To me, Roddick is more admirable than Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

To me, Roddick is more admirable than Federer

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 03:55 AM
Let's try not to talk about his on-court demeaner, because apparently most people here are tennis trolls and would much rather choose to go ballistic over a "too good" than stay quiet.

Federer is a much more skillfull player than Roddick, yes. He has more talent than Roddick and seems poised to be always a couple of steps ahead him. In every thread, there always seems to be someone laughing and claiming that Roddick has no talent whatsoever, but that's what makes me admire him even more.

Because if they are right, and Roddick really has no talent, then that means he's is a grinder; he worked hard to get where he's at right now. Whereas Federer has a God-given talent to play tennis at the highest level, and undoubtedly works hard to stay at that level, many other players are forced to work that much harder just to keep up. I remember how frustrated I was at school, studying hours just to pass a test while the alien-like child breezed through it by only reading a few passages and somehow committing them to memory.

Federer's just boring to watch, as he makes everything look so easy. Meanwhile, I look in awe at Roddick and other such players as they work their heart out to fight for every point, showing extreme hussle, hoping for a chance to regain some footing.

Just felt like saying that. This post will obviously infuriate the Federer lovers, but I don't really care.

Sjengster
09-10-2006, 03:58 AM
Just one overused but nevertheless appropriate maxim to remember here: it takes a lot of hard work to make something look easy. I don't see why Federer should be deemed boring for excelling at what he does, any more than a gifted child in school should be termed "alien-like" for daring to stand out from the rest and utilise his ability to the full.

Federer would never would have been half the player he is now without working hard both on and off the court. Yes, you need talent in abundance to stand a chance of dominating in the first place, but you need the whole combination to achieve what he has in the last few years.

Anyhow, I don't disagree with your main point that it's enjoyable to watch players hustle and make the most of what they've got, there are several players I like for the same reason, but in Roddick's case the end product is not something at all entertaining for me.

Dirk
09-10-2006, 03:59 AM
Roger works very hard and shows heart but he doesn't make stupid noises during the rallies to show you how hard he is working.

DDrago2
09-10-2006, 04:00 AM
It's not that Roddick looks "untalented", it's that Federer looks more "talented". And as for the charisma, most people feel that Federer has little of it and would agree with you there (I mean, come on - the constant winning is not the real reason for the under-hype, look at Tiger Woods for example)

Kip
09-10-2006, 04:03 AM
Roger makes it look so easy
because he does work his ass off!

Just because he keeps his composure most of the time
and contains his emotions when need be to be able to
deliver doesn't mean he hasn't work just as hard if not
harder to do what he does that is just some amazing!

And the level of work and committment to be at the top and stay
at the top not only requires a tremendous amount of physical work
but mental work as well.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-10-2006, 04:03 AM
Roddick looks like a mallard duck and Federer looks like a clay fighter from that old ninetendo game.

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 04:07 AM
I feel misunderstood already - I never said Federer doesnt work hard.

Sjengster
09-10-2006, 04:09 AM
I understood your last sentence in that post just fine, thanks.

Allure
09-10-2006, 04:09 AM
I kind of agree with you. Like the "alien" student example you used. There are some people who are born naturally smart so they can breeze thru tests and get "A's'' easily while there are some people who arent as smart so they have to study twice as hard to get good grades. naturally, you'd respect the guy who is forced to work harder while the person who breeze thru, you feel they dont have to try really hard.

World Beater
09-10-2006, 04:13 AM
the funny thing is that we have no way of knowing who actually works harder.

for all you know maybe roddick doesnt spend christmas day working on his tennis with a coach in a different country.

anyhow, i appreciate a guy like hewitt more than roddick because he isnt the biggest guy around and doesnt have the most power or talent but still is an amazing player, if we use your logic

robinhood
09-10-2006, 04:19 AM
the funny thing is that we have no way of knowing who actually works harder.

for all you know maybe roddick doesnt spend christmas day working on his tennis with a coach in a different country.

anyhow, i appreciate a guy like hewitt more than roddick because he isnt the biggest guy around and doesnt have the most power or talent but still is an amazing player, if we use your logic

I agree.

JW10S
09-10-2006, 04:20 AM
I don't get this thread at all. There has never been a player so gifted that they can attain the #1 ranking based on talent alone. Hard work and sacrifice are required to acheive that. That Roddick, who has won far less than Federer, is somehow more admirable is lost on me. If he had won as many titles as Federer maybe then I could understand because Federer does everyhting better than Roddick except serve. Why then isn't the #100 ranked player therefore more admirable than the both of them?

scoobs
09-10-2006, 04:22 AM
Roger makes the difficult look easy.

Andy often makes the difficult look...well...difficult...and that's admirable?

Okay...I'm confused.

TenHound
09-10-2006, 04:22 AM
If you prefer a player who looks like he's working hard, to a genius who makes it look effortless, Youzhny would be a far more compelling example than AR :)

Johnny Groove
09-10-2006, 04:23 AM
They both suck the big one and Mirka is a fat cow :ras: :D

Shy
09-10-2006, 04:23 AM
I kind of agree with you. Like the "alien" student example you used. There are some people who are born naturally smart so they can breeze thru tests and get "A's'' easily while there are some people who arent as smart so they have to study twice as hard to get good grades. naturally, you'd respect the guy who is forced to work harder while the person who breeze thru, you feel they dont have to try really hard.
That is a misconception. Those people that can breeze through test usually work hard or even harder than most people. You can be born smart and very talented, but if you don't work hard, you won't utilize your ability to the full. I have seen some people getting straight A by not working hard, but by the time they start college, they have a hard time keeping up with everyone else.

Raquel Sun
09-10-2006, 04:27 AM
Let's try not to talk about his on-court demeaner, because apparently most people here are tennis trolls and would much rather choose to go ballistic over a "too good" than stay quiet.

Federer is a much more skillfull player than Roddick, yes. He has more talent than Roddick and seems poised to be always a couple of steps ahead him. In every thread, there always seems to be someone laughing and claiming that Roddick has no talent whatsoever, but that's what makes me admire him even more.

Because if they are right, and Roddick really has no talent, then that means he's is a grinder; he worked hard to get where he's at right now. Whereas Federer has a God-given talent to play tennis at the highest level, and undoubtedly works hard to stay at that level, many other players are forced to work that much harder just to keep up. I remember how frustrated I was at school, studying hours just to pass a test while the alien-like child breezed through it by only reading a few passages and somehow committing them to memory.

Federer's just boring to watch, as he makes everything look so easy. Meanwhile, I look in awe at Roddick and other such players as they work their heart out to fight for every point, showing extreme hussle, hoping for a chance to regain some footing.

Just felt like saying that. This post will obviously infuriate the Federer lovers, but I don't really care.


If Roddick is so untalented as they claim what he has accomplished is even more amazing.

However, Most tennis fans do not agree. Roddick is talented and charismatic. Remember the frequent posters on this board are NOT the majority of tennis fans. Americans should not care what any of these people think. They will never understand that it is also the journey and not just the destination. Andy's life at the end of the day will be much more fulfilling than any of the people who constantly make unfair criticisms of him and his talent. :)

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 04:33 AM
Why then isn't the #100 ranked player therefore more admirable than the both of them?
I only picked Roddick because everyone knows and hates him. My point would be a little lost if I picked an unknown as my example.

silverarrows
09-10-2006, 04:36 AM
I don't hate Roddick, but I think Baghdatis is more admirable to me. ;)

alelysafina
09-10-2006, 04:43 AM
Nikolay.

JW10S
09-10-2006, 04:44 AM
I only picked Roddick because everyone knows and hates him. My point would be a little lost if I picked an unknown as my example.

Your point is still lost on me.

El Legenda
09-10-2006, 04:45 AM
roddick sucks :)

Corey Feldman
09-10-2006, 04:47 AM
for me, Federer is never boring to watch.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-10-2006, 04:48 AM
I don't really understand why people think know someone from the way they are perceived from a public image.

For all anyone on this board likely knows, in private Roddick could really be a sick twisted pervert and Federer a cruel sadist.

croat123
09-10-2006, 04:49 AM
roddick isn't untalented, i'll give you that. but he is a result of a lot of help from the usta and a lot of luck. i might even like him cause i like players with his playing style, but he's such an asshole that i can't stand him

Jagermeister
09-10-2006, 04:51 AM
I don't think Andy is more "admirable" that Federer. I do agree that considering how more limited his range of weapons is, that's he's been willing to put in the effort and make the most of it. I mean, when you have guys like Marcelo Rios and to an extent Marat Safin (altho lately it's more the injuries that are keeping him down, rather than indifference and lack of work ethic), Roddick is definitely admirable. But your assumption is that because Federer is so gifted, that he doesn't put in as much hard work as Roddick (or Hewitt or Davydenko or Nadal) into his game, which is quite the contrary.

jacobhiggins
09-10-2006, 04:53 AM
Federer does intense training, I was surprised at how much and hard he trains.

I don't think Roddick could train like Federer. Federer trains like a boxer!

SAtennis
09-10-2006, 05:00 AM
So you think that Beethoven or Einstein never worked hard enough, huh? Nonsense.

Sjengster
09-10-2006, 05:03 AM
I don't really understand why people think know someone from the way they are perceived from a public image.

For all anyone on this board likely knows, in private Roddick could really be a sick twisted pervert and Federer a cruel sadist.

Anything might be true! :)

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 05:03 AM
So you think that Beethoven or Einstein never worked hard enough, huh? Nonsense.
Ok then, so you're saying Federer works twice as hard as everyone else then? Also nonsense.

JW10S
09-10-2006, 05:07 AM
Ok then, so you're saying Federer works twice as hard as everyone else then? Also nonsense.

I believe Federer works as hard or harder than anyone on tour--one of the reasons he is #1. Your implication that he is laying on the beach while everyone else is practicing is nonsense.

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 05:14 AM
I believe Federer works as hard or harder than anyone on tour--one of the reasons he is #1. Your implication that he is laying on the beach while everyone else is practicing is nonsense.
And your implication that I said such a thing makes you unable to read well; I never said he didn't work hard, just that he doesn't need to work as hard to get results. There's obviously hard work involved in his being #1, there is no way he would've climbed that high up if he hadn't.

World Beater
09-10-2006, 05:16 AM
i guess its hard trying to admire something that is mediocre not to say roddick is. but if roddick achieved the same as fed, but with less talent then sure.

tennisfan202
09-10-2006, 05:21 AM
Going back to the original point I would have to agree. I feel both players are talented, Federer more so than anyone else on tour right now, but I find myself walking away when his matches come on tv. While I admire his talent i feel as though he is so good he is boring, I like to see people get themselves into a hole and have to get there way out of it, to see people fight back and show some character. During cincinatti I couldnt help but feel that him losing made the tournament interesting as it became anyones tournament all of a sudden.

JW10S
09-10-2006, 05:25 AM
I still don't see your point. If talent alone were all that mattered players like Malisse, Gasquet, Mathieu, Lopez, etc. would also be multiple Grand Slam winners. But they're not. Again, your original post was about a player who has won far less being more admirable than a player who has won far more. I could see how someone might admire a less physically talented player who had the same record as a more physically talented one but in this case it reads like you just have a bias toward Roddick.

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 05:38 AM
I still don't see your point. If talent alone were all that mattered players like Malisse, Gasquet, Mathieu, Lopez, etc. would also be multiple Grand Slam winners. But they're not. Again, your original post was about a player who has won far less being more admirable than a player who has won far more. I could see how someone might admire a less physically talented player who had the same record as a more physically talented one but in this case it reads like you just have a bias toward Roddick.
I'm starting to get confused at what exactly your counterpoint is, so I think I'll give up after this, unless I have some epiphany in reading your posts.
1 Talent alone won't put you in the record books, but in federer's case, talent is more valuable than Roddick's serve.
2 Malisse, Gasquet, Mathieu, and Lopez are all chokers or too inconsistant to ever win a slam
3 I do have a slight bias for Roddick, I'll admit, but I'm pretty much talking for everyone who plays well even though he/she "has no talent" (ie Nadal). I just chose Roddick mainly because it seemed appopriate - he's reached the finals of the Open and now everyone's talking about their amazement over this.

LCeh
09-10-2006, 05:44 AM
Let's try not to talk about his on-court demeaner, because apparently most people here are tennis trolls and would much rather choose to go ballistic over a "too good" than stay quiet.

Federer is a much more skillfull player than Roddick, yes. He has more talent than Roddick and seems poised to be always a couple of steps ahead him. In every thread, there always seems to be someone laughing and claiming that Roddick has no talent whatsoever, but that's what makes me admire him even more.

Because if they are right, and Roddick really has no talent, then that means he's is a grinder; he worked hard to get where he's at right now. Whereas Federer has a God-given talent to play tennis at the highest level, and undoubtedly works hard to stay at that level, many other players are forced to work that much harder just to keep up. I remember how frustrated I was at school, studying hours just to pass a test while the alien-like child breezed through it by only reading a few passages and somehow committing them to memory.

Federer's just boring to watch, as he makes everything look so easy. Meanwhile, I look in awe at Roddick and other such players as they work their heart out to fight for every point, showing extreme hussle, hoping for a chance to regain some footing.

Just felt like saying that. This post will obviously infuriate the Federer lovers, but I don't really care.

Since we don't know how hard exactly both players work, if I make the assumption that both players work equally hard, but because Roger is more talented, he is now ahead of Andy in terms of achievement. In that context, do you still feel that Andy is more admirable?

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 05:52 AM
Since we don't know how hard exactly both players work, if I make the assumption that both players work equally hard, but because Roger is more talented, he is now ahead of Andy in terms of achievement. In that context, do you still feel that Andy is more admirable?
Who knows, maybe Federer DOES work harder than Andy. That's a plausible enough assumption. But is it true that he works harder than every other player on tour?

LCeh
09-10-2006, 06:01 AM
Who knows, maybe Federer DOES work harder than Andy. That's a plausible enough assumption. But is it true that he works harder than every other player on tour?

That's not my point. My point is, if they both work equally hard, but one achieves more than the other because he is more talented, will you say the one that achieved less is more admirable?

Allure
09-10-2006, 06:11 AM
I'm starting to get confused at what exactly your counterpoint is, so I think I'll give up after this, unless I have some epiphany in reading your posts.
1 Talent alone won't put you in the record books, but in federer's case, talent is more valuable than Roddick's serve.
2 Malisse, Gasquet, Mathieu, and Lopez are all chokers or too inconsistant to ever win a slam
3 I do have a slight bias for Roddick, I'll admit, but I'm pretty much talking for everyone who plays well even though he/she "has no talent" (ie Nadal). I just chose Roddick mainly because it seemed appopriate - he's reached the finals of the Open and now everyone's talking about their amazement over this.

And you know this how? Gasquet is only 20. Roger didn't win one until he was almost 22. :rolleyes:

ibcnum
09-10-2006, 06:16 AM
That's not my point. My point is, if they both work equally hard, but one achieves more than the other because he is more talented, will you say the one that achieved less is more admirable?

^^ hard to argue with that point

Clara Bow
09-10-2006, 06:19 AM
This thread is kind of silly. About 3/4 of the posters here say that(along the lines of Roodick sucks) that Nadal is a no talent moonballer who has never shown any tennis ability at all so does that mean he deserves more respect as well?

Personally, I don't think so.


I am not doing a Roddick/Nadal whatever, just saying that this arguement about Andy could be applied to a lot of players. And frankly- it takes away from those who have the talent and know what to do with it (Roger). And that deserves respect. I have been fans of players who have great talent but have not done what they should have (Rios, Malisse.....Safin) and I don't see why that means that others who have less talent and work hard deserve more respect than someone like Feds who has a great talent and works hard as well.

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 06:26 AM
That's not my point. My point is, if they both work equally hard, but one achieves more than the other because he is more talented, will you say the one that achieved less is more admirable?
Obviously not, but that's straying from my original point. I'm sick of people worshipping Federer as if he deserved the gifts that he recieved.

LCeh
09-10-2006, 06:35 AM
Your original point was that Roddick is more admirable because he is less talented and so he has to work harder to achieve what he has achieved. But ultimately, we will never know who worked harder, and you answered yourself that if they both worked equally hard, then one would be just as admirable as the other. Roger obviously could very well be working just as hard as Andy is.

As for your "worshipping Federer as if he deserved the gifts that he recieved", I have no clue where you are getting that from.

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 06:35 AM
This thread is kind of silly. About 3/4 of the posters here say that(along the lines of Roodick sucks) that Nadal is a no talent moonballer who has never shown any tennis ability at all so does that mean he deserves more respect as well?

Personally, I don't think so.


I am not doing a Roddick/Nadal whatever, just saying that this arguement about Andy could be applied to a lot of players. And frankly- it takes away from those who have the talent and know what to do with it (Roger). And that deserves respect. I have been fans of players who have great talent but have not done what they should have (Rios, Malisse.....Safin) and I don't see why that means that others who have less talent and work hard deserve more respect than someone like Feds who has a great talent and works hard as well.
This is pretty much what pisses me off, the notion of respect. So what if Nadal doesn't have the talent Federer has? He knows his strengths and wins with them through hard work. Those muscles of his weren't just genetic. I remember someone posting that commentators in the French open criticized Nadal for that, saying that the game of tennis doesn't need "construction arms." Maybe he doesn't have talent, but he works that much harder to train and win his games. Respect isn't given, it's earned (yea, it's cliche. but it applies), and it seems as if Federer is given things just a little bit more than other players.
Your original point was that Roddick is more admirable because he is less talented and so he has to work harder to achieve what he has achieved. But ultimately, we will never know who worked harder, and you answered yourself that if they both worked equally hard, then one would be just as admirable as the other. Roger obviously could very well be working just as hard as Andy is.

As for your "worshipping Federer as if he deserved the gifts that he recieved", I have no clue where you are getting that from.
Ok, I already posted somewhere here that I made a mistake in my opening post and made it more about Roddick than everyone else, when my intention was quite different. I just used Roddick because I thought everyone would understand a bit better, since all the hating seems to be geared toward him. So switch Roddick with any player that works insanely hard. Maybe Federer does work the hardest, but that's definately not the part the people want to talk about him, lest they start acknowleding Rafa's huge forarms.

JW10S
09-10-2006, 06:36 AM
Obviously not, but that's straying from my original point. I'm sick of people worshipping Federer as if he deserved the gifts that he recieved.

So, this was never a pro Roddick thread, just an anti-Federer one. I see now. You may not like it but Federer has acheived what he has through a combination of talent and hard work. I'm almost afraid to ask--but how is it that Federer does not deserve the gifts he has? Is it because as a kid you had to study hard while other's didn't so you're taking your deep rooted frustrations out on a tennis player? Too bad Dr. Phil doesn't read this forum. This thread has officially jumped the shark...

Shy
09-10-2006, 06:38 AM
Obviously not, but that's straying from my original point. I'm sick of people worshipping Federer as if he deserved the gifts that he recieved.
That is silly.It is like saying that a smart person doesn't deserve to be smart, because he was born with it.

guy in sf
09-10-2006, 06:39 AM
Your point is pretty dumb and stupid to me General Surburbia! Roger Federer is not boring to watch and I'm not even one of his fans. People might be tired of him winning but he's never boring to watch and I doubt if Roddick was winning like crazy you would be calling him boring too. I'm sure Federer works as hard as Roddick or anyone on the tour, why do you assume that he doesn't? Roddick had a big slump just before a couple of months ago losing to everyone, that's not so admirable compared to Federer who's been able to keep up his game the whole time.

I will be cheering Andy on to win tomorrow because I'm also tired of Federer winning but I know that Rober never fails at giving us a good performance that isn't boring. And no, I don't think Andy is more or less admirable than Federer.

General Suburbia
09-10-2006, 06:43 AM
So, this was never a pro Roddick thread, just an anti-Federer one. Is it because as a kid you had to study hard while other's didn't so you're taking your deep rooted frustrations out on a tennis player?
A little anti-federer, but more anti-federer's fans. And no, this isn't some inferiority complex I had back at school. I just like the idea of hard work better than God given talent. I remember reading an article about a man who pretended to be a begger and writing about all the dirty looks he got from passerby, as if he was some slug who deserved what he got. I guess you can say that I'm an idealist, and that the world would be better off if everything were gauged more on hard work than anything else (ok, maybe that's a bit extreme, but you get my drift).

LCeh
09-10-2006, 06:45 AM
Ok, I already posted somewhere here that I made a mistake in my opening post and made it more about Roddick than everyone else, when my intention was quite different. I just used Roddick because I thought everyone would understand a bit better, since all the hating seems to be geared toward him. So switch Roddick with any player that works insanely hard. Maybe Federer does work the hardest, but that's definately not the part the people want to talk about him, lest they start acknowleding Rafa's huge forarms.

You are absolutely right. Working hard to achieve your goals when you are not that gifted obviously commands respect, but you are starting to sound like Roger deserves less respect because he is more talented. Roger could have taken it easy, does less work he does now, and maybe end his career with 3-4 slams. Still would have been a great career, but would have undoubtedly been an underachiever.

The less talented hard workers obviously deserves respect, but that doesn't take anything away from the more talented.

Clara Bow
09-10-2006, 06:48 AM
Respect isn't given, it's earned (yea, it's cliche. but it applies),

I can understand your point in a way...and I see what you meant even if I do not agree with all parts of yoiur assertion 100%.

I have always felt that great fighters in the game (names mentioned before) deserve great respect. They really do- and sometimes, they are not given enough respect.

At the same time, I am not going to begrudge a great talent such as Feds for doing what he can with it.

I don't think one deserves respect more than the other. I think both camps deserve respect. :)

ExpectedWinner
09-10-2006, 08:08 AM
that means he's is a grinder; he worked hard to get where he's at right now. Whereas Federer has a God-given talent to play tennis at the highest level, and undoubtedly works hard to stay at that level, many other players are forced to work that much harder just to keep up. .


What are you talking about? First, you have no idea how hard players A,B,C are working. If you have some information about it, please share the details with us.
Secondly, the hardest and the most boring part is an off court training. The anount of fitness work/injury prevention stuff needed for this level has nothing to do with talents players A, B, C possess.

napki
09-10-2006, 08:50 AM
I don't think one deserves respect more than the other. I think both camps deserve respect. :)
since when admiration and respect mean the same thing? :p

Action Jackson
09-10-2006, 08:56 AM
Round and round and round we go.

kronus12
09-10-2006, 08:59 AM
You do not make sense General Suburbia but checking your last post this thread is obviously a hate thread especially with your not so gentle
"federer dosen't deserve the gifts he recieved"
What is your argument for that he doesn't deserve to win the slams TMS titles why?
What possible reason could you come up with?
Seems like some one needs to relax and let go of the hate.

Allez
09-10-2006, 09:18 AM
General Suburbia how the hell do you know how hard Roddick and Federer work for their respective achievements. What would you know just what it takes to be the best and win 8 slams ? Maybe Federer works harder than Roddick. You don't know. Clearly talent is not enough as previously mentioned, else the xavier, PHM, Gasquet, Berdych, Rios and all these naturally talented players would have won slams left right and centre. Hard work must be what sets Roger apart from them. Instead of beating around the bush just come out and say you do not like Federer very much. Just like you didn't like those 'alien' like kids at school. You have something against people who stand out and prove themselves "better" than others in certain areas. You'd prefer it every tennis player was like Roddick or less talented, and where folks had to study for millions of years before passing their tests :cuckoo: You forget that there are other things at which Roddick is "better" than Federer. Perhaps not on a tennis court, though perhaps his serve has been "better" this past fortnight. We can't all the the same in every aspect of life :rolleyes:

swissfed
09-10-2006, 10:36 AM
Federer trains soooo hard , probably the hardest one, give him a credit

Monteque
09-10-2006, 10:43 AM
A little anti-federer, but more anti-federer's fans. And no, this isn't some inferiority complex I had back at school. I just like the idea of hard work better than God given talent. I remember reading an article about a man who pretended to be a begger and writing about all the dirty looks he got from passerby, as if he was some slug who deserved what he got. I guess you can say that I'm an idealist, and that the world would be better off if everything were gauged more on hard work than anything else (ok, maybe that's a bit extreme, but you get my drift).

Just for the note, if you have God given talent (just what u said) but lack of practising, you can't be a legend. I know what you said but i think your mind is too short or i dont know maybe you lack something or what. But why almost ppl against you is you forgetting about how Fed is to be like where he is now, standing at the top. It's not easy, dude. Roddick got his first GS while he was younger than Fed. So we don't know who has more God given talent. Maybe Nadal is, because he is 19 and have 2 GS. But for sure the most developing player currently is Fed, and he make all things so easy that posed because he is working hard to making it looks easy, so that's why we have so many respect to him. So take a look inside and deeply, how that's all is going on.

You wouldn't he was have God given talent while he was 21, so what's make you think he has God given talent now???

Allure
09-10-2006, 06:39 PM
General Suburbia how the hell do you know how hard Roddick and Federer work for their respective achievements. What would you know just what it takes to be the best and win 8 slams ? Maybe Federer works harder than Roddick. You don't know. Clearly talent is not enough as previously mentioned, else the xavier, PHM, Gasquet, Berdych, Rios and all these naturally talented players would have won slams left right and centre. Hard work must be what sets Roger apart from them. Instead of beating around the bush just come out and say you do not like Federer very much. Just like you didn't like those 'alien' like kids at school. You have something against people who stand out and prove themselves "better" than others in certain areas. You'd prefer it every tennis player was like Roddick or less talented, and where folks had to study for millions of years before passing their tests :cuckoo: You forget that there are other things at which Roddick is "better" than Federer. Perhaps not on a tennis court, though perhaps his serve has been "better" this past fortnight. We can't all the the same in every aspect of life :rolleyes:

Again, Gasquet is only 20. Give him time. ;)

cmurray
09-10-2006, 06:51 PM
I don't understand. Are you trying to say that Roger doesn't work hard? I'd have to disagree with you on that one. You can have all the God-given talent in the world and if you're lazy you'll waste it. Look at Marat. I'm not saying that he's lazy (though he may be), but he DOES have a truckload of natural talent. Talent alone isn't enough.

chisey
09-10-2006, 07:35 PM
The less talented hard workers obviously deserves respect, but that doesn't take anything away from the more talented.

I agree 100%. To try and push this conversation along in a less negative direction, one of the things that I really admire about the 'new' Andy Roddick is how hard he has worked. It's one thing to be talented and work hard when you're getting good results, and winning tournaments, but it's a great deal harder when you're not doing so well. I think it would be very easy for Andy to have given up when he fell off his game and a lot of commentators or reporters said things like 'his career is done. The rest of the field has moved on but Roddick hasn't'. But instead of giving up, he went and found people to help him, worked incredibly hard, and now he's in the final of a Grand Slam again. Regardless of what some people might think about his on-court demeanor or supposed arrogance, I think it takes a certain kind of humility to say 'what I'm doing isn't working. I need help'. That's what I like most about Andy right now, and why I feel excited every time he wins. And admiring that quality in him doesn't take anything away from Federer or any other player.

scarecrows
09-10-2006, 07:51 PM
roddick sucks :)


I agree with this poster

PamV
09-10-2006, 08:28 PM
Federer's just boring to watch, as he makes everything look so easy. Meanwhile, I look in awe at Roddick and other such players as they work their heart out to fight for every point, showing extreme hussle, hoping for a chance to regain some footing.



Everyone has their own tastes and oppinion. I ask you though, how can Federer be boring to watch if he is the more talented player as you yourself admit? I think it's more entertaining to watch rare talent rather than grunt work.

That said, Federer has has to work very hard in many matches. I think playing Nadal in 3 clay finals was a lot of hard work. Where was Roddick then?

ServeAlready81
09-10-2006, 08:37 PM
Andy will never stop being criticized, but I bet not one single person on this board would last 10 mins in a set with him.

PamV
09-10-2006, 08:41 PM
Because if they are right, and Roddick really has no talent, then that means he's is a grinder; he worked hard to get where he's at right now. Whereas Federer has a God-given talent to play tennis at the highest level, and undoubtedly works hard to stay at that level, many other players are forced to work that much harder just to keep up.

Actually Roddick's big serve make things a lot easier for him than for most players. He doesn't really have to grind that much compared to most players.

Why be against Federer just because he has talent?

selesfan
09-10-2006, 08:41 PM
Everyone has their own tastes and oppinion. I ask you though, how can Federer be boring to watch if he is the more talented player as you yourself admit? I think it's more entertaining to watch rare talent rather than grunt work.

That said, Federer has has to work very hard in many matches. I think playing Nadal in 3 clay finals was a lot of hard work. Where was Roddick then?

Agreed. I am never bored watching his matches with the array of shots he has.

rrfnpump
09-10-2006, 08:42 PM
Andy will never stop being criticized, but I bet not one single person on this board would last 10 mins in a set with him.

if we take the time Misha did, I bet against it :)

PamV
09-10-2006, 08:42 PM
Andy will never stop being criticized, but I bet not one single person on this board would last 10 mins in a set with him.

You can say that same thing about any pro tennis player. They all get criticized on this board and no non-pro would last 10 minutes or even 5 with any of them.

Rogiman
09-10-2006, 08:50 PM
People are over analyzing what that poster General Suburbia said.

He/she is a fan of Roddick, and a Fed hater (probably because of the h2h) which is perfectly fine.
He/she should have just said "I would like Andy to win because I like him and hate Federer" which is understandable and there are 20,000 different threads in GM at the moment discussing the exact topic.
Instead, he/she chose to make up that 'Roger is more talented so Andy's achievements are more impressive' BS and the weird part is that people bother to address the topic seriously.

I'm a Fed-fan and a Nadal hater, for example, and I say mouthfully I'd like to see Nadal lose as often as possible, no need to type a manifest :)

PamV
09-10-2006, 08:50 PM
I agree 100%. To try and push this conversation along in a less negative direction, one of the things that I really admire about the 'new' Andy Roddick is how hard he has worked. It's one thing to be talented and work hard when you're getting good results, and winning tournaments, but it's a great deal harder when you're not doing so well. I think it would be very easy for Andy to have given up when he fell off his game and a lot of commentators or reporters said things like 'his career is done. The rest of the field has moved on but Roddick hasn't'. But instead of giving up, he went and found people to help him, worked incredibly hard, and now he's in the final of a Grand Slam again. Regardless of what some people might think about his on-court demeanor or supposed arrogance, I think it takes a certain kind of humility to say 'what I'm doing isn't working. I need help'. That's what I like most about Andy right now, and why I feel excited every time he wins. And admiring that quality in him doesn't take anything away from Federer or any other player.

True. Furthermore, it's not as if Federer hasn't paid his dues and had to fight through problems. He's had to overcome nemesis opponents, and try to control his emotions and doubts. He's had a stretch of time when he wasn't winning any tournament. Obviously now he has to make the most of his prime and try to win what ever he can. What's wrong with that?

PamV
09-10-2006, 08:53 PM
People are over analyzing what that poster General Suburbia said.

I'm a Fed-fan and a Nadal hater, for example, and I say mouthfully I'd like to see Nadal lose as often as possible, no need to type a manifest :)

Good points. Everyone should just admit to liking who they like and nothing is going to change their minds. It doesn't have to be logical why we like one player instead of another.

Vass
09-10-2006, 08:53 PM
Andy will never stop being criticized, but I bet not one single person on this board would last 10 mins in a set with him.
:spit:
Noone on this board would last 10 minutes with the world no. 250