Federer is not close to Woods - What do you think? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer is not close to Woods - What do you think?

lshdure
09-13-2006, 04:56 PM
Federer is brilliant but still too wooden
By Bill Center, Times Online Special Correspondent





As 25-year-old Roger Federer was stroking his way to a third-straight US Open title to extend his Grand Slam count to nine, including four consecutive Wimbledon championships, tennis fans began wondering why he isn't mentioned in the same breath as Tiger Woods.



Tennis, after all, is far more physically demanding than golf - even though the current generation of players rush the net about as often as the seasons change.

Shouldn't Federer be rated among the world's greatest athletes? Shouldn't he be ranked right up there with Woods? Ahead even.

You're kidding me, right? Federer is not Woods. He isn't even Maria Sharapova. There's a lot more to this than the ability to hit a ball. Once, men's tennis was great drama. Borg. Becker. Connors. McEnroe. Sampras. Agassi.

And championship matches drew great television numbers. The players were personalities, the matches events. Each shot carried excitement... all the way down to a rocket Roscoe Tanner serve.

Plus, there was entertainment beyond the game. Admit it, you enjoyed those John McEnroe tantrums. You turned up the volume to make sure you didn't miss a barb directed at the umpire or some poor volunteer linesman.

Today, who cares? Federer is a fine Swiss movement. Nine Grand Slams is the sixth-highest in tennis history. Still young, Federer's only five shy of Sampras' record of 14.

No question, Federer, who routed Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the US Open final, is the ranking player in the world today, and for the foreseeable future. But he's boring us stiff. And he's not the only high-ranking player out there who can make that dubious claim. Roddick. Rafael Nadal. Line 'em up.

Tennis, please give us another Connors or McEnroe. Someone, anyone with a little charisma and panache. Someone please rush the net.

Want to know what is wrong with men's tennis? Watch Tiger Woods. On any given Sunday, there is a smile on Tiger's face as he charges to his next win. The camera loves him. So does the microphone. Tiger is loveable. We walk the course with Tiger. We're there with his every shot. In victory, he is humble. In defeat, he is gracious.

Federer can't even be gracious in victory. When he wins, he embarks on strange journeys of self-admiration. When Muhammad Ali proclaimed "I am the greatest" we listened. When Federer heads in that direction, we reach for the remote.

Not that many of us were actually watching the last act of the US Open. The main storyline of this championship was the farewell appearance of Andre Agassi. And his farewell match drew a large television audience.

But the top draw, particularly for those target males aged 18-34, was the chance to see Sharapova, who defeated Justine Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-4 in the women's final.

Federer? Not that we really cared, but he was up against the first Sunday of the National Football League season. Even NASCAR raced on the Saturday night rather than go up against the NFL.

Is Federer a great player? Absolutely. Is he one of the all-time greats of tennis? Definitely. Is he Tiger Woods? Not even close.

oz_boz
09-13-2006, 05:01 PM
Is Bill Center Amerocentric? Definitely. Does he make any valid points? Not even close.

celia
09-13-2006, 05:02 PM
American sour grapes propaganda.

Naranoc
09-13-2006, 05:02 PM
I'm not really a fan of Federer, but that seems pretty nonsensical to me. Woods bores me to death, and if Federer isn't 'charismatic' then Tiger Woods almost certainly isn't.

adee-gee
09-13-2006, 05:12 PM
Want to know what is wrong with men's tennis? Watch Tiger Woods. On any given Sunday, there is a smile on Tiger's face as he charges to his next win. The camera loves him. So does the microphone. Tiger is loveable. We walk the course with Tiger. We're there with his every shot. In victory, he is humble. In defeat, he is gracious.
:worship:

This whole article is absolutely spot on, apart from the bit where he says Nadal and Roddick are also boring us stiff.

adee-gee
09-13-2006, 05:13 PM
I'm not really a fan of Federer, but that seems pretty nonsensical to me. Woods bores me to death, and if Federer isn't 'charismatic' then Tiger Woods almost certainly isn't.
:haha: have you ever watched Tiger Woods play a major?

Boris Franz Ecker
09-13-2006, 05:13 PM
He wants drama but thinks a man walking in the park is a better sportsman?

oz_boz
09-13-2006, 05:15 PM
He wants drama but thinks an American man walking in the park is a better sportsman?

Not a better sportsman, but more exciting.

bokehlicious
09-13-2006, 05:24 PM
:worship:

This whole article is absolutely spot on, apart from the bit where he says Nadal and Roddick are also boring us stiff.

:lol: :hug:

marifline
09-13-2006, 05:26 PM
typically american,
Of course, the most interesting to watch is the russian dolls who grunt like a cocaine addict hyena. Not because Federer dosen't have the perfect marketable star profile, doesn't mean he's not great. Tennis greatness is in tennis not in everywhere else.

Ryan
09-13-2006, 05:27 PM
Tiger Woods - exciting? Ugh, maybe, but the commentators are so far up his ass I cant even watch golf anymore, it's sickening the way they pander to Tiger. Bleh. Please don't be like that Roger. Does anyone notice how this author associates "exciting" with rushing the net? Not evne exciting tennis, but exciting personalities. Uh, sure buddy.

lshdure
09-13-2006, 05:28 PM
Problem of American spectators (not all) in tennis
1. loving bang-bang tennis
2. not understanding the concept of "beauty" (aesthetics of tennis) addicted to "entertainment" or "TV rating."
3. wanting tennis to be domestic sports rather than international one: the best one for them is American tennis player's beating other country player in front of them. Then, they like him/her. ex) Boris Becker: They liked him because he has been beaten continuously and graciously in Wimby by their idol (P. Sampras)

This is what i can see through this article.

adee-gee
09-13-2006, 05:28 PM
Tiger Woods - exciting? Ugh, maybe, but the commentators are so far up his ass I cant even watch golf anymore, it's sickening the way they pander to Tiger. Bleh. Please don't be like that Roger. Does anyone notice how this author associates "exciting" with rushing the net? Not evne exciting tennis, but exciting personalities. Uh, sure buddy.
On that basis, should it not piss you off the amount of people that are up Federer's ass on this forum?

scoobs
09-13-2006, 05:34 PM
I think it's nice that journalism continues to hire from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Naranoc
09-13-2006, 05:38 PM
:haha: have you ever watched Tiger Woods play a major?

Yep, and I don't connect with him on any level when he's playing. Perhaps that's because I find Golf boring to watch in general, but I've never thought of Woods as 'charismatic' or 'exciting'. Humble and gracious yes, but nothing else really.

doublebackhand
09-13-2006, 05:41 PM
well, everyone is entitled to his opinion.

adee-gee
09-13-2006, 05:43 PM
Yep, and I don't connect with him on any level when he's playing. Perhaps that's because I find Golf boring to watch in general, but I've never thought of Woods as 'charismatic' or 'exciting'. Humble and gracious yes, but nothing else really.
Fair enough, but Woods is without doubt one of the most exciting and charismatic players in the world :)

Pea
09-13-2006, 05:48 PM
Woods more charismatic than Rogi? Why? He bores me.:confused: Is it because he's American?

adee-gee
09-13-2006, 05:50 PM
Woods more charismatic than Rogi? Why? He bores me.:confused: Is it because he's American?
No, it's because you're a Fedtard :kiss:

martinatreue
09-13-2006, 05:54 PM
Tiger woods? Yawn.

Sjengster
09-13-2006, 05:54 PM
As a tennis fan who never wondered for a moment why Federer wasn't being compared with Tiger I have no problem with the comparison being rejected, but the diatribe against tennis is simply another nostalgia trip as we've seen time and time again from journalists in the last few years. Crushingly unoriginal. Federer never humble in victory or gracious in defeat, that's also worth a few laughs. The least they could do is hire a journalist who's actually read some of his interviews.

fabolous
09-13-2006, 06:00 PM
Woods more charismatic than Rogi? Why? He bores me.:confused: Is it because he's American?
just a short statistic: the german commentator said during the final that 8% of the american know who roger federer is (andy roddick 16% but that doesn't matter now). how many american people know tiger woods, what do you think? over 80% for sure.

Kip
09-13-2006, 06:02 PM
Woods more charismatic than Rogi? Why? He bores me.:confused: Is it because he's American?
Absolutely!

Federer is no more boring than Sampras was
yet the "American media" worshiped him. :cool:

Tiger's personality is no more better than Roger's.
They both play amaingly, they smile, acknowledge the
crowd from time to time, and always seemingly say the
right things.

Tiger also being a minority in the US has
helped as well in a traditionaly caucasian sport
such as tennis.

If Roger were American this wouldn't be happening.


As for the Sharapova thing in this article, she has the
commercial blonde hair blue eyed look that the media here loves.
Sex appeal, sex sells very well and caters to the guys. The fact
that unlike Kournikova, Sharapova can play and win. Though
Anna is much hotter IMO.

Pea
09-13-2006, 06:10 PM
No, it's because you're a Fedtard :kiss:

Takes one to know one.:wavey:

Melvins
09-13-2006, 06:14 PM
I think that Sampras (I did't see much of him) has more charisma than Federer. Sampras was a serious player but with a little of style. Federer don't have charisma, only great tennis that cover it. And Woods is one of golf players with more charisma that I know.

However, to me, Federer is today the best player of all sports in the world.

cmurray
09-13-2006, 06:17 PM
Interesting article. Though I'd have to say that the Swiss probably have a different idea of what is or isn't exciting in tennis, hmm?

I agree that in the United States at least, tennis has lost some of it's luster. Part of it, I'm sure is the lack of consistent play from an American player. But I think it's more than that. He has Bjorn Borg on the list of "exciting" players - and don't get me wrong, the guy played AMAZING tennis, but he wasn't exactly a seething cauldron of raw emotion, was he? The excitement was because he had John Asshole McEnroe as a foil. Same thing goes for Sampras. Amazing tennis, but otherwise not a huge on-court personality. He admitted as much himself. The excitement was because he was the gentleman to Andre's punk. It made for a good story, and thus "exciting" tennis. For that matter, in his truly winning years, Andre wasn't exactly exciting either, was he? The most excitement we'd see from him in a match is blowing his snot and boogers onto the court.

I don't think it's any secret that I'm no fan of Federer's. But his tennis IS exquisite - just like Pete's was and Borg's before him. He isn't any worse than either of them. What it boils down to is that the one guy that can press him is....well....a nice guy at the end of the day. He may fight like hell for every point, but when was the last time you saw Rafa throw a tantrum? Spit at a linesperson (a la Agassi)? Roger has no real foil. That's not his fault.

To this guy, "exciting" tennis equals bratty behavior. And if that's the case, then indeed tennis isn't what it once was.

alfonsojose
09-13-2006, 06:19 PM
Typical celebrity-blonde-pizza obssesed american. Connors and McEnroe attitude was disgusting and shameful. Sampras was even more boring than JesusFed. Maybe this guy want's Maria's banana inside his ass :rolleyes:

hitchhiker
09-13-2006, 06:19 PM
just a short statistic: the german commentator said during the final that 8% of the american know who roger federer is (andy roddick 16% but that doesn't matter now). how many american people know tiger woods, what do you think? over 80% for sure.

100% know who tiger woods is but its pretty stupid to compare recognition of european athlete and american athlete in the states.

cmurray
09-13-2006, 06:21 PM
No, it's because you're a Fedtard :kiss:

OMG! Your avi scares me. Ewww.....

tennismaster882001
09-13-2006, 06:31 PM
Is Bill Center Amerocentric? Definitely. Does he make any valid points? Not even close.

That's true! Federer is ahead of Woods in Europe, and should (will) be in the whole world! This is such a bad article, I would be ashemed to write something alike!

DrJules
09-13-2006, 06:50 PM
:worship:

This whole article is absolutely spot on, apart from the bit where he says Nadal and Roddick are also boring us stiff.

I have the feeling that the author is not that interested or appreciates tennis. Anyway you are being very selective in your use of the acticle. He equates Nadal and Roddick with Federer in the interest stakes. This is a fundemental element of the aticle which states ALL players are boring:

"No question, Federer, who routed Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the US Open final, is the ranking player in the world today, and for the foreseeable future. But he's boring us stiff. And he's not the only high-ranking player out there who can make that dubious claim. Roddick. Rafael Nadal. Line 'em up."

It is consistent with his failure to understand tennis. His interest in tennis seems to date to the days of misconduct of McEnroe and Connors which he states earlier in the article.

DrJules
09-13-2006, 06:58 PM
Tiger Woods - exciting? Ugh, maybe, but the commentators are so far up his ass I cant even watch golf anymore, it's sickening the way they pander to Tiger. Bleh. Please don't be like that Roger. Does anyone notice how this author associates "exciting" with rushing the net? Not evne exciting tennis, but exciting personalities. Uh, sure buddy.

If you are more interested in tennis you will find Federer more exciting and if you are more interested in golf you will find Woods more exciting. A lot depends on your sporting preferences.

Melvins
09-13-2006, 07:06 PM
That's true! Federer is ahead of Woods in Europe, and should (will) be in the whole world! This is such a bad article, I would be ashemed to write something alike!

I don't agree! Federer has much potential of recognize in all world with this results, but don't have outside tennis. An example: in Portugal, people don't give much atention to tennis and golf. But I think that Tiger Woods is must recognize in Portugal that Roger Federer. Maybe because Tiger is the most rich sport player in the world. Only portuguese tennis fans and few people knows who is Roger Federer. Oh, but all knows who is Sharapova. :D

Of course not only tennis supporters know Federer, but he isn't a personality with great charisma like Sampra was.

emile32
09-13-2006, 07:25 PM
Melvins I find it strange to hear that nobody knows federer in portugal. Because in europe 80% of the people know who federer is compared to 7% in the united states.

fabolous
09-13-2006, 07:31 PM
100% know who tiger woods is but its pretty stupid to compare recognition of european athlete and american athlete in the states.
of course, but i thought we were talking about the states only.

Melvins
09-13-2006, 07:36 PM
Melvins I find it strange to hear that nobody knows federer in portugal. Because in europe 80% of the people know who federer is compared to 7% in the united states.

80% in Europe? :confused: I don't believe! Is to much! 80/90% is people that know who is Zidane.

In Portugal, I'm sure that Federer don't have 20% of recognize, maybe not 10%.

In general, people knows who is Agassi, Sampras, but not Federer. Of course, these people don't like watch tennis and TV/media coverage is poor.

emile32
09-13-2006, 07:43 PM
I live in holland and I don't know anybody who doesn't know who federer is. Even one of my best friends who hates sports knows who federer is. But if you would ask him who figo,deco,kaka,robinho are he wouldn't know.

Mechlan
09-13-2006, 07:48 PM
Shouldn't Federer be rated among the world's greatest athletes?

You're kidding me, right? Federer is not Woods. He isn't even Maria Sharapova.


He seems hopelessly confused about the difference between at athlete and a star. To say Federer is not one of the world's great athletes is laughable, as is this article.

Melvins
09-13-2006, 08:36 PM
I live in holland and I don't know anybody who doesn't know who federer is. Even one of my best friends who hates sports knows who federer is. But if you would ask him who figo,deco,kaka,robinho are he wouldn't know.

Portugal isn't holland.

In a sports newspaper with 46/48 pages, only 5/6 pages is to others sports than football. :rolleyes:

marcRD
09-13-2006, 08:45 PM
Well, are there any countries in europe less interested in tennis than Portugal?

You guys truly dont have a single drop of tennis tradition.

supersexynadal
09-13-2006, 08:56 PM
Federer is brilliant but still too wooden
By Bill Center, Times Online Special Correspondent





As 25-year-old Roger Federer was stroking his way to a third-straight US Open title to extend his Grand Slam count to nine, including four consecutive Wimbledon championships, tennis fans began wondering why he isn't mentioned in the same breath as Tiger Woods.



Tennis, after all, is far more physically demanding than golf - even though the current generation of players rush the net about as often as the seasons change.

Shouldn't Federer be rated among the world's greatest athletes? Shouldn't he be ranked right up there with Woods? Ahead even.

You're kidding me, right? Federer is not Woods. He isn't even Maria Sharapova.I cant believe he said that. Federer is a natural like all great players, Maria wont even take a step in Steffis shoes. Again, its all about publicity. STRIKE ONE
There's a lot more to this than the ability to hit a ball. Once, men's tennis was great drama. Borg. Becker. Connors. McEnroe. Sampras. Agassi. 3 of these ore american(YAY) and even sampras shows less emotion than roger STRIKE TWO
And championship matches drew great television numbersEven if ratings went down, its doesnt take einstein to realize that more people watch tennis than they watch golf. STRIKE THREE. The players were personalities, the matches events. Each shot carried excitement... all the way down to a rocket Roscoe Tanner serve.

Plus, there was entertainment beyond the game. Admit it, you enjoyed those John McEnroe tantrums No...Id prefer to watch a talented federer than someone whos famous for his tantrums not his tennis. You turned up the volume to make sure you didn't miss a barb directed at the umpire or some poor volunteer linesman.

Today, who cares? Federer is a fine Swiss movement. Of course he snot american, who cares? Nine Grand Slams is the sixth-highest in tennis history. Still young, Federer's only five shy of Sampras' record of 14.

No question, Federer, who routed Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the US Open final, is the ranking player in the world today, and for the foreseeable future. But he's boring us stiff. And he's not the only high-ranking player out there who can make that dubious claim. Roddick. Rafael Nadal. Line 'em up.

Tennis, please give us another Connors or McEnroe. Someone, anyone with a little charisma and panache. Someone please rush the net. At this point, enough whining. Thats federers way. Federers too boring and nadals too arrogent, im sure thats what the reporter thinks. He'll rush to the net if he needs too! Wimbledon is slower than ever, there is no need o rush to the net as often as they did years ago

Want to know what is wrong with men's tennis? Watch Tiger Woods. On any given Sunday, there is a smile on Tiger's face as he charges to his next win. The camera loves him. So does the microphone. Tiger is loveable. We walk the course with Tiger. We're there with his every shot. In victory, he is humble. In defeat, he is gracious. Totally contradicts what he said about people enjoying mc enroes tantrums and boosting their volume up ti listen
Federer can't even be gracious in victory. When he wins, he embarks on strange journeys of self-admiration. When Muhammad Ali proclaimed "I am the greatest" we listened. When Federer heads in that direction, we reach for the remote.CRAP CRAP CRAP!!! He never called himself the greated or anything close! And VERY few people talk about nadal positively when theyve lost to them 6 times. Imagine this was a nadal/mcenroe rivalry

Not that many of us were actually watching the last act of the US Open. The main storyline of this championship was the farewell appearance of Andre Agassi. And his farewell match drew a large television audience.

But the top draw, particularly for those target males aged 18-34, was the chance to see Sharapova, who defeated Justine Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-4 in the women's final.

Federer? Not that we really cared, but he was up against the first Sunday of the National Football League season. Even NASCAR raced on the Saturday night rather than go up against the NFL.

Is Federer a great player? Absolutely. Is he one of the all-time greats of tennis? Definitely. Is he Tiger Woods? Not even close.


How can someone have the guts to say that? More people know tiger woods than they know federer. Hes in most of my school textbooks!! Like MEchlan said, tiger woods is a STAR. I dont know much about golf but hes a great player for sure but Roger DEFINATELY is tiger woods and even better. He might not seem appealing when u watch him for the first time but if people watch him enough they will know that his attitude on court is just a way for him to stay focused. He loves tennis, hes not arrogent and isnt just doing his job.

Its the way tennis is publisized....We see much more sharapova TAG HEUR ads than we see of federer. Woods is EVERYWHERE and HE is golf. Hes the name that appears in anyones head when u mention golf. Again, if federer was american, i cant imagine the hype that would be around him. He only does ads for his sponsors and for tennis unlike agassi and sharapova who make ads for pentax or canon or whatever. Most people i know dont have a clue who the hell federer is and for sure, the tennis barbies are more popular.Like woods

Melvins
09-13-2006, 09:43 PM
Well, are there any countries in europe less interested in tennis than Portugal?

You guys truly dont have a single drop of tennis tradition.

Isn't only about tennis. People like tennis and other sports, but TV and newspapers don't coverage tennis and others sports... only football, because $$$$$$$.

An example: when Obikwelu won silver medal (the best of Portugal in 2004) in Olympics Athens, only 1 of 3 sports newspapers did put like big highligth.

But I don't believe that 80% of europeans knows who is Federer. Think in girls that don't like watch sport, old people, ...

And tradition will be come with Michelle Brito, Gastao Elias, ... ;) but yes, we don't have tradition. The best player ever is Nuno Marques (86º ATP in 1995). However, everyone knows who is Joao Lagos, the director of Estoril Open and Master Cup 2000 (also Lisbon-Dakar 2006/2007).

angiel
09-13-2006, 09:44 PM
On that basis, should it not piss you off the amount of people that are up Federer's ass on this forum?


I agree with you adee-gee, hyprocrites all of them. :mad: :devil: :sad:

adee-gee
09-13-2006, 09:51 PM
If you are more interested in tennis you will find Federer more exciting and if you are more interested in golf you will find Woods more exciting. A lot depends on your sporting preferences.
What a steaming pile of bullshit :bs:

I find tennis more exciting then golf.....but in terms of who is more exciting, Federer or Woods - not even a contest.

WF4EVER
09-13-2006, 10:07 PM
LOL, Bill Center's just milking the Tiger/Federer story for what he can get out of it.

bokehlicious
09-13-2006, 10:45 PM
What a steaming pile of bullshit :bs:

I find tennis more exciting then golf.....but in terms of who is more exciting, Federer or Woods - not even a contest.

Who do you find more exciting, Nadal or Woods ?

adee-gee
09-13-2006, 10:57 PM
Who do you find more exciting, Nadal or Woods ?
Tough, tough call.....Probably Woods :)

Himura
09-13-2006, 11:09 PM
I don`t find Federer booring I think he has a great sence of humor and talks good, very smart person. And most people in sweden knows how Federer is.

scoobs
09-13-2006, 11:23 PM
Federer is closer to Woods than any of us suspect. :D :angel:
They do seem to have...consummated...their infatuation quite quickly :)

deliveryman
09-14-2006, 12:39 AM
Roger is at a few disadvantages when it comes to terms with popularity with the American media:

1) He's not a minority

2) He's not American

3) English is not his first language (although he speaks it pretty well), thus he can give a vibe of arrogance, simply because he lacks a better vocabulary

NYCtennisfan
09-14-2006, 12:46 AM
You cannot compare tennis to a sport where a player does not have to be in any type of physical shape above that of the normal adult male. Players such as Craig Stadler and John Daly have won multiple majors. Tiger IS in very good shape, but it's hard to take golf very seriously when commentators talk about the wear and tear of having to play more than 18 holes in one day after a rainout.

darnyelb
09-14-2006, 12:56 AM
Whining and screaming does not equal personality. I find Federer infinitely more relatable than the crybaby stars of yesteryear.

PamV
09-14-2006, 01:02 AM
Federer is brilliant but still too wooden
By Bill Center, Times Online Special Correspondent




The guy says Federer isnt' even close to being a Sharapova. What a moron! Sharapova is obnoxious with a whiney nasal irritating voice and a face of pimples. She shrieks for no reason and many people find her game boring. Does he realize how many tennis fans dislike her?

Roger has tons of charm, but that guy is too dense to notice.

PamV
09-14-2006, 01:36 AM
You cannot compare tennis to a sport where a player does not have to be in any type of phsyical shape above that of the normal adult male. Players such as Craig Stadler and John Daly have won multiple majors. Tiger IS in very good shape, but it's hard to take golf very seriously when commentators talk about the wear and tear of having to play more than 18 holes in one day after a rainout.

Well said. Furthermore the game of golf is slow....not requiring split second decissions to be made while running back and forth.

PamV
09-14-2006, 01:39 AM
I don`t find Federer booring I think he has a great sence of humor and talks good, very smart person. And most people in sweden knows how Federer is.

Many people know him world wide. Just because Roger doesn't fit the mold that this guy seems to want for speech making is ridiculous. He obviously doesn't understand the significance of what Roger has been accomplishing. If he did he wouldn't bother to discuss the rest of this.

Tennis Fool
09-14-2006, 03:36 AM
3) English is not his first language (although he speaks it pretty well), thus he can give a vibe of arrogance, simply because he lacks a better vocabulary

Actually, he learned English from his South African mother :)

Tennis Fool
09-14-2006, 03:37 AM
You cannot compare tennis to a sport where a player does not have to be in any type of physical shape above that of the normal adult male. Players such as Craig Stadler and John Daly have won multiple majors.
What happened to Phil :eek: He won the Masters and put on 60 pounds!

Tennis Fool
09-14-2006, 03:42 AM
The guy says Federer isnt' even close to being a Sharapova. What a moron! Sharapova is obnoxious with a whiney nasal irritating voice and a face of pimples. She shrieks for no reason and many people find her game boring. Does he realize how many tennis fans dislike her?

Roger has tons of charm, but that guy is too dense to notice.
Yes, but she's American ;)

robinhood
09-14-2006, 03:52 AM
Federer can't even be gracious in victory. When he wins, he embarks on strange journeys of self-admiration. When Muhammad Ali proclaimed "I am the greatest" we listened. When Federer heads in that direction, we reach for the remote.
:confused:

Is he Tiger Woods? Not even close.
Thank goodness. We don't need no clone.

tennismaster882001
09-14-2006, 04:05 AM
I don't agree! Federer has much potential of recognize in all world with this results, but don't have outside tennis. An example: in Portugal, people don't give much atention to tennis and golf. But I think that Tiger Woods is must recognize in Portugal that Roger Federer. Maybe because Tiger is the most rich sport player in the world. Only portuguese tennis fans and few people knows who is Roger Federer. Oh, but all knows who is Sharapova. :D

Of course not only tennis supporters know Federer, but he isn't a personality with great charisma like Sampra was.

In Croatia almost everybody knows who Federer is! I can't believe that only 20% of people in Portugal know that! :confused:

Mimi
09-14-2006, 04:42 AM
i think federer is even more dominating than tigers :wavey:

CmonAussie
09-14-2006, 04:48 AM
Federer is brilliant but still too wooden
By Bill Center, Times Online Special Correspondent





As 25-year-old Roger Federer was stroking his way to a third-straight US Open title to extend his Grand Slam count to nine, including four consecutive Wimbledon championships, tennis fans began wondering why he isn't mentioned in the same breath as Tiger Woods.



Tennis, after all, is far more physically demanding than golf - even though the current generation of players rush the net about as often as the seasons change.

Shouldn't Federer be rated among the world's greatest athletes? Shouldn't he be ranked right up there with Woods? Ahead even.

You're kidding me, right? Federer is not Woods. He isn't even Maria Sharapova. There's a lot more to this than the ability to hit a ball. Once, men's tennis was great drama. Borg. Becker. Connors. McEnroe. Sampras. Agassi.

And championship matches drew great television numbers. The players were personalities, the matches events. Each shot carried excitement... all the way down to a rocket Roscoe Tanner serve.

Plus, there was entertainment beyond the game. Admit it, you enjoyed those John McEnroe tantrums. You turned up the volume to make sure you didn't miss a barb directed at the umpire or some poor volunteer linesman.

Today, who cares? Federer is a fine Swiss movement. Nine Grand Slams is the sixth-highest in tennis history. Still young, Federer's only five shy of Sampras' record of 14.

No question, Federer, who routed Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the US Open final, is the ranking player in the world today, and for the foreseeable future. But he's boring us stiff. And he's not the only high-ranking player out there who can make that dubious claim. Roddick. Rafael Nadal. Line 'em up.

Tennis, please give us another Connors or McEnroe. Someone, anyone with a little charisma and panache. Someone please rush the net.

Want to know what is wrong with men's tennis? Watch Tiger Woods. On any given Sunday, there is a smile on Tiger's face as he charges to his next win. The camera loves him. So does the microphone. Tiger is loveable. We walk the course with Tiger. We're there with his every shot. In victory, he is humble. In defeat, he is gracious.

Federer can't even be gracious in victory. When he wins, he embarks on strange journeys of self-admiration. When Muhammad Ali proclaimed "I am the greatest" we listened. When Federer heads in that direction, we reach for the remote.

Not that many of us were actually watching the last act of the US Open. The main storyline of this championship was the farewell appearance of Andre Agassi. And his farewell match drew a large television audience.

But the top draw, particularly for those target males aged 18-34, was the chance to see Sharapova, who defeated Justine Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-4 in the women's final.

Federer? Not that we really cared, but he was up against the first Sunday of the National Football League season. Even NASCAR raced on the Saturday night rather than go up against the NFL.

Is Federer a great player? Absolutely. Is he one of the all-time greats of tennis? Definitely. Is he Tiger Woods? Not even close.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :sad: :sad: :eek: :eek:
Typical dickhead moron ignorant American journalist :mad: :mad:

*Hasn`t done his research
*Doesn`t understand tennis history
*Doesn`t understand Federer`s place in World sport
*Doesn`t realise the the tennis circuit is played worldwide ~whereas the PGA Tour [premier golf tour] is 95% American based
*Obviously he`s never attended a Federer press conference nor read the transcripts
*Probably likes the wham-bam-thankyou-mam nature of most American sports sports [American football, basketball, stock-car racing]
*He`s obviously horny for Sharapova
*Didn`t think about the fact that Tiger Woods has been winning golf majors since 1997 [Masters]~whereas Roger Federer just began his Slam haul in 2003 [Wimbledon]...so Tiger has had atleast a 6-year head start :p
*Doesn`t realise that in Europe, Australia & most of Asia that Federer is quickly overtaking Woods as the World`s most recongnisable sportsman :angel:
*Unlike Federer the the journalist doesn`t speak French or German or any other language other than American-English :(, hence he`s intimidated by Federer`s superior intellect ;)

Tennis Fool
09-14-2006, 04:54 AM
Well, if you live in San Diego, you get to read this about Federer...Don't sit up for the SI cover anytime, folks :p :o :(

Federer a bore, and a bit boorish

UNION-TRIBUNE
September 12, 2006

NEW YORK – Roger Federer is not a braggart. If you can do it, it ain't braggin', and Federer can do it.

His grandiose self-assessments, however, are becoming tiresome. You do it, Roger, and your audiences and history will decide how great you are. You bestowing greatness on yourself, as you do, doesn't play around here.

As a matter of fact, one can't be sure just how well you play.

Federer doesn't move New York audiences. They want somebody a bit grittier, with some of the streets in him. Think of Jimmy Connors, whose matches had some bite to them. Or of John McEnroe, who could give his appearances the feel of rumbles.

Or of Andre Agassi, who in his farewell performance commanded the U.S. Open with his showmanship and humanity, qualities that don't often come in one person.

Federer, meantime, is approaching the point where he would be perceived as boring. Twenty straight triumphs in the past three U.S. Opens. Nine Grand Slam championships, all fitted within the past four years. Wimbledon-U.S. Open doubles for three straight seasons. Ho-hum.

Perfection doesn't sell. Give us vulnerability. Federer is not going to move television ratings with a game McEnroe has termed “beautiful,” which could be the problem with it. Guys doing those loop-the-loops or whatever they are on skateboards get more people to turn on TV sets than Federer, yet he goes on inviting attention to his excellence.

After his four-set conquest of Andy Roddick on Sunday in the Open final, Federer said this:

“I felt I played, again, fantastic.”

He remembered that he had, in his word, “struggled” during this year's Australian Open, which he also won. In his judgment, his efforts during this Open were similar to what he had done at Wimbledon, “where I dominated from the beginning.”

He questioned whether he is the only active player who has claimed nine Grand Slams. He is. “That's nice,” he said.

He said that when he first arrived at the Open as a Wimbledon champion in 2003, he was advised how difficult it is to repeat in New York after scoring on London's lawns. “I was like, 'Really?' ” he said.

His performances in Slams sometimes surprise him, he said. “But every time I enter a Slam, I am so well-prepared that maybe it isn't a surprise,” he said.

He noted that Roddick, whom he has outplayed 11 times in 12 matches and now three times in Slam finals, is progressing, but only to a degree.

“His backhand is better,” Federer said. “I do feel he has made a bit of an improvement.”

He cited some players in the men's game who could challenge him.

“You could say the gap is closing, but at the same time, I'm playing well,” he said.

Yes, Roger, we noticed that.

A great deal was made during this Open of Agassi's retirement, which was fine. Something more arguably could have been made of Martina Navratilova stepping away from tennis. As much as Agassi has achieved, his deeds pale in comparison with what Navratilova has done, with her 59 Grand Slam triumphs (many in doubles) assembled across four decades.

She first won a Grand Slam in 1974, in the mixed doubles at the French Open. She had wanted to play with Patrick Cornejo, she said, but because Cornejo was from Chile, Czech tennis authorities insisted she play with Ivan Lendl, like her a Czech.

Navratilova's 59th Slam conquest came late Saturday when she got together with Bob Bryan to capture the Open's mixed doubles. The match concluding, Navratilova said her urine test came out clear and she had to get back in line and wait an hour to submit a second urine sample.

“I had a couple of sips of beer out of a paper cup and finally at 2:30 a.m. drove back to Manhattan,” she said. “I didn't retire until 4:30. Tell me how lovely and glamorous this life is.”

alal
09-14-2006, 09:01 AM
Watch out!!
America is not the whole world. :o

bokehlicious
09-14-2006, 09:07 AM
America is not the whole world. :o

Really :confused: :o

Vass
09-14-2006, 09:18 AM
Roger is boring and Tiger is not boring? :rolls: Tennis vs Golf in excitement??

radics
09-14-2006, 09:30 AM
lol, I think those American journalists take themself and their country way too serious. It's not like the big goal of a sportsman from anywhere in the world is to be famous in the USA. They don't like Roger? So what? Oh wait... America is the center of the world... how dare I to say something like that? :unsure: :lol:

bokehlicious
09-14-2006, 10:00 AM
lol, I think those American journalists take themself and their country way too serious. It's not like the big goal of a sportsman from anywhere in the world is to be famous in the USA. They don't like Roger? So what? Oh wait... America is the center of the world... how dare I to say something like that? :unsure: :lol:

I'm sure Roger doesn't sleep anymore :sad: since he knows that Masha is more recognized in the country that rules the world :lol:

radics
09-14-2006, 10:10 AM
I'm sure Roger doesn't sleep anymore :sad: since he knows that Masha is more recognized in the country that rules the world :lol:

:secret: Not so loud... they alread look strange at us... :eek: :scared:

bokehlicious
09-14-2006, 10:12 AM
:secret: Not so loud... they alread look strange at us... :eek: :scared:

With our Swiss army knives we don't fear anybody :cool: :D

radics
09-14-2006, 10:16 AM
With our Swiss army knives we don't fear anybody :cool: :D

:haha:

adee-gee
09-14-2006, 11:46 AM
How come when people have articles like this, rather than say why they feel the journalist is wrong about Federer or whatever, they feel the need to bash golf, Woods, Sharapova? :shrug:

Polikarpov
09-14-2006, 11:54 AM
This is nonsense.

I think Bill Center is an old, bitter fan who can't get over the tennis of his generation.

Move on. Everything changes.

vincayou
09-14-2006, 11:59 AM
Something tells me that he would think differently if Federer was american. :D

bokehlicious
09-14-2006, 12:03 PM
Something tells me that he would think differently if Federer was american. :D

Are you implying that the average American journalism is biased :angel: ? Nonsense, Americans are the best and the world needs to spot the light. Period. :o

:)

vincayou
09-14-2006, 12:15 PM
Are you implying that the average American journalism is biased :angel: ? Nonsense, Americans are the best and the world needs to spot the light. Period. :o

:)

Regarding sport, americans have the most difficulties to watch abroad. I don't know why, it's a curious phenomenon.

supersexynadal
09-14-2006, 02:53 PM
They like to over analyze everything and find the slightest thing wrong with any player. If they have nothing to say, theyll probably make fun of their clothes! But of course agassi is great....yeaaa...

NYCtennisfan
09-14-2006, 03:38 PM
Something tells me that he would think differently if Federer was american. :D

If say Roddick was on top, he wouldn't get top billing over Tiger because of reasons mentioned earlier, but you are correct--this type of article would never be written. It also wouldn't be written here if an American were on top of the game.

The media's infatuation with golf over the past 10 years or so over here (the Tiger years) is just plain laughable. After Tiger won the PGA Championship, they were ready to dethrone Michael Jordan, Muhuammad Ali, and everyone else as 'greatest athlete' which was thankfully met by at least a few people who pointed out that they were talking about someone winning GOLF tournaments. Nice game and all, but no athleticism needed. To compare Woods so someone like Jordan was laughable.

lsy
09-14-2006, 05:03 PM
How come when people have articles like this, rather than say why they feel the journalist is wrong about Federer or whatever, they feel the need to bash golf, Woods, Sharapova? :shrug:

:haha: Why ask a question you know the answer best?

How come you feel the need to bash Federer regardless of any threads topic here is about in MTF? :shrug:

Breakdown
09-14-2006, 05:03 PM
The article is :cuckoo: :crazy: :silly: :bolt:
Ahh.. As someone has already posted: What else can you expect from
a fat-ass, america-centered, ignorant journalist?

I may concede that Roger is no match to Tiger(only as of yet, still has many years to catch up), but to have the AUDACITY to say that Roger isn't even ShutUPova???????????????????????????????// :mad: :eek: :mad: :eek: :confused:

What the hell is wrong with this world?
I live in Russia and i'm proud to say that I HATE sh*****ova more than any other athlete on the planet!
Ok, she's won 2 GS... so what????????????
Not only doesn't she possess great court coverage(Venus, Serena, Kimmy, JHH), anticipation(Davenport, Hingis, Myskina, Hantu), and tennis-wise flair;
but apart from boom-boom _to the tenth degree!!!_ she is far from even good or decent, if you will, tennis player;
it's obvious that:
*her drop shots are pathetic
*her lobs are so rare that you'd sooner watch pigs fly
*her forehand is the ugliest stuff and falls apart when under pressure
*her dresses ain't that elegant and classy as everyone thinks (Serena's outfits are so much more adorable IMHO)
*finally, her shrieks and gruntings on court are just :mad: :smash:

So (Sharapova) oops, sorry Sh*****ova can't even hold a candle to Roger in her DREAMS, let alone...

:topic: Please help to save the world from the spreading influence of this Russian bit**!!!!!


I rest my case :) :devil:

Modetopia
09-14-2006, 05:08 PM
Roger is NOT american, thanks god for that. :p

nobama
09-16-2006, 04:45 PM
From Bodo's blog:

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2006/09/human_yawn.html

Now for the business at hand:

It seems that this guy, Bill Center a Times of London "Special Correspondent" (in journalism, this means a guy you wouldn't dream of hiring, but who might be useful when you need to throw a little red meat to one reader constituency or another), has got some members of the Tribe ready to call a War Council. I decided to read and fisk the piece, after which I'll have some thoughts to add.

Let's start, though, with the basic question. What's so "special" about this special correspondent? My feeling is that some bright media boys in Cool Brittania developed some high-con notion about maybe finding a guy who's duller than a three-part BBC documentary on the lace-manufacturing industry in Belgium, and incapable of disguising his B (for Bore) factor behind the curtain of what usually passes for style. Someone who furthers the stereotype of the thick, hapless, Yank. Close your eyes: can't you see Bill Center wandering down a Parisian side-street in Bermuda shorts and white tube socks, looking up and exclaiming, "I'll be darned, that looks just like one of our pigeons up there! Well I'll be!"

Note to The Times, you guys have Simon friggin' Barnes, you should be secure in the quality of your native writers!

I'll give Bill Center this, though, in a weird way he achieves the ultimate ambition of writers who think about this kind of thing: the perfect wedding of content and style. Content, zero. Style, zilch. Marriage consumated. This guy is the Human Yawn.

So let's look at his story:

As 25-year-old Roger Federer was stroking his way to third-straight US Open title to extend his Grand Slam count to nine, including four consecutive Wimbledon championships, tennis fans began wondering why he isn’t mentioned in the same breath as Tiger Woods. [[Actually, I don’t remember many tennis fans wondering that, and even if that were the case, it’s pretty obvious that you couldn’t mention Tiger in the same breath because that breath was already taken by Roger.]]

Tennis, after all, is far more physically demanding than golf - even though the current generation of players rush the net about as often as the seasons change. [[rim shot, please!]]

Shouldn’t Federer be rated among the world’s greatest athletes? Shouldn’t he be ranked right up there with Woods? Ahead even.

You’re kidding me, right? Federer is not Woods. [[Glad you noticed, big guy!]] He isn’t even Maria Sharapova. [[There’s another brilliant insight! He must have noticed that only one of them was wearing a little black cocktail dress!]] There’s a lot more to this than the ability to hit a ball. Once, men’s tennis was great drama. Borg. Becker. Connors. McEnroe. Sampras [[Oh yeah, he really lit the joint up with his antics!]]. Agassi. [[Also note: Sports journalism once was compellling. DeFord. Young. Jenkins. Wertheim.]]

And championship matches drew great television numbers. [[Very few tennis matches ever drew ‘great’ numbers, in any era]] The players were personalities [[except for those who were acorn squash]] , the matches events [[and the events happenings!]] . Each shot carried excitement [[but if it dropped it, there were janitors to clean up the mess]]... all the way down to a rocket Roscoe Tanner serve [[hey! Wasn’t it “rocket” Rod Laver? And if you think Tanner’s serve “carried” excitement, you should have seen the buzz when he bounced a check, and that exiciting event, his indictment!]].

Plus, there was entertainment beyond the game [[you could see it if you closed your left eye and peeked through the keyhole]] . Admit it, you enjoyed those John McEnroe tantrums [[Ah, Bill. in the therapy business, they call this “projection.”]] . You turned up the volume to make sure you didn’t miss a barb directed at the umpire or some poor volunteer linesman. [[And when it was over, you switched channels to the Cat Torture Network!]]

Today, who cares? [[U.S. Open shatters attendance records, 546 international networks broadcast the Grand Slams, the world cries with Andre Agassi. I guess you’re right, Bill. Nobody cares.]] Federer is a fine Swiss movement [[Bill - how many times has the copy desk warned you - no toilet humor!]] . Nine Grand Slams is the sixth-highest in tennis history [[yes, but how does it rank in curling history?]] . Still young, Federer’s only five shy of Sampras’ record of 14.[[You might have been better off pursuing a career in mathematics, Bill]].

No question, Federer, who routed Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the US Open final, is the ranking player in the world today, and for the foreseeable future [[yes, but tell me honestly, Bill. Does that really matter?]] . But he’s boring us stiff [[pot, meet kettle]] . And he’s not the only high-ranking player out there who can make that dubious claim [[Actually, I don’t recall Roger ever claiming that he’s boring anyone stiff. On the other hand, wasn’t he quoted as saying, “If Bill Center said it, it must be true!”]] . Roddick. Rafael Nadal. Line ‘em up. [[Yeah. Line them up. Then watch Federer rip their tummies open and eat their internal organs, even though he’s doing it with a smile and stealing glances at Mirka, thinking, Wonder what this ultra-squeezable hotty sees in me?]]

Tennis, please give us another Connors or McEnroe [[Why, so you can write some boring rant about how sportsmanship has vanished from the game, and you can walk around the press room steaming from the ears because one or the other of them called you a butthead to your face?]] . Someone, anyone with a little charisma and panache. Someone please rush the net. [[Someone please tell Big Bill about continuity and logic in his prose.]]

Want to know what is wrong with men’s tennis? [[I know what ‘s wrong with men’s tennis: they allow guys like you to write about it without pressing charges.]] Watch Tiger Woods. On any given Sunday, there is a smile on Tiger’s face as he charges to his next win.[[Oh yeah, that Tiger, he’s some crackling personalty! Those hard-charging golfers are something else, eh? Wasn't it your icon, John McEnroe, who spoke these immortal words about golf: I thought you have to run for it to be a sport. . .]] The camera loves him [[consider the option: white fat guy named Bill C - whoops, John Daly!]] . So does the microphone [[Man, who knew that these mere inanimate objects had such secret, emotional lives?]]. Tiger is loveable [[Bill: Tiger is happily married]]. We walk the course with Tiger [[I get the feeling that the only place you ever walked was to the free buffet in the press tent. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!]] We’re there with his every shot [[Oh yeah, our lives hang in the very balance!]] . In victory, he is humble [[Stop the presses, this actually seems accurate!]] . In defeat, he is gracious. [[In a draw, though, the guy is living hell!]]

Federer can’t even be gracious in victory [[Nah, all those guys in the locker room are just kidding when they talk about what a great guy he is. They just love pulling your leg!]] . When he wins, he embarks on strange journeys of self-admiration [[Bill: take you hands off the keyboard. Back away toward the door, slowly. . .]] . When Muhammad Ali proclaimed “I am the greatest” we listened [[Ah. . . how could you not? He was the biggest loudmouth in sports history .]]. When Federer heads in that direction, we reach for the remote [[Back to the Cat Torture Network, I presume]].

Not that many of us were actually watching the last act of the US Open [[This has been made abundantly clear by this inane column]]. The main storyline of this championship was the farewell appearance of Andre Agassi [[I smell oxymoron!]] . And his farewell match drew a large television audience [[You certainly are right on top of current sports events, thanks for paying attention!]]

But the top draw, particularly for those target males aged 18-34, was the chance to see Sharapova, who defeated Justine Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-4 in the women’s final. [[I don’t know where you get this opinion masquerading as a fact, but it kind of creeps me out that you would even go there, much as I believe it’s okay for old reporters to get in touch with their Inner Adolescent]].

Federer? Not that we really cared, but he was up against the first Sunday of the National Football League season [[So what? And doesn’t this mean that tennis isn’t afraid to go head-to-head with the biggest bully on the block?]] . Even NASCAR raced on the Saturday night rather than go up against the NFL. [[Wow, those NASCAR folks sure have big Wilanders!]]

Is Federer a great player? Absolutely. Is he one of the all-time greats of tennis? Definitely. Is he Tiger Woods? Not even close. [[You got that right, Bill. Roger’s the one in the white headband holding a tennis racquet. Tiger’s the one dressed like he’s going to the office - which I guess he is - holding a golf club. Look at the pictures. Now try it again. After a little practice, you should no trouble at all telling them apart.]]

Okay, shall we move on now?

This entire, tired, "bring back Connors and McEnroe" is annoying for a few reasons, even though I'm all for getting new incarnations of those characters (mainly because of my general affection for mayhem and upset apple carts). The real problem is that many commentators, including some prominent, legitimate ones, somehow think that this would somehow constitute salvation for a game that is moribund only in their own imaginations. That is, their thirst for signature Connors or McEnroe-esque personalities tell us a lot more about them than about the game of tennis.

So here's the lab scenario. Midway through a fairly tight second set in the 2006 Andy Roddick-Roger Federer final, the umpire makes a critical overrule on behalf of Roddick. Federer wants the call changed and doesn't think he should have to waste a challenge on it, going on the theory that it's the ump's screw-up. The ump refuses. Federer takes a swipe at the umpire's high-chair and breaks a racquet. The crowd starts booing. Federer then takes his busted racquet and decapitates an entire row of the gernaiums in the court-side flower boxes.

Somebody from the stands throws a cup of beer. Federer runs to the stands and grabs the guy by the shirt front, screaming obscenties. The guy's six-year old daughter starts crying, while his wife is thinking, "This Federer guy, he's soooo hot when he's mad!"

Federer slugs the guy. Up in the press box, Bill Center (wait, Bill Center doesn't go to the press box, he's watching on TV) gleefully rubs his hands. That night, Federer's freak-out is shown over and over on television, the network news as well a sports channels. The next day, Bill Center writes a column about what a great sport tennis is and, as a guest on ESPN News, I'm asked if Federer's outburst is proof that tennis is once again popular - that once again people really care about tennis. I drone on about how important "personalities" are to tennis.

The weird thing about this scenario is that it is exactly what would happen if Federer did such a thing.

There's another element here, which i think of as the Rubbernecking effect. People can't resist looking at car wrecks, so any time one occurs on a tennis court you can be pretty sure that legions of people who couldn't care less about tennis suddenly develop a keen if fleeting interest. What, exactly, does this do for the game? About the same thing that Tonya Harding did for figure skating. That's not entirely a flip analogy. I have a funny feeling that all those people who once around the water cooler talking about Nancy Kerrigan and figure skating did not really experience road to Damascus conversions to the glorious sport of figure skating because of it. Harding went away, and so did they.

It's hard to quantify this, because I do think that Connors and McEnroe did create many new tennis fans, and for reasons that have a great to do with their extraordinary competitive abilities as well as their compelling styles of play. But I don't believe those are the fans who are complaining about tennis being "boring" today. I think they're still around, and it's okay for them and us to miss Jimbo and Mac (although it's not as if he's gone into some spider hole).

McEnroe and Connors brought a lot of passion and personality to tennis. So does Marcos Baghdatis, Marat Safin, Serena Williams, Andy Roddick, Nikolay Davydenko (okay, I'm kidding there). What is it that the old school boys brought, in addition? Sensation. And that's a mixed blessing.

If you want to argue that the thing missing from Big Time tennis today is sensation, I'll have to agree with you. But do we miss it that much, and is it worth missing? That's an open question. Twenty years ago, the same guys who now want someone/anyone to channel the spirits of Connors and McEnroe were fulminating about how guys like Connors and Mac are ruining and desecrating the game. The fantasy driving this entire "tennis is boring" narrative is an intrinsic, omni-present antagonism toward tennis, which is the same kind of hostility many people feel toward any enterprise that has the patina of exclusivity, or whose practitioners are perceived as "beautiful people."

That is, it's the same antagonism that many feel toward golf, although every once in a while a figure - Tiger Woods, Jimmy Connors - comes along to challenge the stereotype and win over some converts. Then things settle back and become the same-old, same-old.

Tennis doesn't need greater "personalities", it needs smarter or more discriminating sports fans and viewers.

silverarrows
09-16-2006, 04:58 PM
Federer is brilliant but still too wooden
By Bill Center, Times Online Special Correspondent





As 25-year-old Roger Federer was stroking his way to a third-straight US Open title to extend his Grand Slam count to nine, including four consecutive Wimbledon championships, tennis fans began wondering why he isn't mentioned in the same breath as Tiger Woods.



Tennis, after all, is far more physically demanding than golf - even though the current generation of players rush the net about as often as the seasons change.

Shouldn't Federer be rated among the world's greatest athletes? Shouldn't he be ranked right up there with Woods? Ahead even.

You're kidding me, right? Federer is not Woods. He isn't even Maria Sharapova. There's a lot more to this than the ability to hit a ball. Once, men's tennis was great drama. Borg. Becker. Connors. McEnroe. Sampras. Agassi.

And championship matches drew great television numbers. The players were personalities, the matches events. Each shot carried excitement... all the way down to a rocket Roscoe Tanner serve.

Plus, there was entertainment beyond the game. Admit it, you enjoyed those John McEnroe tantrums. You turned up the volume to make sure you didn't miss a barb directed at the umpire or some poor volunteer linesman.

Today, who cares? Federer is a fine Swiss movement. Nine Grand Slams is the sixth-highest in tennis history. Still young, Federer's only five shy of Sampras' record of 14.

No question, Federer, who routed Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the US Open final, is the ranking player in the world today, and for the foreseeable future. But he's boring us stiff. And he's not the only high-ranking player out there who can make that dubious claim. Roddick. Rafael Nadal. Line 'em up.

Tennis, please give us another Connors or McEnroe. Someone, anyone with a little charisma and panache. Someone please rush the net.

Want to know what is wrong with men's tennis? Watch Tiger Woods. On any given Sunday, there is a smile on Tiger's face as he charges to his next win. The camera loves him. So does the microphone. Tiger is loveable. We walk the course with Tiger. We're there with his every shot. In victory, he is humble. In defeat, he is gracious.

Federer can't even be gracious in victory. When he wins, he embarks on strange journeys of self-admiration. When Muhammad Ali proclaimed "I am the greatest" we listened. When Federer heads in that direction, we reach for the remote.

Not that many of us were actually watching the last act of the US Open. The main storyline of this championship was the farewell appearance of Andre Agassi. And his farewell match drew a large television audience.

But the top draw, particularly for those target males aged 18-34, was the chance to see Sharapova, who defeated Justine Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-4 in the women's final.

Federer? Not that we really cared, but he was up against the first Sunday of the National Football League season. Even NASCAR raced on the Saturday night rather than go up against the NFL.

Is Federer a great player? Absolutely. Is he one of the all-time greats of tennis? Definitely. Is he Tiger Woods? Not even close.





^^^ LOL! Another typical American comment. *yawn*

Jlee
09-16-2006, 06:37 PM
Recently in the newspaper I was reading an article about the comparison between Woods and Federer, and the journalist wasn't claiming that one was better than the other. I appreciated this write in to the editor the next day...

Tennis: The ultimate individual sport

To the Editor:

The article "Federer, Woods on a major chase" about U.S. Open tennis champion Roger Federer and his new friend Tiger Woods avoided declaring either one the greatest athlete of their current generation, but many other writers have named Woods. At the risk of aggravating those who agree, I must differ.

Rather than general atheleticism and coordination, athletic ability should be assessed by six specific parameters: speed, strength, reflexes (reaction time), fitness (conditioning and endurance), hand-eye coordination (timing), and judgement (decision-making).

Only tennis champions must excel in all six categories.

Basketball players come close, but as team members, they can be replaced when they tire.

Even a premier golfer needs no speed or reflexes, and fitness is helpful but not essential, as John Daly proves. That's why Woods is still improving at 30, an age when Federer; now 25, will be nearing retirement.

They also compete differently. If Woods has an off day, he can make it up the next, but for Federer every day is match play. If he falters once, he's out of the tournament.

Tennis is the ultimate individual sport. Coaching is forbiddent during tennis matches. Golfers consult their caddies continuously.

Finally, the difference between a top tourning golf pro and a good club player is less than one stroke per hole, but a club tennis player would only win an occasional lulcky point from a touring pro. They wouldn't even be playing the same game.

Before all the aggrieved golfers send in emotional rebuttals, I hope they watch Federer play.

silverarrows
09-17-2006, 01:56 AM
Fed isn't close to Tiger because he is lightyears ahead. :cool:

Golf is not even close to Tennis if we're talking about "speed, strength, reflexes (reaction time), fitness (conditioning and endurance), hand-eye coordination (timing), and judgement (decision-making).: ;) :cool:

tangerine_dream
09-17-2006, 02:01 AM
That writer lost me when he said Nadal wasn't charismatic and then goes on to demand more Connors and McEnroes. :retard:

Tiger Woods is so boring he makes Pete Sampras look like Liberace.

Funny quote I found from a Canadian site. Interesting to see that it's mostly the non-US papers who are making a big stink about Roger-Tiger. :)

Comedian Argus Hamilton on Tiger Woods sitting in Roger Federer's box at the U.S. Open and rooting for the Swiss star against American Andy Roddick: "It's no surprise. When you get to Tiger Woods' tax bracket it’s always in your personal interest to root for Switzerland."

:secret: PS - for those of you yapping about how the article must be from America, it was printed in the Sunday Times, UK.

spencercarlos
09-17-2006, 04:02 AM
Federer is brilliant but still too wooden
By Bill Center, Times Online Special Correspondent





As 25-year-old Roger Federer was stroking his way to a third-straight US Open title to extend his Grand Slam count to nine, including four consecutive Wimbledon championships, tennis fans began wondering why he isn't mentioned in the same breath as Tiger Woods.



Tennis, after all, is far more physically demanding than golf - even though the current generation of players rush the net about as often as the seasons change.

Shouldn't Federer be rated among the world's greatest athletes? Shouldn't he be ranked right up there with Woods? Ahead even.

You're kidding me, right? Federer is not Woods. He isn't even Maria Sharapova. There's a lot more to this than the ability to hit a ball. Once, men's tennis was great drama. Borg. Becker. Connors. McEnroe. Sampras. Agassi.

And championship matches drew great television numbers. The players were personalities, the matches events. Each shot carried excitement... all the way down to a rocket Roscoe Tanner serve.

Plus, there was entertainment beyond the game. Admit it, you enjoyed those John McEnroe tantrums. You turned up the volume to make sure you didn't miss a barb directed at the umpire or some poor volunteer linesman.

Today, who cares? Federer is a fine Swiss movement. Nine Grand Slams is the sixth-highest in tennis history. Still young, Federer's only five shy of Sampras' record of 14.

No question, Federer, who routed Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the US Open final, is the ranking player in the world today, and for the foreseeable future. But he's boring us stiff. And he's not the only high-ranking player out there who can make that dubious claim. Roddick. Rafael Nadal. Line 'em up.

Tennis, please give us another Connors or McEnroe. Someone, anyone with a little charisma and panache. Someone please rush the net.

Want to know what is wrong with men's tennis? Watch Tiger Woods. On any given Sunday, there is a smile on Tiger's face as he charges to his next win. The camera loves him. So does the microphone. Tiger is loveable. We walk the course with Tiger. We're there with his every shot. In victory, he is humble. In defeat, he is gracious.

Federer can't even be gracious in victory. When he wins, he embarks on strange journeys of self-admiration. When Muhammad Ali proclaimed "I am the greatest" we listened. When Federer heads in that direction, we reach for the remote.

Not that many of us were actually watching the last act of the US Open. The main storyline of this championship was the farewell appearance of Andre Agassi. And his farewell match drew a large television audience.

But the top draw, particularly for those target males aged 18-34, was the chance to see Sharapova, who defeated Justine Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-4 in the women's final.

Federer? Not that we really cared, but he was up against the first Sunday of the National Football League season. Even NASCAR raced on the Saturday night rather than go up against the NFL.

Is Federer a great player? Absolutely. Is he one of the all-time greats of tennis? Definitely. Is he Tiger Woods? Not even close.
Tiger Woods is from USA, Is Federer from USA? Not even close!.
Case closed.

nkhera1
09-17-2006, 07:14 AM
Only difference between Woods and Federer is that Woods doesn't have a legitimate rival or anyone who can really trouble him at the moment.

Fed-Express
09-17-2006, 03:47 PM
Well, that is the result if someone who can't write talks about things he don't understand.
This has nothing to do with Tiger or Maria, so it's completely silly to attack them. The only one who deserves the jeering is that ridiculus Billy C.
But it is just some biased American sports journalist who dreams of the times when his country had great players, so let him write this garbage, who cares if some random media guys in the US rate NASCAR or NFL or whatever higher than Roger Federer?
Every true sports fan knows him and his importaance for world sports, he got the LAUREUS twice. So screw this guy, we should not even talk about him.

J. Corwin
09-17-2006, 10:00 PM
Is Bill Center Amerocentric?

No, he's a Tiger jock sniffer.

Radek Stepanek
09-17-2006, 10:05 PM
I think Federer is 5 years younger than wood, and in a much more physically demanding sport. I think it's ridiculous to compare results.

Cervantes
09-17-2006, 10:09 PM
Is Bill Center Amerocentric? Definitely. Does he make any valid points? Not even close.

Couldn't have put it better myself :yeah:

TennisAgenda
09-17-2006, 10:13 PM
Its typical American anger. The Americans are upset that their best players suck and the current generation of young American men are a real failure. Roddick,Blake, Ginperi, Fish, Dent are toast.

budz
09-18-2006, 04:19 AM
What a load of rubbish from this guy. Just because Federer doesnt act like an arsehole on court showing the officials no respect, it doesnt mean he is boring. Id rather a players game do the talking, than his foul mouth. Give me a breath taking passing shot of Federer over a tantrum by any whinger (ie. Mcenroe or Hewitt).

refero*fervens
09-18-2006, 11:16 AM
Well, it's one thing to compare a player from one sport to another, even if below the surface the parallels fall apart we can see why people would start comparing the two, but to say we wonder why he isn't mentioned in 'the same breath as Tiger Woods' (which in fact is what most journalists have been doing for the past three weeks) and then say he isn't Woods...well, yes, we know :eek: - so who in fact is he arguing with? :confused:

Probably decided that since tennis isn't controversial enough nowadays, he would have to personally do something about it, urgh.

Bodo - great recount of my thoughts as I read the article :yeah:

darnyelb
09-24-2006, 09:22 PM
I notice these types of articles come up after an American loses to him. Last year Federer defeated Agassi and suddenly all these articles popped up that Agassi made the Open memorable, that Agassi stole the show, stole our hearts blah blah blah, as if the journalist wanted to console himself for seeing his favored player lose. Reminds me also of Jim McIngvale (Mattress Mac)'s bitter disappointment at seeing Agassi getting thrashed by Roger in the '03 Masters Cup final and him going on to drone on about how awesome and charitable Andre was after the match.

These kinds of articles are never to be taken seriously. Basically they say, "My player lost badly, but at least he's... he's COOL!"

Corey Feldman
09-24-2006, 09:39 PM
another moron journalist who thinks his own views are what everyone else thinks.
But the top draw, particularly for those target males aged 18-34, was the chance to see Sharapova, who defeated Justine Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-4 in the women's final.says it all about his credability..
he should just stick to drooling over sharapova matches, seemed to me this guy thinks everything else counts more importantly than the tennis being played :lol:

and Woods is not that much to watch as far as charisma - i mean he's a normal intense great pro to me... which i like, but its golf :shrug:

wipeout
09-25-2006, 12:52 PM
The way Tiger talks always reminded me of Sampras. They have a similar manner. So if Tiger is charismatic, then so is Pete. :angel:

Anyhow, if Tiger gets considered as a "athlete" in a sport that doesn't require physical fitness, then Valentino Rossi also is as motor-bike racing does require some actual fitness. Rossi is more successful and has way more personality than Woods. I can't see Woods celebrating victory with a fan dressed as a chicken, dressing up as a 1970s cool dude or waving around an inflatable woman with a rival's name on it. :lol:

oz_boz
09-25-2006, 01:01 PM
Rossi is more successful and has way more personality than Woods. I can't see Woods celebrating victory with a fan dressed as a chicken, dressing up as a 1970s cool dude or waving around an inflatable woman with a rival's name on it. :lol:

Ooh, that oozes personality, just as much as calling an umpire jerk or smashing rackets.

Acting out and having a personality are different things.

Edberg :worship:

wipeout
09-25-2006, 01:30 PM
"Acting out"? It's nothing remotely like insulting umpires or smashing stuff. These are victory celebrations I'm talking about. Riding on a motorbike with a man dressed as a chicken is not usually an action with anger behind it. ;)

denisgiann
09-25-2006, 08:18 PM
Ηow can you compare someone that actually dont break a sweat with someone who is a real athlete? Golf is a game not a sport.Hey you dont even have to be fit to play it.You dont have to face serious injuries and strain your body week after week.Are you kidding me?Αnyone who has played a proffesional tennis tournament has made more physical effort than Tiger made his whole career. To compare such a guy with Pete or Fed or anybody who is playing a sport and not a game, is a joke. Next thing we know someone will try to compare the world champion in darts with Fed.The couch potato excuses of a sport.Give me a break :( .

guy in sf
09-29-2006, 06:26 AM
This Bill Center dude is a total moron and doesn't know shit. I have always said you can't compare golf with other "sports" because golf is a game, not a sport and I'm always more amazed at athletes who excel at very physically demanding sports, like tennis, track and field, basketball, etc. Why exactly does Woods do that gives him charisma? Pump his fist? More than 90% of the time, you have to endure that long boring walk to the ball the golfer just hit, what's so charismatic about that? What I'm saying is this Bill dude has probably watched Federer twice but is an avid golfer and follower of golf, so he's biased. The title of the article leads you to believe that he's comparing them on how great they are as athletes and as you read more, you realize that he's a total idiot and he's only talking popularity, endorsements, people who are assholes on the court. The one point he makes that should totally dismis him on every level as a journalist is the one about "Federer not even a sharapova." Don't ever write about a sport you know nothing about dude, you're a joke!