Excellent Federer Interview [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Excellent Federer Interview

Clydey
01-15-2010, 10:12 PM
This interview is pretty candid. Very enjoyable read.

http://www.gototennisblog.com/2010/01/15/roger-federer-on-unpleasant-questions-bullsht-and-tiger-woods/

MalwareDie
01-15-2010, 10:21 PM
"I had told Seve (Luthi): ‘I’m going there to serve-and-volley on 1st and 2nd serves’. Because I thought it could help me later."

Hmmm...

"If I don’t sleep 11 or 12 hours a day, it’s not right."

I wish I could sleep that much.

"Ladies can handle the 3 first rounds while healing, men just can’t."

WTA fails.

Sophocles
01-15-2010, 10:23 PM
Yes good stuff. Thanks for posting. Would say more, but must get back to the pub.

Jarl_02
01-15-2010, 10:52 PM
A very good interview.

What he said about the Davis Cup was really interesting and he's right, Switzerland relies on him a lot in order to have a good run in DC and maybe next year or in 2012 he'll take seriously the DC.

He also showed how high he thinks about Nadal and how much he respects him.

A very good interview, thanks for it

oliverbwfc
01-15-2010, 10:56 PM
Great interview, seemed pretty honest. Thanks for posting.

serveandvolley80
01-15-2010, 11:05 PM
Why are there people that hate this guy exactly? Seems like a genuinely nice man with respect for his rivals and the game.

Andi-M
01-15-2010, 11:19 PM
Roger always gives interesting interviews he seems very content with life atm which is good, but still manages to subtly criticise some players....wouldn't be a Roger interview if he didn't! but on the whole he was very nice.

Oh and Roger you find out whether or not Davydenko can keep it up for 5 sets soon enough...don't you worry! :angel:

DrJules
01-15-2010, 11:25 PM
Why are there people that hate this guy exactly? Seems like a genuinely nice man with respect for his rivals and the game.

Wins too often.

serveandvolley80
01-15-2010, 11:36 PM
Wins too often.

Lol, not anymore apparently.

Winning should be respected, not hated.

tyruk14
01-15-2010, 11:41 PM
Great read. Thanks for posting it.

-Valhalla-
01-16-2010, 12:29 AM
Good stuff.
[and a replay of the '09 AO final is on the Tennis Channel right now with Macatee and Navratilova calling the action]

Henry Chinaski
01-16-2010, 01:43 AM
Good find Clydey

When the twins cry and I’m in a tournament, I put my earplugs in and I go back to sleep

haha. great quote.

Angle Queen
01-16-2010, 02:00 AM
When the twins cry and I’m in a tournament, I put my earplugs in and I go back to sleep.

haha. great quote.:rolleyes:

Typical man.

C'mon, Roger. I expected a bit better than that.

Henry Chinaski
01-16-2010, 02:06 AM
case in point!

I like it exactly because it's honest and not the pc rubbish that people "expected". He's an athlete, he needs his sleep during a tournament.

elessar
01-16-2010, 03:00 AM
It's an impromptu interview from l'equipe that was apparently done in the back of a car during Doha, answers seem candid enough :awww:

Henry Chinaski
01-16-2010, 03:07 AM
I've heard it said quite a few times that he's a hell of a lot less dull when operating in french. this seems to back it

vamosinator
01-16-2010, 03:26 AM
I doubt Federer is capable of doing an 'excellent' interview :lol:

MrChopin
01-16-2010, 04:05 AM
I doubt Federer is capable of doing an 'excellent' interview :lol:

:lol:

***

Nice set of topics here. His bit about diversity vs. consistency is well-balanced, probably too much so for MTF.

king_roger
01-16-2010, 04:16 AM
I doubt Federer is capable of doing an 'excellent' interview :lol:

Well, at least he CAN do an interview in english, unlike Rafa... "Very happy, no? I play bad, no? Improve my game, no? I lost, no?" The guy's been doing interviews for the last 6 years, and STILL doesn't know sh*t about grammar...

General Suburbia
01-16-2010, 04:23 AM
Why are there people that hate this guy exactly? Seems like a genuinely nice man with respect for his rivals and the game.
He's a sore loser and not the most gracious of winners. That's just me though.

Still, interesting interview. Thought it would be rubbish, since all his english ones are extremely dull.

SetSampras
01-16-2010, 05:37 AM
You’re in the top 10 since you’ve entered it in October, 2002. Do you think today’s top 10 is stronger than back in 2002, with Safin, Hewitt, Novak, Henman, Grosjean, Ferrero?
RF: Tough question. I’m not so sure. Nowadays, the guys have less weaknesses but maybe also less main strengths. Before, players were more surprising, with more varied games. It was harder to dominate on a specific surface. Nowadays playing conditions are been standardized and the players as well. Often, when I watch players like Davydenko, Del Potro or Djokovic, I wonder what their best shot is…



Even Fed questions whether or not the competition in the top half is even as good as it was years ago. So for those to say the competition and players at the top are better than ever... I think Fed has a more general idea of if its stronger or not..

He does make a good point.. Players do alot of things well today .. But how many weapons do they truly have or what aspects in their game are GREAT instead of just good?

rofe
01-16-2010, 05:44 AM
Even Fed isnt sure if the top guys today are as good as back in 2002. Makes you wonder if they really are and makes you wonder if the competition as actually increased or regressed a bit since.

He never said that. I am not surprised that you think he did. If anything he comes across as nostalgic about the era of specialists when players had distinct styles.

SetSampras
01-16-2010, 05:47 AM
He never said that. I am not surprised that you think he did. If anything he comes across as nostalgic about the era of specialists when players had distinct styles.

I think there is some hidden subtlety's (sp?) into what he said in terms of comparing the talent of players before to players now and yes he did mention the specialists. Before you had GREATS on different surfaces. Now you have the game played the same way on damn near every surface.. And the top guys today seem to do everything well with not many weaknesses... but at the same how many things do they do GREAT? Outside of Nadal on clay or Federer on today's grass you do not see a player a player who is particularly great on any surface anymore.

NYCtennisfan
01-16-2010, 05:48 AM
Even Fed questions whether or not the competition in the top half is even as good as it was years ago. So for those to say the competition and players at the top are better than ever... I think Fed has a more general idea of if its stronger or not..

He does make a good point.. Players do alot of things well today .. But how many weapons do they truly have or what aspects in their game are GREAT instead of just good?

He never said that, but did give an interesting answer to the question.

SetSampras
01-16-2010, 05:50 AM
He never said that, but did give an interesting answer to the question.

I think u guys have to read between the lines.;) To paraphrase.. There are alot of solid players all around but with a lack of great weapons as oppose to before. Even Sampras himself said something about this in a 2007 interview. Guys do things good today but very few do great things. There is alot of good players today... But few GREAT players

Clydey
01-16-2010, 05:50 AM
Even Fed questions whether or not the competition in the top half is even as good as it was years ago. So for those to say the competition and players at the top are better than ever... I think Fed has a more general idea of if its stronger or not..

He does make a good point.. Players do alot of things well today .. But how many weapons do they truly have or what aspects in their game are GREAT instead of just good?

His views don't add up, if he's saying what you are suggesting. He won't admit that he is not as good as he used to be, yet he is saying (according to you) that the previous generation had better players. If that's the case, why isn't he winning as often now?

Clydey
01-16-2010, 05:52 AM
I think u guys have to read between the lines.;)

I think you have to stop seeing what you want to see. You're a huge Sampras fan, so it stands to reason that you'll champion previous generations.

SetSampras
01-16-2010, 05:56 AM
His views don't add up, if he's saying what you are suggesting. He won't admit that he is not as good as he used to be, yet he is saying (according to you) that the previous generation had better players. If that's the case, why isn't he winning as often now?

Well hes near 30 years old for one. And I think regardless of what he says... When you have won every slam, have the slam record, combined with already being on top of the mountain for 5 years already, you just arent going to have that extra edge as you did when you starting out in your early 20s. Nor are you going to focus on everything.. Longevity is a key too.. Im sure Fed wants to add onto the slam record so it wont be broke in 10-15 years. In order to that at his age, he needs to lessen his schedule and focus more primarily on them.. Not winning every tournament he can as he did when he was 23-25 years old. Its also a "been there done that" attitude.

rofe
01-16-2010, 05:58 AM
I think there is some hidden subtlety's (sp?) into what he said in terms of comparing the talent of players before to players now and yes he did mention the specialists. Before you had GREATS on different surfaces. Now you have the game played the same way on damn near every surface.. And the top guys today seem to do everything well with not many weaknesses... but at the same how many things do they do GREAT? Outside of Nadal on clay or Federer on today's grass you do not see a player a player who is particularly great on any surface anymore.

GREAT is a relative term. Player today are faster, smarter, fitter and have pretty much no weakness on any surface. I could argue that it makes them GREAT but their playing style makes the tennis BORING. Federer was probably talking about this homogenization making tennis a lot boring and not about the relative GREATNESS of a particular era.

Clydey
01-16-2010, 06:02 AM
Well hes near 30 years old for one. And I think regardless of what he says... When you have won every slam, have the slam record, combined with already being on top of the mountain for 5 years already, you just arent going to have that extra edge as you did when you starting out in your early 20s. Nor are you going to focus on everything.. Longevity is a key too.. Im sure Fed wants to add onto the slam record so it wont be broke in 10-15 years. In order to that at his age, he needs to lessen his schedule and focus more primarily on them.. Not winning every tournament he can as he did when he was 23-25 years old. Its also a "been there done that" attitude.

So you're inferring something from that interview, which is in line with your own views of the current generation. However, when he says something that you disagree with, you essentially suggest that he is lying to himself? Come on, mate. You can't have it both ways.

SetSampras
01-16-2010, 06:03 AM
GREAT is a relative term. Player today are faster, smarter, fitter and have pretty much no weakness on any surface. I could argue that it makes them GREAT but their playing style makes the tennis BORING. Federer was probably talking about this homogenization making tennis a lot boring and not about the relative GREATNESS of a particular era.

But u are forgetting that only is the play today homogenized (mindless baseline bashing defensive play) but also the surfaces (primarily slow). So in that case maybe its easier to dominate today then it was before. You know what to expect out of players today. The issue isnt force anymore. You dont have to deal with attacker or the polarization of surfaces in adoping your strategy either. Gone are the days where you had to play an attacking style on grass and adopt a more defensive finess game on clay as u did before. Now you can win playing the same style ANYWHERES today. Before you couldnt (unless you were Agassi but even couldnt defeat Sampras under faster conditions and had to avoid him to win a Wimbeldon or USO).. Or at least it would be very difficult opposed today

SetSampras
01-16-2010, 06:06 AM
So you're inferring something from that interview, which is in line with your own views of the current generation. However, when he says something that you disagree with, you essentially suggest that he is lying to himself? Come on, mate. You can't have it both ways.



Im not taking anything away from Federer's DRIVE to win.. But for the most part a tennis player is just not going to be as dominant or solid around near 30 years old that he is in his early to mid 20s. You lose quickness, consistency etc. as u age.. Thats just apart of it. There are those exceptions like possibly Agassi.. But Federer is not one of those exceptions. Federer of 2009-2010 is not going to be as solid and consistent as he was in 2005-2006. Just isnt going to happen regardless of his drive

rofe
01-16-2010, 06:08 AM
But u are forgetting that only is the play today homogenized (mindless baseline bashing defensive play) but also the surfaces (primarily slow). So in that case maybe its easier to dominate today then it was before. You know what to expect out of players today. The issue isnt force anymore. You dont have to deal with attacker or the polarization of surfaces in adoping your strategy either. Gone are the days where you had to play an attacking style on grass and adopt a more defensive finess game on clay as u did before. Now you can win playing the same style ANYWHERES today. Before you couldnt (unless you were Agassi but even couldnt defeat Sampras under faster conditions and had to avoid him to win a Wimbeldon or USO).. Or at least it would be very difficult opposed today

Now we are arguing about our opinion about today's game and not about Fed's words. We could argue forever because there is no point in comparing eras. Too many things have changed.

Anyway, I am going to take what Fed said at face value - you are welcome to read between the lines.

Clydey
01-16-2010, 06:09 AM
But u are forgetting that only is the play today homogenized (mindless baseline bashing defensive play) but also the surfaces (primarily slow). So in that case maybe its easier to dominate today then it was before. You know what to expect out of players today. The issue isnt force anymore. You dont have to deal with attacker or the polarization of surfaces in adoping your strategy either. Gone are the days where you had to play an attacking style on grass and adopt a more defensive finess game on clay as u did before. Now you can win playing the same style ANYWHERES today. Before you couldnt (unless you were Agassi but even couldnt defeat Sampras under faster conditions and had to avoid him to win a Wimbeldon or USO).. Or at least it would be very difficult opposed today

That's clearly not true. Murray is one example of a player who can't win on clay the same way that he wins on hard. Why is it that so many people think that the only difference between the surfaces is their speed? If the surfaces were as similar as you are suggesting, the likes of Murray and Roddick would be top players on clay. Similarly, Almagro wouldn't be so poor on grass if he could be successful with the same way he plays on clay.

Johnny Groove
01-16-2010, 06:14 AM
Liked this interview. No longer a touch of arrogance about him and all his answers were right on the money.

Nidhogg
01-16-2010, 08:27 AM
Good read. A lot of interesting and honest answers from Fed.

~*BGT*~
01-16-2010, 08:55 AM
Lol, not anymore apparently.

Winning should be respected, not hated.

:lol: How many of your favorites's Grand Slam dreams has Fed killed? :lol:

Sharp
01-16-2010, 09:09 AM
His views don't add up, if he's saying what you are suggesting. He won't admit that he is not as good as he used to be, yet he is saying (according to you) that the previous generation had better players. If that's the case, why isn't he winning as often now?

Maybe because he is now older then he was, and he is not even near his top level?

Clydey
01-16-2010, 09:35 AM
Maybe because he is now older then he was, and he is not even near his top level?

Did you bother to read the rest of the discussion in order to familiarise yourself with the context?

dabeast
01-16-2010, 10:41 AM
Well, at least he CAN do an interview in english, unlike Rafa... "Very happy, no? I play bad, no? Improve my game, no? I lost, no?" The guy's been doing interviews for the last 6 years, and STILL doesn't know sh*t about grammar...

:lol: Too true dude.

Great to hear him wanting to go to South America to play. He needs to play there more often.

Speed of Light
01-16-2010, 10:51 AM
Useless interview, one of these days i wish he will reveal the real reason he won so many slams... whatever that is.

scoobs
01-16-2010, 10:53 AM
Definitely one of the more interesting interviews that I've read in recent months.

Most of them reveal nothing remotely new but this one asked some interesting questions and got some interesting answers.

Truc
01-16-2010, 11:03 AM
It's an interview made/retranscribed by Frédéric Bernès, my favourite tennis writer, he works for L'Equipe. I don't find that interview so spectacular, but he has some really nice ones of the French players in particular.
(Not sure it's a matter of language, I've seen dull interviews of Fed in French and German.)

Deivid23
01-16-2010, 11:30 AM
I don't find that interview so spectacular

That´s bc you´re one of the few smart posters in here :secret:

Clydey
01-16-2010, 12:07 PM
It's an interview made/retranscribed by Frédéric Bernès, my favourite tennis writer, he works for L'Equipe. I don't find that interview so spectacular, but he has some really nice ones of the French players in particular.
(Not sure it's a matter of language, I've seen dull interviews of Fed in French and German.)

Everything is relative. Compared to the usual shit the players serve up to the press, that is a good interview.

MatchFederer
01-16-2010, 01:00 PM
I think u guys have to read between the lines.;) To paraphrase.. There are alot of solid players all around but with a lack of great weapons as oppose to before. Even Sampras himself said something about this in a 2007 interview. Guys do things good today but very few do great things. There is alot of good players today... But few GREAT players

This really isn't what Federer was saying at all. Come on man, he was saying that players from around 2002 had more weaknesses but a very strong weapon of sorts and that todays are more rounded with less obvious clear main strengths. This doesn't equate into todays players being mainly good and there being more great players back then. Unless i am just misunderstanding you, your conclusion is kinda whack.

Jōris
01-16-2010, 01:01 PM
The best thing about the interview is how Fed fucks with Murray's mind by raising his expectations.

king_roger
01-16-2010, 01:27 PM
The best thing about the interview is how Fed fucks with Murray's mind by raising his expectations.

:rolls: :worship:

Eden
01-16-2010, 01:34 PM
Thanks for posting the interview :)

But normally people demand that this kind of stuff gets moved to the Federer forum :secret:

I doubt Federer is capable of doing an 'excellent' interview :lol:

I guess people would tell you that they doubt that a lot of people on MTF are capable of doing "excellent" posts.

Well, at least he CAN do an interview in english, unlike Rafa... "Very happy, no? I play bad, no? Improve my game, no? I lost, no?" The guy's been doing interviews for the last 6 years, and STILL doesn't know sh*t about grammar...

Some people are more fluent in languages than other. I don't see the problem.

serveandvolley80
01-16-2010, 02:07 PM
But u are forgetting that only is the play today homogenized (mindless baseline bashing defensive play) but also the surfaces (primarily slow). So in that case maybe its easier to dominate today then it was before.

And yet a player that does has his specialties and thinks the game very well out there has been dominating the past 5 years+

Maybe Federer is more of a mix of the new generation of players and the older, meaning he does do everything well, but the difference is, he does have a great shot, when his forehand is on, its probably one of the greatest shots of all time, its perfect in its technique and execution.

The only player i would say that has a scarier forehand is Del Potro for its sheer power.

Commander Data
01-16-2010, 02:09 PM
thanks, that was a fun read.

habibko
01-16-2010, 02:12 PM
great and fun interview, and people say the guy has no personality :rolleyes: me thinks we will have more interviews like this in the upcoming years, this is what he is really like when being himself and under no pressure :yeah:

nice to know he is addicted to sleep like me, I can relate to that :lol:

habibko
01-16-2010, 02:13 PM
The best thing about the interview is how Fed fucks with Murray's mind by raising his expectations.

:haha:

when he said he motivates himself by thinking of his history with one player at times, that was sooo Murray in WTF :haha:

Vida
01-16-2010, 02:18 PM
12 hours of sleep is the key.

habibko
01-16-2010, 02:26 PM
Q: Nadal has not won a tournament since Rome last year, in May. Some think he’ll never be what he once was.

RF: This is bullshit ['conneries' in French]. It reminds me what people said about me last year. I’ve seen Rafa play in Abu Dhabi and in Doha: he lacks absolutely nothing. Granted, he’s not won in a long time. But look at those who beat him: Del Potro, Murray, Davydenko, Djokovic, Soderling… They’re not bad! Think about it: had he played Wimbledon last year and not lost 2,000 points from his victory in 2008, where would he be right now? He came back from injury, so it’s normal that he lacked confidence. But to me, the really great Rafa is still to come.

great answer, Rafatards and Fedhaters will tell you all about his arrogance and soreloserness nevertheless...

Mechlan
01-16-2010, 03:57 PM
Spot on with most of his points. Interesting read. When Federer's career is all said and done, it would be really interesting to read his thoughts on other players' games.

Arkulari
01-16-2010, 05:04 PM
great answer, Rafatards and Fedhaters will tell you all about his arrogance and soreloserness nevertheless...

yeah, these two guys like and respect each other a lot, of course the stupidity of each tardbase is just unparalleled and they just can't see it :rolleyes:

Noleta
01-16-2010, 09:57 PM
That was an enjoyable read.Thanks Clydey:yeah:

Vida
01-17-2010, 02:29 AM
great answer, Rafatards and Fedhaters will tell you all about his arrogance and soreloserness nevertheless...

haters are everywhere :scared:

JediFed
01-17-2010, 02:54 AM
In order to that at his age, he needs to lessen his schedule and focus more primarily on them.. Not winning every tournament he can as he did when he was 23-25 years old. Its also a "been there done that" attitude.


He can do that after Wimbledon this year once he has the number one record sewn up. Also, don't forget he's chasing Agassi's record as well.

MatchFederer
01-17-2010, 03:01 AM
He can do that after Wimbledon this year once he has the number one record sewn up. Also, don't forget he's chasing Agassi's record as well.

Yeah well Federer stated in an interview that he wasn't excited by the prospect of beating Agassi's TMS/1000 titles record. He stated that the tournaments are too new and so there is no count for what the greats of the past would of achieved, though i'm sure he realizes that there were more or less equivalent series anyway. In his dogged pursuit of number 1 protection though he may well claim that record even if he isn't chasing it in his own mind. It might be Nadal's record though before (and if) he gets to 18.

Vida
01-17-2010, 01:20 PM
also, he should want (as he does) to break the MS record for future generations. if they didnt exist once in the past, obviously, that does not mean they wont exist in the future, as they will.

Vida
01-17-2010, 01:22 PM
:secret: lying faking federere

Mr. Oracle
01-18-2010, 12:31 AM
"Excellent" and "Federer Interview" is an oxymoron as is "hot" and "ice-cream."

MatchFederer
01-18-2010, 01:37 AM
"Excellent" and "Federer Interview" is an oxymoron as is "hot" and "ice-cream."

Brilliant instead, then.

Swiss Mountain
01-18-2010, 02:26 AM
" I do not have a team as abundant as Rafa’s with Spain. I’m not complaining. It’s just a fact. Rafa hasn’t played the quarterfinals and the semifinals last year. But people saw him as the star in the finals. They just forgot he wasn’t there before.

Read more: http://www.gototennisblog.com/2010/01/15/roger-federer-on-unpleasant-questions-bullsht-and-tiger-woods/#ixzz0cvVYpFgi"

So true, and simple to understand. Normally.

Cyrus_Paice
01-18-2010, 02:51 AM
I consider that a Davis Cup round amounts to take out one Masters 1000. And I’m not ready to do that. I still favour my individual choices; time will come when this changes. You also have to understand that I do not have a team as abundant as Rafa’s with Spain. I’m not complaining. It’s just a fact. Rafa hasn’t played the quarterfinals and the semifinals last year. But people saw him as the star in the finals. They just forgot he wasn’t there before.

Apart from the fact he has Wawrinka, with whom he won Olympic gold, this is the worst Davis Cup attitude I've ever seen. No surprises about where it comes from...

recessional
01-18-2010, 02:55 AM
stop whining.

MatchFederer
01-18-2010, 02:56 AM
Apart from the fact he has Wawrinka, with whom he won Olympic gold, this is the worst Davis Cup attitude I've ever seen. No surprises about where it comes from...

It's fair to say that Federer is a terrible person!

He doesn't always apologize for net cord luck!

He is arrogant and disowns Davis cup!

He donates lots of money to Unicef and helps instigate charitable events for the victims of major natural disasters!

Damnnnnn

Arkulari
01-18-2010, 05:24 AM
Apart from the fact he has Wawrinka, with whom he won Olympic gold, this is the worst Davis Cup attitude I've ever seen. No surprises about where it comes from...

yeah, you can ALWAYS rely on Stan for the doubles and maybe another singles rubber? the guy is super consistent :rolleyes:

hey and let's not forget masters of consistency like Chiudinelli and Lammer

I love the Swiss players but they are all flaky and very inconsistent, Roger has to play all three matches for them to have a shot and that's simply not fair

It's about the best TEAM not the best PLAYER (though one of the best players has the fortune of having an awesome Armada behind him)

Cyrus_Paice
01-18-2010, 06:48 AM
yeah, you can ALWAYS rely on Stan for the doubles and maybe another singles rubber? the guy is super consistent :rolleyes:

hey and let's not forget masters of consistency like Chiudinelli and Lammer

I love the Swiss players but they are all flaky and very inconsistent, Roger has to play all three matches for them to have a shot and that's simply not fair

It's about the best TEAM not the best PLAYER (though one of the best players has the fortune of having an awesome Armada behind him)

Consistent enough for #19. What would be wrong with playing all three matches? Even Sampras did that in the '95 final on clay (winning all three). And Federer seems to be one of the fittest players on tour. If Federer and Wawrinka played all three matches they'd have to be one of the best teams. Why not compete? Most players probably feel good about themselves winning matches in DC even if the team doesn't make the next round.

Arkulari
01-18-2010, 07:59 AM
Consistent enough for #19. What would be wrong with playing all three matches? Even Sampras did that in the '95 final on clay (winning all three). And Federer seems to be one of the fittest players on tour. If Federer and Wawrinka played all three matches they'd have to be one of the best teams. Why not compete? Most players probably feel good about themselves winning matches in DC even if the team doesn't make the next round.

Let's see, Sampras' teammates were Courier and Martin, are you saying Stan and Marco are up to that level? :spit:

http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10019424

Roger usually plays at least two rubbers or more, but doing it consistently is not something he should do, the whole part of the Davis Cup is to find the best TEAM and he can't win the DC on his own, there are far stronger teams like Spain, Croatia and the Czech just to put an example

The guy is 28, should he really play some rubber that is pretty much lost (Stan's baby is due around these times, so it's highly likely that he won't play) just for the sake of saying: hey, I played?

Stan is an excellent player, but he's nowhere as consistent as he should be, his mental ups and downs are pretty well known

Truc
01-18-2010, 08:08 AM
" I do not have a team as abundant as Rafa’s with Spain. I’m not complaining. It’s just a fact. Rafa hasn’t played the quarterfinals and the semifinals last year. But people saw him as the star in the finals. They just forgot he wasn’t there before.

Read more: http://www.gototennisblog.com/2010/01/15/roger-federer-on-unpleasant-questions-bullsht-and-tiger-woods/#ixzz0cvVYpFgi"

So true, and simple to understand. Normally.I hadn't checked the translation since I read the original, I see the translator skipped the notes of the journalist that make the interview much funnier to read.

That part of the original interview actually goes like this:
"Faut comprendre aussi que je n’ai pas une équipe aussi fournie que Nadal avec l’Espagne. Je ne me plains pas. Je constate. Rafa n’a pas joué le quart de finale (mais il était blessé), ni la demi-finale l’an dernier. On a retenu qu’il a été la star en finale. On a juste oublié qu’il n’était pas là avant (deux simples gagnés au premier tour, tout de même)."

"You also have to understand that I do not have a team as abundant as Nadal with Spain. I’m not complaining. It’s just a fact. Rafa hasn’t played the quarterfinals (he was injured) and the semifinals last year. People remember him as the star in the finals. They just forget he wasn’t there before (two singles won in the first round, though)."

Jōris
01-18-2010, 08:21 AM
Perhaps Nike doesn't want him to play ties with little if any mainstream media coverage in their main markets. I don't think sponsors influenceing their stars' schedules is a bad thing.

Commander Data
01-18-2010, 09:28 AM
Apart from the fact he has Wawrinka, with whom he won Olympic gold, this is the worst Davis Cup attitude I've ever seen. No surprises about where it comes from...

Yeah, yeah..Whatever Federer says, his evil soul must be visible somewhere between the lines. if we just search long enough..

Sophocles
01-18-2010, 12:43 PM
Apart from the fact he has Wawrinka, with whom he won Olympic gold, this is the worst Davis Cup attitude I've ever seen. No surprises about where it comes from...

Have you ever heard of Jimmy Connors?

Rafa#Uno:-)
01-18-2010, 01:42 PM
Fed seems to defend Rafa. He Seems to be very polite about him.
when he compares his play with rafa saying his sets take 30 minutes and
rafas takes 45 min. Roger says he is dictating the points and being more precise.
Well he is making more mistakes being more precise too aiming to the lines.
players like Del-po owned federer so that statement is not 100 % true.

wackykid
01-18-2010, 03:48 PM
I think u guys have to read between the lines.

i read between this particular line that you mean to say that we have to insert our own opinions whenever we read something written by someone else.


regards,
wacky

Commander Data
01-18-2010, 04:25 PM
i read between this particular line that you mean to say that we have to insert our own opinions whenever we read something written by someone else.


regards,
wacky

:D

Swiss Mountain
01-21-2010, 03:21 AM
I hadn't checked the translation since I read the original, I see the translator skipped the notes of the journalist that make the interview much funnier to read.

That part of the original interview actually goes like this:
"Faut comprendre aussi que je n’ai pas une équipe aussi fournie que Nadal avec l’Espagne. Je ne me plains pas. Je constate. Rafa n’a pas joué le quart de finale (mais il était blessé), ni la demi-finale l’an dernier. On a retenu qu’il a été la star en finale. On a juste oublié qu’il n’était pas là avant (deux simples gagnés au premier tour, tout de même)."

"You also have to understand that I do not have a team as abundant as Nadal with Spain. I’m not complaining. It’s just a fact. Rafa hasn’t played the quarterfinals (he was injured) and the semifinals last year. People remember him as the star in the finals. They just forget he wasn’t there before (two singles won in the first round, though)."

I think that was f*** disrespectful, they don't have to add that crap, useless, it's roger's speaking, his interview, the journalist should have not done it, do not add that shit, it's the mind of Roger talking and it annoyed my reading; stupido.