Federer states: "I'll never be the GOAT..." [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer states: "I'll never be the GOAT..."

Shabazza
01-29-2009, 12:38 PM
An excerpt from his press-conference:

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2009-01-29/200901291233230197906.html

Q. But there was somebody called Rod Laver who couldn't play twenty Slams in five years, and Rosewall didn't play 11 years, so 44 Slams. So, you see, press sometimes emphasizes something. What's your reaction thinking about Laver and Rosewall and your record and Sampras?

ROGER FEDERER: I'm very well aware of the problems the old generation of Laver and Rosewall and all those players faced. That's why I always said I'm one of the players who's most thankful to them of what they've done for us. Look where prize money is today and the great sites we have.

Now there's even more money being pumped into the Australian Open. That's all thanks to them for not playing a lot of money and missing out on twenty Grand Slams. Back then, nobody knew what tennis was going to become, so it was also easier to say no to those kind of things.

Probably never quite know who was the greatest of all‑time in tennis, and I think that's quite intriguing as well. Of course, if somebody goes off and wins 35 Grand Slams then you made your point as a player.

But, still, I think it's fantastic that they named the center court after Rod Laver who did so much for tennis. Yeah, I mean, 14 is more ‑‑ the new generation, the Open era, I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.

I'm very well aware of that. I think it's an incredible opportunity to do well.

What an arrogant asshole...right.

Voo de Mar
01-29-2009, 12:43 PM
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, 14 is more ‑‑ the new generation, the Open era, I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.


:yeah:

Stefanos13
01-29-2009, 12:43 PM
It's painful to read his interviews. Even when he praises others he makes sure the real message and the real praise is about himself.

Somebody please stop him from getting 14. There'll be nowehere to run from such interviews :unsure::scared::scared:

Caerula Sanguis
01-29-2009, 12:47 PM
It's painful to read his interviews. Even when he praises others he makes sure the real message and the real praise is about himself.

Somebody please stop him from getting 14. There'll be nowehere to run from such interviews :unsure::scared::scared:

So if he wins the 14th slam, will you allow him to state the fact?

tennis2tennis
01-29-2009, 12:48 PM
It's painful to read his interviews. Even when he praises others he makes sure the real message and the real praise is about himself.

Somebody please stop him from getting 14. There'll be nowehere to run from such interviews :unsure::scared::scared:

What's your reaction thinking about Laver and Rosewall and your record and Sampras?

now go and take your pills!

crude oil
01-29-2009, 12:50 PM
federer uses mono excuse for his loss last year ;)


Q. Back in another Grand Slam final. It's a great start to the year for you, and so different, I suppose, than the feeling here last year.

ROGER FEDERER: Like I said on the court, I think I played well throughout the tournament last year as well, you know. Just kind of came up short against Novak. I thought he played a fantastic match against me. He was the aggressive one. He was serving his spots so well that night that he kind of made that difficult.

Even maybe if I would have been in perfect shape, you know, I think he deserved to win last year. I struggled maybe a bit. Maybe the draw was a bit better for me this year playing Andy in the semis who I have such a great record against.

I do feel better mentally. I'm obviously more healthy so I can focus on playing well. I'm really pleased about my performance so far in the tournament. The draw was difficult and dangerous if you look back on who I had to play.

madmanfool
01-29-2009, 12:51 PM
Even maybe if I would have been in perfect shape, you know, I think he deserved to win last year.

you seem to have missed this part

Jōris
01-29-2009, 12:52 PM
An excerpt from his press-conference:

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2009-01-29/200901291233230197906.html

Q. But there was somebody called Rod Laver who couldn't play twenty Slams in five years, and Rosewall didn't play 11 years, so 44 Slams. So, you see, press sometimes emphasizes something. What's your reaction thinking about Laver and Rosewall and your record and Sampras?

ROGER FEDERER: I'm very well aware of the problems the old generation of Laver and Rosewall and all those players faced. That's why I always said I'm one of the players who's most thankful to them of what they've done for us. Look where prize money is today and the great sites we have.

Now there's even more money being pumped into the Australian Open. That's all thanks to them for not playing a lot of money and missing out on twenty Grand Slams. Back then, nobody knew what tennis was going to become, so it was also easier to say no to those kind of things.

Probably never quite know who was the greatest of all‑time in tennis, and I think that's quite intriguing as well. Of course, if somebody goes off and wins 35 Grand Slams then you made your point as a player.

But, still, I think it's fantastic that they named the center court after Rod Laver who did so much for tennis. Yeah, I mean, 14 is more ‑‑ the new generation, the Open era, I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.

I'm very well aware of that. I think it's an incredible opportunity to do well.

What an arrogant asshole...right.

Nike told him to adopt a more humble personality to make him look less like a twat. ;)

Stefanos13
01-29-2009, 12:52 PM
So if he wins the 14th slam, will you allow him to state the fact?

If he gets 14, congratulations to him and his tennis. But I'll never feel enough respect for him for the kind of comments he's made in his interviews over the years because he does try to hurt other players with some disguised honesty

Shabazza
01-29-2009, 12:52 PM
federer uses mono excuse for his loss last year ;)


Q. Back in another Grand Slam final. It's a great start to the year for you, and so different, I suppose, than the feeling here last year.

ROGER FEDERER: Like I said on the court, I think I played well throughout the tournament last year as well, you know. Just kind of came up short against Novak. I thought he played a fantastic match against me. He was the aggressive one. He was serving his spots so well that night that he kind of made that difficult.

Even maybe if I would have been in perfect shape, you know, I think he deserved to win last year. I struggled maybe a bit. Maybe the draw was a bit better for me this year playing Andy in the semis who I have such a great record against.

I do feel better mentally. I'm obviously more healthy so I can focus on playing well. I'm really pleased about my performance so far in the tournament. The draw was difficult and dangerous if you look back on who I had to play.

I'm pretty sure the usual suspects will find fault and arrogance in that statement, too.

Shabazza
01-29-2009, 12:54 PM
If he gets 14, congratulations to him and his tennis. But I'll never feel enough respect for him for the kind of comments he's made in his interviews over the years because he does try to hurt other players with some disguised honesty

:lol: Hurt with disguised honesty.

That's just rich! :worship:

Stefanos13
01-29-2009, 01:05 PM
:lol: Hurt with disguised honesty.

That's just rich! :worship:

:) I'm being very unpopular here. Did you see how big the word 'your' is in a post above? I guess the poster is trying to tell me that I don't have 14 grand slams. And it hurts of course.

orangehat
01-29-2009, 01:05 PM
While sometimes Federer's words do sound a bit odd (in the manner that some have already commented about), Nadal, Djoker and Murray are hardly innocent of it. Some of Murray's comments have irked me to no end.

reggie1
01-29-2009, 01:15 PM
It's painful to read his interviews. Even when he praises others he makes sure the real message and the real praise is about himself.

Somebody please stop him from getting 14. There'll be nowehere to run from such interviews :unsure::scared::scared:
I have never wanted Nadal to win more. At the start of the year I really wanted Fed back in control but this is what we get when he is. I have always liked Fed in the past (not hugely but thought he was a decent guy and a great ambassador for tennis) but atm, his interviews are scary, the ego is getting out of control imo. He seems to be only ever complimentary to players who are no threat to him (like Gasquet) and anyone who is half decent and can challenge him he pays them back handed compliments which when you look a bit closer are actually quite insulting. :rolleyes: I know all Rog-god lovers will say well, he can afford to have an ego but what's wrong with a little humility?

Aenea
01-29-2009, 01:15 PM
Nike told him to adopt a more humble personality to make him look less like a twat. ;)

:haha:

While sometimes Federer's words do sound a bit odd (in the manner that some have already commented about), Nadal, Djoker and Murray are hardly innocent of it. Some of Murray's comments have irked me to no end.

Why you drag other players' names into this thread? :scratch: What do they have to do with Rogi's interviews and statements? The topic is about Rog not Murray, Novak or Nadal :shrug:

Keep up the good work, Rogi :rocker2: Be yourself don't change :D

reggie1
01-29-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm pretty sure the usual suspects will find fault and arrogance in that statement, too.
I'm not a usual suspect and normally quite indifferent to him and Nadal. Oh no, Stefanos, we will now face the wrath of all the mini Rog-God's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: Anyway, bovvered!

prima donna
01-29-2009, 01:21 PM
It's ironic that vacuous lamentations which purport to repudiate Fed's "chutzpah" have become part of this forum's daily curriculum. For example, certain posters on this board piously demand that a 13-time Grand Slam champion do what appears to be, in truth, impossible for they themselves to do. That is, he should be perfectly humble and the slightest indication of the contrary will be met with faux outrage as some of the most spiteful and envious individuals react indignantly; cringing and seething with anger at his every remark.

When all else fails, one can always take him out of context, thus creating the perfect atmosphere for yet another series of phony grievances.

The question is, how in the world can people expect such humility from someone who would actually be justified in tooting his own horn ? After all, some of the nastiest and vilest people on this board have never stepped foot on the professional circuit, but that hasn't deterred such characters from pompously critiquing those who have. Surely one of the greatest players in the history of our sport, on occasion, can be allowed to spout off at the mouth.

Smasher
01-29-2009, 01:24 PM
He seems to be only ever complimentary to players who are no threat to him (like Gasquet) and anyone who is half decent and can challenge him he pays them back handed compliments which when you look a bit closer are actually quite insulting. :rolleyes:
Just an example I spotted two minutes ago and I'm sure it's not the only one

Q. Rafa is the best player in the world at the moment. It's fair to say you'd pretty much rather play him in the final?

ROGER FEDERER: Depending what you look for. I'd like to play Fernando because he's never played a Grand Slam final before. I have an edge there. Playing Rafa is obviously, you know, more exciting because of the history we have playing in so many Grand Slam finals.

Him being the best player in the world at the moment, it would make it a very intriguing match.

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 01:25 PM
I can't find much wrong in Federers Interview. I guess when the haters can find no flaws in his game they looks elsewhere...

Stefanos13
01-29-2009, 01:33 PM
I'm not a usual suspect and normally quite indifferent to him and Nadal. Oh no, Stefanos, we will now face the wrath of all the mini Rog-God's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: Anyway, bovvered!

Tell me about it :wavey:

orangehat
01-29-2009, 01:34 PM
Why you drag other players' names into this thread? :scratch: What do they have to do with Rogi's interviews and statements? The topic is about Rog not Murray, Novak or Nadal :shrug:



Because the accusations on federer that he is self-praising in the disguise of praising others are only valid if others are innocent of it. If that were not the case, it would be a little hypocritical, would it not? So Federer can't self-praise but others can? Nadal's comment a few years back that he would long have been #1 if it were not for federer sounded exactly that of self-praise.

Aenea
01-29-2009, 01:39 PM
Because the accusations on federer that he is self-praising in the disguise of praising others are only valid if others are innocent of it. If that were not the case, it would be a little hypocritical, would it not? So Federer can't self-praise but others can? Nadal's comment a few years back that he would long have been #1 if it were not for federer sounded exactly that of self-praise.

He had only stated the truth :shrug: Just like Federer is stating the truth when he says that weren't it for Rafa he would have completed at least 2 calendar Grand Slams. Don't you think so?

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 01:41 PM
Because the accusations on federer that he is self-praising in the disguise of praising others are only valid if others are innocent of it. If that were not the case, it would be a little hypocritical, would it not? So Federer can't self-praise but others can? Nadal's comment a few years back that he would long have been #1 if it were not for federer sounded exactly that of self-praise.

people are real pussies here... is it a crime to tell the truth? Nadal was absolutely right, if fed wouldn't have been there he would have been the no. 1 long ago. Fed's comments I find true as well. Fed has just reached his 14 Slam final out of the last 15 Slams. critics swrite him dead all the time. He has good reason to point out his not.

reggie1
01-29-2009, 01:42 PM
Just an example I spotted two minutes ago and I'm sure it's not the only one
Well not that I'm trying to be diffucult, but Nadal being the best player in the world is a statment of fact, even Roger can't argue with the number 1 ranking.

Smasher
01-29-2009, 01:44 PM
Well not that I'm trying to be diffucult, but Nadal being the best player in the world is a statment of fact, even Roger can't argue with the number 1 ranking.
That wasn't the point here. He could have left the whole statement out, but he didn't

duong
01-29-2009, 01:50 PM
I have never wanted Nadal to win more. At the start of the year I really wanted Fed back in control but this is what we get when he is. I have always liked Fed in the past (not hugely but thought he was a decent guy and a great ambassador for tennis) but atm, his interviews are scary, the ego is getting out of control imo. He seems to be only ever complimentary to players who are no threat to him (like Gasquet) and anyone who is half decent and can challenge him he pays them back handed compliments which when you look a bit closer are actually quite insulting. :rolleyes: I know all Rog-god lovers will say well, he can afford to have an ego but what's wrong with a little humility?

Reggie, I know you are not a Federer-hater,

but I really don't think Federer ever insulted anybody in his interviews.

If you find anything like that, just tell me.

But if it's about "Murray should not be the favorite because a grand slam is a different animal" this year, and about "I was disappointed about Murray, since his game has not changed : he will not win much if he keeps on playing like while I had always thought he had a higher potential than Djokovic" last year after Dubai,

they were not insults at all, and especially about the second one, it was a great compliment to Murray.

He was harsh with Djokovic, it's true, at least with Djokovic retiring, it's true, but :

1. this is a common opinion among players (with which I wouldn't agree spontaneously but I don't know those things as players do)

2. I've heard that Djokovic is more than twice harsher at Federer in private

Imo, Federer has one very big drawback : he speaks too much with the journalists.
That's a professional fault.

But what he says expresses no great ego, but rather too much sincerity.

About Laver and Rosewall, I had heard that both Federer and Sampras considered Laver as the so-called "GOAT".

gjr
01-29-2009, 01:53 PM
Fed is a good as a GOAT as we'll ever see. His record is too good for anyone not named Nadal in the last 5 years. He's been as close as anyone to doing the grand slam in at least 2 years.

He'll beat the record but even if he doesn't, he's still the best player I'll ever see I'm sure.

Joretus
01-29-2009, 01:56 PM
This thread shows once again what's the reason for human race being like it's. If you are wanting to see something in some text, you will see it. It goes for bibble, media text, etc. If you want to see something in text you will see it. No matter what the person actually says/what is actually standing in text. Like in this case, no matter Federer would say some ppl would say he is arrogant, etc. So far I haven't seen Nadal nor Federer ever beeing too arrogant, but just the opposite. That said I don't like Nadal's game so much, but I don't still diss him just because I don't like his game nor his person before with all that "Vamos" yelling. Ppl should enjoy more, hate less(my old message had to be repeted once again).

yavore
01-29-2009, 02:17 PM
I can't find much wrong in Federers Interview. I guess when the haters can find no flaws in his game they looks elsewhere...

Love is blind ....

duong
01-29-2009, 02:20 PM
Love is blind ....

Hatred is blind as well :angel:

And human beings are better at seeing bad points than good ones.
Believe my experience.

Poor ones ... :lol:

yavore
01-29-2009, 02:31 PM
Hatred is blind as well :angel:

And human beings are better at seeing bad points than good ones.
Believe my experience.

Poor ones ... :lol:

Theoretically you are right. However I see on MTF much more swissmiss worshipers than haters. So, is fedmug a "good point" or a bad point?

reggie1
01-29-2009, 02:35 PM
Reggie, I know you are not a Federer-hater,

but I really don't think Federer ever insulted anybody in his interviews.

If you find anything like that, just tell me.

But if it's about "Murray should not be the favorite because a grand slam is a different animal" this year, and about "I was disappointed about Murray, since his game has not changed : he will not win much if he keeps on playing like while I had always thought he had a higher potential than Djokovic" last year after Dubai,

they were not insults at all, and especially about the second one, it was a great compliment to Murray.

He was harsh with Djokovic, it's true, at least with Djokovic retiring, it's true, but :

1. this is a common opinion among players (with which I wouldn't agree spontaneously but I don't know those things as players do)

2. I've heard that Djokovic is more than twice harsher at Federer in private

Imo, Federer has one very big drawback : he speaks too much with the journalists.
That's a professional fault.

But what he says expresses no great ego, but rather too much sincerity.

About Laver and Rosewall, I had heard that both Federer and Sampras considered Laver as the so-called "GOAT".I'm sorry "F" but I just find Federer really smug of late :shrug:

duong
01-29-2009, 02:39 PM
I'm sorry "F" but I just find Federer really smug of late :shrug:

:o sorry but it's far from my English speaking abilities :confused:

duong
01-29-2009, 02:41 PM
Theoretically you are right. However I see on MTF much more swissmiss worshipers than haters.

OK but my second point stands for non-haters as well :D

Forehander
01-29-2009, 02:44 PM
An excerpt from his press-conference:

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2009-01-29/200901291233230197906.html

Q. But there was somebody called Rod Laver who couldn't play twenty Slams in five years, and Rosewall didn't play 11 years, so 44 Slams. So, you see, press sometimes emphasizes something. What's your reaction thinking about Laver and Rosewall and your record and Sampras?

ROGER FEDERER: I'm very well aware of the problems the old generation of Laver and Rosewall and all those players faced. That's why I always said I'm one of the players who's most thankful to them of what they've done for us. Look where prize money is today and the great sites we have.

Now there's even more money being pumped into the Australian Open. That's all thanks to them for not playing a lot of money and missing out on twenty Grand Slams. Back then, nobody knew what tennis was going to become, so it was also easier to say no to those kind of things.

Probably never quite know who was the greatest of all‑time in tennis, and I think that's quite intriguing as well. Of course, if somebody goes off and wins 35 Grand Slams then you made your point as a player.

But, still, I think it's fantastic that they named the center court after Rod Laver who did so much for tennis. Yeah, I mean, 14 is more ‑‑ the new generation, the Open era, I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.

I'm very well aware of that. I think it's an incredible opportunity to do well.

What an arrogant asshole...right.

What arrogant? Just because he won't accept being the greatest of all time?

yavore
01-29-2009, 02:49 PM
What arrogant? Just because he won't accept being the greatest of all time?

Indeed, he accepts to be called "greatest player" only in the Open Era and not "All time". What a modesty :haha:

partygirl
01-29-2009, 02:50 PM
...Surely one of the greatest players in the history of our sport, on occasion, can be allowed to spout off at the mouth.Or just speak the truth -even if in his favor.

Diprosalic
01-29-2009, 03:04 PM
Indeed, he accepts to be called "greatest player" only in the Open Era and not "All time". What a modesty :haha:

don't get it out of context

thats what he said.


I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.



most of you are unbelievable, should he always say he is a mug and is lucky to even won 1 GS? as if the false modesty of a nadal is any better.

duong
01-29-2009, 03:10 PM
Indeed, he accepts to be called "greatest player" only in the Open Era and not "All time". What a modesty :haha:

he just said he could become it.

Apart from not speaking about that with the journalists, which he should do indeed if he knew well the human and journalistic nature, and if he was a professional of communication like Nadal,

he cannot say anything else.

Actually, if you don't hate Federer, then you just proved exactly my second point :lol:

Benny_Maths
01-29-2009, 03:12 PM
Those poppies are getting taller by the day.:D

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 03:16 PM
Wow Roger always so modest, almost too modest :)

tennis2tennis
01-29-2009, 03:20 PM
:) I'm being very unpopular here. Did you see how big the word 'your' is in a post above? I guess the poster is trying to tell me that I don't have 14 grand slams. And it hurts of course.
no Einstein :silly: I'm responding to your claim that Federer includes himself in every question, when in fact the questions asked him to speak about himself!

yavore
01-29-2009, 03:28 PM
Wow Roger always so modest, almost too modest :)

Hey ruanz33, why did you change your avatar, I liked that fed pic so much...

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 03:30 PM
Hey ruanz33, why did you change your avatar, I liked that fed pic so much...

It is Fed in the pic. The one kicking....

«Ivan»
01-29-2009, 03:31 PM
I'm one of the players who's most thankful to them [/I]



disrespectful others:(,shame on them.

sawan66278
01-29-2009, 03:35 PM
If he gets 14, congratulations to him and his tennis. But I'll never feel enough respect for him for the kind of comments he's made in his interviews over the years because he does try to hurt other players with some disguised honesty

You are SO correct. I have quite a few friends whom have just gotten into tennis (fans of sport in general, but got into after the Wimbledon epic). And, to the man, they all think Roger is a sanctimonious baby...and the Swiss equivalent of Kobe Bryant. One called him Roger "Pass the Poupon" Federer...and that if he played in a sport like hockey, he would have had his teeth kicked in...for his comments, etc.

He may not be the best ever...but one thing is certain: he is the all-time master of backhanded complements designed to get the questioner back on his favorite topic: himself.

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 03:38 PM
Roger is just being a victim of his own modesty here. He's obviously the goat. If he played in Laver's time he would have won like 50 slams, that era was a joke.

Garson007
01-29-2009, 03:40 PM
It's ironic that vacuous lamentations which purport to repudiate Fed's "chutzpah" have become part of this forum's daily curriculum. For example, certain posters on this board piously demand that a 13-time Grand Slam champion do what appears to be, in truth, impossible for they themselves to do. That is, he should be perfectly humble and the slightest indication of the contrary will be met with faux outrage as some of the most spiteful and envious individuals react indignantly; cringing and seething with anger at his every remark.

When all else fails, one can always take him out of context, thus creating the perfect atmosphere for yet another series of phony grievances.

The question is, how in the world can people expect such humility from someone who would actually be justified in tooting his own horn ? After all, some of the nastiest and vilest people on this board have never stepped foot on the professional circuit, but that hasn't deterred such characters from pompously critiquing those who have. Surely one of the greatest players in the history of our sport, on occasion, can be allowed to spout off at the mouth.
You do realise that nobody on this forum ever even reads what you write anymore? You're the real ego king. :rolleyes:

Roger is always going to give backhanded compliments, it's the way he conducts himself. It's why he has so much self-belief and why he is such a great champion.

duong
01-29-2009, 03:41 PM
Roger is just being a victim of his own modesty here. He's obviously the goat. If he played in Laver's time he would have won like 50 slams, that era was a joke.

Roger is the victim of his fans' pride, that's for sure :lol:

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 03:41 PM
Roger is just being a victim of his own modesty here. He's obviously the goat. If he played in Laver's time he would have won like 50 slams, that era was a joke.

The problem for Federer is that he is sooo good, that even though he is very modest about himself, it still sounds cocky.

duong
01-29-2009, 03:44 PM
You do realise that nobody on this forum ever even reads what you write anymore?

Actually I read what Prima Donna said, and found it very relevant.

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 03:44 PM
The problem for Federer is that he is sooo good, that even though he is very modest about himself, it still sounds cocky.

How is saying "Im not the goat" sounding cocky. The people who think that just needs to get a life. End of story.

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 03:49 PM
How is saying "Im not the goat" sounding cocky.

Don't ask me!

reggie1
01-29-2009, 03:53 PM
:o sorry but it's far from my English speaking abilities :confused:I've sent you a message "F" and IN FRENCH! I am so pleased with myself :o It will give you a good laugh if nothing else as my french is terrible, it's taken me ages! :lol::help:
Your English is great by the way :worship::smooch:

scarecrows
01-29-2009, 04:07 PM
Actually I read what Prima Donna said, and found it very relevant.

me too, but most people here prefer bashing one-liners :D

tennis2tennis
01-29-2009, 04:17 PM
summary of the logic of some people here..

"he's a fucking prick how cockey can one guy get? 'I'm not a GOAT' my arse!!!
why's he talking about himself when all he got asked is where's YOUR place among the greats....why can't he be modest and downplay getting 13 grandslams and 19 straight semi-finals....git

dark_ambient
01-29-2009, 04:23 PM
You do realise that nobody on this forum ever even reads what you write anymore? You're the real ego king. :rolleyesI read everything he says. My native language is not English but i try to keep up with what he's trying to say. He's not doing a very good job when trying to infiltrate literature into sports forums. I do believe he's different though and has a vast knowledge of the English language... When he's writing those mini-articles his gonna come out as a douche trying to be arrogant and stuff like that. People will have two choices for that kind of writing: 1) look at that freak!Who writes that kind of shit? Is he trying to be better than us by using words like that? b) you gotta respect the individual for his knowledge... It's like this in every aspect. Even with Federer. In the essence of things this is a forum and you can say whatever you like but keep in mind a light of objectivity if you will. If not you can say whatever you prefer and that's the same way will think about you.

Henry Kaspar
01-29-2009, 04:31 PM
If I understand correctly he' saying that pre-open era tennis cannot becompared with open era tennis. That's obviously correct.

Now can he become the greatest of the open era? It's not clear cut. Laver did things Federer will probably never be able to do (season grand slam). Borg did things Federer will probably never be able to do (serial back-to-back wins at the FO and Wimbledon). Then again he did things these guys couldn't (reaching practically every GS final when he was healthy for 5 years).

If Federer assembles, say, 20 slam titles -- which I consider unlikely, given his age -- I'd give him the pass and put him ahead of everybody else. Otherwise he'll remain one of the "4 big ones" -- here the term really fits -- Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer. Followed by a bunch of other outstanding champions (Lendl, Rosewall, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Nadal, Newcombe, Courier).

duong
01-29-2009, 05:22 PM
If I understand correctly he' saying that pre-open era tennis cannot becompared with open era tennis. That's obviously correct.

Now can he become the greatest of the open era? It's not clear cut. Laver did things Federer will probably never be able to do (season grand slam). Borg did things Federer will probably never be able to do (serial back-to-back wins at the FO and Wimbledon). Then again he did things these guys couldn't (reaching practically every GS final when he was healthy for 5 years).

That's why he only said he "can".

But he also doesn't consider Laver totally as a player of the open era, as he played most of his carreer in the pre-open era.

I think it's quite fair, since it will be totally impossible for anybody to be considered as better than Laver (except if winning 35 grands slams as he said :lol:).

And imo it's quite difficult to be considered as better than Borg for many reasons (but better than Sampras he already is imo :devil: )

Diprosalic
01-29-2009, 05:26 PM
why does everybody in the MTFs think federer is such a prick with a huge ego that only cares for him. but almost every player is full of compliments for him and they say he is such a class act and one of the friendliest guy they ever met. roddick once said he wanted to hate federer for all the losses he had to suffer through but he couldn't because roger is such a nice guy. he always treats his fans good and got many praise for his sportsmanship. first time i ever heard that federer has a huge ego was here. nobody else mentions something like that.

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 05:35 PM
why does everybody in the MTFs think federer is such a prick with a huge ego that only cares for him. but almost every player is full of compliments for him and they say he is such a class act and one of the friendliest guy they ever met. roddick once said he wanted to hate federer for all the losses he had to suffer through but he couldn't because roger is such a nice guy. he always treats his fans good and got many praise for his sportsmanship. first time i ever heard that federer has a huge ego was here. nobody else mentions something like that.

Gotta love MTF.

BTW: because there are mainly two sorts of persons here: Haters and Tards.

Shabazza
01-29-2009, 05:45 PM
You are SO correct. I have quite a few friends whom have just gotten into tennis (fans of sport in general, but got into after the Wimbledon epic). And, to the man, they all think Roger is a sanctimonious baby...and the Swiss equivalent of Kobe Bryant. One called him Roger "Pass the Poupon" Federer...and that if he played in a sport like hockey, he would have had his teeth kicked in...for his comments, etc.

He may not be the best ever...but one thing is certain: he is the all-time master of backhanded complements designed to get the questioner back on his favorite topic: himself.

I knew you would take the bait. You wouldn't survive long in a fish-pond - first fisherman and you'd get caught.

groundstroke
01-29-2009, 06:09 PM
If he gets more than 16 Grand Slams, then I think his ego will just explode.

Arkulari
01-29-2009, 06:11 PM
Indeed, he accepts to be called "greatest player" only in the Open Era and not "All time". What a modesty :haha:

I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.



isn't that a probability? :o


Roger has broken Voo-knows how much records in his time and yet he's not saying that he actually IS the greatest of our era, so far Pete is, for his 14 GS, and if Roger breaks that record, isn't he going to be the best of this era? :o

duong
01-29-2009, 06:22 PM
Roger has broken Voo-knows how much records in his time and yet he's not saying that he actually IS the greatest of our era, so far Pete is, for his 14 GS, and if Roger breaks that record, isn't he going to be the best of this era? :o

Borg is IMO :lol: (maybe together with Federer)

Arkulari
01-29-2009, 06:25 PM
:lol: :yeah:

(to me the GOAT before and after the open era is Laver :o )

talking about results, Pete is the GOAT and Roger is a match away (if he doesn't lose to one of my beloved spanish lefties :o ) to tie him, he has about 5-6 years more of career, he might have the possibility to beat that record as well :)

MacTheKnife
01-29-2009, 07:13 PM
Fed just needs to learn to be as classy as the posters on MTF. :haha:

ballbasher101
01-29-2009, 07:20 PM
If he gets 14, congratulations to him and his tennis. But I'll never feel enough respect for him for the kind of comments he's made in his interviews over the years because he does try to hurt other players with some disguised honesty


Sour grapes :lol:. To be a champion you need to be a bit arrogant but Federer never crosses the line he is one of the kindest sportsman ever.

FedFan_2007
01-29-2009, 07:32 PM
I have to admit that I like Fed's backhanded compliments about Rafa - "he's the best at the moment". It's a big ego-kingish, but doesn't that make it more fun?

FedFan_2007
01-29-2009, 07:37 PM
Although my all time favorite is back in 2005 before USO semi vs Hewitt - "He can always run more brutally into the knife"

denibas77
01-29-2009, 07:47 PM
Although my all time favorite is back in 2005 before USO semi vs Hewitt - "He can always run more brutally into the knife"

when I read that for first time I started to doubt it that he is nice guy ,because how can someone who is nice come up with that line:confused:

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 08:03 PM
why does everybody in the MTFs think federer is such a prick with a huge ego that only cares for him. but almost every player is full of compliments for him and they say he is such a class act and one of the friendliest guy they ever met. roddick once said he wanted to hate federer for all the losses he had to suffer through but he couldn't because roger is such a nice guy. he always treats his fans good and got many praise for his sportsmanship. first time i ever heard that federer has a huge ego was here. nobody else mentions something like that.

The answer is simple, MTF is a joke.

duong
01-29-2009, 08:11 PM
I have to admit that I like Fed's backhanded compliments about Rafa - "he's the best at the moment". It's a big ego-kingish, but doesn't that make it more fun?

in the question it was like that "the best at the moment"

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 08:19 PM
Fed is not only the GOAT but probably the most humble guy that has played the game, the two goes hand in hand. Cocky guys like Roddick is normally shit.

finishingmove
01-29-2009, 08:25 PM
Fed is not only the GOAT but probably the most humble guy that has played the game

:worship:

crude oil
01-29-2009, 08:36 PM
Indeed, he accepts to be called "greatest player" only in the Open Era and not "All time". What a modesty :haha:

can you read?

he said "maybe"

:wavey:

reggie1
01-29-2009, 08:36 PM
Well, just to be :devil: all the really clever ? commentators on Eurosport keep saying Fed can't be the greatest of all time as he has been beaten by Nadal and Nadal has the number one ranking in Fed's era. So if Matts Wilander and his esteemed colleagues are saying it, then naturally it must be true! :crazy:

crude oil
01-29-2009, 08:43 PM
many here do not understand the definition of arrogance. For all that federer has achieved, he is quite modest.

obviously rafa and other players are going to sound much more humble because so far they have achieved less. Federer has accumulated some records and demonstrated dominance that places himself in the GOAT conversation, and it is a credit to him that he doesn't talk about as if he is a lock...when many around him are already stating that federer is the GOAT. past players, current players, legends, juniors are all hailing federer as the GOAT.

Yet you don't hear it from him...

if we transcend tennis, federer is probably one of the most humble legends. Compare him to Ali, Jordan etc and you will understand the defn of arrogance. But even then i didn't think Jordan and Ali were too arrogant.

sawan66278
01-29-2009, 08:46 PM
No one is doubting Federer's kindness or niceness. However, the man fails to realize that history and historians should determine the pecking order of "greatness". Did you ever hear Stefan Edberg mention anything about himself? Or Borg? Even Agassi never mentioned his accomplishments...

"You don't tug on Superman's cape"...ask Andy Murray or Novak Djokovic. Was it really necessary for him to mention that he never quit before (in responding to a question NOT about him, but about Djokovic's retirement).

The man has admitted that he plays as himself when playing video games.

When he retires, if he goes on a "retirement tour", at each tour stop, he should be given what he craves most: a mirror!

Black Adam
01-29-2009, 08:51 PM
There is no such thing as greatest of all time, the arrogant tw#t is spot on that one.

Matt01
01-29-2009, 08:52 PM
Fed is not only the GOAT but probably the most humble guy that has played the game,


Neither.

freeandlonely
01-29-2009, 08:57 PM
Words can be illusory, accomplishments are rock solid, I prefer listen to the latter.

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 09:07 PM
Neither.

That was not a question, it was a statement of fact.

Matt01
01-29-2009, 09:33 PM
That was not a question, it was a statement of fact.


:lol:

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 09:37 PM
:lol:

:lol:

Rosa Luxembourg
01-29-2009, 09:44 PM
It is amazing how some here like to disect every word Federer says trying to find an evidence of him being an arrogant loser who thinks of himself too much... I mean, ppl could you post your records of achievements? Somehow, I strongly believe that most of you forget to look in the mirror in the morning to see the real (no good) loser.

Roger, hope you will get your 14th (and then 15th, etc) GS title and let the history decide whether you are GOAT or not...

FedFan_2007
01-29-2009, 09:51 PM
Let them say what they will. All I care about is #14.

duong
01-29-2009, 11:11 PM
No one is doubting Federer's kindness or niceness. However, the man fails to realize that history and historians should determine the pecking order of "greatness". Did you ever hear Stefan Edberg mention anything about himself? Or Borg? Even Agassi never mentioned his accomplishments...

"You don't tug on Superman's cape"...ask Andy Murray or Novak Djokovic. Was it really necessary for him to mention that he never quit before (in responding to a question NOT about him, but about Djokovic's retirement).

The man has admitted that he plays as himself when playing video games.

When he retires, if he goes on a "retirement tour", at each tour stop, he should be given what he craves most: a mirror!

Federer is not the most humble guy or stupid things I've read,

but you cannot interprete the fact that he speaks about that with journalists as "unnormal narcissism".

I believe all men and women are narcissic anyway :devil:,

but the fact that he speaks about such things is just because :

1. he speaks a lot with the journalists

2. he is very interested in the history of tennis (you've seen how he behaved with Laver -about whom he always says he cannot be compared with him-, and also with Sampras ... a very humble way I believe : to let Sampras win, he really had to be humble :devil: )

Edberg and Borg were not as talkative.

And as far as Agassi is concerned, I heard him speak about his achievemnts.

Federer is neither angel nor devil.

He's very nice and quite humble I believe (all players say that, and Roddick said in his interview on tuesday that if he had been in front of the journalists in the same situation as Federer after his win after the US Open, he would have been far less classy than him towards them :devil: : I totally understand what Roddick means, and in that situation I would also have been very sarcastic ... and you would have seen my ego, I can assure you :devil: ),

but he has a huge huge drawback : he talks too much with the journalists.

He should realize what stupid guys and fans will interprete about everything he says :bs:

It can harm, you or your family (I remember what his father said about what Wilander had said).

Journalists are rats : you should never expose yourself to them, because you make yourself vulnerable.

Nadal has the right attitude : just play and give nothing to eat to these rats.

FedFan_2007
01-29-2009, 11:24 PM
Journalists are rats... err people too!

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 11:27 PM
Federer is not the most humble guy or stupid things I've read,

but you cannot interprete the fact that he speaks about that with journalists as "unnormal narcissism".

I believe all men and women are narcissic anyway :devil:,

but the fact that he speaks about such things is just because :

1. he speaks a lot with the journalists

2. he is very interested in the history of tennis (you've seen how he behaved with Laver -about whom he always says he cannot be compared with him-, and also with Sampras ... a very humble way I believe : to let Sampras win, he really had to be humble :devil: )

Edberg and Borg were not as talkative.

And as far as Agassi is concerned, I heard him speak about his achievemnts.

Federer is neither angel nor devil.

He's very nice and quite humble I believe (all players say that, and Roddick said in his interview on tuesday that if he had been in front of the journalists in the same situation as Federer after his win after the US Open, he would have been far less classy than him towards them :devil: : I totally understand what Roddick means, and in that situation I would also have been very sarcastic ... and you would have seen my ego, I can assure you :devil: ),

but he has a huge huge drawback : he talks too much with the journalists.

He should realize what stupid guys and fans will interprete about everything he says :bs:

It can harm, you or your family (I remember what his father said about what Wilander had said).

Journalists are rats : you should never expose yourself to them, because you make yourself vulnerable.

Nadal has the right attitude : just play and give nothing to eat to these rats.

Interesting post. I wish more people made interesting posts. I think you are right about him talking too much to the journalists. He is a bit naive/stubborn in that way. It reminds me a lot of how he is stubborn/naive when he plays againts Nadal, and its interesting you should mention the way Nadal deals with the media as well. It seems like he has a flaw in his character. Not a bad one i mean, he's just a little naive i think. Do you think he can change that? Do you think he can change his attitude when playing against Rafa and not think that he can keep beating him from the back of the court?

Dini
01-29-2009, 11:32 PM
Frigging leave Rog alone!!! Every word he says just makes people jump on that "Federer is so arrogant I hate him" bandwagon...for God's sake people can't accept the truth anymore. All the things he has said in the press recently about Nole, Murray, Verdasco etc is so true. Plus he has the right to say these things and be vocal about it. He is arguably the most talented man to ever pick up a racquet and has the results to back it up with. If you want a player that always answers like a politician with tons of diplomoacy then sorry you need help. I for one prefer honest answers with no cliches and being straight to the point. That is Roger Federer. Just accept in and move on...sorry if its hard to take on.

FedFan_2007
01-29-2009, 11:37 PM
I tell you the hard-cover official bio that comes out in 2016 will be something to behold. The Federer Story needs to be told in all of the glorious behind-the-scenes details as well as 100s of amazing photos. I'd pay $50 for such a thing.

duong
01-29-2009, 11:44 PM
Do you think he can change that? Do you think he can change his attitude when playing against Rafa and not think that he can keep beating him from the back of the court?

it's always difficult to change yourself after years of experience.

Anyway he dealt quite well with the journalists' pressure last year actually.

But generally speaking his attitude makes him vulnerable, and professionals of communication would not advice him to do that.

He's still quite good at that actually, but I think nobody else than him should let them exposed like that. And if he was not a good man with a good nature, he could never do that : it's very hard.

Anyway Nadal also spoke like that because speaking English was not natural for him, but I think he made it great ! :yeah:

duong
01-29-2009, 11:48 PM
Journalists are rats... err people too!

People's mind has something of a rat ... but journalists have to be rats for their job :lol:

theDreamer
01-29-2009, 11:54 PM
Well, just to be :devil: all the really clever ? commentators on Eurosport keep saying Fed can't be the greatest of all time as he has been beaten by Nadal and Nadal has the number one ranking in Fed's era. So if Matts Wilander and his esteemed colleagues are saying it, then naturally it must be true! :crazy:

That argument is a bit moot IMO.

How can borg be considered GOAT when he couldn't win the
us open even once?

How can laver be considered GOAT just because he won the grand
slam back when the competition was as weak as it was then, (and not as many people were playing as pros)

Even if Laver is declared GOAT, does that mean he would win in matches against the other greats more often than not? Where's the evidence of this? Have match ups been considered (because even the
greatest player will have a losing match up against another great)?

This whole GOAT issue is just a waste of time, and discussion
about it should just cease completely. It makes no sense.:mad:

ORGASMATRON
01-30-2009, 12:02 AM
it's always difficult to change yourself after years of experience.

Anyway he dealt quite well with the journalists' pressure last year actually.

But generally speaking his attitude makes him vulnerable, and professionals of communication would not advice him to do that.

He's still quite good at that actually, but I think nobody else than him should let them exposed like that. And if he was not a good man with a good nature, he could never do that : it's very hard.

Anyway Nadal also spoke like that because speaking English was not natural for him, but I think he made it great ! :yeah:

Ok. I think if Roger wins the AO it will do wonders for him. And i i think even if Rafa makes the final he will struggle against Roger. I just hope Roger takes back his wimby crown. And i feel like he's gona have to change his attitude to do that against Rafa. Unless of course they make the courts faster so that it suits Murray, then he should beat Rafa. But i prefer he beat Rafa cos he changed his attitude. I mean its a flaw, even if its a small one. If he wants to be the GOAT he might have to change that. Thats like what he said to the journalists that he is not the GOAT, it kinda annoys me.

orangehat
01-30-2009, 12:03 AM
He had only stated the truth :shrug: Just like Federer is stating the truth when he says that weren't it for Rafa he would have completed at least 2 calendar Grand Slams. Don't you think so?

Yea the truth. Just as federer is stating the truth. Point is, you guys are reading all in between the lines here. If I wanted to read in between what Nadal is saying, I would think that he was trying to praise federer on the surface (since he is so good even nadal can't be number 1) but is secretly praising himself (he is so good only federer is better than him)

prima donna
01-30-2009, 12:42 AM
Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that different types of players may appeal to different types of individuals ? From time to time, Roger tends to come off as rather snobbish and blunt in his remarks, however, there's nothing unusual about such a tendency -- especially when compared to the likes of Rafael Nadal, Andy Roddick and Novak Djokovic -- each of whom possesses a unique set of idiosyncrasies. Moreover, certain groups of people tend to gravitate towards players with whom they share commonalities.

There are some that would prefer hamburgers to lobster, while others would compare Russian caviar and champagne to hot dogs and beer -- different strokes for different folks. I actually resent the notion which presupposes that players should have global appeal, as one of the most intriguing elements of any sport is the idea of contrasting players/teams competing against one another.

I happen to love Roger because he's the antithesis of so many players that seem to represent a sort of vulgarization of tennis etiquette. Similary and presumably, there are others that dislike him for this very reason.

Since when did variation become a bad thing ?

MisterQ
01-30-2009, 01:00 AM
Interesting reactions... I read that interview this morning and it struck my as respectful of Laver rather than arrogant.

I think Federer has a chance to establish himself as the greatest player with a career entirely in the Open Era. If he keeps winning slams, the case for Borg and Sampras (the latter in particular) will become weaker and weaker. But because Laver's era was so different, and since he missed 5 years at the majors in his prime, Laver will always have a case for the greatest ever, and one could debate that ad nauseum.

Fedex
01-30-2009, 01:43 AM
Interesting reactions... I read that interview this morning and it struck my as respectful of Laver rather than arrogant.

I think Federer has a chance to establish himself as the greatest player with a career entirely in the Open Era. If he keeps winning slams, the case for Borg and Sampras (the latter in particular) will become weaker and weaker. But because Laver's era was so different, and since he missed 5 years at the majors in his prime, Laver will always have a case for the greatest ever, and one could debate that ad nauseum.

Couldn't agree more.

How are ya, Q? :wavey:

sawan66278
01-30-2009, 02:19 AM
Federer defenders always point out that "Roger is simply speaking the truth".

This goes in line with this type of thinking:



Friend "A" has gained 40 pounds.

Friend "A" asks Friend "B" and Friend "C" "Am I fat?"

Friend "B" wants to tell the truth. So does Friend "C".

Friend "B" states "We could all stand to exercise a little more". This reveals his opinion's about "A's" weight, but does so in a manner that spares the friend from hurt.

Friend "B" could also say "You're a fat ass".

Roger Federer is Friend "B"

ORGASMATRON
01-30-2009, 02:42 AM
Federer defenders always point out that "Roger is simply speaking the truth".

This goes in line with this type of thinking:



Friend "A" has gained 40 pounds.

Friend "A" asks Friend "B" and Friend "C" "Am I fat?"

Friend "B" wants to tell the truth. So does Friend "C".

Friend "B" states "We could all stand to exercise a little more". This reveals his opinion's about "A's" weight, but does so in a manner that spares the friend from hurt.

Friend "B" could also say "You're a fat ass".

Roger Federer is Friend "B"

Roger doesnt need defending, his actions speak for themselves.

Fedex
01-30-2009, 03:03 AM
Federer defenders always point out that "Roger is simply speaking the truth".

This goes in line with this type of thinking:



Friend "A" has gained 40 pounds.

Friend "A" asks Friend "B" and Friend "C" "Am I fat?"

Friend "B" wants to tell the truth. So does Friend "C".

Friend "B" states "We could all stand to exercise a little more". This reveals his opinion's about "A's" weight, but does so in a manner that spares the friend from hurt.

Friend "B" could also say "You're a fat ass".

Roger Federer is Friend "B"

Now you're really reaching.

MrChopin
01-30-2009, 03:11 AM
Interesting reactions... I read that interview this morning and it struck my as respectful of Laver rather than arrogant.

I think Federer has a chance to establish himself as the greatest player with a career entirely in the Open Era. If he keeps winning slams, the case for Borg and Sampras (the latter in particular) will become weaker and weaker. But because Laver's era was so different, and since he missed 5 years at the majors in his prime, Laver will always have a case for the greatest ever, and one could debate that ad nauseum.

This kind of argument for Laver has been presented similarly for Borg here on MTF, and I think it's flawed. Laver could have won a ton more majors in his prime. Laver could also have torn his acl, developed an infection after surgery, and never walked (or played) again, thus erasing his second Grand Slam from the books. GOAT is concerned with what players did, not what they "could have" done, and though Laver's limitations are no fault of his own, it's a limitation that exists all the same, one for which we can't predict the results of its absence.

Federer defenders always point out that "Roger is simply speaking the truth".

This goes in line with this type of thinking:



Friend "A" has gained 40 pounds.

Friend "A" asks Friend "B" and Friend "C" "Am I fat?"

Friend "B" wants to tell the truth. So does Friend "C".

Friend "B" states "We could all stand to exercise a little more". This reveals his opinion's about "A's" weight, but does so in a manner that spares the friend from hurt.

Friend "B" could also say "You're a fat ass".

Roger Federer is Friend "B"

But then why do you call Roger "Ego King." You should instead say "We all say dumb things sometimes" or "At times, we can all be proud to a fault."

Aside from the hypocrisy, it's also not a great argument as the two points are two extremes. One could also simply say "You need to lose weight," which not a "fatass" insult and not a generalized statement about everyone (which, in its PC glory, includes those suffering from starvation). Making a direct yet insult-free statement is what Fed normally does, saying things like "Nole has quit before, so no, it's not a surprise" and "Murray has never won a slam, so I don't think he should be the favorite." Nothing like "retiring pansy" or "pathetic loser," and similarly, nothing like "All players have quit before" or "All players are overrated at times."

MisterQ
01-30-2009, 03:54 AM
This kind of argument for Laver has been presented similarly for Borg here on MTF, and I think it's flawed. Laver could have won a ton more majors in his prime. Laver could also have torn his acl, developed an infection after surgery, and never walked (or played) again, thus erasing his second Grand Slam from the books. GOAT is concerned with what players did, not what they "could have" done, and though Laver's limitations are no fault of his own, it's a limitation that exists all the same, one for which we can't predict the results of its absence.


To be clear, I'm not arguing that Laver IS greater than Federer, but rather than Laver will always have a viable CASE, because the very different circumstances of the tennis world during their respective primes make side-by-side comparison very difficult.

Laver's case is very different than Borg's. Borg was playing in an Open Era framework where the best players competed in the majors, as they do today. The majors weren't given quite the same weight, perhaps -- and the Australian was not attended by many of the top players --- but essentially the framework was similar. A Wimbledon title won by Borg can be compared to a Wimbledon title won by Federer, because the best players were competing for the prize. The 1963 Wimbledon title won by Chuck McKinley cannot be given the same weight!

If Laver had stayed amateur in the mid-sixties and accumulated, say, 20 career majors, the stat would be somewhat meaningless. What he did was more impressive. When Laver was skipping the majors, he was earning recognition as the No. 1 player in the world by winning many of the most important professional tournaments multiple times (the French Professional Championships, the Wembley Championships, US Professional Championships) against the likes of Rosewall and Gonzales. It's hard to compare these wins to modern majors, but they shouldn't be dismissed either.

By the way, I do agree that in Borg's case you cannot give him credit for what he "could have" achieved, particularly since he decided on his own accord to retire early. (What he did achieve by the age of 25 was extraordinary, though.) :)

brent-o
01-30-2009, 04:39 AM
I think Roger has a wonderfully complex passive-aggressive mind. His interviews also lend to a little bad interpretation.

FedFan_2007
01-30-2009, 04:40 AM
At least he's not a Faker-vic.