Djoko (trainer calls to prove it) and he didn’t move as well as normal in the final. HOWEVER~! That said, Fed did make some apparent changes, like using the drop shot, ripping returns down the line and so forth.

That’s why the future of their rivalry will be interesting to follow. Will the adjustments continue? Will they be enough, if Nadal is at his best? And so on… Lots to look forward to in this rivalry.


Pehchan Says:

“It remains to be seen if Federer really made the kinds of adjustments he needs in his win over Rafa at Madrid, because although some people don’t believe it, to me it was quite clear that Nadal wasn’t at his peak form in that Madrid final.”

There we go again. How many Fed-dislikers have used the same argument to give Federer the benefit of the doubt for his GS losses in 2008?

None, which is sad. After all, Federer was barely recovering from mono (worse than not being “at his peak form”) when he lost that lopsided final at the FO and then the classic 5-setter at Wimby.

‘Nadal has the upperhand in their rivalry, and he deserves it; same with Murray.’
Do not agree about Murray. Let him first beat Federer in a grand slam before we say he has the upperhand. Federer beat Djokovic (in 4 sets) and Murray (in 3) back-to-back to win the US Open last year.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Jane,

Just one small point (details are important, otherwise its just shallow analysis, which is bogus analysis).

Rafa’s 2004 Miami match against Fed – fed was sick with food poisoning. He was considering giving a walkover, but since he never (or hardly ever) does that, he came out and played.

Not a big deal, but just to set the record straight.

Then Fed had the tough 5 setter against Nadal in 2005 miami. Fed dismatled him in the 4th and 5th sets.

Then in 2006, Fed and Nadal had awfully closely fought matches on clay – Nadal won them all, but they were good contests, especially the one in Rome, where Federer had match points.

Its only in 2008 that Nadal really got the clear upper hand on Federer. Till end of 2007, Nadal was 8-6 on federer, pretty darn close.

Goes to what I said earlier and What Sean said:

“Remember Fed’s five years older than Rafa so his playing arc and Rafa’s is different”

Again, details are important. But if someone wants a shallow analysis with bogus inferences, sure, here’s the bogus inference from shallow analysis “13-7, Rafa owns Roger, Rafa is a better player than Roger”. Be happy with it, if that’s what makes you happy.

While we are at it, here’s another bogus inference from shallow analysis – “Sampras was a better player than Federer is today”. That should finally give the candy to Sampras fans, who have been crying for some sugar.


Fed is GOAT Says:

In 4 years, when some 22 year old beats up on a 27 year old Rafa, then we will see all the Rafa fans saying – Oh, but he is so much younger.

And you know what? they will be right. Then.


Veno Says:

Pehchan has a point. Although I don’t argue the fact Rafa beat Fed in 3 consecutive Slam finals(where they played eachother, the USO ’08 omitted) on all surfaces which clearly states he’s dominated Fed for about a year, if you use an argument to make a point one way, you also have to apply the same argument the other way. So stating Fed can’t use his mono an back problems as excuses for losing in ’08 and Ozzie Open ’09 means Rafa(and his fans) can’t use his knee problems as ecuses for losing to Fed, Soderling and having to withdraw from Wimbledon(what a pity that was) If you saw Fed play Wimbledon this year compared to last year Rafa would have to be his best ever if he were to beat Fed in the final(I doubt he would have gotten through Murray or Roddick) I know, that’s speculation also but just compare Fed’s serve at Wimbledon this year and put it against his serve last year. Furthermore, look at his winner-unforced error ratio compared to last year. It would have taken Rafa an even gutsier effort to get even 2 sets of Fed.
Same arguments holds the other way. If Rafa would have been fit for Wimbledon, who is to say he wouldn’t have made the final and would have beaten Fed in straights? Unfortunately we’ll never know, we can only hope they’ll slug it out in a slam final soon again rather than later….


Veno Says:

Sorry for all the typos guys…was distracted…
an=and
ecuses=excuses
2 sets of Fed=2 sets off of Fed


Twocents Says:

“Rafa’s 2004 Miami match against Fed – fed was sick with food poisoning. He was considering giving a walkover, but since he never (or hardly ever) does that, he came out and played.”

Good job, FiG. I was pondering if I wanted to point this out myself. Fed was hospitalized in LA before he headed to Miami. Nadal definitely played a hell of game that day, since Fed did beat Davydenko in the initial round.

Well, nobody can take away a win, irregardless of injuries and illness. What amazes me is that while Fed had his breaks from Nadal’s lump, Nadal vice versa, Murray and Djok from Fed’s troubles, etc. The Roddick fna in me couldn’t figure out why Roddick never had his share of break from Fed: he should have got his last time in Shanghai TMC08. He should get a sick Fed in RR. Roddick twisted his ankle and had to pull out last minute…

Sean, you had it spot on @12:17pm. Way to go.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Ya, Roddick has definitely been unlucky. He has run into a fit federer 8 times in slams now, including 4 finals. He would have had a few more slams, and a better than 19-2 record, had he caught Federer on one of his lows. Well, he did once, last year 2008 Miami, when Federer was on a low due to mono.


Twocents Says:

Fed actually played quite well in that loss to Andy at Miami08, much better than his ‘tanking’ to Fish two weeks earlier in Indy. He was still a bit slow, true. So, I hesitate about putting it squarely to Roddick’s break.


MMT Says:

“And true Pete dominated or at least was level with all his rivals.”

All rivals except for Stich and Krajicek who played Sampras 7 and 10 times respectively and have winning records against him.


tennisontherocks Says:

‘MMT Says:
“And true Pete dominated or at least was level with all his rivals.”

All rivals except for Stich and Krajicek who played Sampras 7 and 10 times respectively and have winning records against him.’

And Stich never won a match against Andre, go figure :) These H2H depend more on how the games match up between 2 players. If you suck against some players still have great winning percentage, you deserve it. So I hope people will stop using them to prop up or diminish someone’s achievements. I have pasted below Stich’s answers and here is full interview http://www.tennisweek.com/features/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6636403#top (long article, but very nice read. Loved his fluid game, although he broke my heart by beating Edberg in 92 semis :)

Your record against Pete Sampras was an overall winning one, ( 5-4) what gave you have the edge against Sampras?

“I always enjoyed playing Pete Sampras because I had about the same game,” Stich said. “I think I was better playing serve and volley than him, he was better on the baseline than I was, but Pete never enjoyed playing guys that played the same style of game he played. I was serving as good as he did when I was playing well. I could put pressure on him, I was able to return his serve and read it, so I always looked forward playing him and I know he always hated playing me, he never enjoyed that too much. That combination probably made it possible that I had a winning record against him.”

The other record what was surprising was against Andre Agassi. Stich was winless in six meetings against Agassi. In theory, he had the game to defeat him, yet it never happened. Could it have been bad tactics or a mental block?

“That was a terrible record, I did not win,” Stich said. “At some stage the mental part plays a role. My bad luck was I played him indoors on hard courts. I never played him on grass or clay. Probably two surfaces I could have beaten him on. Hard court was my least favorite surface. If it was not fast enough, it was tough to play serve and volley all the time because he was returning so well, for me to stay at the baseline was difficult as well. He was playing too fast and I was not moving well on the hard court to hurt him. I had a couple of close matches but at some stage you don’t believe you can beat the guy. I don’t know I think I lost nine times against him. You go on feeling that it is not going to happen.”

Is it similar with Federer playing Nadal on clay?

“You have to mix it up against Nadal, serve and volley, play to his back hand,” Stich said. “In my day, Thomas Muster was similar, extremely fit, hard hitting on clay, running everything down, not as talented as Nadal but he was tough. The only thing you can do is break their rhythm, don’t give them the same ball twice. Sometimes it is better to finish the rally and hit a crazy shot and not give the other guy a rhythm and not give the opportunity to stay in the rally. not give him confidence. You don’t want the guy to get into the point. I think Federer has the game but he never believes enough to really do this as I never believed myself against Agassi to follow that game plan all the way to the end. If you lose one and one or 7-6 7-6 it does not make any difference , you are still losing so you have to try and find a winning way.”


Skorocel Says:

Fed is GOAT said: „I will still highlight the age issue. Till end of 2007, Federer was 6-8 against nadal, all surfaces included. 2008 and later, when Federer was a bit below and a bit above 27 years of age, while Nadal was a prime 22, that Nadal accumulated this lead. Anybody in their right mind knows that a tennis player at 27 is definitely past his prime, whereas a tennis player at 22 is right on top of his prime.“

Nadal fans beware! From 2008 on, ANY win of your guy over Fed will be simply discarded because of the age issue… LOL and LOL!

===========

„What would you guys do if it becomes, 16, or 17, or 18, or maybe even more? Its just gonna destroy you.“

And, what would you do if Nadal’s wins over Fed add to 14, 15, or, god forbid, 20? Yes, I know… Age issue, isn’t it?

===========

„Then Fed had the tough 5 setter against Nadal in 2005 miami. Fed dismatled him in the 4th and 5th sets.“

Yeah, but not before Fed received one HELLUVA BIG gift from the chair umpire Steve Ulrich & the linesmen, who, at 3-4, 0-30 in the 3rd (Fed serving), overlooked one of his shots landing CLEARLY wide. Had there been a Hawk Eye at disposal, you can be just about sure that by now, Fed would have had losing record against Nadal both on clay & outside of it ;-)

==========

„Sampras NEVER had to face top notch young players throughout his years, until the end when Safin and Hewitt showed up in 2000.“

LOL! Kuerten (2-1), Kafelnikov (maybe not that younger as Kuerten, but still 11-2), Moya (3-1), Rios (2-0), Henman (6-1), Philippoussis (7-3), etc. etc. Btw, speaking about Safin & Hewitt; Sampras, despite being almost TWICE that older from these two as is Fed from Nadal (now THAT’s what I call an age issue!), still managed to beat them at the USO when he was around or already in his thirties (which is at least 1-2 years more than what Fed has now). In Safin’s case, btw, it was nonetheless after he got thrashed by the same player year before in the finals of the same tournament…


Skorocel Says:

Veno said: „it doesn’t change the fact that Roger has won a career slam, has surpassed Pete and is only 27….“

If he’s only 27, then he should also be able to (finally) figure out Nadal ;-)


Polo Says:

What would be interesting to know is how accomplished Nadal would be by the time he gets done with tennis. And we would not know that until many years from now.

If Federer stops playing today, we already know how much he has accomplished. I am sure he will be pleased, happy, and proud even if he has a losing record against Nadal. The greatness of his accomplishments more that makes us for that one blemish which is his losing record against Nadal. That is but a blip which he cannot do anything about. I don’t think Roger will dwell on that but rather relish all his great achievements. If there are people who do not want to call him the GOAT, I don’t think it will bother Roger one bit. The only ones who dwell so much on it are the people not the least bit related to the athletes they argue for.


Veno Says:

Veno said: „it doesn’t change the fact that Roger has won a career slam, has surpassed Pete and is only 27….“

If he’s only 27, then he should also be able to (finally) figure out Nadal ;-)

Lol Skorocel; thanks for using a quote of mine to make your point :)

I’m happy to know Fed finally acknowledged he shouldn’t be stubborn and is trying to figure out Nadal(pity of Rafa’s injury) for their future clashes….Imho he stuck too long to his own game plan in stead of adjusting it to Nadal’s playing style and game plan. Maybe at 27 he is getting wiser lol


Fed is GOAT Says:

Skorocel:

“Kuerten (2-1), Kafelnikov (maybe not that younger as Kuerten, but still 11-2), Moya (3-1), Rios (2-0), Henman (6-1), Philippoussis (7-3), etc. etc”

And how many slams did Henman win? Or Philippoussis? Or Rios? Zero each. Moya, Kuerten, Kafelnikov? Between them, only one slam outside of clay. Sampras beat these clay courters a few times on hard courts (not on clay, since Sampras was never good enough to face them on clay).

Again, when did Sampras face a 6-slam winner who was 5 years younger than him?

Skorocel, can you name one such player?

In his WHOLE career, Sampras never had to face such a player.

Now, facts are not your forte, so I don’t expect you to agree to anything sensible….


Fed is GOAT Says:

And since you brought up Philipoussis – he was beating the crap out of Sampras at Wimbledon in 1998 or 99 (I think it was the quarters). He was a set and a break up, and was playing flawlessly, Sampras was being soundly beaten. And then suddenly philippoussis twisted his knee – his famous knee injury, that literally destroyed his whole career (it was painful to watch his knee get twisted!). Extremely lucky break for Sampras – when you are being beaten, and suddenly your opponent suffers a serious injury (serious enough to destroy his whole career) – that is certainly luck.

So don’t try and dig too deep into Sampras’s victories – there are many such story lines there.


Twocents Says:

Veno,

“Maybe at 27 he is getting wiser lol”

It’s true Fed’s stubborn. But boy, he didn’t get much credits for his own coaching and planning. I cringed hard every time Fed fans said he must get a coach. Come on, after three three-slam-a- year feats, and most of the time without a full time coach, the guy deserves some slacks to go coach thing his own way. What’s wrong with Fed tried hard to beat Rafa with his own game at first,and again, and found it’s not working eventually, and adjust tactics? It’s not he’s getting wiser. It’s natural proceeding. Fed fans are greedy.

OK, we all know that he’s too arrogant to change or have a coach :-)).


jane Says:

You guys are so funny; it’s like you can’t see that Nadal clearly has some kind of competitive edge, at least thus far, over Fed.

Don’t forget Dubai 2006 either; Fed was at his “peakest” form right? But Rafa beat him on hard courts. Watch highlights at youtube if you’d like.

The bottom line is really this: in many ways, Rafa has been willing and able to adjust his game, taylor it even, to meet the challenges Fed could throw his way, but the reverse has, for the most part, not been true for Fed.

Look at the difference between the 3 Wimbledon finals and the 3 F.O. finals. Nadal went from worse, to better, to best = a win. Fed went from okay to okay to the worst = losses. He won, but only against someone other than Nadal. Whereas Nadal conquered Fed on his best surface.

In any case, there is the possibility that Fed may’ve made some adjustments in Madrid, but like I say, it remains to be seen whether they’ll pan out over the long haul, in a slam meeting.

I am not a Fed fan, but I am not a Fed “hater” or even “disliker”. I’d say I am rather neutral or even indifferent when it comes to Roger these days. I appreciate the guy for toughing out matches and sticking out the rough patches. But I don’t love the crying and the outfits and commercials. I think the problem with Sean’s article, though very funny, is that it over-simplifies things. And initially that’s what Voicemale1 tried to point out. Things do not have to be either/or, black/white, or love/hate. There are many shades in between. Those who’ve been at this site for a long while know I’ve always espoused as such. Why must things be so straight up – you’re on “this side” or “that side”? I don’t see it that way.

Thus, whatever happens between Fed and Nadal, to me, will be interesting.

I guess it would be different were I a diehard fan of either one of them.


Pehchan Says:

“You guys are so funny; it’s like you can’t see that Nadal clearly has some kind of competitive edge, at least thus far, over Fed.”

No problem with your comment above, Jane. In your earlier post, you were quick to “qualify” Nadal’s Madrid loss by stating that Nadal was not in peak form, but the same courtesy is not extended to Federer, particularly for his many losses through the first six months of 2008. Clearly, Federer, with mono,was not in peak form, either…mono being much worse than any loss of form Nadal may have suffered.

Fed bashers like to believe that when Nadal loses to Federer, there must be something wrong with Nadal, but when Federer loses, it’s all because of Nadal. At the AO this year, Federer’s serve was completely off in the fifth set, leading to an inexplicable meltdown, but no one mentioned Federer’s back problems as a possible reason, which I have no doubt would have been mentioned if Nadal had back problems and hadlost to Federer.


Veno Says:

Twocents says: What’s wrong with Fed tried hard to beat Rafa with his own game at first,and again, and found it’s not working eventually, and adjust tactics? It’s not he’s getting wiser. It’s natural proceeding. Fed fans are greedy.

There’s nothing wrong with that and I(a Fed fan) have never thought he should hire a full time coach. Who am I to argue with Fed, a thirteen slam winner(at that time)
All I meant was that Fed was reluctant(and maybe that’s natural proceedings) to realize he had to make adjustments because what he was doing didn’t have any effect in trying to beat Nadal.

And Jane, I’m totally with you(as a Fed fan and definitely-not-Nadal-hater) stating:
“The bottom line is really this: in many ways, Rafa has been willing and able to adjust his game, taylor it even, to meet the challenges Fed could throw his way, but the reverse has, for the most part, not been true for Fed.

Look at the difference between the 3 Wimbledon finals and the 3 F.O. finals. Nadal went from worse, to better, to best = a win. Fed went from okay to okay to the worst = losses. He won, but only against someone other than Nadal. Whereas Nadal conquered Fed on his best surface.”

It is BECAUSE I’m a Fed fan(since 2001) that I also like to look at his decisions I deem questionable and shed my light on it and/or give my opinion in suspence on other’s(fans or not) perceive things…That makes it fun.

Also again agree with the point Pehchan is making(a second time) Use an argument in a comparison between players or situations one way, also use it from the other subject’s perspective….


Twocents Says:

Good post, Pehchan.

Not even Sean buy my concern on Fed’s back issue. Part of Fed’s tears at AO could be that he knew he could mention nothing about his back giving all the ridicules he got about his mono in 2008? Well that’s the fair price to pay for his lofty achievement.

Jane,

Pointing out some ‘facts’ is not equal to that we silly diehard fans are denying all together that Nadal has an upper hand when it comes down to him vs. Fed. From what I know, not all diehard fans are in blind love with fed, even though we certainly are not as noble as neutral fans. Me think that God makes Nadal to prolong and spicy up Federer’s tennis career:-)).

I do not think that there are many Fed haters or any player haters. There’re more lovers around: fans pick on other players mostly out of their preference of their own favorites.


Pehchan Says:

Twocents, I watched the AO final several times, and I am certain something was not right with Federer in the fifth set. Back pain is particulary bad on the first serve, which is one of Federer’s main weapons, especially against Nadal.


Twocents Says:

Veno,

Sorry if you’re not one of the Fed fans who were singing chorus along with the world that he should get a full time coach. My mistake.

But I’m still a bit confused by your statement that Nadal adjusts his game well to beat Fed effectively while Fed didn’t: if Fed didn’t change a thing, why would Nadal need to adjust any all the time?

My take on this is two-folds: First, it’s a nightmare match-up from the beginning. Arrogant and stubborn as Fed is:-)), he called upon all his artilleries to try to beat Rafa at his own baseline game, with little success. He was to make major changes when he called up Higearas (sp?). But his overall game begins to decline since 2007 when Rafa was upcoming and improving; Secondly, look the thing from the moon. Fed cannot beat anyone and everyone. Period. No matter how much he adjusts. Someone young and gifted would/will come along and send him away. That is part of the beauty of sports. Wasn’t he trying to improve? I think so. But never enough to beat everyone.

That’s why I tend to think Fed fans are greedy when they complain that he does not adjust enough when he loses.


jane Says:

Pehchan says “but the same courtesy is not extended to Federer, particularly for his many losses through the first six months of 2008.”

Not true – the same courtesy has indeed been extended to Fed. For instance, I myself have commented that his back injury may’ve affected his serve at the AO,which was clearly on and off again. I have also, like most, made allowances for Fed’s mono, though it’s beginning and end was quite vague, perhaps much like Nadal’s knees.

Well said Twocents; I agree with this: “I do not think that there are many Fed haters or any player haters. There’re more lovers around: fans pick on other players mostly out of their preference of their own favorites.”

I am also interested in your counter-arguments to the notion that Fed did not adjust enough to deal with Nadal. Perhaps he did make some adjustments, and as you say, it’s just one of those match up things. But I still think Nadal has been the one to keep tweaking his game to meet Fed at his best on all surfaces, not only clay. Rafa has improved his serve very much, for one thing. Maybe Fed didn’t need to improve so much because by the time Nadal came around he was in peak form (e.g. 2004-06); however, it’s when Fed began declinging (post AO 2007, imo) that he needed to make more adjustments, not only for Rafa but for others like Murray and Djoko.

Fed’s an awesome champion, and often they can be stubborn. But I think he’s got to be at the point now, later in his career, where he’ll have to play aggressively and he’s slowed somewhat and his timing on shots isn’t as razor sharp.

BTW, Twocents I didn’t mean to imply I am “noble” and I am not utterly neutral either; admittedly, although I like Djoko, A-Rod and Murray, I often cheer for Rafa when he and Fed meet. So I am as culpable as the next fan.

I just took issue with the way Sean framed things (the “hater” tag). I like the way you put it better. That fans tend to defend the players they prefer, or at least to see things in a skewed way. NO ONE is 100% objective, at least not fans of tennis.


Voicemale1 Says:

Fed is GOAT Says:

“As for Sampras acknowledging Fed as GOAT – he did do that at Wimbledon, then did a 180 some time later. I can’t know what’s in his head – but that’s as clear a contradiction as you will ever see.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Lemme help you out FIG. Sampras, and probably many others within the Tennis Establishment, undoubtedly had rolling eyes when they saw, right after Wimbedon, what is nothing but pure Federer Self Congratulations. A total a FOUR commercials, to date, emphasizing whatever it is Federer thinks he’s achieved. And a commercial is something one chooses to make – nobody forces you to do them. If anything, it’s been FEDERER himself who’s done the most to propel this imaginary GOAT nonsense for himself. It’s the most self absorbed, shallow and classless thing anyone could do. Federer must honestly believe he’s the only one who’s ever achieved anything noteworthy in his life. That he feels the need to continually remind us via his chosen commercials tells us indisputably how he is his own biggest fan. This is no doubt why Sampras did his 180. It would have never occurred to Sampras, or Laver, or other legends like Navratilova, Graf or anyone else to dive into an orgy of self congratulations on a scale like this. Federer is clearly an Attention Whore – there’s no stage or spotlight big enough to showcase his own self-admiration.

Sampras’s statement wasn’t a contradiction. By the time Sampras left Wimbledon and got back home, the first of these ridiculous Federer commercials hit the airwaves. When more and more of them started appearing, no doubt Sampras (and I still say he speaks for many others in Tennis) said enough was enough. Sampras could respectfully endorse him publicly – which he did at Wimbledon. But it’s clear he has no intention of sanctioning Federer’s self absorption. It was a slam to Federer publicly (albeit subtly) for being the Attention Whore that Federer is, and always has been.

Sean Randall:

I have no “guy”. I just know that your original headline on this thread takes a shot at those of us who’s “guy” isn’t Federer. More specifically, not just that Federer isn’t our “guy”, but that he’s not our “god”. And I still maintain it’s only a Federer Worshipper who refers someone critical of their Idol as a “hater”.

If you want to weight Federer’s 15 on the face of it, so be it. But as long as we weight accomplishments, you’d have to say Laver’s tally of 11 majors has a lot more weight and substance behind it than Federer’s 15, since Laver was denied entry into 21 Major Championships over a 5 year period. There’s no telling how many more Majors he’d have added to his 11 had that not been the case. So if you want to make it a simple numbers game, you have to make sure the calculus is from a rational origin. Back then 3 of the 4 Majors were played on grass, Laver’s best surface. So it’s not a big stretch to figure a number of them would have gone to him. Since Federer hasn’t been denied entry into any Major for any reason, you can’t look at anything but admiration for what Laver was able to rack up despite the obstacle of being denied opportunity. And add to that, Laver was able to win a Calendar Grand Slam twice despite this obstacle. And a Calendar Slam is something Federer hasn’t been able to do even once, let alone twice.

So be careful by playing an oversimplified numbers game. It’s “true” that Federer’s won more Major Championships, but it’s not necessarily “accurate” to say Federer’s accomplishment simply outweighs any other.


Veno Says:

No problem Twocents, I took no offence, just wanted to point it out :-D

You said: “But I’m still a bit confused by your statement that Nadal adjusts his game well to beat Fed effectively while Fed didn’t: if Fed didn’t change a thing, why would Nadal need to adjust any all the time?”

Maybe I didn’t clarify my position well(English is not my first language) but here goes:

I didn’t state that…..I merely agreed with Jane, and for the following reason:
Because Nadal was the chaser(especially on grass but also overall) he did everything to close the gap with Fed and overtake him. That was his drive….he wanted to become the best player in the world….This is mentally an easier goal to persue!!!
Whereas Fed(let’s just exclude the mono and back injury from the equation) saw Nadal getting closer to him and imho waited too long to start taking counter measures that would have enabled him to keep the edge over Rafa(clay excluded) The point Jane made, and I totally agree, is the progressive nature of the Wimby finals ’06-’08(from Rafa’s point of view) and the diminishing nature of the Roland Garros finals ’06-’08(from Fed’s point of view)

The ability to stay number 1 costs a lot more mental energy than trying to become number 1 and I just think(again….subjectively) Fed was a little too stubborn too long to realize he wouldn’t be able to hold off Rafa if he kept his steady state…. Now, I have never called him arrogant or branded him as condescending(he just has too much class and I have never seen evidence of arrogant behaviour) and I think it’s normal when you’re a great champion, you naturally are strong-willed and are self assured. You are reluctant to admit you have to change things…
That’s all I’m saying…..But thanks for pointing it out Twocents…really appreciate it….


Veno Says:

Oh please Voicemail…I respect your opinion as much as the next person, but seriously….re-read what you have just written and be honest…..you’re assuming an awful lot based on own perception, preference and selective media coverage and for an advocate of sticking to facts(what does or doesn’t constitute a fact is a whole other matter :-D) I would advise you to be careful what you preach. Peace!


tenisbebe Says:

Fed is GOAT Says: “As for Sampras acknowledging Fed as GOAT – he did do that at Wimbledon, then did a 180 some time later. I can’t know what’s in his head – but that’s as clear a contradiction as you will ever see.” JMac stuck a mic in his face & said something to the effect of, “So isn’t this guy (Fed) the greatest tennis player of all time?”. What the hell do you expect Pete to say? Talk about being put on the spot! And with Borg & Laver right there next to him, LAVER, winner of 2 calendar Grand Slams (not career, CALENDAR). Very classless of JMac – but then again we all know how foolish he can behave as times. You can call his comments the following week in California a 180 turnaround but I prefer to think of them as more balanced & thoughtful. Who knows? Perhaps he was irritated with the barrage of self-congratulatory commercials hitting the airwaves and decided to speak his mind – it would not surprise me. As for a “180 turnaround”????? Hardly. You are grasping here.


Voicemale1 Says:

Veno:

“Oh please..” what? I’ll bet I’m right in my thesis. And you’re wrong about facts being a matter of competing narratives. A true fact is a fact – it’s self evident or beyond dispute. The FACT is Sampras backpedaled from his endorsement. It’s self evident. There is also a reason behind the backpedaling. That Sampras doesn’t explicitly utter what the reason is doesn’t mean he doesn’t feel exactly as I suggest. He did what he did, and the explanation, thus far, is a mystery. So I offered one. You haven’t. All you seem to be saying is that the problem with what I said is that Sampras didn’t come out and cop to my theory to prove it’s correct. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong :)


Sean Randall Says:

Voicemale1, 100% true, the headline was aimed at the Fed haters. But where have I deemed Fed a god? Not sure I’ve gone that far.

As for Laver, true again, but there as you say there is “no telling”. But you can apply that to anything in life, can’t you?

No telling how many titles Fed would have won were it not for Rafa…

No telling how many Slams Rafa would have had his parents and knees not have been an issue…

No telling how many Sampras would have won if three of the four slams were on grass… (can you imagine?)

You can go on and on…

And is winning the Slam back in the Laver days tougher to do or easier because 3 of the 4 were on one surface grass?


Veno Says:

Voicemail…again….making assumptions about what I said and meant… again…why?…I never put any personal judgement in my comment…Nor did I mention anything about facts nor did I try to attack your thesis, nor do I want to go into a debate about subjective claims and nor did I highlight, like you do, the Sampras issue you theoritisized in your previous post…Nor did I say I didn’t agree with what you posted…

I just urged you te re-read lines like:
“It would have never occurred to Sampras, or Laver, or other legends like Navratilova, Graf or anyone else to dive into an orgy of self congratulations on a scale like this. Federer is clearly an Attention Whore – there’s no stage or spotlight big enough to showcase his own self-admiration.” Or is this according to you a “fact”?

Another one is the following self-proclaimed “colloquium doctum” :

“But as long as we weight accomplishments, you’d have to say Laver’s tally of 11 majors has a lot more weight and substance behind it than Federer’s 15, since Laver was denied entry into 21 Major Championships over a 5 year period. There’s no telling how many more Majors he’d have added to his 11 had that not been the case. So if you want to make it a simple numbers game, you have to make sure the calculus is from a rational origin. Back then 3 of the 4 Majors were played on grass, Laver’s best surface. So it’s not a big stretch to figure a number of them would have gone to him. Since Federer hasn’t been denied entry into any Major for any reason, you can’t look at anything but admiration for what Laver was able to rack up despite the obstacle of being denied opportunity. And add to that, Laver was able to win a Calendar Grand Slam twice despite this obstacle. And a Calendar Slam is something Federer hasn’t been able to do even once, let alone twice.”

Again, not saying I disagree with your “logic”(to me it’s not) but how about stretching the boundaries of reason to attest to your own preferred reasoning is all….


Fed is GOAT Says:

Voicemale1: “no doubt Sampras (and I still say he speaks for many others in Tennis)”

Oh yeah? You know all the other top players personally to say that Sampras speaks for them? Nobody but Sampras has been making these “sour grapes” statements of “he has to figure out Nadal”. Yeah right, Sampras is the one who really needed to figure out how not to lose to every tom, dick and harry on clay. Federer’s 2-9 on clay against nadal is nothing to be ashamed of, with a winning record elsewhere.

As to Laver’s 11, and his being denied entry into 21 slams? Sure, but again, don’t look at it superficially, like Skorocel and others do. 6 of Lavers slams were won in the early 60s when OTHERS were denied entry into slams. Laver was clearly not the top player then (he became the top player in 64/65). Rosewall and gonzalez were beating the crap out of Laver in those days. Would laver have won those 6 if the OTHER players were allowed entry? Who knows, but its doubtful.

So Laver’s true tally is 5 (11-6), with the added caveat that he was denied entry into so many slams at his peak, so we would have definitely won a few slams each year between 1964-67. So how many would he have ended up with? Who knows. Its just that the benchmark should be 5+x, and not 11+x, since 6 of laver’s 11 slams are also shady…. The “x” could have been anything from 3-4 to maybe over 10, but we will never know. Even if x=10, Laver is at 15.

And, of course, the depth in men’s tennis is much more today than in the 60s. Plus there are hard courts to deal with, in addition to grass and clay. Just succeeding on grass and clay doesn’t guarantee success on hard courts – just ask Borg.

15 today is much harder than 15 30 or 40 years ago.

Again, as I have said before, details are important.


tennisontherocks Says:

Sampras actually was part of one of the commercials that congratulated Roger for his 15th slam win (That’s all it said, no mention of the GOAT), so he knew what to expect. The other great athletes who were part of that commercial were JMac, Tiger, Serena and Jordan. Now Nike has paid them all ridiculous money over the years, but don’t think they were all contractually obligated to be part of a commercial to congratulate another athlete. And if the ‘attention whore’ Roger has the clout to force these guys into saying these things, boy he must be the most influential athlete out there.

And since there is literally a 2 month frenzy about Nadal’s knees and/or personal life (ALL of it caused by fans, not him), is he the ‘attention whore wallowing around in self pity’ or just another modern day professional athlete who beyond a point cannot control the discussion about his life?


MMT Says:

Sampras has not done a 180 degree change in his assessment that Federer is the greatest of all time. What he said was that based on his record he is the greatest of all time. In response to a question about Federer’s H2H against Nadal he said it would bother him and, “…he’s got to turn it around with Nadal. He’s got to beat him in slam finals.”

To me that reads that to make it indisputable even to those who choose to disregard his 15 slams, as this is the only mitigating condition. But there are two considerations – first, as a mitigating condition it doesn’t amount to much because other claimants to the appellation have either worse or mitigating conditions and second that statement can be interpreted as the only way to make it indisputable.

I think a lot is being made of this statement from Sampras, but he hasn’t said at any time that Federer is NOT the greatest of all time BECAUSE of his H2H record against Nadal.


Veno Says:

MMT….incominggggggggggggggg from Fed is GOAT in 3…2…1….


Fed is GOAT Says:

I summarize below the arguments used by fed-haters (Sampras included):

1. Oh but he has a losing record to Nadal.

2. Oh but Sampras had more competition.

3. Oh but Laver would have won more than 15 but for the restrictions.

The first is true (on clay), but is bogus as an issue to suggest Fed is not GOAT.

Second is downright incorrect – has been shown many times over on this and other threads.

Third is not that strong an argument if you read my post above. But who knows.

Of course, Fed haters will disagree with my statements above.

Do you have anything else to throw at Federer, or are you going to keep rehashing the same three points above?

As to Fed being nice or arrogant, none of us knows, it doesn’t matter anyway.

lets see if anyone has something new to post…..


MMT Says:

One more comment on Sampras’ comment that Federer has to turn it around against Nadal in slam finals.

It seems to me somewhat unfair to Federer that his place in history is dependent on Nadal reaching slam finals. to me, that Nadal has not reached more slam finals, despite being ranked #2 for 3 years and #1 for 1, is an indication of the gulf in pedigree between them.


Fed is GOAT Says:

Well, Federer is 2-2 against nadal in slam finals outside of clay. If Fed had not been good enough to reach the french finals (like sampras), then that would be it.


Twocents Says:

Jane & Veno,

It’s all in the eyes of beholders. The progressive declining performance of Fed’s WO07/08/09 and FO06/07/08 and Rafa’s progress in the same events,for me,is again part of natural order of things. I’d credit it more on the success of Rafa’s catching-up than on Fed’s failure to improve. One can only go down if one’s already at the top. Not a matter of if, a matter of when. And for me, Fed’s made that “when” much later than sooner. He was making steady progress with his clay game, and he still has a very good albeit no longer dominant holds on all fast courts. Imagine if Fed still has as strong holds on fast courts as he did in 04-06? That’s just unthinkable. Why complain?

Not sure of the exact meaning of “hate”, but I do despise those highly paid journo’s who twisted and nit-pick Fed’s storyline just to make Nadal a saint. Such Low Price. Sean is not one of those.


Sean Randall Says:

Simple question, would Pete trade in those non-Slam wins over Andre and his H2H edge for just one French? In a second!

I’d like to hear a journalist ask him that question.


Fed is GOAT Says:

That’s a GREAT question Sean!

Again, as for Fed’s decline in 2008 – what do you expect from a player 27 years old? He can NEVER be the player he was at 23 or 24. He can just hope he has Sampras’s luck, not to have met a 5 years younger 6-(may be may more) slam champion after turning 26 (or even before, in Sampras’s case).

Federer was not that lucky. He ran into a great player in Nadal, who was also 5 years younger, and getting to HIS peak at 22.


Veno Says:

Hey Twocents, thanks for your reaction. Yes it is in the eyes of the beholder…So in this case we just disagree about the topic because we look at it from different stand points. That’s cool and we can just say(not speaking for Jane, but for me) we agree to disagree.
I do want to react to your assumption: “why complain” I don’t complain, my friend and never have. Just expressing(again stressing subjectively) my view and how I have assessed it having followed Fed(and Rafa for that matter) intensely during those years :)


Veno Says:

And Sean, nice hypothesis you put out there :-D


Twocents Says:

A good girl yourself, Veno. I do complain a lot. :-))

FiG:

Fed is lucky = Nadal has some never-healing knees.

Nadal is unlucky = Old Fed’s never injured and always showed up.


tennisontherocks Says:

Funny thing is when Nadal gets asked about his H2H edge over Roger, he has always responded with ‘I have to beat 6 players before I face Roger’. And he not being just humble or phony, but he understands the most basic fact in tennis that you win 7 matches to win a slam and your H2H against Roger, 81 match clay streak are not going to rescue you on the day you are loosing to Soderling. Its about time some of the fans start understanding it.

In case of Sampras, he just needs to refresh his memory. I mean, he was able to wipe out his clay results from him memory by the time wimbledon rolled.


Veno Says:

Hahahaha Twocents….. Why do people insist on assuming I’m a woman????????????? Yeezzz, as a man this is not good profiling for me hehehe.
I blame you Von!!!!!!!!!!!!

100%(if not more) mucho machismo masculin man monster here everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!


Fed is GOAT Says:

Ya, courier, Bruguera, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Guga, Muster, Moya – these players would have LOVED to have the chance to play 11 times against Sampras on clay, if Sampras had showed up. Then we would have seen his H2H against these guys!!

And forget about Nadal. Nadal is a better clay court player than ANY of the names above! Sampras vs Nadal on clay? 0-100, if they had played a 100 times.


Skorocel Says:

Fed is GOAT: „lets see if anyone has something new to post…..“

LOL! The right one is asking :-)


Skorocel Says:

MMT: „It seems to me somewhat unfair to Federer that his place in history is dependent on Nadal reaching slam finals.“

I disagree. Federer has already had more than enough shots (7 to be precise), yet succeeded only on two occassions…


tenisbebe Says:

Fig says: “15 today is much harder than 15 30 or 40 years ago.”

Now who’s making being presumptuous? Way worse travel conditions, no physios, trainers, agents, hairdressers, in other words, flying entourages to take care of every little thing & boo-boo for them so the player can concentrate solely on their tennis.

——————————————–
Veno says to VM1: ““It would have never occurred to Sampras, or Laver, or other legends like Navratilova, Graf or anyone else to dive into an orgy of self congratulations on a scale like this. Federer is clearly an Attention Whore – there’s no stage or spotlight big enough to showcase his own self-admiration.” Or is this according to you a “fact”?

Well, in fact, none of them DID make self congratulatory commercials after their great successes (Graf’s Golden Slam, Martina’s NINTH Wimbledon trophy, etc) – so there you have it.
———————————–
Voicemail1: I was composing my post of 1:27pm re: Laver & had not yet seen yours from 12:54pm on the same subject. To me, Laver’s case is the most unfortunate as he (and other pros) were banned from competing in GS’s. Que tragic!


tenisbebe Says:

Veno – “Twocents Says: A good girl yourself, Veno.” At least (for me), am not the only one to have made that mistake… :-)


Twocents Says:

tennisbebe,

Great minds think alike. LOL.

Veno,

Welcome to internet, meaning you could still be a gal even though you say you’re not. O.K., let’s not blame Von. My mistake. Again.

1000% monster I am indeed.


tenisbebe Says:

Twocents – That’s our story and we’re stickin’ to it! Wink, wink.


chloe Says:

No I don’t hate Federer, I just hate the way everything is scewered in his favour, even this article, telling us what a wonderful recovery he’s had, forgetting to mention that Nadal was injured, that the Wimbledon final was extremely close, and that he has been very very very lucky.

Organisers have also hugely favoured Federer, probably because they just want someone to beat the lack lustre Sampras’s record, or to attract people to the sport to watch their ‘genius’ at play. I don’t buy this ‘genius’. His game is boring, it is mainly forehand and backhand crosscourts, except when he gets his comeuppance against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

I wish I could love Federer, but I don’t think I can, because I just don’t think he deserves all the accolades he gets. Match schedules are always to suit him, even when he wasn’t No1…….just think of AO 09 when the World No 1, had one day less that the World No 2 before the final.


mohammed Says:

BEAUTIFUL ARTICLE.THE MONEY HIT ON THE HEAD.ENOUGH SAID.

Top story: Federer, Nadal Breeze In Basel; Murray, Ferrer Advance In Valencia
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Oct 20 WTA - Oct 20
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Roger Federer2 Maria Sharapova
3 Rafael Nadal3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 David Ferrer5 Na Li
6 Tomas Berdych6 Agnieszka Radwanska
7 Kei Nishikori7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Marin Cilic8 Ana Ivanovic
9 Milos Raonic9 Caroline Wozniacki
10 Andy Murray10 Angelique Kerber
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.