The public persona is what I meant by a mixture of marketing and media. That's all we get to see and of course it's designed to portray players as larger than life personalities. Or rather, the top players. The lower-ranked players have worked just as hard for their careers but who cares? My point is that we see in players what we want to see in them. But that doesn't make them higher (or lower) human beings.
I think fans (as well as haters) like to believe that they know what a player is really like. And nowadays, thanks to the internet, you can endlessly rewatch and discuss all the little details that seem to give it away. You can analyse and dissect every word, every gesture, every handshake at the net, everything that players (publicly) do outside of tennis - and then regard it as proof for what you've known all along.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing what you want to see in a player. I just think it's good to be aware of it and to not take these things too seriously. And I agree with you about the haters, I can't seem to understand it, myself.
Fed can't be better or worse as a human being? In the next paragraph, you say you can't understand why his personality is a topic to lovers and haters?
You already judge everyone who says painful things including facts about darling Fed.
After years of hype about how lovely & fabulous a player was, most people aren't too stupid to pretend a sneaky, extremely nasty, sore loser is a role model player that they expected.
Just like other entertainers, if someone is disrespectful & acts like they are entitled to special treatment despite doing ordinary things like other people, don't expect convenient ignorance from the public. It doesn't matter if fans are involved.
I watch my fave players, but during matches, I don't need to hear 4999 times from the insecure commentators & media propaganda that Federer is classier to everyone, nice like Edberg, etc. just because he beat clowns from 8 years ago in every match.