Stop liking Federer so much: Mac. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Stop liking Federer so much: Mac.

angiel
02-23-2007, 04:02 PM
Stop liking Federer so much: Mac
Mark Hodgkinson
February 24, 2007


WHEN John McEnroe was in his fire-in-the-eyes prime, he probably could have started a fight on an empty centre court, never mind with a spluttering umpire and in front of a full house. The other Mr Competitive of the history books was Jimmy Connors, who once declared that "people don't seem to understand that it is damn war out there".

But, according to the player formerly known as Superbrat, the modern generations have been too respectful, too restrained and simply too nice when playing Roger Federer. On Monday morning, Federer will have held the world No.1 ranking for 161 consecutive weeks, breaking Connors's 30-year-old record. McEnroe also suggested that, unless all those chasing Federer manage to work their way into Federer's head, then there may be little to stop the 25-year-old staying there for another 161.

What the others need, believes McEnroe, is some Johnny Mac-style court rage or some Jimbo-inspired aggression. Perhaps they should also try to find a way of "not liking Federer".

"I think that the current players are too respectful of Federer," McEnroe said. "He is a class guy. Maybe that's the problem, that it's difficult to find anything wrong with him. I don't think there's a guy in the locker room who doesn't like Federer. I don't think you could have made that same statement about me or about Connors and some of the other world No.1s in the past.

"Federer really likes to be out on the court, he enjoys being around tennis, he has time for people. He's got it all going for him. But Connors and myself, we would have somehow found a way not to like him."

McEnroe believes he and Connors could have unsettled Federer, even if he thinks Federer is possibly the greatest player ever, and that Federer often looks as though he is just taking an afternoon stroll through the Alps.

"Federer seems pretty unflappable, but I think we have the sort of personalities which could have got to him. Guys like me and Connors, we would have tried to get under his skin, and showed him that we wanted it. That was the way we played - we would have made him work for it. We would have given him a real run for his money," said McEnroe, who is in Belfast this week as the Tour of Champions is in the city for the first time, with the circuit culminating at London's Albert Hall in December.

"The way Connors succeeded was that his mum, Gloria, told him it was him against the world. That was his attitude, and he was unbelievable at being able to pull that off. Federer seems to have come from a much more settled upbringing. He has a settled family; he's got the attitude of the typical Swiss guy who just seems to take it how it comes. But Americans are not like that."

Until Federer became a grand slam champion for the first time, at Wimbledon in 2003, McEnroe indicated that there had been doubts about whether the young man from Basle had the mental fortitude to go with his obvious ball-striking gifts. "So it's pretty incredible that Federer was able to become this good," McEnroe said. "But inside Federer there's something which I and others probably hadn't noticed that much: a desire to win.

"Suddenly he really believed in himself and now he walks around as if he's the man. He's earned that. He says, 'Yeah, I'm pretty amazing', and the way he says it is sort of funny."

McEnroe believes that if the other players cannot bring themselves to turn nasty and try to rough up Federer, the least they should do is scrap to the end and show him their will to win.

"There wasn't a whole lot that I didn't like about Bjorn Borg. When I played Borg he had this incredible aura about him. But I think in that case because we were so different we actually brought out the best in each other. So it didn't have to get to that point where you hated the person, or disliked him. I never had a problem with Borg, but we used to go out there and play some really great matches."

Should Federer win a French Open title, McEnroe believes there will be no argument that the Swiss is the finest tennis player of all time, greater than Rod Laver [both McEnroe's and Federer's idol] and Pete Sampras.

"It's basically between those three - Laver, Sampras and Federer - and maybe you could put them in any order you want. Federer is sort of there already, but if he wins the French I would have to put him there as the best. I think it's more important for him to win the French than to beat the Sampras record of 14 slams."

So how would a youthful McEnroe have fared against Federer? "I think I had the type of game you need if you are to have success against him. I think you need to attack him and put pressure on him. And I would have tried to get under his skin," McEnroe said. "But, sadly, I wouldn't have done real well against Federer. He is just an unbelievable player."

cobalt60
02-23-2007, 04:06 PM
Give me Federer any day

angiel
02-23-2007, 04:11 PM
Give me Federer any day


Take him with pleasure.:wavey: :wavey:

cmurray
02-23-2007, 04:12 PM
Most of that is rubbish, actually. I don't think bratty behavior would get under Roger's skin in the least. In fact, I think the brattier his opponent would get, the better tennis clinic Roger would give them.

The only thing I agree with is that there seem to be few players who actually believe that they have a chance against him. Nadal does, and it is why he has had some success beating Roger. Otherwise, not so much. Not that Federer hasn't earned the professional respect. There are only so many times you can get your ass handed to you by a guy before you say "too good". All in all, I don't think there is much anyone can do about Roger...he's essentially in control of his own destiny.

GlennMirnyi
02-23-2007, 04:13 PM
Yeah, just hate him. It will make a hell of a difference. :lol:

You need game, not anger, to defeat Federer.

GlennMirnyi
02-23-2007, 04:14 PM
Most of that is rubbish, actually. I don't think bratty behavior would get under Roger's skin in the least. In fact, I think the brattier his opponent would get, the better tennis clinic Roger would give them.

The only thing I agree with is that there seem to be few players who actually believe that they have a chance against him. Nadal does, and it is why he has had some success beating Roger. Otherwise, not so much. Not that Federer hasn't earned the professional respect. There are only so many times you can get your ass handed to you by a guy before you say "too good". All in all, I don't think there is much anyone can do about Roger...he's essentially in control of his own destiny.

Who won the last 2 matches? Thank you. Just believing makes no difference in defeating Federer.

denisgiann
02-23-2007, 04:15 PM
Well let me put it this way:I was a big fan of Sampras game and his ability to come on top in the clutch moments of a match but Federer is simply a more effective and improved model.Hands down.Deal with it and you will sleep better at nights:cool: .

Beforehand
02-23-2007, 04:15 PM
"But, sadly, I wouldn't have done real well against Federer. He is just an unbelievable player."
It's nice to hear a player of McEnroe's stature be able to say things like this, rather than "He has no competition." or "I could have beaten him." Kudos to Johnny Mac.

scoobs
02-23-2007, 04:18 PM
Federer is too nice to be hated. Everybody loves Federer.

:)

cobalt60
02-23-2007, 04:20 PM
Take him with pleasure.:wavey: :wavey:

Should have finished my sentence;) Over JMac anyday. Better? :wavey:

Jade Fox
02-23-2007, 04:29 PM
Take him with pleasure.:wavey: :wavey:

Now that just puts ideas into my head:devil:.

NicoFan
02-23-2007, 04:43 PM
I think Mac is right on - as usual.

The players do show Fed too much respect out there. You have to go for him just like Rafa did on clay.

And I wish we could see Fed against Connors and Mac in their prime. :yeah: That would be great.

That's what sports are all about - competitiveness, fire, and passion on the playing field.

For the millionth time for the people who want their tennis sugary sweet and bland - this is SPORTS not the ballet. :lol: You are not getting what sports are about... :lol:

Sunset of Age
02-23-2007, 04:44 PM
Who won the last 2 matches? Thank you. Just believing makes no difference in defeating Federer.

Glenn, I might be wrong, but if I read cmurray's words, I conclude she states that Rafa has HAD some success (in the past tense, that is) defeating Roger because of his belief that he could actually do so. I don't think you can deny any of that?

And for the future, we'll just have to see what happens. I think there's indeed a point in having that mental power to actually believe in one's self that can make one victorious over Fed.

Anyway, nicely said by McEnroe...

Sunset of Age
02-23-2007, 04:46 PM
For the millionth time for the people who want their tennis sugary sweet and bland - this is SPORTS not the ballet. :lol: You are not getting what sports are about... :lol:

Isn't sports about WINNING? I think Fed manages to do so pretty well, with his so-called ballet tennis... ;)

Jim Courier
02-23-2007, 04:47 PM
The problem is that even with fighting spirit and weapons Federer can beat you in straights as illustrated by the AO final.
Gonzalez was irreproachable except for that forehand UE at set point in the 1st, but even his most crushing forehands were coming back.

In a match he has those patches where he's untouchable, and they can last a while.
That's the difference with Sampras, even when he was playing relatively poorly he would do just enough to break at 4-4 or 5-5, but Federer is so much better on return games that he can crush you in 20 minutes, it is hard to find any rythm or confidence when you're dominated that bad.

Still there's some truth in McEnroe's statement, some players when they're trailing behind Federer stop trying or get into panic mode (McEnroe was probably thinking about Roddick). Nadal's successes deserve all the more praise, managing to make Federer feel hopeless in a GS final is something. I find his attitude during the Wimbledon final commendable too.

sondraj06
02-23-2007, 04:48 PM
Who won the last 2 matches? Thank you. Just believing makes no difference in defeating Federer.


Boy you jump all over the last two matches thing don't you. And we all know Rafa's confidence has been depleted lately so it might just be confidence players need to defeat him. Rafa should hold a school on it when he gets his back, and start playing whipping boy on fed again. Maybe the clay season will bring it back.

Howard
02-23-2007, 04:48 PM
I hate everyone I play, but the ones who are better still beat me.

I think people are just looking for something new to say about Federer because it inevitably makes news.

A question: Why is "Federer" underlined in red as though it were a mis-spelling? You'd think it would be in the database.

adee-gee
02-23-2007, 04:49 PM
You need game, not anger, to defeat Federer.
Yes, like Murray :)

nanoman
02-23-2007, 04:50 PM
Bratty behaviour or bullying only works when you actually have a fighting chance to beat the other player. Otherwise you'll only embarass yourself.

Take Hewitt for example, one of the most bratty and bullish player you'll ever find. But against Federer he is so subdued, no fire. But then again, how could he not be subdued when Federer gives him nothing to clinch on.
Sure he could out of nowhere yell cmons, give ugly stares and whatnot. But he will look like a complete fool and utterly embarass himself doing that when Federer just keep on destroying him.

NicoFan
02-23-2007, 04:50 PM
Isn't sports about WINNING? I think Fed manages to do so pretty well, with his so-called ballet tennis... ;)

Yes, indeed it is.

But it is also about competition too. And when someone wins easily all the time...snooze fest occurs. Even with the elegant play of King Fed. :)

And my comments were for the people on MTF that insist that players should be "nice" all the time. The people who are always claiming that tennis is a "gentlemen's sport". Sports isn't about being nice. :lol: :lol:

cmurray
02-23-2007, 05:02 PM
Who won the last 2 matches? Thank you. Just believing makes no difference in defeating Federer.

Believing ABSOLUTELY makes a difference. Did you WATCH the French Open final last year? You better BELIEVE it makes a difference.

I realize that in your black and white world there is simply no way Rafa should get anywhere NEAR Roger. The fact that he has done so in the past (and may continue to, we won't know until Raf starts making finals again) and done it with resounding success must be a bitter pill to swallow. But it proves a valuable point - force of will to win sometimes beats superior talent. Vehement denial doesn't change the facts as they stand.

cmurray
02-23-2007, 05:04 PM
Glenn, I might be wrong, but if I read cmurray's words, I conclude she states that Rafa has HAD some success (in the past tense, that is) defeating Roger because of his belief that he could actually do so. I don't think you can deny any of that?

And for the future, we'll just have to see what happens. I think there's indeed a point in having that mental power to actually believe in one's self that can make one victorious over Fed.

Anyway, nicely said by McEnroe...


Thanks, Claybuster - you didn't misinterpret...that is exactly what I meant

ezekiel
02-23-2007, 05:07 PM
of course you need a game and attitude to beat him and Roger knows it. I see only Rafa and Nole being able to do it consistently in the future

guga2120
02-23-2007, 05:08 PM
more important for him to win the French than to beat the Sampras record of 14 slams."


this is very true, when he does it, there is no question at all who is the greatest.

nobama
02-23-2007, 05:52 PM
Most of that is rubbish, actually. I don't think bratty behavior would get under Roger's skin in the least. In fact, I think the brattier his opponent would get, the better tennis clinic Roger would give them.

The only thing I agree with is that there seem to be few players who actually believe that they have a chance against him. Nadal does, and it is why he has had some success beating Roger. Otherwise, not so much. Not that Federer hasn't earned the professional respect. There are only so many times you can get your ass handed to you by a guy before you say "too good". All in all, I don't think there is much anyone can do about Roger...he's essentially in control of his own destiny.Nadal does because he's a bad matchup for Roger. Hewitt did at one time too. I don't see Roger ever "owning" Nadal like he does Hewitt and others, but if he does level or reverse the h2h Nadal might not always have that belief.

nobama
02-23-2007, 06:00 PM
As someone else said I don't think anyone could get under Roger's skin and if they did he'd just give them more of a beating. Fed's two most dominant matches at AO this year were against Djokovic and Roddick - the two matches that received the most hype and with Roddick at least talk of a possible upset.

Liverpool4ever
02-23-2007, 06:04 PM
Being bratty does not help against Federer instead I think it just gives him extra motivation to beat you. Look at Djokovic at the Australian. Another example is when Kiefer displayed poor sportmanship against Federer whilst about to win the 4th set at Wimbledon. Federer got annoyed and won the next four games. Federer is a man that holds grudges for a long time and he takes losses personally. How many other sportsman come out and say that they want revenge straight after a defeat.

Unless you have the skill to beat Federer bad behaviour will only guarantee that he plays his best and hands out a crushing defeat.

scoobs
02-23-2007, 06:09 PM
:drool::drool::drool:

:yeah: :yippee: :dance:

Sjengster
02-23-2007, 06:42 PM
Yes, indeed it is.

But it is also about competition too. And when someone wins easily all the time...snooze fest occurs. Even with the elegant play of King Fed. :)

And my comments were for the people on MTF that insist that players should be "nice" all the time. The people who are always claiming that tennis is a "gentlemen's sport". Sports isn't about being nice. :lol: :lol:

a) Federer doesn't win easily all the time, and b) there's no reason why sports can't be about being nice. Sport is about competition, drama, excitement, it doesn't have to be about anger. I really wish more people would believe that.

As ever, these past greats are taking cheap and inaccurate pot-shots at the current game. People like McEnroe apply the standards of their own era and assume that you have to hate the man at the top to beat him. I firmly believe that the players who topple Federer in the future, and do so with regularity, will be able to beat him with tennis alone, and thank heaven for that.

Doesn't anyone think that it does Nadal a disservice to suggest that it's only his self-belief that gets him the wins over Federer? I mean sheesh, "will to win overcomes superior talent"?; no, a superior clay-court game overcomes an inferior one, simple as that. Of course he has the mental strength, but that was something instilled in him at a very early age; you can't berate other players for not having that same strength of mind, it's not a natural trait, it has to be acquired. And Nadal's demeanour on court is not something they can replicate either if it doesn't suit their personality. It's not like he cracks out the fist-pumps and the shouts solely to intimidate Federer, that's how he is against every opponent.

cobalt60
02-23-2007, 06:50 PM
a) Federer doesn't win easily all the time, and b) there's no reason why sports can't be about being nice. Sport is about competition, drama, excitement, it doesn't have to be about anger. I really wish more people would believe that.

As ever, these past greats are taking cheap and inaccurate pot-shots at the current game. People like McEnroe apply the standards of their own era and assume that you have to hate the man at the top to beat him. I firmly believe that the players who topple Federer in the future, and do so with regularity, will be able to beat him with tennis alone, and thank heaven for that.

Doesn't anyone think that it does Nadal a disservice to suggest that it's only his self-belief that gets him the wins over Federer? I mean sheesh, "will to win overcomes superior talent"?; no, a superior clay-court game overcomes an inferior one, simple as that. Of course he has the mental strength, but that was something instilled in him at a very early age; you can't berate other players for not having that same strength of mind, it's not a natural trait, it has to be acquired. And Nadal's demeanour on court is not something they can replicate either if it doesn't suit their personality. It's not like he cracks out the fist-pumps and the shouts solely to intimidate Federer, that's how he is against every opponent.

Well said:yeah: Spot on:)

Sjengster
02-23-2007, 06:53 PM
Just to make it clear, the match-up of styles favours Nadal on other surfaces than clay of course, hence the 2 hardcourt wins, the close defeat in Miami, the fairly tight last two encounters won by Federer on grass and indoors, etc. Asking someone like, say, Berdych, who lost very easily to Federer at both RG and Wimbledon last year, to adopt a game style and a demeanour that are completely alien to him is ridiculous. And like it or not, how you play makes a massive difference to your chances against Federer, not what you do to try and psyche him out.

Sjengster
02-23-2007, 07:00 PM
Federer has quite a few friends on tour, but it's not like he knows every player out there personally, and think how many he has to play during the course of a year. I would imagine that most matches involve players beating someone whom they have no feelings about one way or the other, not someone they're either best mates with or else hate their guts; the same is true when facing Federer.

Dancing Hero
02-23-2007, 07:06 PM
Federer is a great, great player for sure, and if he wins the French in the future, will have proven himself a complete all rounder able to win on any surface.

Federer is the best all round player for years and he's just too good for his opponents 99% of the time. He stamps his authority on matches and his rivals and over five sets in the Slams, it's almost impossible to beat him when he's playing well, unless you're Nadal and it's on clay. Nadal can beat Federer on the slow stuff, but it's whether he can do the same at the other Slams is the question. Federer is absolutely dominant over guys like Roddick and Hewitt now, he's improved so much.

I could see Andy Murray giving Federer problems in events, Murray has the shots to hurt anyone and Murray's only going to get better. In the Slams, we'll have to see, Murray needs to get stronger and develop. In reality, Federer's probably still gonna be THE man for the foreseeable future.

LinkMage
02-23-2007, 07:12 PM
Most of that is rubbish, actually. I don't think bratty behavior would get under Roger's skin in the least. In fact, I think the brattier his opponent would get, the better tennis clinic Roger would give them.


Exactly, just look at what he did to Djokovic in Australia. Fed doesn't like Djokovic and so he spanked him.

cmurray
02-23-2007, 07:12 PM
Doesn't anyone think that it does Nadal a disservice to suggest that it's only his self-belief that gets him the wins over Federer? I mean sheesh, "will to win overcomes superior talent"?; no, a superior clay-court game overcomes an inferior one, simple as that. Of course he has the mental strength, but that was something instilled in him at a very early age; you can't berate other players for not having that same strength of mind, it's not a natural trait, it has to be acquired. And Nadal's demeanour on court is not something they can replicate either if it doesn't suit their personality. It's not like he cracks out the fist-pumps and the shouts solely to intimidate Federer, that's how he is against every opponent.

I agree with you to a point. Not for a moment was I trying to imply that Rafa is a tennis hack - and I would never imply that it is ONLY Rafa's belief that wins his matches for him. I believe that he has a great deal of natural ability. But I believe that a large part of that ability is that he is able to maintain self-belief ...even when he loses the first set 6-0 or 6-1.

And you are correct when you say that Rafa is a more talented clay-courter than Roger. He is. Roger has admitted as much. This doesn't explain why he has an even record with Roger on hards, or why he was able to take a set (and nearly two) off the KING of grass. By all rights, Roger should have blown him out of the water at Wimbledon. Why didn't he? Because Rafa keeps fighting. And fighting. Rafa's talent is obvious. He'd never make all of those finals and semis and quarters on all the different surfaces if he weren't one hell of a player.

I know he's a bad match-up for Roger. And maybe that's why Roger initially gets rattled - but you cannot deny that the ability to keep your nerve better than Roger Federer can is a mighty weapon indeed. And at the end of the day, there is the undisputable fact that other than clay, Roger IS the superior talent.

angiel
02-23-2007, 07:14 PM
It's nice to hear a player of McEnroe's stature be able to say things like this, rather than "He has no competition." or "I could have beaten him." Kudos to Johnny Mac.



Mac is 46 years old if you didn't know it.:wavey: :eek: :eek:

Apemant
02-23-2007, 07:19 PM
Who won the last 2 matches? Thank you. Just believing makes no difference in defeating Federer.

But it does. Federer is so much used to people yielding to his power; he actually even expects it to happen. Counts on it. So believing in your ability to beat him is essential; if you don't, you will just watch him in awe as he steamrolls over you.

It's not to say that believing is ENOUGH. Of course not; you need your A game as well and it has to be one hell of a game to begin with. But even your A game won't help you if you don't really believe you have a chance, and that happens more often than not. People go out just waiting to get destroyed, and praying the beatdown to be as mild as possible.

jacobhiggins
02-23-2007, 07:22 PM
Mac is 46 years old if you didn't know it.:wavey: :eek: :eek:

So what?

cmurray
02-23-2007, 07:30 PM
Just to make it clear, the match-up of styles favours Nadal on other surfaces than clay of course, hence the 2 hardcourt wins, the close defeat in Miami, the fairly tight last two encounters won by Federer on grass and indoors, etc. Asking someone like, say, Berdych, who lost very easily to Federer at both RG and Wimbledon last year, to adopt a game style and a demeanour that are completely alien to him is ridiculous. And like it or not, how you play makes a massive difference to your chances against Federer, not what you do to try and psyche him out.

Has anyone asked Berdych to do this? At the age male players start to make their mark on tennis, asking them to fundamentally change their game is...well, ridiculous. I believe what Mr. McEnroe (and myself) was trying to say is that it is going to take a player - and up-and-coming player probably - who is capable of maintaining belief to actually give Roger a run for it.

Also, though there are hordes of Rafa-haters on this board who would disagree with me, I don't believe that Rafa is necessarily trying to "psyche" Roger out when he plays him. I think the things Rafa does on court are almost exclusively for his own benefit. The "vamos"ing and fist pumping seem to be his way of keeping himself pumped up for the match. But more importantly, I don't think those tactics would work against Roger. However not allowing Roger to grind his confidence into the dirt like many other players do has certainly aided him on numerous occaisions.

Sunset of Age
02-23-2007, 07:41 PM
Also, though there are hordes of Rafa-haters on this board who would disagree with me, I don't believe that Rafa is necessarily trying to "psyche" Roger out when he plays him. I think the things Rafa does on court are almost exclusively for his own benefit. The "vamos"ing and fist pumping seem to be his way of keeping himself pumped up for the match. But more importantly, I don't think those tactics would work against Roger. However not allowing Roger to grind his confidence into the dirt like many other players do has certainly aided him on numerous occaisions.

Well, here's at least one Fedfan (and Disclaimer: Rafafan ;)) who agrees with you on this. Even further, I don't think Rafa tries to 'psyche' out any player for that purpose, he indeed does so for his own benefit, like you say (which doesn't mean I always approve of his antics, as you know ;) ).

I remember well one interview in which Roger was asked if Rafa's acts/tactics/antics on court would perhaps affect his playing, and he answered something in the lines of "When I'm out on court, I don't even see what he's doing." (wish I could find the reference...) So indeed - Roger doesn't care less, and most probably doesn't mind either.
Or at least that's what I think.

And on another note: I don't think anyone has said that it's only Rafa's mental strenght that has had him beat Fed relatively often. Of course he's also a pretty *talented* overall tennis player - especially on the clay.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to the upcoming clay season again!

NicoFan
02-23-2007, 07:57 PM
a) Federer doesn't win easily all the time, and b) there's no reason why sports can't be about being nice. Sport is about competition, drama, excitement, it doesn't have to be about anger. I really wish more people would believe that.

As ever, these past greats are taking cheap and inaccurate pot-shots at the current game. People like McEnroe apply the standards of their own era and assume that you have to hate the man at the top to beat him. I firmly believe that the players who topple Federer in the future, and do so with regularity, will be able to beat him with tennis alone, and thank heaven for that.


First, Sjengster, I hope you know that I respect your opinion.

But don't think by saying that sports aren't about being "nice" that I mean "anger". And I don't think that Johnny Mac means that either (though in his case it did).

By not being "nice", I mean that you have to have a bit of attitude out there in addition to your technical expertise. Because a lot of winning is mental. That belief that you are better than your opponent, and if not, that somehow someway you can find a way to knock him out. That the guy on the opposite side of the court is your enemy - at least for the match. That it's a war out there...and only the last man standing wins. And you do what you have to do to get it done - meaning get the win.

Now every player has a different way of doing it. Roger does it in a cool manner (Borg and Lendl too). BTW - I don't think Roger is "nice" out there. He isn't "nice" at all the way he dismantles his opponents. :lol: Others like Mac and Connor used anger (generally doesn't work for most players but for them it did). Others are aggressive, others glare and stare. Others yell VAMOS every two seconds.

None are right...and none are wrong.

The people that I'm teasing here when I joke about sports aren't about being "nice" are those that base whether they like a player solely on what they perceive as their behavior. I liked Borg...and I liked Mac. Two different players with obviously two different ways of behaving on court. But I appreciated them both for what they could accomplish on court - not because one had a cool demeanor while the other was insane :lol: - although of course it was a part of it. And their matches against each other were some of the best I've ever seen.

When people brush Mac and Connors aside as just "brats", they've miss two of the greats to have played the game. No, John shouldn't have had as many temper tantrums as he did - but watching the internal battle that he waged match after match within himself was a sight to behold. And I wouldn't give the experience of watching him up for most of the players on the circuit today.

cmurray
02-23-2007, 07:58 PM
Well, here's at least one Fedfan (and Disclaimer: Rafafan ;)) who agrees with you on this. Even further, I don't think Rafa tries to 'psyche' out any player for that purpose, he indeed does so for his own benefit, like you say (which doesn't mean I always approve of his antics, as you know ;) ).

I remember well one interview in which Roger was asked if Rafa's acts/tactics/antics on court would perhaps affect his playing, and he answered something in the lines of "When I'm out on court, I don't even see what he's doing." (wish I could find the reference...) So indeed - Roger doesn't care less, and most probably doesn't mind either.
Or at least that's what I think.

And on another note: I don't think anyone has said that it's only Rafa's mental strenght that has had him beat Fed relatively often. Of course he's also a pretty *talented* overall tennis player - especially on the clay.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to the upcoming clay season again!


I don't mind most of his antics. The only one that I find irritating is the amount of time he's been known to take between points....and even that he's remedied for the most part. As for the ass-picking? I doubt very highly if he even realizes he's doing it. It's probably like people who chew on pen caps or crack their knuckles....an unfortunate nervous habit. Otherwise, I simply don't understand why people talk about his "antics". He doesn't complain, he doesn't argue with the umpire, he doesn't mistreat ballkids (except in Madrid, I did catch him rolling his eyes at the models, but who can blame him?), he doesn't bad mouth his opponent at net. Oops. Sorry...went off on a little tangent there, didn't I? :p

Anyway, Roger's too good a player and too mentally tough to allow that kind of nonsense to get to him. That's my story and I'M STICKING TO IT! :angel:

Sjengster
02-23-2007, 08:04 PM
Has anyone asked Berdych to do this? At the age male players start to make their mark on tennis, asking them to fundamentally change their game is...well, ridiculous. I believe what Mr. McEnroe (and myself) was trying to say is that it is going to take a player - and up-and-coming player probably - who is capable of maintaining belief to actually give Roger a run for it.

Also, though there are hordes of Rafa-haters on this board who would disagree with me, I don't believe that Rafa is necessarily trying to "psyche" Roger out when he plays him. I think the things Rafa does on court are almost exclusively for his own benefit. The "vamos"ing and fist pumping seem to be his way of keeping himself pumped up for the match. But more importantly, I don't think those tactics would work against Roger. However not allowing Roger to grind his confidence into the dirt like many other players do has certainly aided him on numerous occaisions.

No, but he's a good example of the kind of player someone like Mac would say doesn't believe in himself enough against Federer, on the basis of those matches I mentioned. And he is one of the up-and-coming players, he's the only man to have beaten both Federer and Nadal as the first and second players in the world, so it's relevant to mention him here.

I didn't say that Nadal was trying to psyche Federer out, I specifically said before that the way he behaves on court is the same against every opponent.

Sjengster
02-23-2007, 08:06 PM
Others like Mac and Connor used anger (generally doesn't work for most players but for them it did).

All you need to know.

kapranos
02-23-2007, 08:08 PM
People who love tennis hate Fed. When you know in advance who's gonna win a match, there is no point watching it. For many people, Fed is killing the game of tennis. Unfortenaly, he doesn't even bring new fans as he has as much charisma as a dead worm. :cool:

Sjengster
02-23-2007, 08:11 PM
People who love tennis hate Fed. When you know in advance who's gonna win a match, there is no point watching it. For many people, Fed is killing the game of tennis. Unfortenaly, he doesn't even bring new fans as he has as much charisma as a dead worm. :cool:

Put this post in the Hall of Fame, we'll never see the like of it again. :worship:

Johnny Groove
02-23-2007, 08:11 PM
Nadal does because he's a bad matchup for Roger. Hewitt did at one time too. I don't see Roger ever "owning" Nadal like he does Hewitt and others, but if he does level or reverse the h2h Nadal might not always have that belief.

ive heard this argument so many times. :rolleyes: Hewitt gained his massive advantage over Fed while Federer was in "Gasquet mode". Lots of talent, couldnt get it together. The difference is that Nadal has won all his matches against Federer while Fed was #1, and in "FedGod mode"

Mac is 46 years old if you didn't know it.:wavey: :eek: :eek:

47 ;)

Allure
02-23-2007, 08:17 PM
ive heard this argument so many times. :rolleyes: Hewitt gained his massive advantage over Fed while Federer was in "Gasquet mode". Lots of talent, couldnt get it together. The difference is that Nadal has won all his matches against Federer while Fed was #1, and in "FedGod mode"


First part is true;)

Second- Nadal's game is just a bad matchup for Roger, plain and simple.

Seraphim
02-23-2007, 08:22 PM
I agree with you to a point. Not for a moment was I trying to imply that Rafa is a tennis hack - and I would never imply that it is ONLY Rafa's belief that wins his matches for him. I believe that he has a great deal of natural ability. But I believe that a large part of that ability is that he is able to maintain self-belief ...even when he loses the first set 6-0 or 6-1.

And you are correct when you say that Rafa is a more talented clay-courter than Roger. He is. Roger has admitted as much. This doesn't explain why he has an even record with Roger on hards, or why he was able to take a set (and nearly two) off the KING of grass. By all rights, Roger should have blown him out of the water at Wimbledon. Why didn't he? Because Rafa keeps fighting. And fighting. Rafa's talent is obvious. He'd never make all of those finals and semis and quarters on all the different surfaces if he weren't one hell of a player.

I know he's a bad match-up for Roger. And maybe that's why Roger initially gets rattled - but you cannot deny that the ability to keep your nerve better than Roger Federer can is a mighty weapon indeed. And at the end of the day, there is the undisputable fact that other than clay, Roger IS the superior talent.

There is the undisputable fact that REGARDLESS of clay, Roger IS the superior talent.

The key word there is FACT.

One question.
What did you mean by "By all rights"? What "rights" exactly. and are these "rights" applied to the Nadal as the KING of clay as they are to Federer as the KING of grass?

Seraphim.

kobulingam
02-23-2007, 08:22 PM
Federer is a great, great player for sure, and if he wins the French in the future, will have proven himself a complete all rounder able to win on any surface.


I think winning French will prove that he's the all around GOAT. He doesn't need to win the French (in this era where the greatest claycourter ever roams) to show that he is "a complete all rounder able to win on any surface."

He's clearly the second best claycourter out there. Only the clay GOAT prevented him from having 2 French Opens already. I say he's already proven that he's amazing on all surfaces (in fact he proved this long ago before he became The Mighty Fed when he won clay titles).

R.Federer
02-23-2007, 08:28 PM
Also, though there are hordes of Rafa-haters on this board who would disagree with me, I don't believe that Rafa is necessarily trying to "psyche" Roger out when he plays him. I think the things Rafa does on court are almost exclusively for his own benefit. The "vamos"ing and fist pumping seem to be his way of keeping himself pumped up for the match. But more importantly, I don't think those tactics would work against Roger. However not allowing Roger to grind his confidence into the dirt like many other players do has certainly aided him on numerous occaisions.

It is my impression that very few players have antics that are used purely to pump themselves up. For many of these players, those antics are used as much as a tool of pissing off the opponent and getting under their skin. (And if so, it is legitimate. There is nothing against the rules in gamesmanship which does not cross some boundaries of professional etiquette).

Otherwise, we would see Hewitt come-oning, backward saluting and lawn mowing against ALL players when he wants to pump himself up, likewise andy Andy roddick would be spewing mouthfuls of his choice words to ALL players. For sure, they have needed to pump themselves up in certain matches against top players and have not done so.

cmurray
02-23-2007, 08:29 PM
No, but he's a good example of the kind of player someone like Mac would say doesn't believe in himself enough against Federer, on the basis of those matches I mentioned. And he is one of the up-and-coming players, he's the only man to have beaten both Federer and Nadal as the first and second players in the world, so it's relevant to mention him here.

I didn't say that Nadal was trying to psyche Federer out, I specifically said before that the way he behaves on court is the same against every opponent.

I guess when I said "up and coming", I meant somebody still in juniors, or one that hasn't cracked the top 100 yet.

And I apologize - I misunderstood what you meant when you said "trying to psyche Roger out". I thought you meant that this was Rafa's intention.

As for Berdych....I don't know if he has enough belief. Probably not, but right now his inconsistency is a bigger problem for him, I suspect.

Beforehand
02-23-2007, 08:37 PM
Mac is 46 years old if you didn't know it.:wavey: :eek: :eek:
Um...what?

Seraphim
02-23-2007, 08:40 PM
Hey lady, I asked you a question.

cmurray
02-23-2007, 08:43 PM
There is the undisputable fact that REGARDLESS of clay, Roger IS the superior talent.

The key word there is FACT.

One question.
What did you mean by "By all rights"? What "rights" exactly. and are these "rights" applied to the Nadal as the KING of clay as they are to Federer as the KING of grass?

Seraphim.

I have to disagree with you there. Roger is NOT the superior talent on clay. Rafa is. His record supports this FACT. Otherwise yes, Roger is more talented.

"by all rights" is simply an expression for describing the outcome that most expected. Roger is better on clay than everyone expected Rafa to be on grass. Nobody picked Raf to even make it past the first week at Wimbledon. It was certainly surprising when he took a set from the man who made it throught the entire two weeks in straight sets. Nobody was surprised, however, that Roger made the finals of Roland Garros. Some perhaps even expected him to be able to beat Nadal.

Is that a sufficient explanation or were you hoping for more of an argument from me? I got the feeling that you are trying to pick one....an argument, that is.

cmurray
02-23-2007, 08:44 PM
Hey lady, I asked you a question.

easy there, trigger. I answered you. Feeling demanding today?

Seraphim
02-23-2007, 08:50 PM
easy there, trigger. I answered you. Feeling demanding today?

YEs. See I can't even type right.

nobama
02-23-2007, 09:03 PM
ive heard this argument so many times. :rolleyes: Hewitt gained his massive advantage over Fed while Federer was in "Gasquet mode". Lots of talent, couldnt get it together. The difference is that Nadal has won all his matches against Federer while Fed was #1, and in "FedGod mode"



47 ;)
Why do you roll your eyes. You can't dispute that he's a bad match up for Roger, especially on clay. I'm not suggesting that if he wasn't Roger would wipe the floor with him. But it's easier to have the belief you can beat someone when you've done it recently.

sondraj06
02-23-2007, 09:21 PM
FedGod Mode I like that. It's funny i don't think tennis analysis if that is a profession analyze Fed loses to Rafa as much as MTF. I think they all just chalk it up to Rafa's in Fed's head..haha that rhymes.

stebs
02-23-2007, 09:47 PM
I disagree with this opinion on several counts.

Firstly, the idea that belief is a direct link to anger and dislike. I don't believe that a guy like Nadal feels like he has ties to federer when on court but surely he doesn't feel dislike or anger either. Belief can come from within without dislike. Federer believes in himself 100% against everyone including Nadal without disliking them or feeling anger. I think it's different for different people but not a clever assumption from Mac. The fact is you can have a dislike of losing without having to dislike the guy you're losing to.

Secondly, the idea that mentality trumps 'game' is rubbish. There was a poll in the player section and several people suggested that tennis is 90& mental. Total BS. Tennis is 99% game and 1% in the head. The fact of the matter is that that 1% makes a big differene but at the end of the day if you're not good enough you're not good enough. I think Roddick reallyhad his head sorted at the AO. He was confident, had a game plan and was 100% fit and ready to win. Result? He got slaughtered by a great player on top of his game.

Finally, any notion that this kind of 'confidence to the point of arrogance' style of acting on court isn't going to do anything to Roger. Get under his skin? Yes. In the same way a buzzing fly gets under your skin before you swat it. That kind of behaviour has shown to irritate Roger but it doesn't put him off his game. If anything it makes him more determined to win. The two most confident players coming into the AO against Roger were Djoko and Roddick. They came up against Roger's best two performances of the AO.

stebs
02-23-2007, 09:51 PM
I have to disagree with you there. Roger is NOT the superior talent on clay. Rafa is. His record supports this FACT. Otherwise yes, Roger is more talented.

This is actually questionable. When Roger plays his best on clay he can outplay Rafa even with Rafa on form. Obviously, the problem is that kind of tennis can't be kept up for long enough to win the match. This makes it a kind of null point in my opinion as it goes round in circles. Rafa is BETTER on clay over a five set match. That is all that can be assumed.

Sunset of Age
02-23-2007, 09:58 PM
I disagree with this opinion on several counts.

Firstly, the idea that belief is a direct link to anger and dislike. I don't believe that a guy like Nadal feels like he has ties to federer when on court but surely he doesn't feel dislike or anger either. Belief can come from within without dislike. Federer believes in himself 100% against everyone including Nadal without disliking them or feeling anger. I think it's different for different people but not a clever assumption from Mac. The fact is you can have a dislike of losing without having to dislike the guy you're losing to.
.

It's quite typical for Mac to link 'belief' to 'anger and dislike', as he surely wasn't capable to do otherwise himself - he wasn't actually known as one of the most 'elegant' players (personality-wise, I mean) - he apparently truly hated his rivals.

When it comes to Fed and Nadal, who have repetitively acknowleged having great respect for each other, if not actually 'liking' each other, he's obviously very wrong about this.

The fact that Fed and Nadal can have such rivalry on court while respecting each other off court is one of the many factors that make them both the great players they are. Apparently Mac still doesn't 'get' this.

sondraj06
02-23-2007, 10:04 PM
I truly don't think Fed is better on clay, I do think all those arguments against Rafa's game go out the window when it comes to clay. His game is suited towards it and it works and it happens to work better than Fed's on clay, people can disagree that's their right. But I say he is the best clay courter and hopefully he'll prove that this year

Shabazza
02-23-2007, 10:44 PM
Didn't expect such a thoughtful thread on GM about this topic. I'm impressed.
Without the trolls and 'tards bugging in, MTF and GM isn't as bad as some people here make it. ;)

R.Federer
02-23-2007, 10:54 PM
This is actually questionable. When Roger plays his best on clay he can outplay Rafa even with Rafa on form. Obviously, the problem is that kind of tennis can't be kept up for long enough to win the match. This makes it a kind of null point in my opinion as it goes round in circles. Rafa is BETTER on clay over a five set match. That is all that can be assumed.

Nadal is better than Federer on clay, and I do not think this is questionable at ALL!

If Nadal is only better than Federer because the match is played in 5 sets, then Federer should be winning 3 of the first 4 sets and have his winning H2H over Nadal on clay. It's not like they have played one time on clay and Nadal fluked it out. He has won repeatedly against Federer on clay, in semis, in finals, in a slam.

Seraphim
02-24-2007, 12:13 AM
I have to disagree with you there. Roger is NOT the superior talent on clay. Rafa is. His record supports this FACT. Otherwise yes, Roger is more talented.

"by all rights" is simply an expression for describing the outcome that most expected. Roger is better on clay than everyone expected Rafa to be on grass. Nobody picked Raf to even make it past the first week at Wimbledon. It was certainly surprising when he took a set from the man who made it throught the entire two weeks in straight sets. Nobody was surprised, however, that Roger made the finals of Roland Garros. Some perhaps even expected him to be able to beat Nadal.

Is that a sufficient explanation or were you hoping for more of an argument from me? I got the feeling that you are trying to pick one....an argument, that is.

Calm down children, caaaaaalllmmmmmm down. No argument picking here. I rarely post, so when something catches my interest I just want to dig alittle deeper into that opinion to settle my own thoughts about the subject at hand. And you won. You should be celebrating. lol. Seriously though, it was probably the CAPS LOCK.

Now on to the topic, and thanks for replying.


Disagree? Except that your not actually disagreeing(sp) with me, but with the very last thing you said "in general" that I quoted from you.

And where do the lines blur between what "I, you or most expect" as suppose to what actually is or has already happened.

In other words, FACT.

I guess what I'm saying is that OUR subjectivity shouldn't be factured into the facts as they are.

Federer is the superior player because the FACTS say so. Not on clay, HC, grass or carpet, but simply the better overall. I don't know about all this "the best of this surface or that surface" stuff. It honestly sounds like slim pickings to me. As if Nadal is being called the best player "ON CLAY" because it's the only thing that he can be labeled as the "BEST" of.

I don't feel like Nadal is really respected for his achievments. It feels like it only being said in order to subtract from Feds achievments.

Did Nadal ever beat Fed on clay in straight sets?
Because Nadal is labeled the King of clay should he have beaten Fed without loosing a set?
And why is Fed subjected to an bassackwards analysis of the same framework?

And without what applying what is or was to be expected from Fed and/or Nadal, can you answer the questions just based on the FACTS. Nadal and Feds FACTS straight forward not cut up into three different catagories and surfaces.

Can objectivity play a part in this?

Ps. I probably won't get back to the board until late so thanks in advance if you reply.


Seraphim.

Seraphim
02-24-2007, 12:23 AM
Nadal is better than Federer on clay, and I do not think this is questionable at ALL!

If Nadal is only better than Federer because the match is played in 5 sets, then Federer should be winning 3 of the first 4 sets and have his winning H2H over Nadal on clay. It's not like they have played one time on clay and Nadal fluked it out. He has won repeatedly against Federer on clay, in semis, in finals, in a slam.

It should be said "Nadal has been better than Fed on clay" saying that he IS tends to rid the loser of the option to win against Nadal. "Can Not" and "Has Not" mean to different things.

That's what makes it questionable. It is.

embellish
02-24-2007, 12:33 AM
It should be said "Nadal has been better than Fed on clay" saying that he IS tends to rid the loser of the option to win against Nadal. "Can Not" and "Has Not" mean to different things.

That's what makes it questionable. It is.

They are not talking about future matches and Fedal has beaten Federer four times on clay in the past therefore at this time he is the better player on clay. However this could be tested in the coming clay court season and it is quite possible that his clay court crown will be Federers. However based on previous results at this time Nadal is better.

cobalt60
02-24-2007, 12:38 AM
Didn't expect such a thoughtful thread on GM about this topic. I'm impressed.
Without the trolls and 'tards bugging in, MTF and GM isn't as bad as some people here make it. ;)

It really isn't that bad most of the time. :shrug: Some folks here make it out to be so that they can feel better about themselves and also look better to others. The high road if you will;) Many posts can be thoughtful even if I don't always agree.
Back to the topic at hand though- this is JMac talking everyone;)

NYCtennisfan
02-24-2007, 12:40 AM
Mac is right about possibly getting under Fed's skin to throw him off of his game, but you first have to have a game that will bother him in the first place. Disliking your opponent, believing in yourself, pumping yourself up, delaying the game to throw him off of his rhythm, etc. are all fine and good, but if all your huge serves which normally win you points are acoming back, if all of your huge FH's that nobody could touch for 2 weeks keep coming back, if every short ball in a rally is punished, if every short 2nd serve is punished, if you can't seem to win two rallies in a row, there IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO gamesmanship wise that will make a difference. If your opponent has no weaknesses and wins points on his 1st serve, your first serve, his 2nd serve, and your 2nd serve, you are going to eventually break down and lose hope. You can hate him all you want, you do whatever you want to get under his skin but if he keeps winning all the rallies, you are going to lose.

Johnny Groove
02-24-2007, 12:43 AM
Didn't expect such a thoughtful thread on GM about this topic. I'm impressed.
Without the trolls and 'tards bugging in, MTF and GM isn't as bad as some people here make it. ;)

It really isn't that bad most of the time. :shrug: Some folks here make it out to be so that they can feel better about themselves and also look better to others. The high road if you will;) Many posts can be thoughtful even if I don't always agree.
Back to the topic at hand though- this is JMac talking everyone;)

The only reason GM is calm now is because Federer is winning. When Nadal beats him the next time, in Dubai, or IW, Miami, or sometime on clay, then you will see the true GM potential. :)

so basically, enjoy it while it lasts :armed:

NicoFan
02-24-2007, 12:45 AM
Mac is right about possibly getting under Fed's skin to throw him off of his game, but you first have to have a game that will bother him in the first place. Disliking your opponent, believing in yourself, pumping yourself up, delaying the game to throw him off of his rhythm, etc. are all fine and good, but if all your huge serves which normally win you points are acoming back, if all of your huge FH's that nobody could touch for 2 weeks keep coming back, if every short ball in a rally is punished, if every short 2nd serve is punished, if you can't seem to win two rallies in a row, there IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO gamesmanship wise that will make a difference. If your opponent has no weaknesses and wins points on his 1st serve, your first serve, his 2nd serve, and your 2nd serve, you are going to eventually break down and lose hope. You can hate him all you want, you do whatever you want to get under his skin but if he keeps winning all the rallies, you are going to lose.

Of course, true.

But there are times that Fed isn't on...and he still wins.

He's even admitted it himself.

Which is what I think Mac and others are trying to get these other guys to understand. Don't come in to the match as if Fed is automatically going to win. Come in aggressive. Come in positive. Come in with some attitude. Get into his face. If he's having a bad day, ya never know. :lol:

Seraphim
02-24-2007, 01:10 AM
They are not talking about future matches and Fedal has beaten Federer four times on clay in the past therefore at this time he is the better player on clay. However this could be tested in the coming clay court season and it is quite possible that his clay court crown will be Federers. However based on previous results at this time Nadal is better.


OK, Did you just stretch out what I said in five extra sentences? Because I could almost certainly swear that what you said was exactly my point.

I agree with what you said. What I said. I'm confused.

Seraphim
02-24-2007, 01:12 AM
The only reason GM is calm now is because Federer is winning. When Nadal beats him the next time, in Dubai, or IW, Miami, or sometime on clay, then you will see the true GM potential. :)

so basically, enjoy it while it lasts :armed:


So true. And that's when I'll go back into hiding.

embellish
02-24-2007, 01:17 AM
OK, Did you just stretch out what I said in five extra sentences? Because I could almost certainly swear that what you said was exactly my point.

I agree with what you said. What I said. I'm confused.

Quite possible I have a tendancy to do that and I'm practically falling asleep at the computer and that may contribute. I'm also confused - obviously we're in agreement?!

I think I've been looking at claybusters sig for some reason Nadal has morphed into Fedal in my mind - they've become one and the same :scared:
I now going to bed as my insomnia ramblings have taken a bizarre turn :help:

Seraphim
02-24-2007, 01:27 AM
Quite possible I have a tendancy to do that and I'm practically falling asleep at the computer and that may contribute. I'm also confused - obviously we're in agreement?!

I think I've been looking at claybusters sig for some reason Nadal has morphed into Fedal in my mind - they've become one and the same :scared:
I now going to bed as my insomnia ramblings have taken a bizarre turn :help:

Didn't catch the "Fedal". LOL

Night.

cobalt60
02-24-2007, 01:49 AM
The only reason GM is calm now is because Federer is winning. When Nadal beats him the next time, in Dubai, or IW, Miami, or sometime on clay, then you will see the true GM potential. :)

so basically, enjoy it while it lasts :armed:

:haha: Well the ignore button is a wonderful contraption;):p

Sunset of Age
02-24-2007, 02:15 AM
I think I've been looking at claybusters sig for some reason Nadal has morphed into Fedal in my mind - they've become one and the same :scared:

Oh dear. What have I done, again?
:tape: :help: ;)

Federerhingis
02-24-2007, 02:39 AM
Most of that is rubbish, actually. I don't think bratty behavior would get under Roger's skin in the least. In fact, I think the brattier his opponent would get, the better tennis clinic Roger would give them.

The only thing I agree with is that there seem to be few players who actually believe that they have a chance against him. Nadal does, and it is why he has had some success beating Roger. Otherwise, not so much. Not that Federer hasn't earned the professional respect. There are only so many times you can get your ass handed to you by a guy before you say "too good". All in all, I don't think there is much anyone can do about Roger...he's essentially in control of his own destiny.

Very true. Federer actually gets more motivation when a player gives him reason to beat them. Example against Nadal Miami 2005, someone in the audience shouted something which really upset Federer and those last two sets were pretty indicative of how motivated Federer can get when he gets fired up and given reason to be motivated. Yes Nadal was inexperienced and was a bit winded in the end; but it was mainly Federer raising his game that won him that match.

True that Nadal had it almost in his hands with the possibility of going two sets up.

Yup there are some players with great ability which don't have the belief when they face Federer namely Blake and Roddick most of the time. Ivan Ljubicic certainly belongs in the list of players who don't believe they can beat Federer when he's playing relatively well.

cmurray
02-24-2007, 03:51 AM
Calm down children, caaaaaalllmmmmmm down. No argument picking here. I rarely post, so when something catches my interest I just want to dig alittle deeper into that opinion to settle my own thoughts about the subject at hand. And you won. You should be celebrating. lol. Seriously though, it was probably the CAPS LOCK.

Now on to the topic, and thanks for replying.


Disagree? Except that your not actually disagreeing(sp) with me, but with the very last thing you said "in general" that I quoted from you.

And where do the lines blur between what "I, you or most expect" as suppose to what actually is or has already happened.

In other words, FACT.

I guess what I'm saying is that OUR subjectivity shouldn't be factured into the facts as they are.

Federer is the superior player because the FACTS say so. Not on clay, HC, grass or carpet, but simply the better overall. I don't know about all this "the best of this surface or that surface" stuff. It honestly sounds like slim pickings to me. As if Nadal is being called the best player "ON CLAY" because it's the only thing that he can be labeled as the "BEST" of.

I don't feel like Nadal is really respected for his achievments. It feels like it only being said in order to subtract from Feds achievments.

Did Nadal ever beat Fed on clay in straight sets?
Because Nadal is labeled the King of clay should he have beaten Fed without loosing a set?
And why is Fed subjected to an bassackwards analysis of the same framework?

And without what applying what is or was to be expected from Fed and/or Nadal, can you answer the questions just based on the FACTS. Nadal and Feds FACTS straight forward not cut up into three different catagories and surfaces.

Can objectivity play a part in this?

Ps. I probably won't get back to the board until late so thanks in advance if you reply.


Seraphim.


I very much beg your pardon. Obviously, I misunderstood the tone of your post. It seems that the only thing we differ on is semantics.

And to answer your question, I doubt very highly that true objectivity can be a part of this discussion - and that is because the term "more talented" or "less talented" is a concept much akin to "more beautiful" or "less beautiful" - meaning it can't really be easily quantified. If we base it strictly on results, we run into a problem - and that is that up until this point, Roger has lost more to Rafa than Rafa has lost to Roger. Does that mean that Rafa is more talented than Roger? I think not.

The other problem, as you pointed out, is that results are different depending on surface. Roger is clearly the favorite on faster surfaces, Rafa the favored on slower. Does that make Rafa more talented than Roger come springtime every year? I don't know, but it DOES make him more successful (or at least has up until this point), which is the only way to quantify such things.

Lastly, I wasn't trying to "win" the imaginary argument...merely to clarify my position. I admit that I actually enjoy discussing this in a civilized manner. So, cheers seraphim (cool name by the way), and once again, please accept my apology for misunderstanding your post.

Sjengster
02-24-2007, 05:03 AM
Very true. Federer actually gets more motivation when a player gives him reason to beat them. Example against Nadal Miami 2005, someone in the audience shouted something which really upset Federer and those last two sets were pretty indicative of how motivated Federer can get when he gets fired up and given reason to be motivated. Yes Nadal was inexperienced and was a bit winded in the end; but it was mainly Federer raising his game that won him that match.

Conversely, at RG a few months later he was serving up a break in the fourth set at 3-2, game point, and someone shouted encouragement to him in French and he snapped back "Ca va!" and promptly lost his serve; in fact he didn't win another game. It just goes to show the power of reverse psychology.

tennis2tennis
02-24-2007, 06:55 AM
I don't get it?
what does he mean by too much respect...should they give him a wedgy?curse him? get his sister pregnant then dump her?...

Phssthpok
02-24-2007, 11:58 AM
I guess when I said "up and coming", I meant somebody still in juniors, or one that hasn't cracked the top 100 yet.

And I apologize - I misunderstood what you meant when you said "trying to psyche Roger out". I thought you meant that this was Rafa's intention.

As for Berdych....I don't know if he has enough belief. Probably not, but right now his inconsistency is a bigger problem for him, I suspect.

I will actually put that claim forward: that Rafa tries to psyche Fed, perhaps not every time they meet but sometimes. An example is the Masters Cup semi 1st set: Federer is cruising on his service games and has already broken Rafa`s serve. Then the beginning of Fed`s service game Rafa starts jumping around and is overtly pumping himself up. Fed starts struggling holding his service game but narrowly manages to hold serve and gets broken in the next one. The difference on this occassion was that Fed didn`t get down on himself for too long which is what he has done in the past and ends up losing from winning positions eg 6-1 or 6-2 sets. I thought that was perhaps indicative of a turning point in their H2H, in that, Rafa`s antics might not be enough to win him matches against Fed. I`m not saying Rafa is not a darn good player but Fed is better. Obviously this is my opinion.

Peoples
02-24-2007, 12:45 PM
Nadal hates Federer, so it probably gives him some sort of bigger advantage rather than for example Blake who openly adores Roger.

nobama
02-24-2007, 12:51 PM
Nadal hates Federer, so it probably gives him some sort of bigger advantage rather than for example Blake who openly adores Roger.Nadal doesn't hate Federer.

Action Jackson
02-24-2007, 12:51 PM
When people brush Mac and Connors aside as just "brats", they've miss two of the greats to have played the game. No, John shouldn't have had as many temper tantrums as he did - but watching the internal battle that he waged match after match within himself was a sight to behold. And I wouldn't give the experience of watching him up for most of the players on the circuit today.

No, McEnroe was one of the most gifted players ever to play the game, but he was still an arse clown and a prick on court. Funny with him though he didn't try it against Borg and some of the other lower ranked players ( there have been a few) who asked McEnroe to continue it after the match, he shut up surprise surprise.

Peoples
02-24-2007, 12:58 PM
Nadal doesn't hate Federer.
You're a bit naive :)

Pureracket
02-24-2007, 01:02 PM
It seems like Federer is actually doing to the other players what McEnroe is suggesting here.

His laidback, nice demeanor is simply a cunning way to get into the heads of his opponents. I'm sure Federer hates them all.

NicoFan
02-24-2007, 01:16 PM
No, McEnroe was one of the most gifted players ever to play the game, but he was still an arse clown and a prick on court. Funny with him though he didn't try it against Borg and some of the other lower ranked players ( there have been a few) who asked McEnroe to continue it after the match, he shut up surprise surprise.

Yes, he was a prick on the court many times. But by saying he was an "arse clown", with all due respect, you are completely wrong. Now he's a clownish act on court on the senior tour, but you're missing what went on on court during his matches in his prime. I'm not trying to be disrespectful saying this, but you had to be there to experience it or you're not going to really get it. :shrug: I can only explain so much that it was this amazing war within himself that went on during the big matches. He fought himself rather than his opponents. Yes, you can watch the matches now, but you're not going to get the impact of the drama of the moment to really understand it.

I'm not excusing his temper tantrums. I'm just saying that he wasn't the big asshole that people make him out to be. :shrug:

And it was a show - a grand show to watch. :lol: People may have pretended to be offended by his actions but that didn't stop them from pouring into the stands to watch him.

I don't think it was a surprise that he didn't do it against Borg. He respected Borg. He didn't respect...or immensely disliked...other guys so didn't give a shit what they thought about him.

I see it with players today. Many of my favorites can "misbehave" on court - but I notice when they play Roger, they don't pull that shit on court.

Action Jackson
02-24-2007, 01:26 PM
Yes, he was a prick on the court many times. But by saying he was an "arse clown", with all due respect, you are completely wrong. Now he's a clownish act on court on the senior tour, but you're missing what went on on court during his matches in his prime. I'm not trying to be disrespectful saying this, but you had to be there to experience it or you're not going to really get it. :shrug: I can only explain so much that it was this amazing war within himself that went on during the big matches. He fought himself rather than his opponents. Yes, you can watch the matches now, but you're not going to get the impact of the drama of the moment to really understand it..

Why am I completely wrong that he was an arse clown on court? If he wasn't such an arse clown on court like Connors and Nastase, then the Code of Conduct Rules would not have been changed, then would they? You are being disrepectful and this is something I know about showing disrepect. Yes, I saw the prick and self publicist play in the flesh and on TV, so I'm capable of making up my own mind.

When he needed some time, throw a distraction in and get a disturbance to interrupt the flow of the match. He was able to get away with it most of the time, so he did it and good for him and got the job done.

He might be Ok off the court I don't know or want to know, but his conduct and his tennis are two very seperate things. One I appreciated and the other I didn't. He ended up being a caricature of himself.

If I want clowns I go to the circus or watch wrestling.

Johnny Groove
02-24-2007, 01:30 PM
If I want clowns I go to the circus or watch wrestling.

or watch an RR tourney or come to GM during the clay season

Action Jackson
02-24-2007, 01:32 PM
or watch an RR tourney or come to GM during the clay season

Too true.

NicoFan
02-24-2007, 03:24 PM
Why am I completely wrong that he was an arse clown on court? If he wasn't such an arse clown on court like Connors and Nastase, then the Code of Conduct Rules would not have been changed, then would they? You are being disrepectful and this is something I know about showing disrepect. Yes, I saw the prick and self publicist play in the flesh and on TV, so I'm capable of making up my own mind.


Yet again George there was nothing in my post to deserve this kind of response.

I know better than to try to have a conversation about an issue with you.

Action Jackson
02-24-2007, 03:34 PM
Yet again George there was nothing in my post to deserve this kind of response.

I know better than to try to have a conversation about an issue with you.

It was you that mentioned disrepect initially and was defending McEnroe's behaviour. I'm not trying to be disrespectful saying this, but you had to be there to experience it or you're not going to really get it

Castafiore
02-24-2007, 04:39 PM
I thought that it was obvious that McEnroe threw these tantrum just to try and get the other player out of his focus, concentration. I don't think that he was fighting himself that much, but more trying to pull the other player out of the zone.
It's much different than watching Malisse when he's having one of his fits. Malisse is fighting his own demons IMO.

When Lendl was playing "in the zone" and McEnroe was on the other side, it was only a matter of time before John would throw a tantrum. It worked against Lendl because Ivan would get all twitchy, he would start to pull at this eye lashes,..... It was often not enough for JMac to win the match because Ivan would try and get his focus back but it worked from time to time.
He didn't do that with Borg because that sort of thing simply didn't work with Borg.


I'm not going to defend his tantrums because he did behave like a brat more than once. doesn't change the fact that he was a brilliant tennis player.

angiel
02-24-2007, 06:07 PM
It seems like Federer is actually doing to the other players what McEnroe is suggesting here.

His laidback, nice demeanor is simply a cunning way to get into the heads of his opponents. I'm sure Federer hates them all.



:angel: :angel: :worship: You are so right my friend and you are the only person here who seem to get what Mac is talking about.:wavey: :D

prima donna
02-24-2007, 06:24 PM
It's not that the other players have been overly generous with Roger, it's been the fact that he's dismissed them time and time again, even some that are posing to be top 10 caliber players and he's done it with a fair amount of ease. So, there's really not much to be said aside from "too good", anyway, all in all competition is competition and these are world class athletes, I'm sure that regardless of the amount of respect each of them possess for Federer that once the cards are all on the table they're going all out, but he's just been too good and remember, tennis is as much mental as physical, not only does he possess the best strokes in the game, but he's also head and shoulders above his competition in the strategic and mental department. He just has more options, like in Montreal last year when he played 3 consecutive 3 set matches, ended up beating Malisse, handing Tursunov a bagel and Gonzalez was handled with ease, each of the 3 had basically played him tough in the 2nd set and it looked as though they'd performed a disappearing act, but ultimately it was his change in game plan that spelt their doom. Anyway, McEnroe always has too much to say and fact is, Federer has 10 slams now. McEnroe had 7. Jealousy is a sickness, get well soon.

prima donna
02-24-2007, 06:29 PM
:angel: :angel: :worship: You are so right my friend and you are the only person here who seem to get what Mac is talking about.:wavey: :D
Why are there posters like this on the board that are so insecure, that feel so threatened by the records which are being set, regularly by Federer that they feel this constant need to post articles regarding "weak competition", drawing comparisons between different eras would be like mixing oil and water, the two just don't go together.

Sampras was a great player in his own rite, but is simply outclassed in almost every element of the game by Federer. Sampras did have a rather respectable service game, which was the envy of many and he did indeed use his monsterous forehand to dominate his opposition, but his game was flawed, in many aspects. On any given day, if his serve were off and the surface were slow, he could find himself in a tight one against any player off the block. For the simple fact that his backhand was a constant liability.

Federer V. Sampras
Forehand Equal
Backhand Federer
Serve Sampras
Mental Equal
Volley Equal ( Sampras was coming behind monster 130mph serves, one shouldn't neglect to remember the spankings that he was dished out by classic serve and volleyers, such as Edberg)

Anyway, always amusing to see you around. Get over it.

angiel
02-24-2007, 06:45 PM
Why are there posters like this on the board that are so insecure, that feel so threatened by the records which are being set, regularly by Federer that they feel this constant need to post articles regarding "weak competition", drawing comparisons between different eras would be like mixing oil and water, the two just don't go together.

Sampras was a great player in his own rite, but is simply outclassed in almost every element of the game by Federer. Sampras did have a rather respectable service game, which was the envy of many and he did indeed use his monsterous forehand to dominate his opposition, but his game was flawed, in many aspects. On any given day, if his serve were off and the surface were slow, he could find himself in a tight one against any player off the block. For the simple fact that his backhand was a constant liability.

Federer V. Sampras
Forehand Equal
Backhand Federer
Serve Sampras
Mental Equal
Volley Equal ( Sampras was coming behind monster 130mph serves, one shouldn't neglect to remember the spankings that he was dished out by classic serve and volleyers, such as Edberg)

Anyway, always amusing to see you around. Get over it.


You know this like the pot calling the kettle lack, I could ask you why are posters like you here doing the reverse,:sad: :sad: always amusing to see you too. Get over it.:p :p

stebs
02-24-2007, 07:14 PM
You're a bit naive :)

This is quite a funny post. In fact, you're the naive one. The tennis world wants you to believe that there is some kind of rivalry there to make the sport more popular. This lends to the opinion that there is some kind of animosity in the relationship. Of course on the court Nadal is not best mates with Federer which is part of his game. Other than that saying he 'hates' Federer is totally false and clearly based on nothing than what you'd like to think is true.

Fedex
02-24-2007, 08:04 PM
:yawn:

nobama
02-24-2007, 10:24 PM
This is quite a funny post. In fact, you're the naive one. The tennis world wants you to believe that there is some kind of rivalry there to make the sport more popular. This lends to the opinion that there is some kind of animosity in the relationship. Of course on the court Nadal is not best mates with Federer which is part of his game. Other than that saying he 'hates' Federer is totally false and clearly based on nothing than what you'd like to think is true.I don't know where this 'hatred' idea comes from. Seems to me they have mutual respect for each other.

Peoples
02-24-2007, 10:31 PM
This is quite a funny post. In fact, you're the naive one. The tennis world wants you to believe that there is some kind of rivalry there to make the sport more popular. This lends to the opinion that there is some kind of animosity in the relationship. Of course on the court Nadal is not best mates with Federer which is part of his game. Other than that saying he 'hates' Federer is totally false and clearly based on nothing than what you'd like to think is true.

No the relationship between them is fine/neutral. But Federer is the only one stopping Nadal from the 1st ranking, so I suppose everyone makes their own guesses.

cmurray
02-24-2007, 10:41 PM
I don't know where this 'hatred' idea comes from. Seems to me they have mutual respect for each other.

I agree. I never got the idea that they thought poorly of each other.

Sunset of Age
02-24-2007, 11:41 PM
I agree. I never got the idea that they thought poorly of each other.

Their mutual respect is there, for all those willing to see.
Of course their are plenty people around who just can't imagine rivals to have a reasonable relationship off court. Their loss.

hablovah19
02-25-2007, 12:01 AM
John McEnroe, goons belong in hockey, not in tennis. :zzz:

atpSUPERMAN
02-25-2007, 12:56 AM
Give me Federer any day

Give me Mac, Boris Becker, Lendl, Connors anyday over anyone in this era.

Seraphim
02-25-2007, 01:59 AM
:haha: Well the ignore button is a wonderful contraption;):p

What's this now? Ignore button? Where?

Seraphim
02-25-2007, 02:11 AM
I very much beg your pardon. Obviously, I misunderstood the tone of your post. It seems that the only thing we differ on is semantics.

And to answer your question, I doubt very highly that true objectivity can be a part of this discussion - and that is because the term "more talented" or "less talented" is a concept much akin to "more beautiful" or "less beautiful" - meaning it can't really be easily quantified. If we base it strictly on results, we run into a problem - and that is that up until this point, Roger has lost more to Rafa than Rafa has lost to Roger. Does that mean that Rafa is more talented than Roger? I think not.

The other problem, as you pointed out, is that results are different depending on surface. Roger is clearly the favorite on faster surfaces, Rafa the favored on slower. Does that make Rafa more talented than Roger come springtime every year? I don't know, but it DOES make him more successful (or at least has up until this point), which is the only way to quantify such things.

Lastly, I wasn't trying to "win" the imaginary argument...merely to clarify my position. I admit that I actually enjoy discussing this in a civilized manner. So, cheers seraphim (cool name by the way), and once again, please accept my apology for misunderstanding your post.



Thanks for giving me something to think about. I can understand this terminology alot better.

Your response was what I was hoping for. A point of view, other than my own, with clarity, not the basic run-of-the-mill fanatic ramblings devoid of any logic.

And no apology necessary.

Your a nice lady miss. LOL

Seraphim
02-25-2007, 02:17 AM
It seems like Federer is actually doing to the other players what McEnroe is suggesting here.

His laidback, nice demeanor is simply a cunning way to get into the heads of his opponents. I'm sure Federer hates them all.

LOL.

You may be on to something.

I'd like to believe that couldn't be so, but?

Peoples
02-25-2007, 10:47 AM
nobody likes fed . he is over hpyped !!! he can never win french open because of the my rafa !!!
vamos !!1!
http://www.peterglass.com/Images/Fairs/pig%20girl%20MED.jpg
?

Apemant
02-25-2007, 10:57 AM
http://www.peterglass.com/Images/Fairs/pig%20girl%20MED.jpg
?

:haha: :haha:

Boris Franz Ecker
02-25-2007, 11:40 AM
Mac is an idiot who permanently withspeaks himself.
Some days he said he took drugs like a racing horse...

But he can be happy to have some nostalgy appearances in Germany. It's a good thing for him not to be forgotten.

The_Nadal_effect
02-25-2007, 01:51 PM
His laidback, nice demeanor is simply a cunning way to get into the heads of his opponents. I'm sure Federer hates them all.

I dont know if professional hate is possible to better your play. Respect for one's opponents might help one analyse them better. Last of all Federer or Nadal. They love to win yes. But hate your opponent,...maybe Berdych or Hewitt might function that way.

Sunset of Age
02-25-2007, 02:43 PM
nobody likes fed . he is over hpyped !!! he can never win french open because of the my rafa !!!
vamos !!1!

:retard: :tape: :help:

YEMI
02-25-2007, 02:47 PM
Whats not to like? Apart from Nadal, we've see what he does to players who dare to mouth off.

almouchie
02-25-2007, 02:51 PM
it has to be said
maybe a difference in players attitude might do them some good
in the few times Federer lost apart form Nadal matches (murray, berdydech) it was clear that they got him rattled
he was clearly upset, it wasnt anything to do with sensing defeat, they definitely gotten to him
i still think had nadal mananged to close out that 2nd set, we would have seen an entirely different match, as rafa always seems to bother roger
maybe Haas attitude might be a good thing for other players facing the swiss

sondraj06
02-25-2007, 03:34 PM
?

Oh the quality of post some times boggles the mind

sondraj06
02-25-2007, 03:34 PM
Whats not to like? Apart from Nadal, we've see what he does to players who dare to mouth off.


Oh sweetie I could start my own thread and bring it to chat status all by myself with this one.. but I'll refrain

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-25-2007, 04:39 PM
Whats not to like? Apart from Nadal, we've see what he does to players who dare to mouth off.
You, my friend, are what you call a closed eyes fan ;)

cobalt60
02-25-2007, 04:54 PM
What's this now? Ignore button? Where?

You don't know about the ignore list? Go to UserCP; look down the list, find the ignore info and la voila add those posters you don't care to read on it. It stops them from PM'ing you, repping you and of course it hides their posts. Wonderful invention:yeah: