Woods Named Athlete of the Decade over Federer? A Joke?

by Jeremy Davis | December 16th, 2009, 1:53 pm

On Wednesday Tiger Woods was named the AP Athlete of the Decade by the Associated Press writers.

What a joke.
Federer and tennis in general are used to getting screwed by the American-centric Sports Illustrated when they name their athletes of the year, but this is a crime. We know sports writers are historically golf-centric. The AP writers have cinched that.

Federer put up bigger numbers than Woods in all categories, even after getting a later start this decade (Rog didn’t win his first Slam until 2003). He spotted Woods two years of titles.

Let’s look at the numbers for the decade 2000-2009:

Federer won 15 majors (breaking the all-time record) to Woods’ 12.
Federer won 61 overall singles titles during the decade to Woods’ 56.

This year Federer won the French Open for the first time, becoming only the second player after Andre Agassi in the Open Era to win all four Slams during a career. That is a crazy feat winning Slams on clay, grass and hardcourts, as opposed to golf’s Grand Slam which is on — a bunch of golf courses where the bunkers are in different places. And you get to walk around rather than constantly sprint after a moving ball.

In addition to winning the French and Wimbledon this year, Federer reached the final at the Australian and US Open, a finalist at all four Slams.

We get it that golf is on TV all the time in the U.S. and ratings go up every time Tiger plays. We get it that the fat AP writers like golf because they play it while they drink beer and smoke and think it’s a sport. But look at the numbers.

Federer’s numbers are in spite of Rafael Nadal, who has ranked No. 1 and won the French and Wimbledon, and will probably go down in history eventually as one of the greatest players ever. He is young enough even to possibly challenge Federer’s record 15 Slam titles eventually. Tiger has no one even close to him. He arguably cruised through a weak decade of little competition. Who challenged Tiger? Fat Phil? The No. 3-ranked golfer in the world right now is named Stricker, ever heard of him?

Woods may be the AP Athlete of the Decade, but Roger Federer is sports’ unequivocal Athlete of the Decade.

You Might Like:
Federer, Henin Edged for 2007 AP Athlete of the Year Awards
Roger Federer Named GQ’s Most Stylish Man Of Decade
Tiger Woods Says He and Roger Federer Still “Text All the Time”
TMZ Reports Federer Named in Gambling Lawsuit
Roger Federer Gets A Street In Switzerland Named After Him [Video]

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

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

281 Comments for Woods Named Athlete of the Decade over Federer? A Joke?

james Says:

and…as far as we know…Rog isn’t cheating on his wife every chance he gets!!!

madmax Says:

OH MY GOD – I’VE JUST SEEN THIS ARTICLE. I cannot believe it. The world has gone mad.

armelwani Says:


jane Says:

Damage control? Trying to entice Tiger to continue playing?

As expressed elsewhere, trying to pin down ONE athlete as THE athlete of the entire decade is dumb anyhow, since sports are different, requiring different skill levels, and so forth. For example how can you compare a team sport to an individual one. It’s just an exercise in futility — it’s a PR thing perhaps. Trying to recapitulate the efforts of all of the world top class athletes in all sports down to ONE person. Ha!

To lenker « www.tennisbloggen.net Says:

[…] Jon Wertheims (Sports Illustrated) siste mailbag for året er klar, du finner den her. Tennis-x.com irriterer seg kraftig over at Associated Press har valgt Tiger Woods som tiårets beste idrettsmann. For en herlig nedsabling av golf versus tennis, les her. […]

jane Says:

From an article: “Woods posted 64 victories during the last 10 years, including 12 majors. Among his golf exploits during the decade are an amazing 56 PGA Tour victories, earning him 56 of 142 votes by AP member editors. […] More than 50 per cent of the ballots were returned following the accident. Cyclist Lance Armstrong … was second with 33 votes, while tennis star Roger Federer was third. Federer had 25 votes. Record-setting Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was fourth with 13 votes, while New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady (6) and sprinter Usain Bolt (4) also received multiple votes.”

piyush Says:

Yeah, I saw that and was pretty much disgusted with AP.. can’t expect anything more from American centric media.

mem Says:

i can’t resist this one!

the real joke is when writers and fans have the audacity to think that roger federer has had the impact on sports that surpasses tiger woods. the joke is on writers and fans who are unable to separate a player’s “professional life” from their “personal life”. correct me if i’m wrong, but i thought the committee was voting on the player’s contribution to sports, not how many skeletons he has in the closet, because if they are going to vote on a player’s human weaknesses, then no player would win,including roger federer, even though you people think he is as pure as the driven snow. i don’t condone tiger’s actions, but what he did is between him, God, his wife and family. his mistakes are just highlighted more because of who he is. i guess some people won’t be satisfied until they go back and dig up stuff they think tiger did from the day he was born. fact is, we are all imperfect people living in an imperfect world, everybody makes mistakes that they are not proud of. all these self-righteous people are just seizing the opportunity to destroy woods’ reputation on and off the golf course. something they have been waiting and waiting to do! in my opinion, the player who deserved to win “athlete of the decade, won! congratulations to tiger and his family. hoping that everything works out for him. i’m sure he is learning a hard lesson, but will emerge stronger than he was before. i also hope that he does not focus on or concern himself with the “ignorance” of people, because some people look for and dwell on the negative in everything and everybody and they are not going to change. in any case, i am praying for tiger and his family, that they will find personal healing and peace.

Ben Pronin Says:

But, it’s ATHLETE of the decade. I totally agree that Tiger’s personal life has nothing to do with his athletic career. The problem is that golf doesn’t require you to be ATHLETIC. Federer, Phelps, Brady, Bolt, these guys are all ATHLETES. They can outrun, outswim, outjog, outwalk, outlift, and out-anything-else-athletes-do Tiger Woods. He’s a great golfer, possibly the greatest ever, but since when do we associate golf with ATHLETES? Next you’re going to tell me that it’s a joke to not include poker players in the discussion of ATHLETE of the decade.

JadeFox21 Says:

There’s no doubt that Tiger Woods has been the most prolific sports personality of the Decade – especially in the US and the AP writers are american. But I think Roger Federer has been the Top AHTLETE of the Decade.

ken Says:


take tiger’s personal issues aside and look at the article above at what Roger has achieved. Historic

andre Says:

And if Roger Federer had been American he would have won hands down…such a shame!

mem Says:

Ben, in all due respect, you say that what tiger does is not athletic and if having to run, jump, jog, swim, are mandatory requirements for winning, then i won’t argue with you. however, i’m considering the global impact of tiger’s game and particularly the fact that he has won the career grand slam in golf three times over this decade. on the contrary, if i wanted to make a case against roger federer, i could point out that he won the 2009 french and wimbledon by playing only one top ten player in each tournament; that he achieved this feat without any real challengers. so you see, if we want to get down to the nitty gritty, we could each defend our stance. as much as i love the game of tennis, for me, based on criteria, the award belongs to tiger woods!

Ben Pronin Says:

He played 2 top 10 players at the French and 1 top 10 and another top 15 player at Wimbledon. And I’m gonna shut this argument down by saying that it’s a bad point. If you look at the draws of slam champions, they usually only play 2 top 10 players. It’s the way the draws always play out. Nadal completed the French-Wimbledon double the exact same way, 2 top 10ers at the FO and 1 top 10er at Wimbledon. So his wins aren’t impressive either, right?

We’re talking about the most accomplished ATHLETE. Tiger Woods is not half the ATHLETE of all the other guys. Why are you considering the global impact of his game and the fact that he won a grand slam in golf, an unathletic hobby? The award belongs to an ATHLETE. Honestly, when you think about Tiger Woods, what’s the default picture in your mind? For me, I just see him standing on a golf course with his black cap and red shirt. When I think about Federer, I see him playing a sport. When I think about Bolt, I see him running. Phelps? Swimming. Brady? Throwing. Woods is not an ATHLETE.

mem Says:

Ben, I’m sure if other golfers could just stand on the golf course with a black cap and red shirt and win as many majors as tiger, there would be a lot of golfers making history, don’t you think?

anyway, i wasn’t on the committee, i’m only presenting my position on the topic. i suggest you contact the committee if you have problems with their decision. anyway, lance armstrong came in second. so you might want to talk to them about that also. be that as it may, you have your opinion and i have mine, we don’t have to agree. i’ll leave it at that!

jane Says:

Just to clarify – this isn’t an “award.” It’s a poll. It was a bunch of AP editors voting. And there cannot be ONE greatest athlete of “the decade” anyhow, lol. It’s not even worth batting an eyelash over, whether you’re Fed, Tiger, a tennis fan, a golf fan, or none of the above. It’s like apples, oranges, bananas, kiwis and even cucumbers and tomatoes thrown into a hat and then voted on to see which is the best.

athlete |ˈaθˌlēt|

a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise.

• chiefly Brit. a person who is skilled in competitive track and field events (athletics).

Kimo Says:

What is it with American sports writers and golf? Seriously!!!!!

Not only has Roger been the best athlete of the decade, but possibly the greatest of all time in his sport if we go by shear numbers alone, let alone his artistry.

Raven Says:

I have to agrre that id Roger was American he would have won hands down.I wonder how many of the voters were foreign. Roger Federer is the Athlete of the decade. Golf is the most boring game ever, and there is no athletism involved in golf.

Anon Says:

Ken & Ben:Why do you even bother responding to Mem, by far the most biased, totally illogical anti-Fed person on this site.

What did Tiger Woods achieve in 2009? One grand slam and a boatload of notoriety merits an Athlete of the Year award, compared to Federer’s career grand slam, record-breaking 15 grand slams titles, the coveted FO title, and, as if to drive the point home, an unprecedented return to year-end number one ranking, a feat achieved only by Lendl before in all of tennis history.

Give me a break!!

Kimmi Says:

Hah ! I knew it, I knew it. So, what number if federer ? he is even in the top 10 ?

Catherine Says:

This is indeed a complete embarrassment. I take it as some kind of a consolation prize for Woods, nothing more.

jane Says:

Kimmi, Fed was third, after Tiger and Lance Armstrong; see my post above at 3:18 today. Don’t worry: no one is taking away Fed’s real trophies! ; )

puckbandit Says:


Tiger had major knee surgery to contend with this year. I think that may have something to do with his performance. Besides, it’s an Athlete of the Decade poll, not the year.

Personally, I think it is silly to try to compare athletes from different sports. I understand the whole “golfers aren’t athlete” argument in general, but I don’t think it applies to Tiger.

If I had a vote, it probably would’ve gone to either Roger or to Marty Brodeur (NJ goalie). But of course, hockey and tennis are my favorite sports so I admit my bias.

Thinking as objectively as possible, I would probably go with Lance Armstrong. Six tours plus beating cancer? Now that’s an athlete.

Bottom line, Roger and Tiger are considered by many to be the best that ever played their respective sports. Both have accomplished a level of greatness few could even imagine, yet achieve.

Oh, and one other thing. I understand the passionate response from the commenters, but the writer of this article comes across as a real amateur. Just my 2 cents.

puckbandit Says:

From this article: “This year Federer won the French Open for the first time, becoming only the second player after Andre Agassi in the Open Era to win all four Slams during a career”

Note to Mr. Davis,
Perhaps you meant “modern era” instead of “open” since Rod Laver won the Grand Slam, for the second time, in 1969.

I don’t think he made “Athlete of Decade” honors either. The horror!!!!!!

Kimmi Says:

Thanks jane, I must have missed your post. Third for Fed. Hmmmmm! Not too bad. I am glad he is in the top 5. I agree with you jane and puckbandit. It’s almost impossible to compare different sports; this kind of comparison will always be controversial. No one will be happy.

Looking forward to the next season. Maxi, thanks for Federer updates. Good to see he is training early, he seems to be settling down now after this eventful season. He needs to as it won’t be easy in the next year. Can’t wait.

Sean Randall Says:

I would agree, Federer over Woods. But like SI, this award should be renamed to AMERICAN Athlete of the Decade.

Roger’s put up better #’s than Tiger and he’s done it an tougher environment having to play in different countries, different surfaces and always with a much greater risk of injury on every swing.

But here in the U.S. there is no sporting figure bigger than Tiger (as we have seen the last two weeks) and because of that he wins the award.

jane Says:

puckbandit – we’re kindred spirits in more ways than one! My favorite sports are tennis and hockey; I too think this contest is hogwash (i.e., futile); and we both like Murray. Cheers then!

No worries Kimmi!

puckbandit Says:


Just to be a bit of a Devil’s advocate I have to respond to your position of “tougher” environment.

First, although golf is centered in the US it is played in different countries.

Second, one could make the argument that because golf is a four day elimination tourney, in which ALL players perform against one another, instead of a single-elimination in which top contenders can be knocked off by a “hot” competitor, that the “tougher” environment is the golf format, in which to win the tournament you must beat all of the top players.

I’m not even a big Tiger fan, never was. But he dominated his sport not just in the US, but globally. Phelps has dominated swimming to a similar extent, but because it is considered a “minor” sport, he would never be chosen.

Federer, or Woods, or Phelps, or Armstrong or some soccer/football player I’ve never heard of, could all be considered.

And how exactly did Roger put up “better numbers” than Roger? They are two different sports. You need to compare how each individual dominated their own respective sport, not one another.

mem Says:

Anon, the decision is made, sweetie, nothing you can say to me or about me, will change that. i felt the same way when roger federer received the ESPY Sports Award earlier this year for something he didn’t earned. The ESPY was based on 2008 achievements, which we all know, of the two players, rafa had the best 2008 season, and therefore, the award should have gone to Rafael Nadal, but surprise, surprise, who gets the ESPY for Best Male Tennis Player, roger federer! roger didn’t win the french and wimbledon until 2009. so, don’t go acting like poor roger done got cheated out of his award. nothing is said, when roger is piling up awards, you don’t care whether he earn them or not. so drop the whining! i know how these things work! i just happens to be one of the very few who is not programmed to think roger federer should get every sports award that is voted on. Anon, you do make a good point! why bother responding to a person like me who is not going to change positions. it would be a waste of your time. you guys need every day of the week 24/7 to make sure you promote roger federer on these blogs. don’t waste your energy on me, because i have my very own opinions, and don’t give a rip who like it! .

Joe Smith Says:

It’s a joke that Federer did not win the vote. He’s even won a gold medal(doubles)in the Olympics during this decade…

puckbandit Says:


Kindred spirits indeed!!

As a Murray fan, did you see that he played in Rodick’s charity tournament in Florida last week? Pretty cool. I know he has many detracters but I like the kid.

Sean Randall Says:

puckbandit, I agree that it’s difficult to compare golf with tennis, but based on Slams – the closest measure – Federer’s ahead. And within their spots, Federer’s already the greatest in tennis, Tiger’s trying to get to that point in his sport.

I also understand your point about Tiger having to play the field, Federer just one opponent. However Tiger plays four days at an event, but Federer must play five times and at Slams he must play seven times.

So is playing seven days against a single opponent tougher than playing the “field” four days?

And let’s not discount the physical nature of tennis. Remember on their day off a lot of these guys PLAY GOLF!!

As for environment, how many of Tiger’s Slam titles were won outside of his homeland? How many of his titles?

In Golf, outside of the British Open, Tiger really never has to leave the U.S. He’s a private jet away from any tournament.

Federer has no such luxury.

In Woods’ defense, I’ll say mentally he’s as good if not better than between the ears than Roger or anyone else on this planet.

jane Says:

No, I didn’t know that Murray did that puckbandit; good for him. I like him too – he’s my second fave after Novak. I am really hoping one or both of them can step it up next year, win a slam each or something. I’ve always liked Andy Roddick too, so it’d be great to find some footage of Murray and Roddick were playing exo-style at that event. Maybe I’ll check youtube.

puckbandit Says:

“It’s a joke that Federer did not win the vote. He’s even won a gold medal(doubles)in the Olympics during this decade…”

Not sure if I’d put that achievement at the top of the list for reasons to go with Fed over the other athletes, but okay. LOL

puckbandit Says:


Here’s a photo on Justin Gimelstobs twitter, copy and paste this, it should lead back to twitter.


puckbandit Says:


Geography should have nothing to do with it. No athlete chooses the venue. Besides, if that were the case, then Armstrong should win hands down since he won his Tours in France, and we know the French care little for Americans. (hehe)

As I’ve said before, I’d choose Fed.

As for Roger being the best ever in his sport, and Tiger trying to get there, the point is moot. The contest is for this decade. And we can both agree that they are the best in their respective sport for THIS decade, for which the poll was taken.

Still waiting for that meaningless numbers comparison you referred to in your first post. (kidding of course)

Anon Says:

Mem, the difference between you and most everyone else is that you just hate Federer. Period. We on the other hand, while being huge Federer fans, don’t hate anyone else.

You don’t see us whining about why Nadal or Djokovic or Murray didn’t deserve to win this or that. We are genuinely happy when they do win, and we don’t try to discredit their wins in any way.

You have nothing positive to say about Federer. Always whining. Sour grapes must be your alter ego.

When you hate someone, like you hate Federer, it is difficult to be objective. I can imagine how delirious you must be with happiness every time Federer loses a big event, because I don’t think you care who wins as long as it is not the Fed. Then again, you must have spent so many moons sulking and pouting when Federer was winning everything in sight.

Grow up, Mem. Learn to “hate” less. Life is much more enjoyable that way. That said, I am signing off and will not appear on this thread again.

mem Says:

Anon, i’m not topic here, baby cakes! your personal issues with me are irrelevant.

my mistake, i keep forgetting this is a Roger Federer Blog. that means anybody who comments here is suppose to automatically favor anything roger does. am i right? Forgive me! i forget that anytime someone does not agree with you guys about whatever it is federer does, that means he/she hates roger federer. maybe, your kindergarten teacher, if you got that far in school, can explain to you that when someone has a different perspective from you, it doesn’t always equal hate. however, I’m honored that my opinion has this kind of power over you. this may come as a shock to you, but if you don’t agree with me, so be it, i’m not going to lose any sleep! i actually feel sorry for people like you. the only way you know how to justify or defend a view that is different from your own is by interjecting the word, “hate.” i don’t know what your problem is. we see things differently, what’s the big deal? it’s normal!

Joe Says:

Very true! Not only the numbers, but tennis requires 10 times more athleticism than golf. Tennis is one of the most grueling, physically demanding sports in existence. Fed should have won by a mile.

rognadfan Says:


From where I am seeing things,
You, for sure, must be loosing your sleep for last few years. May be you slept a little better during 2008 and again, 2009 it the same story isn’t it.
I think, you don’t even watch tennis, just get informed about it to talk the BS.
When do you really enjoy the game of tennis? Whenever Fed is not playing right? It doesn’t matter who else is playing. It can even be a player like Daniel Kollerer vs Ivo Karlovic.
Its like”
I hate dogs, so for me they are not even pets.”
Is’t that right. Fed is not even a tennis talent!!!!
So for you Fed is just some, overrated common tennis player who happened to win so many slams.

Just wait, rog will retire in few years then you can watch tennis.
But most of us will still enjoy because, there will be Nadal, Murray Djokovic.
If you can’t resist a single player who just plays the game garaciously just like others,
then why bother watching the game? Just read the news and boast raucously in the sites like these.

I wonder, if Nadal goes on to win 16 slams in next 5-6 years, you may be writing similar thing to him as well.

And you think Tiger impacted the soprt globally? How big is the globe? as big as just US? Looks like you don’t know anything about the globe and its the people in it.
Other wise go to some where in Africa or Asia and ask who they know the most?
Tiger woods? or Lance Armstrong? I dare you.
I am sure they will think Lance is the brother of Neil Armstrong.
The point is people like you don’t know anything outside US and think thats the whole earth.
But they watch Roger there and tennis is the second biggest sport in the world now. Just to let you know.

the mighty rose Says:

for what it’s worth, Federer is MY athlete/sportsman/sports personality/champion of the decade.

Ben Pronin Says:

I wouldn’t lump Armstrong in the same category as Woods. Armstrong is an athlete. Cycling requires lots of muscle action. But he also doesn’t compare to a tennis player who is always doing different things, not just riding a bike nonstop for a given distance, all the time.

mem Says:

rognadfan, save your words because what you’re saying is not original. i’ve been told it all before, it didn’t mean a thing to me then and it doesn’t mean a thing to me now. tiger woods deserved to win and he won! you can look at it any which way you like! end of story!

Sean Randall Says:

Puckbandit, obviously geography has nothing to with this award because it’s an American award. But it still should matter. Being excellent or even perfect in many different country in front of many different cultures is mark of a global champion. I know Tiger won at the British, but where else has he won outside of the U.S. The Dubai exos? Tokyo exos?

And for me having that travel component – something Tiger doesn’t have to worry about – makes Federer’s achievements that much greater.

As for being the GOAT, the point is absolutely NOT moot. How often do we as sports fans actually get to see the greatest player in a sport compete right before our eyes, from start to finish (or close to finish).

Tiger’s not there, not the greatest. Kobe’s not there, never will be.

Lance, you could make the case for him but the fact he was in such a tainted sport knocks him down.

Baseball’s littered with drug issues.

The only guy is Tom Brady. Had Brady won that Super Bowl game against the Giants a few years ago he would have won this award. He would have been – i think – considered the great NFL QB ever and he would have rightly trumped Woods and Federer (again U.S. audience).

But he didn’t…

So for me, the fact Federer came from nowhere and ended the decade as the greatest in his sport puts him at No. 1 and ahead of Federer, ahead of Brady, etc.

Has anyone else this decade done something similar?

Ben Pronin Says:

What perfect timing for the ATP to come out with this article.


Stats of the decade. Look at the numbers Federer put up. And you really wanna say Woods is above that?

Sean, you mean ahead of Woods?

I’m not a big fan of football but I’m still not over the Patriots losing that Super Bowl. Kobe’s pretty fuggin great, though. Like Federer, he continues to put up some ridiculous numbers.

Btw, Sean, how come my posts aren’t blue like yours?

Sean Randall Says:

Ben. I heard there’s a new blogger in town…Welcome.

Can’t help ya with the blues, take it up with Lukester.

Yes, had Brady won that Super Bowl (or really had Assante Samuel picked off Eli at the end like he should have in that game), Tom would have won this award.

That said, here’s my Top 5:
1) Federer
2) Woods
3) Phelps
4) Brady
5) Lance

Ben Pronin Says:

My top 5:
1) Federer
2) Phelps
3) Brady
4) Armstrong
5) Bolt

Thanks, Sean!

Rock Says:

Mem (or whoever represents him/her)come on man! Awake! We are on planet Earth. You know, Earth!, no just US. Earth has many countries, and US is just one of them. There are China, India, Nigeria, Bolivia, France, etc etc. Maybe Tiger got the US NOT ATHLETE (well, athlete for Americam)OF THE DECADE award.

You’re a loser and Tiger (now renamed little kitty) is not an ATHLETE!. As far as I can see from my beaufiful eyes, he doesn’t have any muscle at all!
BDW, go to the psych doctor my friend, you need your pills for the FEDERER-HATERS. I am sure after that, you will dream with Rogi :) and will became his fan :)
I am not a Fed Fan, but I live on Earth :P

been there Says:

Surely, when you have a 59yr old Tom Watson leading all the way during the whole 2009 British Open and losing to 36yr Stewart Cink at the very last minute & during a play-off at that, then the competitors lose their credibility as ‘athletes’. In most other sports, by 36, you are basically done & dusted…let alone 59!! lol.

imo, golf is a game…a sporty-game (if such a term exists), but the competitors are not athletes. Tiger Woods is great, and being only 33, should he put his current personal predicaments behind, who knows how many majors he’ll win….good health permitting, all the way to age 60. Quite scary even thinking about it ‘coz the game doesn’t depend on physicality but superb mental concentration.

Sean: “In Woods’ defense, I’ll say mentally he’s as good if not better than between the ears than Roger or anyone else on this planet.”

How true….it’s simply A.M.A.Z.I.N.G the type of concentration needed in golf.

JadeFox21 says:

“There’s no doubt that Tiger Woods has been the most prolific sports personality of the Decade…”

I agree. Perhaps they should have named it ‘sports personality of the decade’ than ‘athlete’. Once the word ‘athlete appears’ I’d even vote for some gymnast or rower…let alone cyclists & tennis playersm track & field, etc. before a golfer.

Jack Says:

This Definitely is a damage control!!
The decade is not over yet and yet they have declared the Athlete of the decade.

puckbandit Says:

Ben & Sean,

Brady? Personally I think it is almost impossible to pick a team sport athlete. So many intangibles that contribute to their success, especially being on a good team.

I do agree with the taint of PED’s in cycling and baseball. But having your coach accused of cheating doesn’t help one’s case either (Brady) does it? Plus, cycling is actually a team sport also.

puckbandit Says:

“As for being the GOAT, the point is absolutely NOT moot. How often do we as sports fans actually get to see the greatest player in a sport compete right before our eyes, from start to finish (or close to finish).”

Sean, this statement defies logic. The GOAT point IS moot because both Roger and Tiger are (or are in the process) of competing for GOAT against tennis players and golfers who are not playing in this decade (Laver, Sampras, Tilden, Nicklaus etc) This honor we are debating is for greatest of this decade, not GOAT.

Also, there are always a group of fans fortunate to witness history in the making (GOAT of various sports). I would say the folks who saw Ruth, Ali, Jim Brown, Secretariat, Mantle, Jesse Owens etc. realized they were watching some of the greatest ever to compete in their sports. So your statement that this is a rare situation doesn’t make sense.

Great athletes aren’t discovered through archeological digs, they’re discovered through witnesses, i.e., fans like you and me. And yes, we are lucky.

But in a few decades from now there will likely be a new generation of tennis fans, marveling at a great ball striker who’s not even born yet, and they will be debating if he is a great as the Fed.

puckbandit Says:


I agree with you that Golf is more game than sport. However, if there was ever an exception to the “golfer not really and athlete” meme it is Tiger. He’s a natural with true athletic gifts that would have served him well in a number of “real” sports.

Again, I’m not a big Tiger, or golf, fan, but I’m just being objective.

jane Says:

puckbandit, you forgot Gretsky, Lemieux, Sakic, or Crosby, or who do you like? You’re right, greatness in any sport cannot be all encompassing because it keeps evolving, like everything else.

sportsfan Says:

Hi, was just reading all the comments and couldn’t resist responding.

I live in India and am admittedly a huge Federer fan. As an avid sports follower, I also love watching other sportspersons like Bolt, Armstrong, Messi, Hamilton and, yes, Woods.

To puckbandit, I would like to point out that to understand the global impact of Woods vs Federer, you should really consider the developing world as well. A decade ago, both golf and tennis had no presence in most Asian countries. Today, the only sportsperson that can push a cricket headline off the sports page in cricket-crazy India is Federer. Golf is lucky if it gets a 3 inch column.

Also take a look at where the women’s game is today. Without Federer (and Nadal, Roddick, Safin) the men’s game might have been in the same condition after Sampras and Agassi’s retirement.

While I understand that the way their respective sport is promoted is not in the hands of either player, it is a fact that today, more people in the developing countries would recognize Federer than Woods. The kind of interest his artistry and rivalries with Nadal and Roddick have generated is really unmatched.

Global impact is where Lance Armstrong also will take a hit. For the same reason, NFL, baseball, basketball and ice hockey should not even be considered, just like cricket should not. Football should be, but there really has been no dominant footballer this decade.

This poll should really be qualified as a US based poll. The very fact that Michael Schumacher does not even find a mention proves the fact. (Although, his 10 year dominance was really split between this decade and the previous)

Sean Randall Says:

Puckbandit, so then what makes Tiger a better choice than Federer? What are the facts that put him over Federer?

Sean Randall Says:

I would also like to who’s a bigger star in Europe, Tiger of Roger. My guess would be Roger.

I think Tiger wins in the far east, Africa and of course North America.

sportsfan above says Roger wins in India and perhaps the surrounding regions.

Not sure on South America. My guess would be Roger only because they have a history of tennis greats from that continent.

Also in the AP article it has Tiger winning just eight tournaments off the PGA Tour (or just 8 titles outside of the U.S.). While he has huge foreign presence, he doesn’t win a lot of titles overseas.

puckbandit Says:

I like all of those players, but as you can see I am a bit of a contrarian so I go with Lemieux over Gretzky. Sakic is pure class, wish he could’ve eeked out another year or two. Crosby, amazingly hard worker and mature beyond his years.

Of course, I’ve hinted that I’m a big Brodeur fan, but even I wouldn’t put him as greatest “athlete” of the decade. LOL. As a hockey fan you know what I mean. But he has earned the same type of “records” this decade that Roger has. But he has to share that success (as he often mentions to the press) with his team mates.

Speaking of hockey players, they may be the best overall athletes of any team sport, along with soccer players.

puckbandit Says:


Thank you for your perspective; I think you make many excellent points.

As far as which sports should be considered, I say throw them all into the mix! Including cricket. If we are conversing about the “greatest” and not simply the “most well-known” then I say all are fair game. It should be the duty of the press to introduce us, the casual fans, to greatness in all sports. We would all be the better for it.

mem Says:

my popularity is soaring! i had no idea my words carry so much weight especially among baptized federer believers. how about that!

i’m sorry that your feelings are hurt because you were so sure that the tiger woods scandal would prevent him from winning and consequently, roger federer wouldn’t have a problem. too bad, things don’t always work the way we plan them. don’t take it out on me. i’m only a fan with an opinion!

one thing is for certain, i can see why all of you guys are equal in your thinking, writers and fans, alike; you are definitely on the same level, the blind leading the blind! please let me know when roger federer becomes mentally equal to tiger woods and rafa nadal! my philosophy is, just because everybody repeats the same thing, doesn’t make it true. we are all human beings with opinions! if you guys say the same things enough times, i’m sure you will convince most people, i’m just not one of them. quite honestly, most of your posts are comical to me because it’s hard to imagine that you actually believe all this stuff you write! this blog is no place for people who think for themselves! i should have known better!

sportsfan Says:

Tiger’s huge global presence also has a lot to do with his advertisers. Accenture heavily depended on him for all their advertising. In fact, I can bet that in most developing countries that have seen an IT boom, Tiger would be more recognised as the face of Accenture than the face of golf.

puckbandit Says:


I personally would not choose Tiger of Roger, but as an objective observer I could make a case for him. :)

Here’s a question, Roger has had his domination challenged by Rafa. In fact, Rafa has been the best clay court player of this decade and that alone could put a clink in Roger’s crown. Who on the PGA tour is Tiger’s “Rafa”? Some would say Mickelson, but has his challenge to Tiger equalled Rafa’s to Roger? Interesting to ponder, no?

Sean Randall Says:

Puckbandit, so make your case! Back it up with facts!

I understand your Rafa argument, I’ve made it myself, trust me.

And true, Tiger has no No. 2. No one’s any good. Proof, just looks at all the diff winners the last few years and the fact a 59-year-old was able to nearly win a Slam! You could make the case Tiger’s had little in the way of competition. Roger’s at least had Rafa.

Again, make your case.

Ben Pronin Says:

Nadal’s challenge to Federer is actually a pretty good example of just how great Federer is. Nadal’s been number 2 for 4 of the 5 years Federer has been number 1. They even switched spots last year. And yet despite the challenge from Nadal and Roddick and Hewitt and Del Potro and Djokovic and Murray, Federer has still put up ridiculous numbers. It’s funny how Federer loses a slam final to a 20 year old and there’s more talk about how the guard is changing and things are gonna get tougher than about how great Federer’s year was from a results and statistical standpoint. Federer failed to reach the semis at an event only 3 times this year. That pales in comparison to 2006 where he failed to reach the FINALS just ONCE. That’s how ridiculous Roger is. Once again, the award was for ATHLETE of the decade, not TOUGHEST MENTAL COMPETITOR of the decade.

sportsfan Says:

puckbandit, I take your point about including all sports to find the best performer and not the biggest star.

In fact, I would think that for pure performance, Lance Armstrong makes a very strong case for himself. Beating cancer to come back and win, retiring and then coming back to still be in the top three is astounding.

puckbandit Says:


That was my point about Armstrong. His sport is so incredibly demanding physically, so to dominate it with 6 tour wins, AFTER battling cancer. Then, to come out of retirement and challenge for a 7th tour? Simply a super-human feat.

puckbandit Says:

“Puckbandit, so make your case! Back it up with facts!”

My oh my, you sound –err, read— like you are angry with me.

I’ll state this one more time, I would choose Roger! I know I can make a case, but it wouldn’t matter because nothing would convince you!

Again, they are both unbelievable athletes who have dominated their respective sports. As someone who agrees that more athleticism is required to play tennis than golf, that alone would push my vote toward Fed.

For the record, here are my five:

Lance Armstrong (assuming he’s clean, lol)
Roger Federer (tied with Armstrong)
Michael Phelps

Sean Randall Says:

Puckbandit, Ah, that’s what I thought… No facts.

And a not so subtle reminder, a 59-YEAR-OLD BEAT the AP’s “athlete of the decade” this past summer at the British Open.

Can someone tell when the last time Federer lost to an athlete at Slam comparable to 59-year-old Tom Watson?

puckbandit Says:


I think you’re being a bit rude with your “oh that’s what I thought, no facts!” post. I’ve already stated that I believe that the athletes need to be compared not to one another, as they are from DIFFERENT SPORTS, but must be compared to their peers and domination of same.

Well, since you just wrote: “And true, Tiger has no No. 2” – I believe you have made my case for me. hahaha!

Do you really want me to drag a bunch of tournament stats from the PGA site that have no comparison to tennis? Especially since I’m not defending Tiger’s selection personally. Jeez.

Honestly, I’d rather continue with empty rhetoric and narrow-minded opinions if you don’t mind, thank you.

been there Says:

Puckbandit…yes, I understand what you mean by Tiger being an exception to the ‘golfer not really and athlete’ meme.

sportfan: You make great points about if whole ‘global’ impact. Just to carry on what you were saying, I travel between Europe & Africa. In most African countries, the no1 game is football…they eat, drink & sleep football/soccer. Absolutely crazy. However, in the past decade, the only thing that captures people’s imaginations on almost equal terms (but still not enough) is the Fed-Rafa rivalry. This has even led to kids taking up tennis seriously.

I think tennis in general has let itself down by it’s previous elitism, which sadly, still exists. There’s no reason why it’s not as global as football, rugby, cricket, etc. If tennis could be as committed as say football in sponsoring kids from poorer backgrounds, then who knows, in 10-15 yrs time, we’ll have tennis as a true global sport with African & Asian global stars in the mix just as we have in football. The money tennis-bodies would generate in return is unthinkable.

Sean: “I think Tiger wins in the far east, Africa and of course North America.”

I don’t know about the Far East, but certainly not in Africa. While they are both known personalities, you will hardly get anyone watching golf, with or without Tiger playing…except those who actually play golf, of which are very few. Tiger is known ‘coz he’s Tiger. In fact, the only name that most people know in golf is Tiger. The news report goes something like ‘yeah, Tiger won’..end of a three sentence news-report both in print & TV news. With Fed, they go into details..this shot by Fed, that get by Rafa, the epics, etc. And tennis is played in schools & local clubs…not so with golf, which is still for the super-rich, hence inaccessible to the majority. Not that tennis is much better. The more appeal for tennis comes in it’s competitive nature, something which ‘lacks’ in golf….by that I mean dog-eat-dog fights…the facing direct opponent value. So if people there were asked Woods or Federer…hands-down Federer.

Sean: “I would also like to who’s a bigger star in Europe, Tiger of Roger.”

This one is tough to tell ‘coz Europe is blessed with so many great sports-stars over a range of different sports. So tennis-centric countries like Spain, Switzerland, & Eastern Europe in general would probably go for the Fed. A country like the UK doesn’t care too much for tennis, so it may be 50-50 there. I’d put it 50-50 in Europe.

been there Says:

oh, just to make things a little bit interesting, I think in the past two years, the ONLY person who has it all going for him in all continents & countries, whatever their no1 sports is Usain Bolt. Forget Woods, Federer, & Phelps. Yes? The athleticism is present, got results to back him with oodles of personality.

Usain Bolt’s gonna dominate the sports-world in next decade. I do feel sorry for his colleagues. At least with Fed, when he was in his prime, the others had a chance. With Bolt, it’s a 0.001% chance even for a champion as great as Tyson Gay.

Heather Says:

Shame Mem-having to deal with all these ignorant cretins when you argue so cogently and objectively.

ESPN is a poll is it not-and yet again Federer cheated his way to the top beating the beloved ‘Rafa’.

As they say respect only the opinions of those you respect. I do.

Neo Says:

Agree with the article — Roger deserved it more than anyone else and for sure more than Woods!

Also agree with Jane — looks like damage control in golf!

Nina Says:

No wonder, we know how egocentric Americans are.

Nina Says:

QUOTE: Sean: “I would also like to who’s a bigger star in Europe, Tiger of Roger.”

This one is tough to tell ‘coz Europe is blessed with so many great sports-stars over a range of different sports. So tennis-centric countries like Spain, Switzerland, & Eastern Europe in general would probably go for the Fed. A country like the UK doesn’t care too much for tennis, so it may be 50-50 there. I’d put it 50-50 in Europe.

Posted by Been There (END QUOTE)

Well I have to disagree. Golf is basically seen as a rich man’s sport and hardly attracts any attention from kids. Instead tennis is played on average by many kids that don’t necessarily want to become professionals. But don’t fool yourselves, the only sport that matters in Europe (and the rest of the world minus USA) is soccer. Not any other sport comes close to it in terms of popularity and people practicing it.

Eliza Says:

I travel in Asia a lot. I’d say Federer is the biggest and most famous athlete all over Asia. With the proviso of course that cricket is huge on the subcontinent. Woods? Hardly!

I’m in Australia and sport can be parochial here, but nothing, absolutely nothing, compares with the way Sports Illustrated has ignored Fed’s achievements for years. And AP in their cosy, golf loving, corpulent way – what a joke these American – centric sports writers are!

Mike Says:

Federer is not American; I think that’s the differentiator. Woods is deserving, the last two weeks notwithstanding. I bet if you polled people worldwide, you’d find a few footballers on the list; to me the story of the decade is Liverpool’s Champions League win in Istanbul.

Golf is barely a Sport Says:

Golf requires minimal stamina, no agility, no foot speed, no reflexes as the target is stationary … Tiger would have to have won 40 majors in the decade to even be considered the same type of athlete as anyone playing a sport that requires stamina, speed, agility, and reflexes. Golf requires a little strength and hand eye coordination (to hit a stationary object with precession versus hitting moving objects in baseball, tennis, table tennis, badminton etc.). Golf is a bit like billiards with a slightly more violent swing and walking between shots.

To play golf well you need lots of skill & lots of nerve, but don’t almost all other sports require skill, nerve and a few other things?

Golf is barely a Sport Says:

Sean Said “Puckbandit, so make your case! Back it up with facts!

I understand your Rafa argument, I’ve made it myself, trust me.

And true, Tiger has no No. 2. No one’s any good. Proof, just looks at all the diff winners the last few years and the fact a 59-year-old was able to nearly win a Slam! You could make the case Tiger’s had little in the way of competition. Roger’s at least had Rafa.

Again, make your case.”

Jimmy Connors is 57 years old. Let’s set it up in Vegas (old school like the stakes matches) and have Federer play Connors for $10 million winner takes all.

puckbandit Says:

Been There,

I agree completely with your Usian Bolt comments.

But what do I know? I’m just an ego-centric American that listed athletes from the lesser American sports of cycling, tennis, swimming and track over football and baseball. Oh well.

puckbandit Says:

Golf Is Barely A Sport,

Can’t argue with your assessment of golf’s lack of required athletic prowess.

puckbandit Says:

Nina Says:
“No wonder, we know how egocentric Americans are.”

Yes, only Americans reveal their bragging rights to their great sportsmen and women.

Nina also says:
“This one is tough to tell ‘coz Europe is blessed with so many great sports-stars over a range of different sports. ”

Okay, maybe not.LOL

puckbandit Says:


I’m just teasing you.

You, and others here, may be interested to know that general sports blogs and shows her filled with arguments just like the one here, with many arguing against Woods (and golf) as an appropriate winner.

A second thought, Golf is not even close to being USAs top sport. Woods may be the most notable sports celebrity, but Football rules, throughout its season. Baseball takes over during the WS, and March Madness appropriately captures college basketball leading up to the final four.

Cindy_Brady Says:

Is winning a major in golf harder than winning a major in tennis?

In golf you must beat the field. In tennis you must beat an opponent on that day. In tennis you must be physical fit to win. You don’t have to be so in golf. Angel Cabrea is a prime example who won the U.S Open huffing and puffing cigarettes on the course. You can be over weight and aged to win in golf. Not so in tennis. It’s very rare you will ever see a 39 year old Jimmy Connors making the semi-fianls of the U.S Open. The physical demands of the sport at his highest level just doesn’t permit it.

The award was ATHLETE of the decade. Since you don’t have to be an athlete to win in golf, how can Tiger have won on that basis??

Tiger may be the best mentally at his individual sport than any other player but he is not the best athlete, period!

Strange how the top 4 vote getters, Woods, Federer, Phelps, and Armstrong all came from individual sports.

Why no love for team sports athletes. Lets face it, the truly best athletes come from basketball, football, soccer, and baseball. The physical demands of their sports are really the measure of what athletes actually do.

Compare Colby Briant, Albert Pulholz, Tom Brady, and Payton Manning to Tiger Woods. Could Tiger Woods play any of their sports? Hell No. He doesn’t possess the physical tools in terms of athleticism. However they can play his sport.

The award that Tiger Woods really won should have been called “most accomplished player in an individual sport”.

Which is even a joke since Federer won 15 grand slams. Phelps dominating swimming like no other before or after him. Armstrong’s 6 Tour De France’s. They accomplished more in their individual sport than Tiger Woods did.

The bias for golfers is very clear by the AP.

What a F****kin’ Joke!

madmax Says:


I can say that this is definitely NOT a roger federer blog! The very idea! since posting back on here recently, I have noticed so many posters who support so many different players – it’s brilliant, because I learn so much from all of them, duro and co. support Novak, Jane and Margot support Murray and others and they are strong, excellent posters.

I hold my head up high and say I LURVE the fed. LURVE HIM. but absolutely love reading about other players and hopefully can also comment on their games and tactics. What is the point in being so horrible towards Federer because you dont like him? Man, he is BRRILLLIANT. Get over it! Get used it! The man is a legend! A hero!

This comment from you though:

‘if i wanted to make a case against roger federer, i could point out that he won the 2009 french and wimbledon by playing only one top ten player in each tournament; that he achieved this feat without any real challengers. so you see, if we want to get down to the nitty gritty, we could each defend our stance. as much as i love the game of tennis, for me, based on criteria, the award belongs to tiger woods’.

Have you ever actually wondered WHY it is that Roger federer is so brilliant, so consistent and such an incredible athlete – He truly is HEWWWWWW MUNNNNGGGGGGG USSSSSSSS! HUGE MEM, HUGE. JUST HUGE in terms of Tennis.

Mem, go and look at the draw that Fed had in both FO and in Wimby – tough draw baby. Tough. Who had the easier draw? Murray had a lovely draw in Wimby and he was supposed to win it, but he went out. Fed is a samurai sword. Hiiiiii yaaaa! Bruce Lee styley Mem. Hiiiiii yaaaa!

Look at it this way, if we go on the rankings then always the No.1 and the No.2 should ALWAYS reach the final of a slam (just looking at rankings), Rafa was No.1 at that time, Roger was No. 2. In FO, Rafa is out R4, the no.1 clay court king of the world, by the no. 25 seed soderling.

So are you saying then, by implication that Rafa is a crap clay court player because he was knocked out by soderling?

Soderling has always been an excellent player (quite brilliant, always has been, and more recently), in hard courts. But clay courts is a great feat for soderling. THE UPSET OF THE CENTURY.

I read this argument, Federer didnt have any challengers. It is PURE HORSE CRAP. It is because he is sooooo goooood Mem. And he had to flippin well fight in the FO, TWICE. Against a resurgent Haas (far from over at 32). and an on fire Delpo, who was ranked No. 5. and if it had not been for the bruce lee spirit of the fed, then he could easily have gone out. Mem, Fed is a Beast! A beast, I tell you!

Please dont disrespect this man who is a fighter.

Every single opening of any grand slam is a dodgy one for a fedfan, because we join the rollercoaster ride with him, knowing that anything can happen, but with the mindset and the experience that he has, he depends on that, and so do we.

Mem, he is a JOY. The fed is a JOY.

been there Says:

lol puckbandit,

I am guilty of watching all of them…with the exception of the highly American-centric ones like baseball, basketball etc & just because I don’t have access to them. I wish I had access to basketball. From the little that I catch here & there when the local TV stations replay games from whatever season, it seems very interesting.

I am such a sports-nut that my definition of a nightmare is a time like now…when there’s absolutely nothing going on in whatever sport. No amount of shopping or gym time will do. I love track & field >=tennis >football…then anything with a ball follows…so I throw in rugby. Swimming, I don’t follow too much ‘coz I can barely see anything – just bodies moving…I can’t judge their facial expressions, etc. Usually I watch golf as a last resort, or like most fair-weather golf ‘fans’, to witness the phenomenon that is Tiger Woods – just to see what the hullabaloo is all about….eventually, I got a bit addicted to this as well – but only if there’s absolutely nothing else going on. Once I was so desperate for sport, I was reduced to watching snooker on TV…let alone golf. :((

So January can’t arrive fast enough for me. :)

madmax Says:



Sean Randall Says:

puckbandit, so you just gave up? You couldn’t even come up with one single fact to support Tiger over Federer? Show a little effort. Geez.

As for their peers, do you regard Tiger’s peers to be better atheltes than Roger’s?

I mean really, is “Fat” Phil in better shape than say…Rafa?

It’s laughable.

Cindy Brady, valid points. Keep in mind who does the voting here. It’s roughly 150 sports editors from newspapers across the U.S. And that papers in Montana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, etc., where there’s hardly any (if at all) pro tennis.

My guess is those that actually voted on this now hardly anything about tennis or about Federer.

Again, it’s an American award.

madmax Says:


how did fed cheat? I dont get it? Are you saying he was responsible for rafa pulling out of a tournament?

Cindy_Brady Says:


I don’t like you.

puckbandit Says:

been there,

I hear ya! I, too, am a sports fan that will channel surf to a bass fishing championship before sitting through an entire episode of the current hit drama or comedy.

basketball, like hockey, is such a long season that it is hard for me to pay too much attention until around February. But as a hockey fanatic, my obsession begins with summer free agency and then really heats up during pre-season.

Tennis and hockey remain my favorites. It may not be a coincidence that I believe the skill set to be successful in each sport is similar.

madmax Says:

Be nice cindy!


this is for you with kisses on top! (This is on the ATP website).

1. Roger Federer’s dominance at Grand Slam level was the most significant achievement of the first decade of the new century. During the decade Federer became the only player in history to win five straight titles at two Grand Slam tournaments, dominating Wimbledon from 2003-07 and the US Open between 2004-08. The Swiss also became the only man to reach all four Slam finals in the same year three times. When Federer won the 2009 Roland Garros title he became just the sixth man in history to complete a career Grand Slam. Federer has reached 22 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals, more than double the length of the next-best Open Era streak (Ivan Lendl’s 10 straight semi-finals).

2. Roger Federer was crowned ATP World Tour Champion five times during the decade, tying Jimmy Connors’ five finishes as year-end No. 1 in the South African Airways ATP Rankings and edging to within one of Pete Sampras’ six (consecutive) No. 1 finishes. Federer set a record for most consecutive weeks at No. 1 (237) and will end 2009 on 263 (non consecutive) weeks in the top spot, within 23 weeks of Sampras’ all-time record of 286 weeks.

3. Roger Federer’s 24 consecutive victories in finals he played between late 2003 and late 2005 is a record that is likely to stand the test of time. Federer’s streak was finally broken by David Nalbandian in the final of Tennis Masters Cup in 2005, when Nalbandian rallied from two sets down to beat Federer in a fifth-set tie-break.

4. Federer became the second man since Bjorn Borg 28 years before him to claim the elusive Roland Garros-Wimbledon double in 2009.

5. Roger Federer’s 173-9 match record in 2005-06 makes our Top 10 list. Federer produced unrivaled back-to-back seasons of brilliance in the middle of the decade. He went 81-4 in 2005 and 92-5 in ’06, winning 23 titles during that span, including five Grand slam titles and eight ATP World Tour Masters 1000 crowns.

There’s plenty more on that website too.

Federer, DEFINITELY, the athlete of the decade.

Happy Christmas, Mem.

been there Says:

To any USA citizens here or those in the know, Baseball does have a similar concept to cricket, no? And would American football compare to rugby? I’ve watched a bit of super-bowl…just ‘coz local TV showed it despite us not knowing the rules..& from the bits I’ve seen in movies, it does seem similar to rugby. If you explain, could you kindly say ‘American football’ ‘coz it gets a bit confusing. I’ve come to be writing football/soccer when talking about the ‘rest-of-the-world’ football so as not to confuse Americans. :)

Jane, if you read this, you’re Canadian, yes? Also to any other Canadians in the house…What sports are common there. With it’s size, I suppose very many, but I mean the main sports…like football/soccer in the UK…those that people gather in bars or sprawl in front of TVs for after a hard days work. :)

B.t.w…there was this young Canadian man – Milos Raonic – who played Fernando Gonzalez in Montreal masters Rnd1. I was completely blown away by his calm demeanour, court coverage & shot-making abilities….ok, I exaggerate..I don’t mean like a Roger or anything like that. haha. He was matching Gonzalez fore-hand to fore-hand & had him on the ropes all through. He was basically controlling the match. Gonzalez played his ever adorable mind-games to rattle his young opponent but this guy didn’t seem bothered. If am not mistaken, I think he had match points in both sets 2. Had it not been for nerves at match points, he would have won. I found myself cheering for him. Even in set 3, he controlled the match till the point Gonzo was leading 5-4…at which point my young-‘star’ was broken, & probably at 40-40.

So to anyone in the know, especially Canadians, what’s his story? What has he done since? After that match, he gave interviews & seemed very focussed to work hard to get his way to the top. I really hope to see more of him…from the little I saw, he’s very talented with a great attitude.

Marla Says:

Agree that Tiger is the best golfer and that he has accomplished so much. What he did to his wife and family has nothing to do with his game or him as an athlete. (But am glad that my son looks up to Roger as a role model and as a tennis player/athlete.) But looking at the numbers, Roger SHOULD be the Athlete of the Decade. No doubt about it.

puckbandit Says:


Wow, why all hate on me? How many times do I have to post that I would not personally choose Tiger or Golf over Fed or Tennis. I do not want to waste my time cut and pasting stats for you. Any more than I want to waste my time cut and pasting stats from NOAH to prove to you that the sun is shining. SOME THINGS ARE OBVIOUS!

Also, you seemed to have missed my attempt at self-deprecating humor at my refusal to do so: “Honestly, I’d rather continue with empty rhetoric and narrow-minded opinions if you don’t mind, thank you.”

By the way, your parochial view of folks in Montana, West Virginia etc. is a bit insulting. Do you realize how few of the 50 states actually host pro tennis? Do you really think West Virginians don’t know anything about tennis? What, are they all too busy fiddling with their stills and marrying their sisters? Jeez indeed.

I have some shopping to do, so I can’t hang out much longer. But maybe tonight I will bend to your desires and conjure up stats to state the case for Tiger. EVEN THOUGH I DON’T AGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION! It will be akin to defending a guilty client. Not pleasant, but a call of duty of sorts.

Also, I know you are special here, an official journo and all. But your blue paint background will not intimidate me! (hehe)

Heather Says:

MADMAX-I was saying exactly the opposite. How could Fed cheat if it was a poll [as I recall]. Neither Fed nor Rafa can be called cheats.

But I do think some are being a bit harsh on mem-however lots of interesting views on the forum

Cindy_Brady Says:

I wonder if the powers at be in the Tiger camp nudged the AP voters a bit to give Tiger this award for damage control purposes? When was the voting done, anyways?

Tiger generates more revenue than any other athletic figure in sports. It would be reasonable to assume, the sooner he gets back on the golf course, the sooner the money train will start up again for the blood thirsty leeches and vultures.

Winning an award like this, would remind people of how great a golfer Tiger Woods really is and deflect and maybe forgive his off course activities a bit.

I’m suspicious, but I always am.

puckbandit Says:

been there,

I would love to chat more in response to you lovely posts but I must run. Hopefully Jane can pop in and give you a good dose of Canadians and their love of hockey, not to mention Curling. Now those folks are athletes, lol.


Good to see you. keep fighting the good fed fight!

puckbandit Says:

Uh, one last thought. Some of you are acting as though the pollsters are Tennis ignoramouses (that be you Sean). But Fed came in third Tiger only received 54 out of 142 votes. Here’s the breakdown:

Tiger – 54 votes
Armstrong – 33
Fed 25

So Sean, I guess obviously Armstrong received 33 votes because bikes are the favored mode of transportation for folks in the Ozarks. Surprised there were no racing jockeys getting the poll votes of those Montana ranchers!

puckbandit Says:


Oh the conspiracy of it all! LOL

I doubt that Tiger’s clan made any attempt to influence the judging. But the president of the PGA? Or CEO of NIKE? Perhaps, quite possibly. Lots to lose in $$$ for them.

puckbandit Says:

I’m outa here.

But I will be back. Consider yourself warned, Sean.

jane Says:

been there says -“I am such a sports-nut that my definition of a nightmare is a time like now…when there’s absolutely nothing going on ”

Hockey!? Don’t you watch hockey? Just ask puckbandit and I – it’s a great sport.

And to answer your other question, it is, by far, the biggest sport in Canada. It’s HUGE!! Lots of people follow it not only at the pro level but at the junior level, and I hope we bring home another World Juniors title, just around the corner.

I’d say golf is big here; I know many who watch and play it. CFL and NFL is followed to a degree, soccer, baseball – they’re probably all in the same, er, ballpark in terms of popularity, with baseball more popular in rural areas, and soccer in urban ones. I don’t hear a lot about basketball, to tell you the truth.

And tennis is low in terms of popularity, though in some urban centers it’s growing. But we have pretty poor coverage of it on TV for example. And we have no real stars, which is part of the problem. I thought maybe Dancevic would break through one day; he has a good game and has had some good wins, but he’s not consistent enough. Raonic is young, just 18 or 19 I think, and is still playing mainly futures and some challengers, but maybe he’ll do well. I think that’s all tennis needs in Canada – one player who can make a name for himself.

But I’d still say Hockey is the hugest sport here – and it’s awesome. Talk about athleticism and skill. WOW!!

As puckbandit says, watching players like Sakic or Lemieux lead their teams, skate, handle the puck -these guys are sublime.

jane Says:

Puckbandit – come back here. Ignore Sean’s badgering! But you’re totally right, I forgot curling.

Been there, curling is BIG here too. Especially in the maritimes and prairies, but all over there are curlers.

Ben Pronin Says:

Curling has got to be the dumbest hobby out there. If that’s a sport then I have fins.

This debate is getting stale. This is a tennis forum so obviously the majority of people are gonna say Fed’s the best athlete. Since the award has been declared, there’s nothing any of us can do to change who gets it. Fed’s snubbed again, you’d think we’d all be used to this by now. I’d say it’s a lot worse that Federer had to wait 4ish years to get onto the cover of SI, and that was only with Nadal. Is Federer the best tennis player of this decade? Without a doubt. But to determine the best ATHLETE of the decade, why don’t we collect all the bests of each sport and have them compete against each other in ATHLETIC ways. That’d be a good way to determine who should get this award.

mem Says:

cindy brady, i’m shocked and hurt that you don’t like me. i live for you people to like me! i’m going to cry myself to sleep!

madmax, you need counseling! you go from blog to blog worrying about what others say about roger. in your feeble mind, you actually think you can make people believe what you want them to. that’s how mentally frail you are! if you have learned anything in life, you should know that you can’t stop people from thinking what they want to think. you just can’t be that naive! i wouldn’t be surprise if you have an ulcer or high blood pressure caused by your obsession with roger federer. there are ups and downs in sports, no player is perfect; all players struggle at one point or another. it’s the nature of sports! i couldn’t care less what you think of me. most of you are just followers anyway. you wait for the writers to exalt roger and say what you like to hear and you just jump on the bandwagon! you don’t care if it’s true or false. i report things as they are, not what others want to hear. i’m not trying to win a popularity contest. people like you and cindy brady want to be accepted! you come a dime a dozen! simple as that!

jane Says:

Heather says “But I do think some are being a bit harsh on mem-however lots of interesting views on the forum”

I do tend to agree. It’s not like mem is not entitled to his/her opinion, and if one goes back to the first post he/she posted – or even the first few, s/he made it quite clear that it was only an opinion. But then people started to attack mem calling him a “fed-hater” etc., and things degenerated from there.

There is nothing wrong with tolerating other opinions.

AND if people have differing opinions, they do not have to spend hours finding “evidence” to back them up. Sheesh. Let’s have some tolerance.

Yes, it’s a tennis forum; yes, the majority of people feel Fed should have won the AP poll (it’s not an award), but if some feel Tiger or Armstrong deserve it, so what? Let them have that opinion and be done with it.

As Ben says “This debate is getting stale. This is a tennis forum so obviously the majority of people are gonna say Fed’s the best athlete. Since the award has been declared, there’s nothing any of us can do to change who gets it”

But on the other hand Ben — “If that’s a sport then I have fins” — be careful where you dive. ; )

been there Says:

Thanks Jane,

“Hockey!? Don’t you watch hockey?”

I’m not in the North Americas…so unfortunately don’t have access to these wonderful sports. I used to play hockey in school though, just a few years ago. So I do know how exciting it can be. I wasn’t good or anything close…I played ‘coz it was mandatory. Besides, I valued my teeth, so you can imagine the manner I was playing…basically ducking away from the ball. lol. I’m talking of field-hockey..the one where you don’t wear helmets.

Ben Pronin Says:

I used to play hockey when I was young. Then I was sent flying by a guy ten times my size and that was the end for me. But hockey is a great sport, no denying that.

Cindy and mem, really? Personal attacks? Really? Mem, how can you call someone feeble minded when you entered this debate by calling all writers and fans jokes?

Jane, unless you can somehow prove or show how curling requires any athletic talents, I will stand by my statement. You don’t have to agree, you don’t even have to prove me wrong. This is a tennis forum, after all, so we might as well not stray from that.

But Jane, you’ve said it in almost every post, it’s nearly impossible to compare sports. I like that one thing you said about apples, oranges, tomatoes, kiwis, etc. I used to think football was a dumb sport and one could argue that football players don’t have it that hard because they’re only out on the field for one play at a time. Basketball players don’t have to cover as much distance as other sports. Anyone can do track because it’s nothing more than running. Tennis is bs because you just use a big stick to hit a fuzzy ball back and forth. If all these sports were so simple you wouldn’t have juniors, minor leagues, major leagues, world championships, and everything in between.

If we went on a football forum, we’d be reading about all the amazing things Tom Brady accomplished. Basketball? Kobe. Swimming? Phelps. And so on. All these athletes did incredible things within their sports. When the GOAT debate arises about Federer, a lot of people claim you can’t compare eras. How the hell can you compare sports? Does anyone here believe Roger Federer would be as great of a football player as he is tennis player? Or that Kobe could be as fast as Bolt? Or Brady can swim as fast as Phelps? Or Armstrong can score 60+ points in one basketball game? This whole “ATHLETE” of the decade thing is nonsense.

mem Says:

puckbandit, don’t stress over what these posters say to you! you don’t have to explain anything you don’t want. your opinions are good enough! i find humor in it because they don’t know any better; they can’t distinguish fact from opinion. you have to understand, they would like you to think that this blog is open to opinions, but they are a bunch of narrow-minded roger federer fans, whose idea of reality begins with the name, “roger federer” and ends with the name “roger federer.” their world doesn’t extend beyond roger federer. this blog is where they get to have some authority in their own little world. once you understand that, you can handle it like a case study!

jane Says:

Ben, I am not a big curling fan, so I wouldn’t even bother to defend it. I was joking with ya, because so many Canucks would feel offended that you downplay the athleticism (come on, all that sweeping!) of curling.

Funny what you and been there say about hockey. Apparently when Dancevic was deciding between tennis and hockey, his grandma showed him some pictures of hockey players, some of which had no teeth. So Frank chose tennis. lol.

mem – for the record, there are a lot of fans here who support other players besides Fed. I guess, however, since this thread is *about* Fed being snubbed, then it’s bound to bring out Fed’s fans. And there’s no need to attack madmaxi – sure she’s an extremely dedicated Fed fan, but she’s entitled and she’s never abusive with other posters, including yourself, just an ardent fan is all. Nothing wrong with that.

Cindy_Brady Says:


You are more ignorant than I thought.

My posting opinions were never designed to win me a popularity award. Anyone that has ever read my posts would know that.

I suppose Roger Federer won 15 grand slams in this decade because of easy draws, bad competition, and luck. Talent, hard work and dedication had nothing to do with his success.

Have fun living in your delusional crazy world. I didn’t know they allowed patients access to computers in metal institutions. You are proof that they do. Good Lord!

Sean Randall Says:

puckbandit, I perfectly understand why the AP selected Tiger ahead of Lance and Roger. I understand it, I know why they gave it to him and I really don’t have a problem with it since I know the source (The AP).

But you say you can make the case for Tiger over Roger, and since you are a tennis fan all I want to know is what that case is. I am curious what the numbers are and what you see that I and many other people don’t. How hard is that? Am I asking too much?

If I really wanted to attack you I’d ask why you think this writer here comes across as an “amateur”. Perhaps, you can elaborate?

And true, this is a tennis forum so naturally everyone will be slanted toward tennis. The same can be said for football forums, cycling forums, etc.

I’ve also heard the conspiracy theories, that the AP gave Tiger the award just to suck up to him. Could be. I’m sure by giving it to Tiger it won’t hurt the AP’s chances of landing a coveted interview once Tiger returns.

Ben Pronin Says:

Cindy and mem,

mem Says:

jane, you call it attack, i call it response! for the record, i’m an extremely dedicated fan as well. i’m sure you didn’t notice the long letter address to me from madmax. i’m just responding! thanks for the concern. your peacemaking skills are impressive. you just need to use them on the federer fanatics!

Ben Pronin Says:

Mem, you don’t come across as a fan at all, you come across as someone who simply dislikes Federer and sets out to put down anyone who likes him.

jane Says:

mem – I think I’ll give up my UN job. lol. It’s not working Okay, maybe it was a response in your view, but to me, anytime someone says to someone else that she or he “needs counseling” that seems a little ad hominem to moi.

I know you’re an ardent Nadal fan, and he’s awesome too. Did you see the “Decade in Review” post at the ATP site? Rafa has accomplished so much for the age of 23 – wow! I mean wow! Here’s just one thing:

“Rafael Nadal reaching 400 match wins faster than any other active player is worthy of note. Nadal reached his 400th win from 491 matches, topping Federer and Hewitt, who both needed 520 matches to register their 400th wins.”

Ben Pronin Says:

It’s pretty easy to reach 400 match wins when you’re winning 50% of all the slams and 75% of all the Masters :P

louise Says:

When I heard that Woods had been voted athlete of the decade, I, too, thought, at first, that it should have been Federer. I then thought about the lengths of their respective careers. I recalled hearing about Tiger Woods in 1996 or 1997, whenever it was that Sampras sent Becker into retirement at Wimbledon — in any event, he was already a phenom then. Roger didn’t become the dominant force in tennis until 2004. So, if you consider the honor’s title, “Athlete of the Decade,” the honor rightly belongs to Woods, at least over Federer, simply by virtue of the fact that he’s been great for the entire decade, not just the last six years of it. Also, consider that the title is not “Husband of the Decade” or “Model Citizen of the Decade”.

mem Says:

cindy brady, you feel better now that you got that out of your system! no need to stoop to name calling, my dear. i’m sure you are as smart as you sound! work on your interpretation skills during the holidays and then revisit my comments and you will find that i wasn’t referring to you when i mentioned “popularity contest.” next time, have someone help you understand the comments before you respond. just a friendly suggestion!

Ben Pronin Says:

Louise, there’s 2 ways of looking at that. Is it more impressive that Woods has been dominant for roughly the whole 10 years of the decade? Or is it even crazier that Federer started dominating later and managed to put up even greater numbers? The thing is, I don’t feel like AP picked Tiger because they were more impressed at his longevity. It just seems like they picked him because he’s American.

mem Says:

jane, absolutely, without a doubt, rafa nadal is the man! there’s no one like him! thanks!

louise Says:

Ben Pronin, yes, you’re right, there are 2 ways of looking at it and it seems that the AP looked at it from the longevity standpoint. If Federer had won all 4 GS titles in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and then didn’t win another tournament for the rest of the decade, would they choose him as the athlete of the decade? I don’t know.

louise Says:

Oh, wait. I read your post incorrectly, Ben. You said you think they picked him b/c he’s American, not b/c of the longevity. Being American always seems to increase the odds of being chosen as SI’s athlete of the year. Being American probably didn’t hurt Tiger’s chances with the AP.

rognadfan Says:

Avoiding to comprehend what others say is not called thinking the way one wants.Its called being orthodoux/stubborn/egocentric whatever you wanna call (zeez, english is a rich language).

I won’t say that you should like Federer.
Or you should dislike Rafa.
You won’t think your way even if I go jump form the top or Empire state building and I won’t think your way even if you’re ready to taste the potassium cyanide.
I get that coz we all are different.

There are people who praise both, who like both. But you have no idea about that, coz you can’t stop hating Fed (God knows why). Come up with logical and moral reasons to hate him. You are welcome.

It may sound like a sermon to you;Forgive me if it is something too light for you (I know you are a rational person).

BUT but, just remember there is a very strong and very important concept called coexistence. I guess I don’t have to tell you that. It means respect everyone. If you don’t, you are moving farther from humanity. I guess you know the world is so deviating away from humanity just because of this hatred some people have towards others (you get the idea).
But I can totally understand if you throw one whole paragraph in response to this because for you I( Like many other here-In your thought)love Fed and hate everyone else. Just to let you know, that’s not true at all.

I love my family & my friends, thats all. And I guess its same for most of us too. Who are these Fed or Rafa or Woods?. They are just a bunch players whom I like to watch play their games just because they are the best ones in that. But I do that without hating anyone else.
One Question to you again; one all this,’ thinking only your way’
I guess you have a job, you work in the middle of several colleagues; is this the only way you always communicate with all of them?

AND You told me my words are not original. Oh yes they are very original. Either you have no idea what the world is all about outside US or you are just trying to be eccentric.

It seems like you don’t believe if someone who says he/she loves Rafa and Fed both. Coz you think its similar to a magnet, only the two poles exist. Its not the only way to look Mem.

Have you ever tried to look at a 3D photograph? If no try that.Its real fun. you’ll get addicted to it (Just google 3D photos and print them). I give you a tip on how to look at it.You will have to focus beyond the photo to crack the 3D; the you will see the real world image; otherwise its like a senseless baby ink-paint.

It’s the same thing with hatred, love, biasness and respect. Doesn’t matter whether it is with a tennis player or any other player or your own family/friends. You have to go beyond what you have been doing in this thread. And beyond means not even one mm (don’t get afraid that you have to move ahead), the distance is even thinner than the thickness of a hair.

End of the comment.

Finally, I don’t totally disagree that Tiger Woods is qualified for the greatest athlete of the decade. He is quite close.

Ben Pronin Says:

Woods isn’t an ATHLETE.

madmax Says:


as you have addressed me, I will address you. I was completely having a bit of a laugh with you, when I ‘blow kisses’ at people, it is tongue and cheek – i dont like it when people are rude – and if you thought I was rude to you – then I will apologise to you – I havent posted you before, just saw what you said about federer – which wasnt nice – why be like this? whats the point?

You referred to this as a federer blog – and staunch federer fan I am, but there is so much more to this forum and to these people, you limit it with your views if you think that this is all about federer when it isnt. Peace man.Oh, and mem. I’ll admit I am a bit crazy, but ya know. In a nice way, NOT in a “you should be locked up and throw away the key, way” –

Jane, I love you more and more each day – thank you.

Cindy, we’re cool, no problemo.


where HAVE you been and WHY do you have to go out tonight to do your shopping? I guess it must be day time where you are right now? enjoy anyhow.

Roger federer is the best!

madmax Says:

from Mem…’madmax, you need counseling! you go from blog to blog worrying about what others say about roger. in your feeble mind, you actually think you can make people believe what you want them to. that’s how mentally frail you are! if you have learned anything in life, you should know that you can’t stop people from thinking what they want to think’.

Just for the record, I dont want to change anyone’s mind. I enjoy peoples posts. I just didnt like what you said, neither did quite a few posters. I was warned about people like you, to stay away from your comments. And whilst (of course), I cant stop what you are thinking (now that is a crazy comment), I can respond in a civil way to your comment, unlike you.

mem Says:

rognadfan, save your sermon for church! i wasn’t born to use someone else’s brain like you. God gave me one of my own, therefore, i think what i choose to think. if my comments did’nt have substance, they wouldn’t affect you and many others so strongly. evidently, they are worthy of notice. are you afraid that i’m telling the truth? seeing as how what i say is always interesting and is known to create a firestorm! i don’t recall asking you or anyone else to buy into what i’m saying. oh, i get it, my controversial comments may give other people ideas. is that it? let me repeat again in case you misunderstood, i said, “TIGER WOODS DESERVED TO WIN AND HE WON.” any more questions?

madmax Says:


you are a deep thinker. I like.

tennis served fresh Says:

yeah he should have won that award…especially after completing the career grand slam. I’m a little irked about woods winning, didn’t he take time off at the beginning of the golf season to deal with his knee issue? Fed played from beginning to end. The committee should take another look at this Tiger Woods guy. I don’t care about his personal relationships and what infidelities he performed, I just think that he didn’t really deserve the award. I’m sure he won to get his named a little more cleaned up, especially after the recent events in his life.
Carry on everybody.

mem Says:

madmax, i didn’t like what you said, but i’m not going to jump off cliff over it. it’s your opinion! it’s not written anywhere that we have to like what each other say. apparently, you don’t live in the real world! you actually don’t know that federer fanatics like you do the same things to others that you accuse others of doing to you. wake up and take a look in the mirror!

Twocents Says:

The ecomonomic down turn must be a lie: so many people still worry about what is an “athelete”? and “Athelete of the Decade”? LOL!


My personal experences being that Federer beats Woods in far east hands down; 50/50 in Europe and Africa. Federer prevails in middle east and OZ land…But I could be wrong since I’m a Fed fan. Guess same happened to those golf-playing AP pundits.

And no offense to Mr. Woods, I did hear rumors about his off-course playing habits in Shanghai back in 2005.

rognadfan Says:


People don’t always respond to deep thoughts.
Some time they try to make a contribute some time to try some demented stubborns like you to pull out of this quagmire of madness.

I feel sorry that you are not just in a quagmire of insanity but at the same time bathing in a burning-with-hatred mire.

Good luck if you are really like that. If you’re just an imposter trying to stand out then I kinda like you.

By the way it wasn’t you depth of opinions that touched me. It was such a detest you carried inside you about others that coaxed me to tell you what I thought.
Does’t matter if you don’t get it. It was beyond the photographs anyway.

Alright lets stop this.

You hate Roger Federer. I like him along with others.
Tiger won (actually not won; just voted by a bunch of stupid AP editors who, if know how to play any game, play golf during their leisure).

Not the end of the world. Not completely absurd. He deserved it in some ways. Just the timing is suspicious.

Tiger turned out to be an asshole while I liked him a lot as I player and an ambassador of golf.

So it makes sense to think in terms of “golf-damage control strategy” at this point of time.

That said, good luck watching tennis in 2010 season. Hope your hatred will grow even stronger.
That means I am wishing good luck to Roger. Good luck to Nadal as well. I like him specially because he is lefty and I am a lefty too
I am trying to hit just one top spin as his for over a year now.

BTW did you try the 3D photos yet?

Try that its real fun. I’m telling you (for real: after all we have this thread-mediated- “opposite of friend’ relation established by now.). Let me know what you think about them.

rognadfan Says:

Mem one last querry,
How did you grow up
Who made you the one who doesn’t want to listen to any one. I salute him/her. Coz you must have litened very well to them. they must be like god.

madmax Says:


‘ you said…

you actually don’t know that federer fanatics like you do the same things to others that you accuse others of doing to you. wake up and take a look in the mirror!..’


I am not a fanatic, but I think you are verging on the brink of your so called metaphorical cliff. You talk in a weird way, am not used to posters like you because you clearly want to cause a fight. Ridiculous person.

My point is, that yes, people can have a difference of opinion, but people like YOU, dont have to be so left wing about it. A request – dont put me in the same category as people who you think are fanatics. I am just someone who admires federer THE MOST, but have clear respect for other posters who admire other players – I dont respect your opinion (not that it matters to you), because you dont post in a positive way, you just want to badmouth, so go ahead and enjoy it while it lasts.

rognadfan Says:

Actually I am not; I am worldlyn, thats all.
Thx anyway.

rognadfan Says:

Madmax, that should read worldly. sorry about that

madmax Says:

no apology necessary Rognadfan,

I was warned about posters like mem, to stay away from them, that they ruin the experience of blogging and having fun and positive discussion. Great that there is debate, but not in the way that mem posts.

Anyhow enjoy your evening/day.

mem Says:

madmax, matter of fact, i have been warned about people like you. you pretend to be so innocent! i’m not fooled by you! you are just another federer worshipper pretending that you are so openminded. nothing could be farther from the truth. i have followed different sports in my life, but never have i ever seen in all of sports fans as blind and nearsighted as the majority of federer fans. they want to behead anyone who adds another side to a discussion. how sick is that! you guys think that the earth revolves around what everybody thinks of roger federer. i don’t know if there is a medical term to describe you! i’ve come to the conclusion that a most of you suffer from a serious, incurable condition called federeritis! the sad truth is that, there is no cure!

Kimmi Says:

hah mem and cindy.. you are so funny! don’t know if “funny” is the right word but I found myself smiling, its been a while since I read some really nasty posts on this bog, brings a lot of memories.

mem, hope you enjoy Rafa next season, he needs to make a big come back. It must have been hard for Rafa fans since RG, tough tough loses. If you don’t mind me asking, how have you been taking all in?

Fot Says:

Interesting comments by a lot of folks. I don’t have anything against Tiger. In fact, the ONLY reason I watch golf is because of Tiger. But having said that…when you really look at the stats of both players (Tiger and Roger) in this decade (2000-2009), the Roger should have won it. But, as Sean said, look at who is giving out the award. It’s just like the other award – you know – the SI Sports Person of the Year award? Roger has NEVER won that award but I can guarantee you that if someone like Roddick (who is an American) had put up the numbers that Roger put up, especially in 2004-05-06-07 years… he would have won that award at least ONE of those years.

You have American sport writers, journalist, etc., voting on these kinds of awards so naturally they are going to be geared a little more towards the American players.

So it didn’t bother me that much because I knew they were not going to give it to Roger. Heck, Roger could have won 20 grand slams, and lost zero matches and he probably still would have lost it to another American athlete. That’s why I like the Laureus (sp?) award more. They take in the “world” perspective instead of just the US.

So, let me say congrats to Tiger for winning the award and congrats to Roger for ‘deserving’ the award! lol! (hey, this is a tennis forum, right?) lol!

And, for Roger’s fans to be so compassionate and loyal – it say a lot about the man to pull these kinds of fans. He’s one of a kind and hate him or like him – we should appreciate him while he’s playing. After all, we’ll still be seeing Tiger (maybe) or Phil, or the other golfers for the next 20-30 years! They will still be competing for majors at 59/60 years old! lol!

madmax Says:

Mem – hey man -whatever –

you are such an intelligent guy to know so much about me, things that I didnt even know myself. I’ll try to do better and take your advice on board. How much do I owe you?


I think it was you who said something a while ago about Lance Armstrong, and I found this article. Of course, after reading it, he could easily go for the athlete of the decade, but I dont follow cycling that closely, though he is definitely a worthy contender.

If, on a dare, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps and Roger Federer were asked to race the Tour de France, how far would they get? A day on steep uphills in the thin air of the Alps? A week on roads so hot the asphalt melts? If judged solely on physical endurance, Lance Armstrong is the hands-down the athlete of the decade. In winning seven consecutive Tours from 1999-2005, Armstrong not only made history, obliterating the previous record of five wins. This was after surviving cancer.

He also transformed cycling, giving the kiss of life to the moribund race that nearly overdosed on drug scandals. His two-wheeled exploits were so superhuman they divided mere mortals into two camps: those he inspired against those who suspect, without proof, that he must have doped. It all comes down to belief. No one believes in Armstrong more strongly than Armstrong, who not only survived cancer, but a fatherless childhood.

His first post-op words to the surgeon who removed tumors from his brain were “I can kick your ass on a bike any day.”

Armstrong’s laserlike focus on the Tour, building his year and team toward that sole goal, had no equal. His attention to detail and use of new technology raised standards in cycling. Armstrong methodically reconnoitered the route, planning where he would strike during the three weeks in July.

“The French public doesn’t like people who win,” says Jean-Francois Pescheux, who as competition director for the Tour designs the route. “The first year, they’re happy. The second year, less so and at the third, they have had enough.”

— John Leicester

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/sports/story/974887.html#ixzz0ZzYRryI2

Cindy_Brady Says:


Apparently mem is psychotically bitter about Federer regaining his rightful place at the top of mens tennis. I’m sure Nadal would be embarrassed at a fan like that. I know, I am.

Anyways, best wishes to both Nadal and Federer in 2010.

Ben Pronin Says:

“The French public doesn’t like people who win,” says Jean-Francois Pescheux, who as competition director for the Tour designs the route. “The first year, they’re happy. The second year, less so and at the third, they have had enough.”

That would explain the cheering after Nadal lost to Soderling.

merry Says:

you really are crazy. You think people are replying after you coz you said something strong. Wow, you really believe that don’t you? I went through most of your comments (because none of them were making sense), didn’t see why you think Tiger should win. Federer fan gave tons of stats supporting him. Can you please give some of your tiger over Fed stats? If so I will believe that you were not only barking.

Pehchan Says:

Some stats of the Decade from ATP site (posted on Tennisplanet):
Most Match Wins In A Season
92, Roger Federer, 2006
82, Rafael Nadal, 2008
81, Roger Federer, 2005
80, Lleyton Hewitt, 2001
79, Rafael Nadal, 2005

Most Titles In A Season
12, Roger Federer, 2006
11, Roger Federer, 2005
11, Rafael Nadal, 2005
11, Roger Federer, 2004
8, Rafael Nadal, 2008

Fewest Matches Lost In A Season (Top 10 player)
4, Roger Federer, 2005
5, Roger Federer, 2006
6, Roger Federer, 2004
9, Roger Federer, 2007
9, Lleyton Hewitt, 2005

Longest Match Time (Best-of-five sets)
6:33* (over two days), Fabrice Santoro d. Arnaud Clement 64 63 67(5) 36 16-14, 2004 Roland Garros 1st Rd.

Longest Match Time (Best-of-three sets)
4:03*, Rafael Nadal d. Novak Djokovic 36 76(5) 76(9), 2009 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid SF

Longest Clay Court Match Winning Streak
81*, Rafael Nadal, April 2005-May 2007

Longest Grass Court Match Winning Streak
65*, Roger Federer, June 2002-July 2008

Longest Hard Court Match Winning Streak
56*, Roger Federer, February 2005-March 2006

Most Aces In A Season
1,318, Ivo Karlovic, 2007

Most Weeks at No. 1
263 (as of Dec. 28, ‘09), Roger Federer, 2004-09

Most Consecutive Weeks at No. 1
237*, Roger Federer, Feb. 2, 2004-Aug. 17, 2008

Most Clay Court Match Wins In A Season
50, Rafael Nadal, 2005

Most Hard Court Match Wins In A Season
59*, Roger Federer, 2006

Most Grass Court Match Wins In A Season
16, Lleyton Hewitt, 2001

Most Clay Court Titles (Decade)
25, Rafael Nadal (2004-09)

Most Hard Court Titles (Decade)
39, Roger Federer (2002-09)

Most Grass Court Titles (Decade)
11*, Roger Federer (2003-07, ‘09)

* Open Era record (since 1968)

CM Says:

Thank you brutha! What a joke for him to win that award…d-bag!

mem Says:

hello kimmi, humor is good for the soul! about rafa; someone was going to defeat him sooner or later at roland garros, the really shocking thing was how the crowd disrespected him as a 4-time champion. i was completely dumbfounded that supposingly intelligent tennis fans would be reduced to the level of booing and cheering in order for nadal to fail. cheering the downfall of a player who had contributed so much to that tournament speaks to what tennis is becoming in order for certain players to win. but, i understand how sports in general work in terms of the ups and downs . when you understand tennis, you understand nadal’s year was not as bad as sportwriters, media, commentators, etc. would like for fans to believe, considering injuries.

i look at it this way, if rafa’s year was so bad and djokovic, murray, del potro played far more consistently and far better than rafa, why is rafa still #2? in my mind, that means that overall he didn’t play much worse than them. the media has a way of shining the spotlight on rafa 24/7, putting negative ideas into the heads of fans who don’t particularly understand when a player has had a good, bad, or excellent year. for the most part, fans are influenced by writers. most writers have their favorite players who they make look good on paper, no matter how bad they play, and other players who they don’t particularly care for they highlight the negative all the time, e.g. when rafa loses it’s made to seen like it’s the end of the world, he is done and dusted, players are no longer afraid of him, when federer loses, the article states how he had a bad day, he’s not motivated because he has won everything, he is 28 years old now, he has a family, so on and so on. fans cling to that kind of stuff. but i know that struggles come and they go, that’s the sport! i don’t worry about rafa because i have know that he doesn’t have the mindset of a loser, matters not how the year looks or what someone writes; he has total confidence in his ability. he believes he will bounce back and he works toward that. if he had cared about what people said, he wouldn’t have ever held the #1 ranking or won wimbledon, or australia, because most people said he was just a clay courter. he’s good for proving you wrong. i love how he keeps his mouth shut and “Just Do It.” overall, rafa has had a good year, not excellent by his standards or most people standards, but not bad like what you read. any player who wins a major, 3 masters, etc. and top it off with another davis cup, are you kidding me, who wouldn’t want that kind of year. i didn’t expect him to do all that well at the year-end championship, mostly because of the quick indoor surface. he didn’t need to prove he could win, he’s done that already! i think he learned after the french open how not to push himself to the limit for ungrateful people. you can see, he doesn’t wear himself down running after every ball anymore, smart move! he’s planning for longevity! the expectations are always great, but hey, he can handle it! there are areas he need to continue improve and when he gets his rhythm on his forehand he will be dangerous. i think his return game and everything else will eventually fall into place. i never doubt him, not at all. what people write and say doesn’t seen to affect his thinking and it certainly doesnt’ determine what he does on court! that’s all i need to know! rafa will be just fine! he’s a winner! he’s struggled before and came back refined!

Ben Pronin Says:

Mem, what exactly are Nadal’s standards nowadays? The first year he reached number 2, he won 11 titles (the most he’s ever won in a given year), but his slam results were pretty bad.

2005 R16 W R64 R32 13-3
2006 DNP W F QF 17-2
2007 QF W F R16 20-3
2008 SF W W SF 24-2
2009 W R16 DNP SF 15-2

So 09 was Nadal’s worst year in slams since 05, but it wasn’t that much better than 06. And if you took out, say, the USO in 07, then you have a 17-2 record, too. So as bad as Nadal’s year was, it really wasn’t that far off from his standards.

Mem, why do you assume everyone has to be told what to think? The writers put doubt in the fans’ minds? Does a fan of tennis really need a writer to tell him/her that Nadal was playing far below his highest level the past few months? Or would you rather admit that everyone just got better than Nadal and he’s gonna lose his number 2 ranking?

Mary Says:

“I don’t have anything against Tiger. In fact, the ONLY reason I watch golf is because of Tiger. ”

THIS is why Tiger deserves athlete of the decade. (No, not because FOT watches)
If the criteria were solely what an athlete accomplishes, fine, Federer for the win, but it’s not.

From the article above:
“Despite the tsunami of negative publicity that will likely tarnish his image, there’s no denying that Woods’ on-the-course accomplishments set a new standard of dominance within his sport while making golf more accessible to the masses,” wrote Stu Whitney, sports editor of the Sioux Falls (S.D.) Argus Leader.

“The only proof needed are the television ratings when Tiger plays in a golf tournament, compared to those events when others have to carry the load.”

Again, THIS is why Tiger deserves it. It is also why he,or beckham, was– IIRC– the top sports guy worldwide for endorsements. This vote was taken before the Tiger stuff.
I don’t understand why this is considered so Americancentric.

Ben Pronin Says:

Because the award is called ATHLETE of the decade, not Greatest-Provider-of-Ratings-For-His-Sport of the decade. Also, Tiger made golf incredibly accessible in America first and foremost. Federer has dominated tennis like no one before him yet tennis ratings aren’t all that great in the US and only in the US.

mem Says:

Ben, you tell me! do you need someone to tell you what to think? i think so!

Ben Pronin Says:

1) Why ask a question if you’re going to answer it yourself?

2) But I’m a writer now, so aren’t I the one who tells people what to think? So don’t I come up with my own ideas?

3) I’m not gonna attack you personally because I don’t need to feel better about myself the way you do, but I will start bashing Nadal if it comes down to that.

rognadfan Says:

Oh yeah,
Nadal lost because he pushed to the limit right?

And press make him look even worse. That occured only one in this world Mem’s beloved Nadal. He is not for anyone else. Guys don’t even utter his name, Mem will die out of envy.

I remember, How bad, people were writing about fed in 2008. Sean Randall esp, was predicting that he would mostly reach semi final and loose to Murray (shitty murray), Nole( gutless nole) and Nadal, and slowly fade out of the top 10.

And at that time Mem was the happies person in this world.

And people that’s just because of jealousy.Nothing else

I finally figured out why Mem hates Fed. Its because she is jealous of anyones accomplishments.

Evan Nadal is not envious of Fed then why the **** are you?


mem Says:

Ben, nadal’s 2009 year was no different from federer’s 2008 year. on second thought, it was a little bit better. roger won only three titles in 2008, estoril, halle, and usopen, but he got to semifinals and finals of other tournaments. federer was playing far below his level, struggling with injuries. rafa won five titles in 2009 and got to semifinals and finals of other tournaments, battling injuries. no one in their right mind expect a player to duplicate 11 titles every year, not even 8 or 9 with the current level of competition. so, what’s your point? it depends on how you look at it! is the glass half empty or half full? you decide!

Kimmi Says:

Mem: Thanks for replying. For a moment there I thought you would probably be too bitter with everyone and maybe just ignore me but here you are. Nice to see your devotion for Rafa. So positive! Good for you!

He is not called “The Bull” for nothing. And who are those people counting him out? You can never do that…I don’t. It’s not the first time players are bouncing back from blips and Nadal will sure bounce back, sooner or later. Check out the comebacks of Federer, Djoko, davydenko ..magnificent hey?. Just hoping for competitive 2010.

Ben Pronin Says:

Federer in the slams in 08 was a lot better than Nadal in the slams in 09. But outside of the slams, Nadal was better in 09 then Federer was in 08. (Btw Federer won Basel, too, so he won 4 titles in 08).

Anyways, I’m just saying Nadal didn’t have terrible year but he played absolutely terribly against the top players in the second half of the year. You’re right, no one would expect a player to duplicate 11 titles every year, yet Roger Federer won 11 titles in 04 and 05, and 12 in 06. Not even 8 or 9 titles? Well Federer won 8 in 07. These last 2 years have been kinda slow for him. That’s why he’s the best.

mem Says:

Ben, rognadfan, you guys are so predictable! i knew you would bite! you hang on my every word. no problem, i welcome your feedback! i love the way you make me laugh! you did good!

Nick Says:

I am an American and there is little doubt that Federer’s achievements are better than Woods on the court and – off court too as far as we know.

Heather Says:

Well as Safin said about the number 2 if you want to play running around the court popping up everywhere like a bunny then you must pay the price.

I adore, worship and am besotted with Roger-Like mem about the number 2, nothing will change my mind. We both have the right to support who we choose and express our views.

On RF.com I have been called a w.re. Hitlers daughter, a german prostitute, threatened with rape and worse by fans of the number 2 BUT logic tells me [surely] that is just a few of his fans-not all of them.

I may intensely dislike the number 2, but that doesn’t give me the right to expect others to do so.

Cindy_Brady Says:


Heather Says:


Actually I am on your side Cindy. It may not seem like it from what I say. With Roger and the number 2 there is no middle ground

Eliza Says:

I’m a Nadal fan and one thing I like about both him and Federer is how much they respect and like each other. In the latest interview with Rafa I saw that he said he should have “learnt to play like Roger”, which is quite an admission from such a great player. But his attiude just makes his so called fans like Mem even further beneath contempt. With “fans” like that, who needs enemies?

It’s a shame that American sports writers haven’t really come to appreciate this great yet friendly rivalry we have in tennis. It’s a laugh that they choose a man without rivals to push him, from a middle aged pastime where athleticism is not required, to be Athlete of the Decade.

Of course if Federer was American he’d have won the SI award multiple times, been on the front covers, and won this Decade award. Luckily, the rest of the world, ie, the vast majority, does appreciate him, and Rafa too.

Heather Says:


That is exactly what we forget, the respect between the two. I didn’t see that comment about Nadal but I blame Uncle Toni for much of what has happened to Nadal and his game.


jane Says:

Ben, with all due respect, you’ve mentioned this a number of times — “Because the award is called ATHLETE of the decade” — but I don’t think it’s down to semantics, i.e., “what defines an athlete”? Do you think that word choice was deeply considered? Maybe the AP people just meant “Sports figure of the decade”? Just a thought anyhow.

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but was there an “award” for coming in first on this poll, i.e., does Tiger win something? Or is it just a poll and he had the most votes? Usually, with an award someone gets a trophy, a statue, some money or something. I just don’t know the details of this contest. I thought it was an unofficial bunch of opinions tabulated up and published?

Ben Pronin Says:

Well then the title of the award is misleading. But this whole debate has really strayed from that, hasn’t it :/

mem Says:

Eliza, i agree with you, rafa is a sweetheart. he has a darling attitude and it’s a shame he has a fan like me who speaks up for him when fans like you are afraid to rock the boat!

Good for you, Heather, now someone is making sense! you understand how the right to choose works! you are absolutely, spot on, everyone is entitled to who they choose to support. way to go, girl!

Vishal Says:

If roger had been American, he would have gotten athlete of the decade. SHAME ON YOU SPORTS WRITERS. The fans know more than you do. Jerks.

t.ks Says:

It’s absolutely about ‘ALL American’s egos’. Noone can change their ideas though you’re so good, like Fed, but he is Swiss. And one thing I think many people around the world agree with me is almost people in Europe is not egocentric.

Sam Says:

Having read everything here, I think the only way that Woords deserves this award/poll/title is if it were renamed:

–> Most Deserving Player (notwithstanding personal life) of an Individual Game that Appeals to the Mainstream Public in the United States of America.

Hopefully there are no dominant Bass Fishers who I do not know of that are even more deserving than Tiger!

margot Says:

Well, I’ll tell you whose a bigger star in Europe then either Woods or Federer….it’s David Beckham! And did u all see pics of him getting mobbed in South Africa?
Agree with Sean’s post @ 6.48, just re-name this American athlete of decade and probably nobody has any problems? Just to re-emphasise this point, “Who the heck is Tom Brady???”
My votes still going for Ben Ainslie, so there!

Max Says:

Lance Armstrong should have named athlete of the decade. The guy came back after cancer to win one ofthe most physical race 7 times. Its not amazing its miracle.

I also believe its a joke keeping Tiger above Roger. Its AMerican media who has taken the decision and obviously they will vote their own player as the best. If you take this poll to world Federer will get 3-1 votes over Tiger.

Tiger Woods doesn’t play a Physical sport, guys like Lace and Roger are part of extremly physical sport, playing a 6 Hours tennis match or 1 stage of Tour De France is more physical than 8-10 golf tournaments. Here 1 injury can finish career or put you out for a year.

Even in terms of records, Lance and Roger have much significant record comparing to Tiger Woods.

Heather Says:

Well I come from South Africa and football is huge.

But on an objective basis having seen the pictures of Ainslie-I would have NO problem with him winning.

vladimirputang Says:

mem! (memmy, memskins, illogically upbeat about your plight, etc.),

firstly, i care nothing for making an argument on a blog about anything. i merely stumbled across this forum when googling time’s choice for athlete of the millenium after my surprise that tiger got the recognition over federer.
but, regardless, mem, if you were true to your WORD, you would have stopped commenting on this worthless blog years ago, back when you published that you didn’t care at all if others disagreed or agreed with you on your opinion regarding athletes. yet, seeing as you are a silly, dishonest person, and you DO in fact care whether others agree or disagree (or respond to your worthless shit you post on here) and think that it is a good use of your time to continue posting retorts to others worthless blog-banter, you have continued to argue things on here to, oh, what’s that? no profit? what? none at all?! oh shit?! you mean to say that you’ve gone to all that trouble and research just to make a point to a bunch of people that don’t care at all? and even as you had previously stated that differing opinions on this shit dont really matter because people (and SUPPOSEDLY you) dont ultimately give a shit, you still spent hours trying to prove your point? oh damn, so you contradicted yourself from the very get go?! SHIT! (if your head hasn’t exploded by this point it probably wont ever, so just scroll to the next bloggers comment and start your next very witty and clever retort).
but seriously, let’s talk food.
who’s the greatest chef of the last ten years??
because although we all love sports, i think i can successfully argue that we all have a deeper attachment to food, am i right?
anyway, i would have to vote boyardee. i know, i know what youre thinking mem! “in my humble opinion, (which i really don’t care if anyone else shares…) emeril is the clear winner! plus he was selected after a series of voting by Food magazine as the number one chef of the decade, and his record speaks for itself. again, it’s just my opinion, and we will all have differing opinions, and although i’m taking the time to voice mine, i will continue to point out the obvious realities of the futility of argument while i continue to argue for months to come! i win!” -mem

madmax Says:


what a lovely post you wrote about BOTH players – Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal – brilliant –


your stats post was incredible! (I miss those kind of posts from I AM IT – hope he is back very soon).


This is for you! Found this morning –

The ATP has named its top five tennis players of the last decade on Friday.

World No.1 Roger Federer has been named the best male tennis player of the top five years, followed by world number two Rafael Nadal.

Australian Lleyton Hewitt, who was the player to beat at the turn of the millennium, and became the youngest player at just 20 years and eight months to hold the world number one ranking, has come third.

Andre Agassi, who was recently embroiled in controversy surrounding admissions that he smoke Crystal Meth in a his autobiography is rated the fourth best of the decade – fellow American Andy Roddick came in fifth.

madmax Says:

Roddick is in there, you see! Havent heard much news over here in the UK about Roddick – what’s the situation – is he fully recovered and ready for the AO?

Kimmi Says:

maxi. If you go at ATP site you will see all those articles. For 2 weeks now(everyday during the week) they have been producing some great articles and stat. Last week was about 2009 season and this week the articles are about this decade. Federer and Nadal had dominated almost all “decade” articles.

The article you just post for jane was done beginning of this week, I think monday and the list pehchans post was done on thurday. great stats for the decade ATP compiled and today it suppose to be something about rivarlies in this decade. Go to ATP site, take a look..you will see all those great things.

jane has been posting some of those articles here. Here is the link for “players of the decade”


Eliza Says:

Yes Mem, Rafa is a sweetie and so is Roger. They’re exceptional among so many sports stars in being great champs on court but really nice off court as well. And importantly, they deserve fans who are not mean about the other’s qualities but are generous hearted like they are.

I’ve met them both but have seen more of Roger because he always has come to the exhibition at Kooyong before the AO and I’m always impressed with the time and patience he devotes to his fans. Some players scuttle fast from the huge crowds of fans but Roger devotes amazing amounts of time to signing stuff and talking to young fans.

Off topic I know, but I’ve already said what I thought about the absurdity of naming a golfer “athlete” of the decade.

KillerC Says:

you cant deny the draw woods did to modern golf tho. for example the prize money went from 70 mil to like 260 mil ish over woods time on the tour. tiger brought the draw and normal riff raff back to golf. & hell.. he has an awesome video game too, something federer doesnt.

SI is american, of course give it to an american! even than federer had a big run of 3 years like you mentioned (late start) tiger potentially can be playing golf way longer than federer’s tennis career.
Im huge tennis fan but si wasnt all too bad about their pick.. yea this whole marriage scandal thing is flaring right now but tiger is like the Jordan to golf. Rog was shafted tho out of this i feel because Roger is too foreign to alot of people and didnt have that image is everything or you cant be serious flare like previous tennis greats. rog is just tennis genius. he should of won though because he finally did achieve pretty much everything you can achieve in tennis this decade & his champion spirit!

Sam Says:

Amazingly, Federer was not even voted as Swiss Athlete of the year in 2009 by his own countrymen!!

F Says:

Federer is a much bigger sport man than Woods. Golf are not a sport, just an hobby.

To win so much as tennisplayer – and in a so hard and thight sport who tennis are – is fantastic! Woods must have one property of all this property/skills Federer must have: the mental strength. Else Federer must has all this skills Woods dont’t should have: extremely fitness and movement and all this skills a big SPORT men must have! Undoubtedly: Fedrer is best!

madmax Says:


Thanks for that. It’s been difficult reading all the posts on the different threads, so if Jane has posted the links already, then I apologise, wasnt meaning to steal any thunder at all – I think the time difference doesnt help, as I seem to be behind you guys a lot of the time, but now have time off work, so can read a lot more posts during the day.

Thanks for the link Kimmi, and to Jane as well for already posting links and information –

I just love those stats though, posted from Pehchan.

Kimmi, I will also be buying Open this weekend to read – I think you said you read it already – After seeing Agassi on Jonathan ross last friday night – he gave a brilliant interview – what a lovely guy – so humble.

Catch you later Kimmi.

madmax Says:


I checked the link you posted above. It’s different to the one I posted (there are so many different ones out there), the one I referred to was from TZN news.

I’ll see if I can find anything else of interest and post later. xx

Heather Says:

I think this is the one madmax was referring to.

I have no idea how to make it clickable


Great to see my otherwordly beloved Fed get the recognition he deserves.

Interesting about Roddick-wonder why he is up there although I am so obsessed with Fed I know pretty much stuff all about the rest

madmax Says:

Yes, Heather. You are right.
That was the link. Thanks for that. (and it was “clickable” so dont worry).

Kimmi was just informing me of another link on atp, which I checked out also, earlier.

It’s great to read this about federer – and just cannot wait for AO. Hopefully, I am it and Huh will also be back soon.

Vladimir, just read your very long post – hilarious. You had me in stitches.

mem Says:

vladimirputang, i agree with madmax, you are hilarious! you mean to tell me you are afraid of a good debate. you’re not chicken, are you? you had me fooled! i think you have missed your calling, you sound like you might be a preacher! nonetheless, you have an excellent memory, i do remember saying that. make no mistake, nothing has changed here. you guys are still the same fanatics! aren’t you going to miss me when i’m gone. you won’t get to hear but one side of the story. oh well, i guess i couldn’t pass up the chance to communicate with knowlegeable fans like you! i get a kick out of conversing with you guys! madmzx was spot on, you had me in “stitches” too.

Jessica Says:

why would anyone ever miss an arrogant, bigoted, hateful, one-sided person like yourself mem? Personally, I dont care whether you prefer woods over federer, or even nadal over federer, i think the reason people just don’t like you is this arrogance you have when you write your posts. As if to say that we amuse you by writing back, you seem to like people being heated by your posts, but what does that say about you as a person? That you get your joy out of life by knocking others down? No one says that you can’t have your own opinion, but you argue without facts to back you up. All hot air. To be honest, I expect if you are to write back, you’ll do it with the same olde ‘heard it before, you amuse me’ rubbish. Why does someone have to be a fanatic to love federer as a tennis player? I respect what he’s done for the sport, the fact that he’s a nice guy and has achieved unprecedented results. I loved tennis before Federer and will like it after him, but its just respecting his results and saying well done.

Mem you actually remind me of a teacher i had in school. Mr Mcdougall, ( funny name hehe) anyways, he believes the world is flat. Some people will believe what they want despite what others say, even its the most ridiculous thing ever, so hey.

mem Says:

Jessica, thanks for the compliment! what you are thinking is it’s all in your mind! save yourself some time and energy and realize i’m not intimidated by your words nor do i care how you or anyone interpret what i write. face it, the world is made up of people with different ideas, different views. everybody is not a cheese eater! most of you sound like you have being living in caves and have lost all sense of what’s real and unreal. when these posters get on blogs and defend federer day in and day out, nothing is said, it’s all good, but when someone like me deviate from what you fantasyland people call the norm, then all choas breaks loose! that’s why these blogs are becoming so boring because on most of them there is one side discussed and that is the “roger federer” side, and i pity anyone who brings up another side. they will be fed to the wolves! in order to debate a topic and spark curiosity and interest, there must be two sides, but you guys are afraid of two sides because another side might make roger federer look bad, and we can’t have that! don’t stress, i have no long term plan of participating on this blog because it is as lopsided as can be. everyone pretends like they praise other players too, but the minute i speak postively about rafa nadal, everyone goes into a fit of rage, but they can discuss how great and immortal roger is 24/7. how phony is that? if i don’t want to discuss federer, i don’t have to, just as you don’t have to discuss nadal if you don’t want too. anyway, sweep around your own front door before you start telling me how to sweep around mine!

louise Says:

Oh, yeah. “Athlete” …

I like tennis bullies Says:

A joke? hardly.
anybody who knows anything about sports and golf would agree with the choice.
dry your tears and stop acting like a typical fedtard fanboy.
A few years from now federer will be in woods place, with his own embarrassing scandals to deal with.
and fans will have known the arse kissing media like yourself were in on it all but choose to protect him like the golden goose and hype the so called “gentleman sportsman” myth.

Eliza Says:

Mem, as a Rafa fan and an admirer of Federer, which no sensible tennis lover wouldn’t be, I find you not just offensive, but incapable of writing literately, coherently or putting forth any sort of argument with facts. Simply insulting fans of Roger is even more ridiculous than those American sports writers by-passing his achievements. And you are certainly a counterproductive force here to any real appreciation of Rafa.

As I said earlier, I’ve met both Roger and Rafa and they’re both great guys who really appreciate each other as well. And Roger in particular, spends amazing amounts of time, with endless patience, with his fans, so it’s no wonder they appreciate him.

Kimmi Says:

“Thanks for that. It’s been difficult reading all the posts on the different threads, so if Jane has posted the links already, then I apologise, wasnt meaning to steal any thunder at all – I think the time difference doesnt help, as I seem to be behind you guys a lot of the time, but now have time off work, so can read a lot more posts during the day.”

Hey madmax, sweet maxi: I knew you were referring to another article, I only wanted to let you know about ATP articles. Maybe I came out a little rough, but did not mean to. It was all done on a good gesture..no need to apologize. I don’t mind you or anyone posting or repeating posting similar articles. I get a lot of tennis scoop by reading what some posters post here. So, I hope all is good.
I just had to mention those ATP article these last 2 weeks, they have been great. If you see all written down what Federer has actually achieved is just amazing. The guy is a genius.

Re; Agass book..I have not read it yet. I have not made up my mind to buy it yet, maybe i will. DD recommended it, he said it is a must read book..I will remember that.

Ben Pronin Says:

It IS a must read book, Kimmi! I’m gonna write a review on it next week, but I don’t plan on giving too much away because because you just gotta experience for yourself :)

mem Says:

Eliza, you are as phony as a three dollar bill. you call yourself a rafa fan. please! when writers & posters have put nadal down and talk about him being washed up, placing his photo continously across every internet page discussing him losing at french open and ridiculing him on blogs, making sure everyone remember his defeat, constantly talking about how his career is over, how he is beaten down, etc. where were you? when did you speak in his behalf, the way federer fans speak for him when he is losing and going through tough times. actions speak louder than words. so, if you want to waste your time outlining details of your love for rafa and roger, and how insulted fedfans are, go right ahead, i’m an insulted rafafan, so talk about that! otherwise, i’m not interested in whether you’ve met rafa and roger and how nice they are! that’s a topic for another day!

Ben Pronin Says:


I stopped reading mem’s posts a while ago because they’re not even about tennis anymore. But mem, look at it this way. You love Nadal. Nadal will go down as one of the greatest players of all time. He’s 23 with 6 slams and counting, 1 USO away from a career slam, 15 MS, world number 1, etc. However, despite all these accomplishments, he’s still behind Federer. Federer has bigger numbers and has been the best for a longer time. By putting Woods, or anybody for that matter, above Federer as the greatest ATHLETE of the decade, means they’re putting Nadal even lower. Why isn’t anyone arguing Nadal’s case? Surely he’s had a terrific run that rivals many of the other athletes on the list. Yet it seems like Federer barely got on the list since 1) Americans don’t care about tennis and 2) Federer isn’t American. Those apply to Nadal, too. But no one is talking about Nadal’s accomplishments this decade, which are surely historic (no one’s ever dominated on one surface the way he has on clay). I think it was Jane who posted an article shortly before the winner was announced where a guy made his own list and Federer was merely an honorable mention. Federer should be on top of that list with Nadal as an honorable mention AT LEAST. As much as I like, say, Usain Bolt, I’d say Nadal was a lot better in tennis this decade than Bolt was in track.

Eliza, Jessica, madmax and whoever else, do yourselves a favor and please stop responding to mem’s posts. They’re filled with empty attacks that have no place on this site.

mem Says:

Ben, did you say you are a writer? are you serious? one of the characteristics of a good writer is that they are able to remain professionally objective, no matter what their personal feelings are. a good writer is not on the same level as fans. good writers report facts in an unbiased fashion and allow their readers to choose what they want to believe. good writers don’t provoke disharmony and wrath among their readers. fans to that! in all due respect, if you are an example of a professional writer, i rest my case!

jane Says:

From my experience at this tennis site, and reading others, the writers are by no means “objective” but in fact admit their favorite players or reveal them, whether they outright admit it or not. For example, Sean Randall and Dan Martin, who write here, are both avid Federer fans, and Sean has even gone so far as to tell me he doesn’t like Djokovic.

Besides which, is anyone *really* objective? I suppose the “reporting media” (as opposed to the “blogging media”) are supposed to be objective, but they aren’t. One has to be realistic about this, much to his/her chagrin. There are ALWAYS vested interests and/or personal biases that come into play when expressing views. That’s just the way it is.

jane Says:

Kimmi or madmax, thanks for the links to those lists. They are quite similar. I think it makes more sense anyhow to compare tennis players over the decade rather than every kind of sport or athlete imaginable.

Tennis Ace Says:

Mem preaching objective writing? It’s like Fox news eulogizing Obama or anything the democrats do. Give me a break!
Mem and objectivity…that’s an oxy-moron, if ever there was one. I split up the word because the latter part of the word is most telling.

Tennis Ace Says:

From Peter Bodo’s blog:

“Men’s player of the year: In another no-brainer, it’s Roger Federer. But this time around he deserves a higher degree of appreciation than maybe ever before. At roughly midseason, people were beginning to wonder if Federer had shot his wad as a dominant player. It seemed possible that his drive to topple Pete Sampras as the all-time Grand Slam singles title champion would stall. And as we all know, the window of opportunity in tennis can open — and slam shut — very quickly.

Rafael Nadal dealt Federer an enormous blow at the Australian Open. During the U.S. hard-court season, Federer was cranky and off his A-game. He had twin girls on the way, and that didn’t bode well for his focus and motivation. If he failed to bag a major for the first time since 2002, it seemed possible that he never would catch Sampras (who had 14 majors).

But in a dazzling month beginning in early June, he made a 180-degree turn. He captured his 14th and record-shattering 15th majors, at the French Open and Wimbledon, respectively. And he became just the sixth man to complete a career Grand Slam.”

Now, do I hear someone (we all know who) screaming and saying Peter Bodo is not a “professionally objective” writer?

Yes, that same someone who fits the latter part of the word that begins with oxy-….

Tennis Ace Says:

Oh my God…another writer who is not “professionally objective.”

This one from Jon Wertheim from ESPN:


Roger Federer got married, became the father of twins and, oh yeah, also reclaimed his mantle as the world’s top player, winning that elusive French Open and establishing the all-time Slam record in the process. Otherwise, it was an uneventful season. Federer’s unrivalled excellence is old news. But in 2010 we saw a new dimension: his ability to recover. In his first tournament of the year, he not only lost to his rival but was reduced to sobbing on the trophy stand. In the last tournament of the year, he sewed up the No. 1 ranking for the fifth time since 2004.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/12/16/baggies/index.html#ixzz0a66dwD9N

Blank Says:

On a lighter vein…

Tiger easily goes one up on one count. Roger may have more grand slams (15), but Tiger certainly matches up that number (or even exceeds) in the number of women he has had this decade! Roger’s count is probably just ‘1’ there…

jane Says:

Blank, how true, and perhaps now we can talk about Tiger’s “athletic” prowess. ; )

mem Says:

Tennis Ace, i didn’t say every writer was not objective, i said the characteristics of a good writer are… your definiation of “professional objectivity” is probably when a writer writes good things about federer, then the writer is called an objective writer!

while you are on a roll, i’m interested to know your take on why federer did not win the top Swiss Athlete of 2009 award in his nation of Switzerland. Instead, the award went to the skiing champion, Didier Cuche. i was wondering if you thought the committee was bias against federer or was it because Cuche lived on one side of town and federer lived on another. why do you think federer lost? i’m sure the committee wasn’t made up of americans, so what was it? what’s the reason for him not winning this time? after all, many of you said that the 56 sports editors that voted for tiger woods didn’t know what they were doing and that tiger winning had to do with being american. what’s your take?

Blank Says:

Jane, glad you see the same thing as I do…’athletic’ and ‘performance’ factors from a different angle… :-)

Heather Says:

More indignant articles about golf vs tennis and FACTS AND FIGURES FOR YOU MADMAX


Heather Says:

The Credit Suisse awards are voted for by the Swiss TV watchers by way of a poll.

Cuche won by 1% and burst into tears and apologised on TV to Roger for winning which was very sweet of him.

Skiing is huge in Switzerland [they are hosting the Olympics]. Cuche is 35 and his career is almost over yet he achieved superb results this year in his sport.

All credit to him

Tennis Ace Says:

Federer recently became a spokesperson for Credit Suisse. Big sponsorship deal!

jane Says:

“Cuche won by 1% and burst into tears and apologised on TV to Roger for winning”

Why on earth would he apologize for winning? Seems a little odd. Generally people are — and should be — happy when they win!! I hope this Cuche fella celebrates the accolades; surely they must be deserved, at least from the public’s perspective.

Heather Says:

He burst into tears of happiness as I understand the report from my friend in Switzerland who watched it and was so overwhelmed it appears by the surprise of beating Roger.

like I said all credit to him-the public voted and he won and desrvedly so

jane Says:

Oh, I thought you meant he was crying because he felt badly for winning or something, which is just dumb. It’s not like he has any control over it, so he shouldn’t be apologizing either. It’s great that he won; he should be proud. BTW, you must mean the 2014 winter Olympics in Switzerland? That should be good for the country, exciting.

Heather Says:

Thanks Jane-quite right on all points. The Swiss are delighted that he won and rightly so!

And it is the 2014 Olympics. [picture of embarassed Heather to be placed here]

I just love the Winter Olympics so much I could see them every year-here in South Africa we have NO snow.

mem Says:

Tennis Ace, you didn’t answer the question! do you need more time to think about it?

Heather, an athlete with 15 majors and a host of other titles & accolades, arguably the greatest ever, didn’t win the top award in his hometown and the best you could come up with is a lame reason of he lost by 1% and the winner is 35 years old. i guess the next thing i’ll hear is that the poll was wrong. i repeat, there is no cure for the condition you all have.

margot Says:

In Europe I would argue Sevvy Ballesteiros, sorry can’t spell this am not into golf, has been far more of an icon than Woods.

Heather Says:

Margot-here is the link if you are interested. Seve is vey popular here in south Africa as well

He has just received a BBC lifetime achievement award but is battling brain cancer.


madmax Says:

Jane, Margot, Heather, Eliza – the posts WORTH reading.

Mem, I am going to take Ben’s advice. I actually dont understand where you are coming from AT ALL. I have read your posts today and to me, you seem angry at the WORLD, YOUR LIFE, PEOPLE, and FEDERER, and not necessarily in that order. What have you got to prove? You have some kind of unfulfilled demon inside of you? I am really not trying to be rude towards you at all. I just dont understand all this vitriolic nonsense that comes out of your fingers – why cant we all support whoever we want to support and yet still respect other players without you coming out and saying that we are fanatics? Go and actually look up the word ‘fanatic’. It’s a word which is completely the opposite to what I am, and I assume a lot of others on this forum.

Dont you enjoy hearing others views even if they dont agree with you? Dont you want to be nice to other posters yet still hold your own strong view? Cant you see that? why is it that you want to be mean and nasty to other people on this forum that disagree with you? That’s one nasty spirit mem. I actually feel sorry for you because you could have so many cyber friends here. But you choose to grow your hair long, grow a beard, and live in some dark wood somewhere, you’ll probably end up going mad.

Sorry mem, but I am worried about your reaction to so many posters who I think, deep down, feel sorry for you also. No hard feelings mem, but try and enjoy and relax a bit more. You’re a bit too nasty for me.

Jane, thanks for all the links on Federer and to Kimmi too. You are both pillars on this forum and I love reading what you have to say. Am sure that we will disagree and kinda fall out every now and again, but unlike mem, I dont think there is any need to be nasty.


You are right. Thanks for that.

Jessica Says:

whatever mem, next you’ll also be saying the world is flat? haha

whatever mr mcdougall

Catherine Says:

madmax and rognadfan, I tip my hat to you both.

bebesvin Says:

I love tennis, not golf, and have competed is the USTA for many years as a child. I love Federrer of course, but I can see where the AP is going. This may be Tiger Woods last year. Therefore it may be his last award for anything…poor guy has lost his sport.. after being king for so long…Federer will get it next year.

huh Says:

Tiger Woods is prolific sportsperson, but Federer in my view. I think Fed’s achievements edge Tiger’s, but I dunno as I’ve never been to US, AUS or Europe. So I leave the Athlete of the Decade issue for them to decide in their own spheres and regions. But at least in South East Asia, to where I belong, not to mention my country China, people definitely believe Fed’s to be placed ahead of Woods so far as this issue is concerned. Fed is widely regarded as a more accomplished Sportsperson/Athlete whatever you say them. Cheers!

madmax Says:

Heather – thanks for the facts and figures link!

Huh! You are back! Whoo…hooo!!!! I have missed you! Now we need to esp ‘I am it!’

Tennis Ace,

Google: Roger Federer laughing

(ESPN commentator Pedro Pinto was at a launch of credit suisse – I think it was ‘Huh’ or possibly ‘Jane’ who sent me a link – it was BRILLIANT!), will try find it for you now so you can watch it – 4 minutes of PURE BLISS.

huh Says:

So the Nadal-@$$-kissing-Fed-hater ‘mem’ is back after his sabbatical.

Tennis Ace Says:

Oh my God, Madmax, you mean to say you don’t have obsessive hatred for that one player so that you can go out of the way to find faults in him/her, and against all logic totally discredit his/her achievements?

Imagine the fun you can have pouring vitriol on virtually anyone who does not agree with your views.

Someone here who resembles the latter part of the word that begins with oxy…..has been doing just that ever since a certain tennis player, who has become the epitome of finness, grace and speed, started winning everything in sight.

Try it sometime. Who knows, you might begin to enjoy it. The operative word, though, is hate, as someone on this forum pointed out earlier.

madmax Says:

haha! tennis ace! loving the sarcasm – naaaahh! not my thing – it’s – as Ben said earlier – completely immature, self-destructive and massively disrespectful –

I meant to say CNN, not ESPN, though Pedro Pinto, I understand, works for both –

huh Says:

Mrs.Jane, Mrs. Margot, madmax and co.:

My picks for 2010 Tennis-X year end top-10 contest:



(he’ll do his best and surely win a slam next year, but not more than one slam, that’s also for sure)


(He’ll win his first slam and some imp tournaments)


(May/may not win a slam, but do well overall)


(Will do well and win at least one slam)

5.Del Potro

(he is not winning a slam in 2010, will be like a lull before the storm which he’s may be gonna create in 2011, leading from the front)




9.Davydenko (plays so many tourneys! )


Tell me if you like it with the reasons given.


But my HEART WANTS this to happen in 2010:



(the guy’s so insanely talented that I hope he wins not only a slam but also goes on a tear next year)


(I badly want him to win at least and at worst just one slam, I don’t want him go slamless next year. after all he’s my 4th most fave after Fed,Rod and DP)


(thou I like him more than Murray, I think he can wait just until the end of 2010 to start his domination from 2011 onwards)






Sorry, but I have put the other guys above Nadal and him at the 9th place coz I like the top-8 of the my wishful-list more than Nadal. But I however like Nadal more than Verdasco and much more than Davydenko, no fault of Davy but I just don’t like him.

madmax Says:


I’ll come back to you on your “predictions”, but for now: Tennis Ace: This is the definition of fanatic (something that mem has accused federer fans of?) I particularly like Winston Churchill’s definition (hilarious!).

A person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause);

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”–Winston Churchill
marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea;

“rabid isolationist”

huh Says:

Dear dear dearest madmax, yes I’m back and sorry for being unable to come here more frequently. I hope you missing me doesn’t hurt you much. But I love and trust you and know that so long as you are here, it will be good for all of us. My Regards for you Maxi! :)

huh Says:

Dear Madmax,

mem is a pain@$$ fellow, don’t worry about him. He will find many ways to create misery not only for himself, but also for the Nadal fans. ;)

Heather Says:


Priceless-I spent most of a morning watching it. The man [Roger] is irresistable.

Re the predictions: My list [although you did not ask for my opinion]

Federer will win AO. My predictions for the FO and Wimby were correct [posted a month before each slam and correct down to the tears at FO] so I am going with my ‘feeling’ for the AO-this time he will cry again but when he wins.

Dont know about the rest yet. [perspective is not a virtue I possess when it comes to Roger]

Delpy is the future phenomenon as you say.

Would be nice to see Nalby win something.

Murray and Djoko likely to win something

Nadal not on my wish list

No fault of the number 2-I just can’t stand him

puckbandit Says:

Let’s take a poll of our own, okay?

What is more shocking:

1) I’m watching snow fall at a clip of 3″ an hour while a prime shopping day slips away on the back of a Noreaster?

2) That Mem manages to slip in an occasional cogent, well thought out point into his “cyclone” of nasty post-fest, teasing one to read said posts against one’s better judgement?

3) We are still debating Fed/Tiger athlete of the decade?

Boy oh boy, 2010 tennis season can’t come fast enough.

Oh, the weather outside is frightful . . .

madmax Says:

Heather! Yes! A different link but with the same effect! A couple of posts earlier, I mentioned to tennis ace that they should google ‘roger federer laughing’ – and its the same link!

It’s brilliant isnt it?


I LOVE your predictions Heather. But do you honestly think that Fed is gonna give up wimby or the FO without a fight?

(especially wimby – it’s like taking true blood away from a vampire!) c’moon!

Federer is just THE most incredible athlete who, we know as federer fans, in a slam, he will fight and fight to win the trophy – fed all the way!

huh Says:


As I’ve given the prediction list, I take that your last post was a response to me. Right? ;) Yeah, actually I also was right in at least one prdiction as Ithought and assumed that this is Gonna be a difficult year for Rafa. I thought he’d win FO, but was of course feeling that this time it’d be lot harder for him to win the FO. He’s not my fave either. But I can’t see Monfils or Gasquet overtaking him in rankings next year by any means, though only I know how much I like them, at least more than Rafa in case of Monfils and lot more than Rafa in case of Gasquet.

Hewitt is also one of my huge faves, way much more fave then Rafa would ever be, but he’s not doing any miracles, hence I had to put Nadal in the 8th place in wish-list , otherwise I’d be much happier to see Hewitt/Gasquet/Monfils at a better ranking than Rafa. I also like Gonzo lot more and Blake slightly more than Rafa, but I can’t put them all over Rafa either, thou I’d love to see them doing better than Rafa.

huh Says:

I’m relly really sorry fellas, but my 2010 prediction list is perfect, but my wish-list need a major change to be made as I’ve totally forgotten about Nole.

So here goes my 2010 top-10 wish-list(totally based on my wish)!

5.Del Potro

I’m sorry, but bye bye Verdasco…


But to avoid confusion, I give below, once again, my 2010 top-10 actual prediction list (based on brain-work, no place for wishes here):

5.Del Potro


huh Says:

In the pervious post, it must be understood that my 2010 top-10 prediction list is perfect(only from my point of view).

puckbandit Says:

The link to Federer laughing is hysterical. Thanks.

jane Says:

huh – hey there! I like your “brain” list better than your wish list because I don’t want to see Novak knocked all the way down from his current spot at #3 to #7!!! : ( And I like to see my two favorites – Djoko and Murray – in the #1 and #2 spots!! It’s so nice. : )
That’s not to say I wouldn’t be happy to see Nalby and Roddick do really well next year, though. I put Nalby in my top ten list on the other thread, even though I doubt it’ll happen. Roddick, however, will stay in the hunt; he’s too consistent not to!


puckbandit – hope your snowstorm has abated somewhat. You need to get that shopping done soon.

Heather Says:

Huh-I hate LOGIC-it interferes with WHAT I WANT.

I am a lawyer and deal with LOGIC every day.

I base my predictions on cuteness.


Ana Ivanovic [yes I know]
Safin [yes I know]
Ancic {YES I KNOW]

jane Says:

Heather says “I hate LOGIC-it interferes with WHAT I WANT.”

Doesn’t it just? Great quote Heather; interesting list too!

Heather Says:

Madmax-from a fellow Federer fanatic.

Merry Xmas-a year we will never forget

Roger Federer-on a path to immortality


madmax Says:


Thank you very much for that! I am sure you have seen youtube ‘Federer- the making of a legend’ – but if you haven’t, then google it – it’s well worth it,3 MINUTES OF PURE BLISS! for some reason am having trouble finding links right now, so I can return the favour!

Yes, a massive merry christmas for 2009 – it has been federer’s year, for many reasons –

here’s to 2010, and a very loud C’MOON! the fed!

I am on countdown now Heather, 11 day to go before Abhu dhabi! I know these are “tune up” events, but I still enjoy watching them.

tenisbebe Says:

Cindy_Brady says: “Compare Colby Briant, Albert Pulholz, Tom Brady, and Payton Manning..”

For God’s sake, if your going to make a case, get your names correct: it’s KOBE BRYANT (not Colby Briant), ALBERT PUJOLS (not Albert Pulholz) and PEYTON MANNING (not Payton Manning).

huh Says:

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to everybody in advance! Who knows which will be my last post for 2009.? So it’s better to wish everybody in advance and then again, if possible. ;)

madmax Says:


We got another 11 days BEFORE the end of 2009, so hope you are here EVERYDAY until the end of 2009, I’ll let you have my predictions later, when I have slept on it! But you know who is foremost in my mind to win AT LEAST 2 of the 4 slams, now dont you huh!????

madmax Says:

For heather:

15 Nov 2009 … How did Roger Federer become the greatest?

Heather Says:

Thank you Madmax-I had not seen that video before.

I always worry [Logic again] that because this is a forum for all tennis fans that I am a bit OTT about Roger when there are others like Jane who love Andy Murray and Djoko.

so please write to me at federerfan@live.co.za then we can be obsessed together about Rog without boring the rest.

tenisbebe Says:

FYI – Interesting article on the Fed/Tiger relationship in SI written pre-Tiger crisis.


madmax Says:

Heather, will do – no problem.

But I think that Jane (LIKE YOU), is a wonderful poster. It’s all about sharing our feelings (amongst other things), about our favourite player – I have never once found (part from mem and I like tennis bullies), to be anything other than great, classy posters – and I mean that. Kimmi is a darling, huh, been there, I am it, Margot, know that I love federer, but I also know how much they love novak, rafa, murray – if we choose to post our “adorable rantings” (teehee), and it makes them smile some of the time, then job done.

When I post, I NEVER mean to upset anyone with my respect for Roger Federer. In fact, I cannot believe that some people cant understand what a fabulous player he is. I respond to others posts, with a full heart of love for roger federer but HUGE amounts of respect for other players. It’s easy for me – and I dont mean to come across as sickly sweet either, it’s just I am sure that Jane and the rest with ample tennis knowledge, much more than me, can understand the puppy, labrador syndrome, when you just get excited about everything and you cant help it. But am happy to take your email and we can correspond too – but that is what this forum is for- and I love it!

tennisbebe, will read your link now. Cheers.

madmax Says:

A very interesting article tennisbebe – this is the paragraph that I think sums up the debate between federer v woods:

Inevitably, the question arises: Who is greater within his sport? Since breaking through at Wimbledon in 2003, Federer has won 15 of the 26 majors played — an incredible .577 winning percentage. Tiger, beginning with his 12-stroke victory in the 1997 Masters, is 14-for-52 (.269).


How on earth can anyone describe golf as a sport? I just dont get it.

Heather Says:

Madmax I hear you AND YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT-this is a wonderful forum and I know NOTHING about tennis other than how much I love Roger.

So it is wonderful to hear the experts speak-they dont always say what I want to hear [I want to believe that Roger will be number 1 forever] but as long as they dont mind my ‘puppy dog’ syndrome I have loved reading all the posts here and would love to stay [and test their patience].

It is all about the game of tennis at the end of the day-that is bigger than Roger, Rafa, Murray, Djoko, Delpy, Nalby and all the wonderful characters that make up the tour. Not so!

Thank you for your logical argument and helping me see sense.

It sounds so soppy but I really enjoy the bunch here.

madmax Says:

you and me both Heather!

It’s soppy – but who cares! If federer plays until he is 40 (it’s possible, if Connors did it, why not Fed?), then I will be a very happy girl! Am sure we will see him on the senior tour, when he reaches 35 – I dont know what the score is there, may be someone can tell me – but is it automatic to register on that tour? Actually, thinking about it, the magician didnt retire until he was 36 this year, so I guess roger can keep playing.

He loves the game so much, so only when he falls out of love with it, do I think he will stop playing the game – in other words – NEVER!

I am just enjoying him as much as I can, and keep believing that he hasnt “Peaked” yet – 2010, c’mon the fed!

respect to ALL players.

Fot Says:

Someone asked how can Roger be player of the decade when he wasn’t even voted Player of the year in Swiss? I think that’s 2 different things. First, the skier that won the award in Switzerland won for THIS CURRENT Year only. Not for what he’s done throughout the decade, but for this year only.

We were discussing what Roger has done for the past 10 years is up there with or above what Tiger has done during that same time so losing the award in Switzerland this year has no baring on the player of the decade award that Roger didn’t win. (just my opinion).

tenisbebe Says:

Madmax – re: your post December 21st, 2009 at 5:10 am. Well, by posting that article, it was not my intention to use it as a means to advocate Federer over Woods as Athlete of the Decade poll, (although I was personally disappointed that there was not, in the very least, a 3 way tie for 1st b/w Roger, Tiger and Lance) but rather to note that they are much friendlier than was thought. Tiger was the source of this article and according to him, they text one another daily. Makes you wonder if they have communicated since the Thanksgiving Tiger debacle & now this Athlete of the Decade poll results.

Frankly, I am not shocked that a male American athlete won out on this poll (take a look at the places where the journalist pollsters hail from: Montana no less) however I was hoping that after the Tiger affair(s), they would take a harder look at the accomplishments of the athletes outside of North America – sigh, it was not to be. But SI is, after all, an America publication marketed to the US market, so not a big surprise.

madmax Says:

tenisbebe, I respect what you are saying, it was my opinion on THAT paragraph, though I hear your take that it should have been a three way split.


I wouldnt have minded so much if it was a two way split. Jane mentioned earlier about the incredible sport of cycling and the tour de france being a sport that saps the strength of any pure athlete – I could understand that more and put that on a similar stance to tennis. But golf? No. Sorry. Not in my view. Tennisbebe, golf is a game. Yes, you need precision, but you WALK the golfcourse, have someone carry your golfclubs and caddy about, you sometimes get on a nice golf buggy. By ‘eck! It must be like going to the fair, playing golf – no. That cannot be equated with either tennis OR cycling.

tenisbebe Says:

Maxi – I am NOT getting into the decades-long debate as to whether golf is a sport or a “game” regarding the discussion of it’s and Tiger’s inclusion in the Athlete of the Decade poll – the powers that be have accepted it as a sport (and an Olympic one now as well) without consulting me & my opinions so it was part of the mix in this poll. Done. Given that, again, I am not shocked that an American male edged out in the voting. Have you ever visited to Montana? Beautiful but isolated…. :-)

Heather Says:

I may be besotted with Roger, but as an athlete [if powerlifting is an athletic sport] who has represented my country South Africa overseas, Lance Armstrong is everything I would wish to be:
unmatched mental strength, physical strength, discipline, sheer will and determination and absolute self belief.


“To love is to admire with the heart; to admire is to love with the mind” Quote from Nerona at RF.Com

As someone with a sister who had cancer I can really identify with Lance. I have read all his books [apparently there is now a new one].

I think at the level that Tiger, Rog, Lance, Nadal, Djoko, Murray etc compete, mental strength is the one thing you must have-BMT and utter self belief.

In my [humble] opinion that is the measure of a champion [athlete/sportsman] and they all have it.

I watch Valentino Rossi utterly mesmerised-I cannot get my mind around what he does on that bike-sheer madness or sheer brilliance-either way when the pressure is on then we see the best of him [and them].

The ice hockey players, [are they mad] the downhill skiers, the snow boarders, the gymnasts, skaters, the track and field athletes, I watch them and what they do is beyond comprehension [to me].

That is my take on it and thank the heavens for them all.


madmax Says:


i hear you. No worries. We all have our opinions although I feel the “powers that be” ???? clearly DONT know the meaning of “sport” or “game”.

No, I havent been to Montana – presumably, that’s where you are from? I imagine it to be a scene where directors film westerns? Lots of desert? I have no idea why I think that, and could be completely wrong.

Heather, nice post.

Heather Says:

Hi tennisbebe

Roger on his Facebook often spoke about his frienship with Tiger and how he texed him for help when Rogers twins were born.

Tiger has been seen in the stands at the US Open supporting Rog and said that he was late for a tournament while watching Roger win the French-screaming at Roger to do it.

They seem to be quite close

When Roger was asked about the Thierry Henry handball incident Roger diverted the question as I understand it.

I would hope that he would stand by his friends including TW without condoning the behaviour-he is also human and if he has any sense Roger will also realise that “there but for the grace of god”…

There has been some controversy about how Roger dealt with the Andre issue, saying that he was disappointed but that Andre has made a huge contribution to underpriveleged children.

madmax Says:

Roger said in an interview that he was disappointed in Andre BUT that that should NOT take away the legacy he has brought to tennis –

Roddick was absolutely staunch on the fact that he 100% loves agassi and will stand by him – good for roddick – thats the american spirit!

As for woods and fed being “close” – ummmmmh.In terms of cheering each other for their respective sport of tennis and game of golf- but personally? I doubt whether anyone around the world, could have expected the “Mr. Clean” image of woods, to be so viciously stripped away.

Federer will probably comment on the golf side of things, but not the personal side of things – it wouldnt be his place. PLUS, they competed in different tournaments,different times,different places, and had the odd meal (photographed TWICE), sending a text supporting a fellow professional can hardly be called “close”. (no offence Heather). Besides, Tiger was far too busy sorting out his schedule of which woman he would be meeting next – the guy didnt really have a lot of time for fed inbetween his own extra marital affairs.

Heather Says:

Hi Madmax,

Roger is the consummate diplomate-he will not comment on Tiger’s personal affairs as you say.

I think he handled the AA matter superbly but was misquoted so often-Mirka no longer gives interviews-she learnt her lesson a long time ago.

In South Africa when we say ‘are close’ it is used very losely meaning basically keeping in touch to see how the other is doing.

We often see Gavin Rossdale at his matches-I would think that they probably have the same kind of relationship.

But I hear what you say-they simply cannnot be close in the sense of constant contact with a close emotional bond.

I can just write about what Roger himself has said. The media also like to blow these things out of proportion.

With their schedules Roger would be closest [emotionally] to his team and family [Mum and dad] and his beloved Mirka.

In fact Roger said when he wakes up in the morning all he cares about is that Mirka is there.

I SAW A VERY INTERESTING RERUN OF AN INTERVIEW WITH LARRY KING AND TIGER IN 1998-HE SPOKE OF INTEGRITY, PRIVACY, AND LOYALTY. I wonder if Tiger became like this as a result of so much fame or if he was always like that.

The whole nature/nurture thing. He had very high ideals and said he wanted to be the best, not just this era but the best ever.

He spoke about getting married and being a good role model.


madmax Says:


Hey. Love reading what you have to say. Tiger woods is a contrast of ideals – says one thing, does another. Ah. Am sick of the story, arent you?

And now there is another thread, the high and mighty Boris Becker putting in his dollars worth -as if! Cannot believe it! I can barely remember the stories about him, what a shocker. wasnt he some rabid sex fiend in his time? Who is he to judge on the tiger debacle? Makes me laugh. Just ridiculous!

Heather Says:


Pictures of Wimby womens champs 2028….

THEY LOOK JUST LIKE THEIR DAD and mommy looks gorgeous.

They look so happy-well when Rog retires we can watch the girls as A Rod said. Let me tell you they look like they have their dads attitude when he was young so he has trouble on his hands.

Mom Mirka will have to discipline them together with granny Lynette.


If Rog tried anything like Tiger his mother is the one he needs to be scared of [never mind Mirka]

tenisbebe Says:

Thanks for the picture Heather. Babies are the best. But truly, re the Roger/Tiger relationship, Tiger said they text one another DAILY. That tells me they are alot closer than we thought. Merry Christmas everyone!

madmax Says:

tenisbebe, I havent read anything that says Tiger texts federer every day – can you post the link please?

Mr T Says:

It really isn’t even a debate worth having. Federer is clearly the “ATHLETE” of the decade by a distance. It’s not even close. Woods doesn’t even come close to second. There is a subtle clue to answering the question – ATHLETE!!! If this title was about sports personality, star etc then you moronic american golf fans would have a good argument.

Another vote in the UK just put Bolt ahead of fed which is equally stupid. The vote was supposed to be for sporting achievement of the decade not last 2 years.

madmax Says:

Yes Mr. T, I saw that. But what can you do? Just have to stick to the facts and the statistics. Federer is by far and away the ATHLETE OF THE DECADE (well, “almost decade!”).

ArrowSmith Says:

To be fair, Roger uses NetJets. So he literally is a private jet away from any tournament for at least 3-4 years now. So don’t pull that argument in favor of Roger. Roger’s case is strong enough with lies.

Heather Says:


What argument? Complete sentences please.

‘To be fair…….with lies’ A bit of an oxymoron wouldn’t you say

Heather Says:

And yes I ‘geddit’

madmax Says:


what are you talking about?

Mr T Says:

What are you taking about Arrowsmith. I’ve changed my mind about the athlete of the decade. There is a guy called phil taylor i think and he has dominated darts for almost 2 decades it seems. Why don’t we stick him up there. I think he could take rojer and tiger out when it came to eating pies and drinking beer. infact why don’t we get anyone who plays any game regardless of wether there is REAL phyical exertion on the list. Lets openn up athlete of the decade to chess champions, bowls, snooker etc. It doesn’t really matter as long as this person has dominated their game and is american of course.

madmax Says:

Mr T! You are right on!

When is the A team coming back?!

bea cruz Says:

… to call someone Athlete of the Decade is a big Stamp on the person, stirring big influence on the public, taking a deep responsibility for even daring to set apart one as Superior to all the rest of the “athletes” in whichever category.

Golf vs Tennis will be an issue that will be always debated between the fans of the two sports.

However, Tiger vs Roger is very clear. The passion, the endearing personality, the sovereignty, the commanding presence of Roger on and off court is what undoubtedly makes him the True ATHLETE OF THE DECADE. Tiger is American, and the American sportswriters had to be swayed in to their commercial and marketing interests, not on hard facts and reality. But, shame on you for putting a philandering, prostitute patron, “less- endowed” athlete (only the marketable trait perhaps was his edge over the Mighty Fed, and this because he is an American citizen) shoved in our generations throats as Athlete of the Decade, even if it’s only your publication’s general view.

Thank God that the real sports fans could not be fooled by this relevantly propaganda, but yet again, of the American press.

Heather Says:

Hi Madmax and Mr T and Bea Cruz.

Kindred spirits-always wonderful to read such good things about my beloved Roger.

Madmax, as long as Roger is at number 1 [and for so long as he plays], I think we have the A Team. [no offence Mr T]

madmax Says:

I love it Heather! Nice!
I have been watching the cricket – England v South Africa in the absence of Federer – nowhere near as interesting, but definitely filling a gap right now!

Great to see you back Heather – hope you enjoyed christmas

Bea Cruz, yes. many people feel the same way.

zyghur Says:

Yes, it’s a joke. I wouldnt actually categorise golf as a sport. walking most of the day and having a boy carry your tools and scooting around in a buggy. That aint sport. sport to me is about blood, sweat and tears. more so blood and sweat.

Roger should have been the athlete of the decade.

Mr T Says:

madmax, zyghur, heather, bea cruz, it’s good to see sanity shared in your views.

Unfortunately it seems as though the tiger woods brigade which were writing on this forum in support of him as athlete of the decade have all dissapeared.

If there are any of you out there I need a good laugh, so please try once again to make an argument for tiger being the athlete of the decade. PLEASE PLEASE!

As the end of the holiday season approaches I think everyone would appreciatte another belly full of laughs at anyone making the case for tiger as athlete of the decade.


Alternately you may have come out of your dellusional place and realised the truth.

Mr T Says:

By me and my friends in the A Team the way we make a return to the big screen next year.

How about movie franchise of the decade. Clearly the 3 rush hour movies are superior to anything like lord of the rings?…………..ONLY KIDDING, thats just in tiger woods athlete of the decade land.

Heather Says:


And for those of us who love the Fed let it be his best year ever


marc Says:

Both are the best in their sport right now.
But what roger has achieved in the past decade is much much more difficult to surpass than what tiger did. Roger is already the most successful tennis player of all time and will retire as the greatest who ever played. While Tiger has yet to achieve the same in golf.

MAttd Says:

how can you say that Americans screwed federer, when he won SI athlete of the decade? what else do you want?

Top story: Carlos Alcaraz Rolls Right Ankle In Scary Tumble In Rio [Video]