Why do you support Roger? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why do you support Roger?

Peoples
03-05-2006, 10:21 PM
It's probably a combination of reasons but what is the main reason for you?

Sjengster
03-05-2006, 10:25 PM
This is a no-brainer, although I'm sure there are plenty of people who think we just want to support a constant winner.

robrulz5
03-05-2006, 10:27 PM
I'd have to say his game style and guaranteed quality.

The first time i ever saw Roger play live was against Haas at the Australian Open in 2002 which Haas won 8-6 in the fifth, up until that match I was sure about Roger but ever since then I've been a big fan.

Peoples
03-05-2006, 10:29 PM
This is a no-brainer, although I'm sure there are plenty of people who think we just want to support a constant winner.
Looking at the posters in GM, if people are honest, it's not a no-brainer.

Sjengster
03-05-2006, 10:30 PM
There are several posters in GM who I like to think are not representative of the majority of Federer fans.

Peoples
03-05-2006, 10:38 PM
I would agree but the majority who considers themselves fans of Federer would probably go for "guaranteed quality" if they were being honest. But it's a totally valid reason :cool:

Sjengster
03-05-2006, 10:42 PM
I might have said that a couple of years ago, but look at this year's AO - quality was by no means guaranteed in some of his matches there.

Peoples
03-05-2006, 11:03 PM
You need to see the bigger picture - usually the quality of play is guaranteed, at least more than watching any other ATP/WTA player.

Sjengster
03-05-2006, 11:06 PM
Well, looking at the bigger picture, guaranteed quality is almost the same as style of play, in the sense that what he produces over the course of a year in most matches is what I enjoy watching. But there are always exceptions to the rule, and sometimes I appreciate what he's trying to do, even if it doesn't always work, more than what he actually does do out on the court - ie, the style he is employing.

peripheral
03-06-2006, 12:35 AM
I found this really hard to answer... obviously there are multiple reasons for why I'm a diehard fan of his. It basically can be boiled down to two main ones for me-- his amazing quality of play and his on/off-court personality. However, I finally chose his personality because that's what draws me most to him. If he were as great a player as he is, but had the personality of Kiefer, I would respect his talent, but wouldn't be his fan (no offense to fans of Kiefer) :)

rofe
03-06-2006, 05:18 AM
Game style by a huge margin. By contrast, I sometimes wish Nadal would not go deep into tournaments so that I did not have to watch his ugly style of play.

Match quality is a question mark simply because he seems to not care too much about matches he knows he can win easily nowadays and that shows in his performance.

lsy
03-06-2006, 05:20 AM
Looking at the posters in GM, if people are honest, it's not a no-brainer.

In that case, why don't you go do this poll in GM then instead of here? :shrug:

Flibbertigibbet
03-06-2006, 05:46 AM
Combination of personality and game style. He has both the game and the attitude that I wish I could have.

Saturn66
03-06-2006, 08:37 AM
personality and game style

bokehlicious
03-06-2006, 08:48 AM
I picked 'nationality' because honestly that's mainly why I followed his career since junior tour, when he trained the village next to mine (Ecublens).

But for 5 - 6 years now I am a huge fan because of his game mainly, and his personnality too :)

landoud
03-06-2006, 09:56 AM
if this poll was a multiple choice , i would go for all those reasons
but i voted for the personality.... he's such a classy person ... nobody can compete with him on the personality quality

mangoes
03-06-2006, 03:01 PM
Game style was the first reason and over time his personality just added to the reasons I like him.

I saw Roger play, for the first time, a couple years ago, when I was in college, and then, he was not very known. Frankly, my roommate and I went to his match because there were empty seats there vs the match we wanted to see. I liked his game style immediately. He hit some great angles but also made a lot of unforced errors :lol: I thought him to be such a graceful player and ever since then, I have been following his career. Also, during that match, I told my roommate that he would be no. 1 one day. My roommate disagreed with me and she called Roger too flakey a player to ever dominate..............well, I never fail to remind her of her words :lol: :lol:

I've seen Roger play several times since then and it is simply beautiful to watch him play.

Rogiman
03-06-2006, 06:17 PM
Quality for me, but I'm not sure it's quality in the sense meant above (high winners/unforced errors ratio etc.).

For me quality means you've learnt alot and trained hard and have become masterful in both the gist and the nuances of your profession.

For example, Nirvana is one of the most successful bands of all time, but I've never been able to listen to them, because it's so clear none of them has ever bothered to learn music properly, they saught the easy way - not to take the long path and study classical music and improve on their technique and then build on that and add their own dimension - instead they found a winning formula and it worked for them!
To me this means showing disrespect to your profession and to the people who contributed to its development, and that to me is low quality.

On the other hand you've got Sting, for instance.
Sting is neither Mozart, nor is he one of my favs, but when you listen to Sting you can feel he's an educated intelligent musician, who's familiar with classical music as well as Jazz, and chooses only elite musicians to accompany him.
His music is genuine, but you feel the influences of other (high caliber) musicians in his music.
This is high quality.

Get the analogy?
To me Nadal, a grunting baseliner with awkward shots, is Nirvana - a guy who doesn't care about aesthetics, perfection, and spits in the faces of former tennis legends like Laver and Edberg, who graced the court with both their tennis and demanors.

Federer, well, he's not Sting - much closer to Mozart.
He's a classical pianist, who practised the works of former geniuses in history to perfection, and now is in the phase of composing his own pieces of brilliance, his own symphonies.
And like other geniuses, he's modest, jumping, grunting and making a big deal out of himself is not his way of conducting himself in front of people.

To me, Federer losing to Nadal is like Mozart and Nirvana playing simultaneously on different stages, and the people opting to watch Nirvana, because simplicity sells better than quality.

I once asked a mathematician what drove him, if it was the pursuit of truth, and he told me he didn't care about truth - he saught beauty.
This is me.

Perhaps that gives you some insight about my beaviour of late.

bokehlicious
03-06-2006, 06:25 PM
Great post Rogiman ;)

oneandonlyhsn
03-06-2006, 07:37 PM
For me the way he carries himself both on and off court was what drew me to him initially. He has such grace and I love the fact that he never stares down at his opponents.
His style of play is a very close second, his shot making ability and the ease at which he makes everything seem is just breathtaking.

rofe
03-06-2006, 07:41 PM
Quality for me, but I'm not sure it's quality in the sense meant above (high winners/unforced errors ratio etc.).

For me quality means you've learnt alot and trained hard and have become masterful in both the gist and the nuances of your profession.

For example, Nirvana is one of the most successful bands of all time, but I've never been able to listen to them, because it's so clear none of them has ever bothered to learn music properly, they saught the easy way - not to take the long path and study classical music and improve on their technique and then build on that and add their own dimension - instead they found a winning formula and it worked for them!
To me this means showing disrespect to your profession and to the people who contributed to its development, and that to me is low quality.

On the other hand you've got Sting, for instance.
Sting is neither Mozart, nor is he one of my favs, but when you listen to Sting you can feel he's an educated intelligent musician, who's familiar with classical music as well as Jazz, and chooses only elite musicians to accompany him.
His music is genuine, but you feel the influences of other (high caliber) musicians in his music.
This is high quality.

Get the analogy?
To me Nadal, a grunting baseliner with awkward shots, is Nirvana - a guy who doesn't care about aesthetics, perfection, and spits in the faces of former tennis legends like Laver and Edberg, who graced the court with both their tennis and demanors.

Federer, well, he's not Sting - much closer to Mozart.
He's a classical pianist, who practised the works of former geniuses in history to perfection, and now is in the phase of composing his own pieces of brilliance, his own symphonies.
And like other geniuses, he's modest, jumping, grunting and making a big deal out of himself is not his way of conducting himself in front of people.

To me, Federer losing to Nadal is like Mozart and Nirvana playing simultaneously on different stages, and the people opting to watch Nirvana, because simplicity sells better than quality.

I once asked a mathematician what drove him, if it was the pursuit of truth, and he told me he didn't care about truth - he saught beauty.
This is me.

Perhaps that gives you some insight about my beaviour of late.

Yes, Roger's game is all about asthetics, art, beauty etc. If you truly admire his game and the beauty of it, you should also understand that unlike the beauty of mathematics or the beauty of a musical composition, the beauty of Roger's game is in real time against all sorts of opponents.

As such, imperfections will creep into that complex amalgamation of strokes and sometimes simplicity will prevail over beauty.

In fact now that you have described your views in greater detail, I am all the more surprised that you are so disappointed.

mangoes
03-06-2006, 07:57 PM
Loved your description Rogiman :)


I wanted to add this.........the one thing I remarked on the last time I saw Roger play live was that playing tennis for him seems so effortless. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone else :lol:

Bagelicious
03-06-2006, 11:08 PM
Loved your description Rogiman :)


I wanted to add this.........the one thing I remarked on the last time I saw Roger play live was that playing tennis for him seems so effortless. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone else :lol:

It makes total sense to me. I remember the first match I saw Roger in and really took notice was Wimby SF '03 against Roddick. I was only a casual tennis watcher then, but I was amazed by how easy he made it look as he demolished Roddick.

When you watch other players, it may be entertaining and high-quality, but you never really get the sense that one of them is playing effortlessly like you do with Roger.

Minnie
03-07-2006, 01:05 AM
I don't know what to say ... except the first time I saw Roger was on TV when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 - and jumping out of my seat yelling "He's done it" without really knowing too much about Roger. Perhaps that memory should make me a bit more circumspect when I get riled because crowds yell for Roger's opponents - like, the player whose name I dare not speak (or type!). Anyway, it slowly dawned on me towards the latter part of 2003 that I wasn't just looking at his tennis - so I'll just say I support Roger because he's the "complete package" :lol:

World Beater
03-07-2006, 05:48 AM
Quality for me, but I'm not sure it's quality in the sense meant above (high winners/unforced errors ratio etc.).

For me quality means you've learnt alot and trained hard and have become masterful in both the gist and the nuances of your profession.

For example, Nirvana is one of the most successful bands of all time, but I've never been able to listen to them, because it's so clear none of them has ever bothered to learn music properly, they saught the easy way - not to take the long path and study classical music and improve on their technique and then build on that and add their own dimension - instead they found a winning formula and it worked for them!
To me this means showing disrespect to your profession and to the people who contributed to its development, and that to me is low quality.

On the other hand you've got Sting, for instance.
Sting is neither Mozart, nor is he one of my favs, but when you listen to Sting you can feel he's an educated intelligent musician, who's familiar with classical music as well as Jazz, and chooses only elite musicians to accompany him.
His music is genuine, but you feel the influences of other (high caliber) musicians in his music.
This is high quality.

Get the analogy?
To me Nadal, a grunting baseliner with awkward shots, is Nirvana - a guy who doesn't care about aesthetics, perfection, and spits in the faces of former tennis legends like Laver and Edberg, who graced the court with both their tennis and demanors.

Federer, well, he's not Sting - much closer to Mozart.
He's a classical pianist, who practised the works of former geniuses in history to perfection, and now is in the phase of composing his own pieces of brilliance, his own symphonies.
And like other geniuses, he's modest, jumping, grunting and making a big deal out of himself is not his way of conducting himself in front of people.

To me, Federer losing to Nadal is like Mozart and Nirvana playing simultaneously on different stages, and the people opting to watch Nirvana, because simplicity sells better than quality.

I once asked a mathematician what drove him, if it was the pursuit of truth, and he told me he didn't care about truth - he saught beauty.
This is me.

Perhaps that gives you some insight about my beaviour of late.

i liken federer to yanni. Combines the best of the old with the new as well.

SUKTUEN
03-07-2006, 07:21 AM
I love him because his wonderful tennis and his personal~!! :devil: :worship: :worship:

tonia9
03-07-2006, 03:34 PM
Game style. First time I saw him I was so impressed that I couldn't move :lol:
I also love the fact that he's so classy :)

SUKTUEN
03-08-2006, 03:53 PM
I watch his first match is 2001 Wimby Vs Sampras, I Love him so Much when I saw he wear in white~! :devil:

Liverpool4ever
03-08-2006, 06:04 PM
I am a Federer fan first and foremost, because of the way he plays. I guess Iam old fashioned, but I belief that all sportsmen should play in a beautiful and attacking manner. Federer does that better than any sportsmen I have seen and that is why I support him. The second reason is the way he carries himself on court like a true champion, being curteous and respectful. As long as he keeps these two things up I would support him no matter what his ranking.

Arwyn_75
03-08-2006, 10:04 PM
I like his game and his personality. He is the best tennis player of the world.

Doris Loeffel
03-08-2006, 11:52 PM
I'm a Roger-Fan becouse he's


























Roger ;)

Fergie
03-09-2006, 12:32 AM
Because he is so good!!! :worship:

Peoples
03-09-2006, 01:22 AM
Roger's fans are actually probably the most mixed group of people from all over the world, that's kind of unique actually.

Art&Soul
03-09-2006, 03:27 AM
Coz He's Calm and Cool on court and play the most beautiful tennis i've never seen before, he's the artist of tennis circus

SUKTUEN
03-09-2006, 03:41 PM
Yes, He is a articist of Tennis!!!! :yeah: :yeah:

Federerthebest
03-10-2006, 08:58 AM
game style. so fluid, so perfect, like poetry in motion:wavey:

ste
03-10-2006, 03:51 PM
I'd say for me he is just "everything" that makes tennis a better(er) sport :)... he gives so much to the game... poetry... his talent is amazing - and on top of all he is such a great sportsman... boyfriend, friend, swiss ambassador, player - he is someone quite everyone else can learn something of him/his behaviour - he is someone you really can look up to!

bethbrasil
03-11-2006, 02:07 AM
I give support ROGI because he is my idol :worship: :worship: since 2.000 and I admire his personality and his style.
Million kisses, much fondness and love for all ROGI's fans. Beth :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap: :hearts: :hearts: :hearts:

SUKTUEN
03-11-2006, 10:05 AM
Our team is more and more stronger~! :yeah:

moonlightguard
03-12-2006, 06:59 AM
I'm a Roger-Fan becouse he's

Roger ;)

lol, yep, that pretty much sums it up!

But outta the above, I love the quality of his game and his personality. I can't support a player with a crummy personality. And Roger's hot because he's such an amazing tennis player ;).

SUKTUEN
03-12-2006, 04:03 PM
a new reason,

Because he wear a very ulgy jacket but I also Love him~ :p :p :p

Eden
08-06-2006, 02:21 PM
Interesting poll :yeah:

I voted for game style because this was the first which directed me to Roger. I was really fascinated by his beautiful game and it was and is always a pleasure to see him playing :) I became interested in the person behind the sportsman and therefore I could have been voted for his personality as well. It is as unique as his tennis play, but because the fascination for the game style was first I voted for this ;)

SUKTUEN
08-07-2006, 05:40 AM
THIS THREAD IS A liittle bit old.

rofe
08-07-2006, 07:25 AM
THIS THREAD IS A liittle bit old.

That is ok, it is still valid for new (and old) fans of Fed. :)

soraya
08-07-2006, 09:26 AM
I usually root for underdogs and that first time which I can not recall, Roger was the underdog. I remember commentators stating that he will be the next big thing. Tough he used to lose, I could see the potentials were there. In his ascension to world #1 , I remained his fan because I learnt more about his on/off court greatness towards friends, loved ones and other tennis players. I just cannot see any flaws, gamewise, personality and so on. Before him, I liked very much Pat Rafter who like Roger was corteous, humble and affable. So, I guess that what matters at the end for me is a player's personality, his condut on/off the court. How he relates to the world in general besides being a good player.

Monteque
08-07-2006, 12:44 PM
Why do you support Roger?

Because there's noone tennis player in this planet above him.
His playing style so smooth and gracious. And his character. :D

SUKTUEN
08-08-2006, 09:00 AM
That is ok, it is still valid for new (and old) fans of Fed. :)
yes, for old fans there is also a good thread~~ :hug:

Eden
08-08-2006, 09:19 PM
THIS THREAD IS A liittle bit old.

That's true, but new members to the forum would like to write their comment as well and I think it isn't necessary to open a new thread about a topic which already exists :)

And maybe to read again in an old thread can be interesting to other users as well :)

SUKTUEN
08-09-2006, 06:16 AM
yes, in Chinese forums Chinese always find out some old thread.

natasha_nana
08-15-2007, 12:33 AM
I voted for game style as that's the primary reason why as a player I support Roger over all others...
But it's not why I support Roger in general.

I have to think back to Wimbledon 2003...when he won for that first time...to remember why on that day I became a Federer fan and have not looked back since.

It wasn't that I thought he'd go onto do everything he has achieved since then...I never saw any of this coming.
And though I did fall in love with the beautiful game, I can't say that was the reason either.

What got me the most that day...(and continues to get me everytime since) is how much he cared.
I know people think it's a little much that he keeps crying when he wins. I mean after winning your first 1-2 slams, surely there's nothing left to cry about?!

Yet he still does it.

And to me that is what really sets him apart from other players and slam winners.
It matters to him...tennis matters so much to him. The game, its history, his role in it...and this is one of Roger's best qualities.

Rarely do you see players so aware of what they are becoming a part of...tennis existed long before Roger, and it will continue long after.
I feel that Federer really understands this, and to me his crying is the ultimate expression of his gratitude for being able for this brief moment to be part of that great history that will ultimately outlast him.

Ironically I think he is at his most humble in those moments straight after he wins the match point at a GS. It is in that moment that he is aware of the enormity of it all...that it is so much larger than him.

It's why he is not satisfied with just winning...he wants to bring his best. Because only by doing that will tennis as a whole be elevated...and he be a worthy part of it.

Watching Roger care that year, made me care again too. And that in short (or long) is why I really support him.

Sunset of Age
08-15-2007, 01:03 AM
^^ I second everything you said in this post, so I won't bother and type it all up myself - you've expressed it perfectly.

Great post!

It's a pity this poll only allows one answer - as for many others, it's both his beautiful game AND his lovely personality that make me love Roger.

SUKTUEN
08-15-2007, 03:33 PM
Personality (his stylish on/off court behaviour) ~!!!!:devil:

Eden
08-18-2007, 02:29 PM
I voted for game style as that's the primary reason why as a player I support Roger over all others...
But it's not why I support Roger in general.

I have to think back to Wimbledon 2003...when he won for that first time...to remember why on that day I became a Federer fan and have not looked back since.

It wasn't that I thought he'd go onto do everything he has achieved since then...I never saw any of this coming.
And though I did fall in love with the beautiful game, I can't say that was the reason either.

What got me the most that day...(and continues to get me everytime since) is how much he cared.
I know people think it's a little much that he keeps crying when he wins. I mean after winning your first 1-2 slams, surely there's nothing left to cry about?!

Yet he still does it.

And to me that is what really sets him apart from other players and slam winners.
It matters to him...tennis matters so much to him. The game, its history, his role in it...and this is one of Roger's best qualities.

Rarely do you see players so aware of what they are becoming a part of...tennis existed long before Roger, and it will continue long after.
I feel that Federer really understands this, and to me his crying is the ultimate expression of his gratitude for being able for this brief moment to be part of that great history that will ultimately outlast him.

Ironically I think he is at his most humble in those moments straight after he wins the match point at a GS. It is in that moment that he is aware of the enormity of it all...that it is so much larger than him.

It's why he is not satisfied with just winning...he wants to bring his best. Because only by doing that will tennis as a whole be elevated...and he be a worthy part of it.

Watching Roger care that year, made me care again too. And that in short (or long) is why I really support him.

Well said :yeah:

I really like the fact that Roger doesn't take all his victories for granted. He always says that a title can be the last one and that he is therefore much more grateful when he gets it at the end.

He has so much respect for his opponents and the game of tennis in general. It's great to see how much tennis and the history of this sport mean to him. Therefore I think it is a nice idea of him and his sponsors for the special clothes for Wimbledon. And we all won't forget the tears during the Australian Open trophy ceremony last year when he hugged Rod Laver.

There can't be a better champion for this sport as Roger and it is really a pleasure to follow his career.

SUKTUEN
08-18-2007, 04:46 PM
and he always did great job to be a logo of Tennis !
and he make tennis more popular!

K90
08-18-2007, 06:10 PM
Personality, Game style and Watching him play is guaranteed quality :)

SUKTUEN
08-19-2007, 06:33 AM
Personality, Game style and Watching him play is guaranteed quality :)

:yeah: :yeah:

Eden
06-08-2008, 09:55 AM
Just thought to bring this one up as there are a few new members on the Federer Express who also might to vote in this poll ;)

BigJohn
06-08-2008, 09:50 PM
He's the best ambassador the game ever had.

Sure, he is talented, sucessful, has a terrific game, but for me, it is his personnality that puts him above the rest.

elessar
06-08-2008, 11:43 PM
This thread is making me nostalgic :awww:

trickcy
06-09-2008, 07:05 AM
The main reason would be his game style. I first saw him play at RG 06, and I was impressed by his game. I supported Roger then because I preferred the way he played to the way Nadal played. Over the years though to support him throughout tournaments, I guess it would be a combination of things. First and foremost is his game, but also his personality is a factor.

SUKTUEN
06-09-2008, 07:38 AM
I will support him in anyway, I will support him whatever what ranking he is~~

Noelman
06-09-2008, 08:34 AM
At first when I noticed him was because of his game style. I 've never approach tennis before and initially I thought there're many players who can play same as him. But then when I watched other player's play, I understood he's special. And started follow his game.
If he is a jerk who can play beautiful tennis, I would just admire his game but despise the person himself. But Roger's not. Therefore it's Roger's personality that makes me stay with him and become his fan.

Eden
07-23-2008, 09:51 AM
I picked 'nationality' because honestly that's mainly why I followed his career since junior tour, when he trained the village next to mine (Ecublens).

Do you remember when you heard the first time of Roger JM?



But for 5 - 6 years now I am a huge fan because of his game mainly, and his personnality too :)

How often did you have the chance to talk to him meanwhile? I remember that you once wrote you talked to him after a DC encounter, right?

SUKTUEN
07-23-2008, 12:23 PM
I love Roger, because although he will not be World NO.1 in someday, he still the Great person and Player in all the time.

Minnie
07-23-2008, 11:58 PM
I could'nt vote ... it would'nt let me tick all the boxes ;)

Marek.
07-24-2008, 02:43 AM
I don't know :shrug:

Sunset of Age
07-24-2008, 03:08 AM
I don't know :shrug:

"I can't remember, I can't recall, I have no memory of anything at all..."

dixit Peter Gabriel. :angel:

SUKTUEN
07-24-2008, 03:04 PM
I don't know :shrug:

I also don't know today.:sad:

*Elsie*
07-24-2008, 07:14 PM
I am happy to see that nobody voted "Ranking, titles & succes" ;)

SUKTUEN
07-25-2008, 05:59 AM
I am happy to see that nobody voted "Ranking, titles & succes" ;)

I know today~~ because I always love him , I don't care the fu**ing ranking!!!:devil:

Sunset of Age
07-27-2008, 04:37 AM
I am happy to see that nobody voted "Ranking, titles & succes" ;)

Quite funny, as the haters always seem to think we are merely ' Glory Hunters'... ;)

Venle
09-08-2008, 06:35 PM
Game style!

It's so classic and beautiful. Many-sided

I love the forehand ;)

It's always a great pleasure watching his matches. The sick winners are just :hearts: Like the one against Rafa at Wimby's final this year. When Nadal had a match point in the tie-break. It was :worship: Took a big risk in that shot. The on-court Roger makes me happy, always.

It's amazing what he's done to tennis. And he's such a gentleman on-court and off-court.

Even if his ranking was like something around 50, I'd still support him.

I guess there's not only one reason, why I like him :) But game style is the most important reason.

ff_fanatic98
09-12-2008, 10:25 AM
His game style is my main reason for watching his matches. I love the versatile game he brings on to court. He can do every shot in the book and I'm always wondering what he'll pull out in the next point.

tea
04-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Because I do love tennis.:awww:

Sunset of Age
04-04-2009, 01:49 PM
Other: "because he NEEDS our support, now more than ever..."

SUKTUEN
04-04-2009, 03:48 PM
Because he make me love him whatever his ranking~~~

tennisfan444
04-04-2009, 06:07 PM
Other: "because he NEEDS our support, now more than ever..."

:)

punk_chick
04-04-2009, 09:27 PM
because its the least I can do for what he's done! i dont like him for his trophies, i like him for who he is. he's not hypocrite, sly or anything like that, he's so honest. what u see is what u get...

and if we're true fans, we'll support him through highest and lowest.

3 or 4 years ago he did something to the tennis world that made us believe that MIRACLES DO HAPPEN!!! he made us believe that NOTHING'S REALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!! that somewhere in the lowest and darkest hours, THERE'S STILL HOPE, THERE'S STILL A LIGHT!!! he taught us soooo many things. and i think NOW, its time to let him know that we're RIGHT THERE BEHIND HIM, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. he needs our support NOW MORE THAN EVER and if we turn our back on him and say "ok,he's done! lets move on to the next champ!" that would shatter him even more than he is right now! thats so cruel to walk away when he really needs us!

FedFan_2007
04-04-2009, 10:17 PM
punk chick - it's not about miracles. It's about Roger putting in the hard work to get better.

Blondie1985
04-05-2009, 02:38 AM
i love him, i love his game, his personality. everything about him

punk_chick
04-05-2009, 07:20 AM
punk chick - it's not about miracles. It's about Roger putting in the hard work to get better.


I'm not saying he needs a miracle to get back to the court and be that Roger we used to know... NO, cause he WAS and STILL IS A MIRACLE!!! and what he needs right now IS NOT WORKING REAL HARD, cause he's still better than anyone on earth when he plays, but the thing is TENNIS IS NOT %100 ABOUT HOW GOOD U PLAY, ITS ABOUT HOW GOOD U ARE AT MANAGING UR MENTALITY. and the truth is he can't beat Nadal, Murray MENTALLY.thats why he loses the game. cause I can say that its maybe %98 about being in a good situation mentally, then being in good shape HELPS!!! but its all about MIND!
Tennis may seem a physical sport but its all psychological.
if u look back at the match against Djoko, u'll see that in the first set Rog was playing brilliant, cause he dominated the court MENTALLY, but then in the second set when he lost his game, thats when the MENTALITY DOMINANCE started to change place and also when he smashed his racket that was where he lost it all (his mentality control)
I remember when he was still No 1, he said someday that: "The Moment You Start To Doubt Yourself You're Probably Going To Lose." and thats exactly what he's struggling now. and thats why I say he NEED OUR SUPPORT MORE THAN EVER to gain that confidance he used to have....