Charisma Federer doesn't have it...Rafa does!!

I can't see this...

How bad is the carnage?

5-1 nadal

i feel bad because i´m brazilian. but not in my wildest dreams i see mello beating rafa

wish i could see this. stupid espn.

6-1 Nadal...oh eat the French fri...eat it Mello...you like that don't you...mmhh...well get ready for the cinnamon reason bagel next set.

yes rafaaaaaaaaaaaaa
you play perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope you will win montreal!!!!!!!!!!

With all the other favorites out, this master serie is here for the taking.

yes agreed...this is totally Rafa's chance to get his first hardcourt title

yes rafaaaaaaaaaaaaa
you play perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope you will win montreal!!!!!!!!!!


Yes, well put Alexito...well put. :)

Agassi can beat him if they play. I think Andre would be the favourite before Rafa, considering his hardcourt form now.

First, he's got to beat Grosjean, though. I don't think it's going to be that easy because Seb is not a bad player on that surface.

Seb might win if he causes the crowd to riot again after he refuses to play because of a questionable correct call he doesn't like...lol

Seb might win if he causes the crowd to riot again after he refuses to play because of a questionable correct call he doesn't like...lol
or rafa might win if he fakes an injury during play to have a rest.

I would love for Nadal to win this but I do think that if (and that's a big if) he makes it to the final and plays Agassi, Andre would be more likely to get the win.

Nadal could lose to Grosjean.

Agassi could beat Nadal but he won't be able to do his classic backhand to backhand crosscourt matchup against Nadal...it will be an interesting match if they play, alot of fun baseline rallies. Like I said earlier in the summer, the best match of the summer is Nadal v. everyone

Agassi could beat Nadal but he won't be able to do his classic backhand to backhand crosscourt matchup against Nadal...it will be an interesting match if they play, alot of fun baseline rallies. Like I said earlier in the summer, the best match of the summer is Nadal v. everyone
for u mayb

Nadal could lose to Grosjean.

ain't gonna happen.. :) he just won :worship:
:wavey:

I'd like to see Agassi win this one. Once Roger's isn't there, I'm all for Agassi, then Roddick, then Nadal...................... I have an order for my favorites ;) .........lolol

i would love to see an Agassi nadal match. the "Veteran" against the young 'un
I don't know, agassi seemed a bit out of sorts in his match against jonas. i don't think its such a stretch to think that nadal would win an agassi/nadal match. definitely don't expect it to be a blowout win for either

:eek: when agassi turned pro, nadal wasnt even born :bolt:

Agassi/Nadal would be great. Nadal leaves his FH side pretty wide open because he has faith in his ability to run down shots hit to that side but it is a bit different on this surface compared to clay. Grosjean and Moya opened up things with good inside-out-forehands when Nadal did retrieve but got nothing on the ball. I'm not sure Nadal will want to play the same style against Agassi, retrieving all day but it should be interesting. OF course, there is a LONG way to go before the would play anyway. Agassi has to deal with Kiwi tonight and Kiwi is playing pretty good.

for u mayb

For anyone...

I mean, most tennis fans like interesting matchups and quality tennis, maybe you prefer Federer beat downs and you think that's more entertaining...I am going to have to go with the former...IMHO

:eek: when agassi turned pro, nadal wasnt even born :bolt:
:haha:

Vamos Rafa :yippee:

I would love for Nadal to win this but I do think that if (and that's a big if) he makes it to the final and plays Agassi, Andre would be more likely to get the win.

Why?

For anyone...

I mean, most tennis fans like interesting matchups and quality tennis, maybe you prefer Federer beat downs and you think that's more entertaining...I am going to have to go with the former...IMHO

Your opinion hardly reflects everyone else's. Most tennis fans like interesting match-ups and quality tennis, that doesn't equal Nadal. His game can match up pretty interestingly against some styles, but not all of them produce quality tennis and certainly not all of his match-ups are interesting, or maybe you prefer Nadal beatdowns and think that's entertaining.

I don't know what Federer has to do with this thread, but if you're excluding him of the lines of quality tennis and interesting match-ups, you probably only saw his matches against Nadal.

Nadal seems to be the top-favorite for Montreal now. It's looking extremely like Miami - seeds falling everywhere, claycourters doing well, etc - and this time, Federer's not there to stop him. He'll play Puerta next and though he gave Nadal a tough battle in Roland Garros, I'm not so sure about this match-up on hardcourt, Nadal has a clear advantage. I think lefties can trouble Nadal (which unfortunately Mello couldn't take advantage of), so maybe it's gonna be a tight score. But still, it'll be the shock if he loses to Puerta, which I hope he doesn't.

Agassi though, can still win and cause the "upset", and I'm rooting for him as he's really been needing a big title this year, and I'm not so sure he's gonna be able to defend Cincinnati, so... go Andre!

Funny thing. Gaudio and Puerta are also in the QF. Where are the theories that Montreal nows plays like clay? :tape:

Your opinion hardly reflects everyone else's. Most tennis fans like interesting match-ups and quality tennis, that doesn't equal Nadal.

That doesn't equal Nadal to you. I like interesting match-ups and quality tennis and I think I can find that in Nadal's matches. I thought today's match against Seb was high quality from both players. As you say though, opinions can differ. I think it is a bit unfair though to say that Nadal can't produce intersting and quality tennis, if that is what you are saying. (If I am interpreting you wrong and you are saying that interesting and quality does not always equal Nadal than nevermind because no player has both factors all the time.)

wcr, I do think that Agassi would be the favorite if he and Nadal met in a final because he is showing pretty good form, is beloved by the crowd, and has his game fully developed.

For anyone...

I mean, most tennis fans like interesting matchups and quality tennis, maybe you prefer Federer beat downs and you think that's more entertaining...I am going to have to go with the former...IMHO

:worship: :rocker2:

Your opinion hardly reflects everyone else's. Most tennis fans like interesting match-ups and quality tennis, that doesn't equal Nadal. His game can match up pretty interestingly against some styles, but not all of them produce quality tennis and certainly not all of his match-ups are interesting, or maybe you prefer Nadal beatdowns and think that's entertaining.

I don't know what Federer has to do with this thread, but if you're excluding him of the lines of quality tennis and interesting match-ups, you probably only saw his matches against Nadal.

Competive matches are intersting...plain an simple, doesn't matter if it's 504033 shot rallies on clay that end forced errors or 2 shot rallies on grass that end in winners. It's all about how close things are and how high quality the tennis is. Once you throw in two of the biggest stars in pro tennis then you get blockbuster matchups. It would be a blockbuster if they met in the final. If you can't see that, maybe you should stick to watching golf or sumtin? :confused:

Federer is another tennis player, pretty succesful, maybe you have heard of him. Simply making a reference to him and the fact when he plays finals they have a tendency to be boring. :)

For anyone...

maybe you prefer Federer beat downs and you think that's more entertaining.....IMHO


Like Nadal constantly wins in 5 th set 20-18 or smth. :rolleyes:

ain't gonna happen.. :) he just won :worship:
:wavey:
:banana:

Um, Nadal could lose to Puerta! ;)

Funny thing. Gaudio and Puerta are also in the QF. Where are the theories that Montreal nows plays like clay? :tape:

I think that you already answered that by presenting the excuse that "seeds are falling everywhere" - afterall, if they weren't, these "claycourters" would be losing 0 and 0, no? ;) Forget the fact that Puerta and Gaudio were seeded for teh QF :tape:

Seriously, if Rafa wins - and I do not believe he will - it will be said that Montreal played extremely slow, just like clay. Don't worry.

I think that you already answered that by presenting the excuse that "seeds are falling everywhere" - afterall, if they weren't, these "claycourters" would be losing 0 and 0, no? ;) Forget the fact that Puerta and Gaudio were seeded for teh QF :tape:

Seriously, if Rafa wins - and I do not believe he will - it will be said that Montreal played extremely slow, just like clay. Don't worry.

Yea, why do you think Roddick went out first round and Hewitt contracted an STD...it must be slow!! :)

Seriously, if Rafa wins - and I do not believe he will - it will be said that Montreal played extremely slow, just like clay. Don't worry.

We will then have to burn all the media tapes of the match commentators saying that the courts are playing fast so there will be no evidence contrary to the Montreal=clay theory. ;)

Like Nadal constantly wins in 5 th set 20-18 or smth. :rolleyes:

Well let us look at his last couple major event finals. :)

His master finals have been interesting...

2005 ATP Masters Series Rome, Clay, F
Italy Clay F Nadal 4 6 6 3 3 6 6 4 6 7
2005 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Clay, F
Monaco Clay F Nadal 3 6 1 6 6 0 5 7

I dnk, I thought that French final was pretty interesting...

2005 Roland Garros, Clay, F
France Clay F Nadal 7 6 3 6 1 6 5 7

Heck even when he loses finals it's pretty interesting...
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami, Hard, F
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 2 6 6 7 7 6 6 3 6 1



Now lets compare that to Roger's "interesting finals"...
2005 Wimbledon, Grass, F
England Grass F Federer 6 2 7 6 6 4 hmm...boring...

2005 ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Clay, F
Germany Clay F Federer 6 3 7 5 7 6 sorta interesting but straight sets...I am dozing off.

2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, Hard, F
California, USA Hard F Federer 6 2 6 4 6 4

2004 Tennis Masters Cup, Hard, F
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer 6 3 6 2 double boring...

2004 US Open, Hard, F
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 6 0 7 6 6 0 wake me up...yawn...snooze fest...

That doesn't equal Nadal to you. I like interesting match-ups and quality tennis and I think I can find that in Nadal's matches. I thought today's match against Seb was high quality from both players. As you say though, opinions can differ. I think it is a bit unfair though to say that Nadal can't produce intersting and quality tennis, if that is what you are saying. (If I am interpreting you wrong and you are saying that interesting and quality does not always equal Nadal than nevermind because no player has both factors all the time.)

wcr, I do think that Agassi would be the favorite if he and Nadal met in a final because he is showing pretty good form, is beloved by the crowd, and has his game fully developed.

I said it didn't equal Nadal not to diss his game, but to put that not always his matches are interesting, much less quality tennis. I actually explained that, so...

Competive matches are intersting...plain an simple, doesn't matter if it's 504033 shot rallies on clay that end forced errors or 2 shot rallies on grass that end in winners. It's all about how close things are and how high quality the tennis is. Once you throw in two of the biggest stars in pro tennis then you get blockbuster matchups. It would be a blockbuster if they met in the final. If you can't see that, maybe you should stick to watching golf or sumtin? :confused:

Federer is another tennis player, pretty succesful, maybe you have heard of him. Simply making a reference to him and the fact when he plays finals they have a tendency to be boring. :)

By your standard, Federer's final in Halle, Hamburg, Miami and Rotterdam were pretty interesting, eh? Just because they had relatively close scores?

You get blockbuster match-ups if you pair two of the biggest stars in the game, what's to doubt about that? But does that mean it's gonna be an interesting match and produce high quality tennis? I don't think so. I disagree with you, how's that for a non-existant capacity to see that a possible match-up (are you talking about Nadal vs Agassi?) could be interesting? Of course it can, and most probably WILL if it happens. But Nadal vs ANYONE, star or not... won't be always that interesting, sorry.

I think that you already answered that by presenting the excuse that "seeds are falling everywhere" - afterall, if they weren't, these "claycourters" would be losing 0 and 0, no? ;) Forget the fact that Puerta and Gaudio were seeded for teh QF :tape:

Seriously, if Rafa wins - and I do not believe he will - it will be said that Montreal played extremely slow, just like clay. Don't worry.

:lol:

So it's now completely normal and excuse-like to say something that's clearly unnatural? Just because Gaudio and Puerta were seeded #6 and #8 (I guess that's it) doesn't mean they were the 8th and 9th favorites when the tournament began. Before Montreal, Puerta hadn't won a match on hardcourt for so long and Gaudio could never be consistent enough to do well on those events.

Seeds are falling everywhere mean Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian and Gasquet lost. Claycourters doing well mean Nadal, Gaudio and Puerta reaching the QFs. Looking like Miami. Facts, not excuses.

There won't be played-like-clay excuses taken seriously regarding Montreal. I think it means he's proven himself on that surface and that's about it. Miami is known for being slow and all, but Montreal as far as I know (and only came to know reading the forum today) as the AMS of surprises, eh? Upsets? Guess that's gonna be the excuse. Montreal doesn't count because favorites lose early or something. :rolleyes: Find all the excuses you want, if he wins... unfortunately there'll be many.

You don't believe he'll win the tournament? I'd like to believe that as well as long Agassi stays in.

Nadal will have to beat Agassi or a certain Hrbaty. Nadal is good if he could beat either of them.

Well let us look at his last couple major event finals. :)



I don't understand why we have to look only at some selective finals. The bottom line is that both had plenty routine wins with ordinary scorelines and a few matches where they had to fight for their life.

I don't understand why we have to look only at some selective finals. The bottom line is that both had plenty routine wins with ordinary scorelines and a few matches where they had to fight for their life.

The bottom line is Nadals biggest wins have been interesting matches and Federer's have not.

Well let us look at his last couple major event finals. :)

His master finals have been interesting...

2005 ATP Masters Series Rome, Clay, F
Italy Clay F Nadal 4 6 6 3 3 6 6 4 6 7
2005 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Clay, F
Monaco Clay F Nadal 3 6 1 6 6 0 5 7

I dnk, I thought that French final was pretty interesting...

2005 Roland Garros, Clay, F
France Clay F Nadal 7 6 3 6 1 6 5 7

Heck even when he loses finals it's pretty interesting...
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami, Hard, F
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 2 6 6 7 7 6 6 3 6 1



Now lets compare that to Roger's "interesting finals"...
2005 Wimbledon, Grass, F
England Grass F Federer 6 2 7 6 6 4 hmm...boring...

2005 ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Clay, F
Germany Clay F Federer 6 3 7 5 7 6 sorta interesting but straight sets...I am dozing off.

2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, Hard, F
California, USA Hard F Federer 6 2 6 4 6 4

2004 Tennis Masters Cup, Hard, F
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer 6 3 6 2 double boring...

2004 US Open, Hard, F
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 6 0 7 6 6 0 wake me up...yawn...snooze fest...

Can we plz leave Roger out of this, some people find both boring and I love both of them so plz leave Roger alone the guy can never win :rolleyes:

PHM i dunno why but i feel as if he is soooooooooooooooo on point that he might just take this!

By your standard, Federer's final in Halle, Hamburg, Miami and Rotterdam were pretty interesting, eh? Just because they had relatively close scores?

You get blockbuster match-ups if you pair two of the biggest stars in the game, what's to doubt about that? But does that mean it's gonna be an interesting match and produce high quality tennis? I don't think so. I disagree with you, how's that for a non-existant capacity to see that a possible match-up (are you talking about Nadal vs Agassi?) could be interesting? Of course it can, and most probably WILL if it happens. But Nadal vs ANYONE, star or not... won't be always that interesting, sorry.

No, I said quite the opposite. My point is that Nadal gives more interesting matches than Federer. Bedsides the fact that Nadal isn't a robot and gives the audience something to cheer about his matches are rollercoasters. Federer has a tendancy just to beat people down, which is good for him but, bad for us fans.

Didn't I already talk about this too...why do you insist on having me repeat what I already said. If you don't consider high caliber tennis, long baseline ralies ending in fanstastic winners to be interesting then you should stick to golf. If Agassi and Rafa play(unless a guy gets injured), there is going to be some great match play. It's going to be a blockbuster. :)

That's funny you put it like that because I said the most interesting match of the summer was going to be Nadal vs.Everyone. It's definitly true, anytime he wins he's breaking his records from the year before. I think everyone wants to see just how well this kid can do on HC!

PHM i dunno why but i feel as if he is soooooooooooooooo on point that he might just take this!

I will be doing a happy naked dance around my block if that happens. Allez Mathieu, he has so much potential

Can we plz leave Roger out of this, some people find both boring and I love both of them so plz leave Roger alone the guy can never win :rolleyes:

This isn't about Roger being a good or bad player. It's about quality tennis that makes you smile. :)

Didn't I already talk about this too...why do you insist on having me repeat what I already said. If you don't consider high caliber tennis, long baseline ralies ending in fanstastic winners to be interesting then you should stick to golf. If Agassi and Rafa play(unless a guy gets injured), there is going to be some great match play. It's going to be a blockbuster. :)


See this is where I disagree with you, how can you make a statement like that being a Roddick fan with his bang bang game

This isn't about Roger being a good or bad player. It's about quality tennis that makes you smile. :)

See I love both of them and I stil find Roger gives more quality tennis especially on grass when he has to exchange rallies :D Long rallies dont always make for quality tennis

Federer has a tendancy just to beat people down, which is good for him but, bad for us fans.

true its like yawn..............yawn oh federer won yawn.


I will be doing a happy naked dance around my block if that happens. Allez Mathieu, he has so much potential


Quit tempting us. do it already!!
p.s. pics pls. ;)

The bottom line is Nadals biggest wins have been interesting matches and Federer's have not.

It'd be fine if you added - " in my opinion" part. If I'm not mistaken you were the one who found the last year Wimbledon final very entertaining. :rolleyes: It's worth to remember that on the road to the final many matches are played, and Federer participated in some close, high quality contests.

See this is where I disagree with you, how can you make a statement like that being a Roddick fan with his bang bang game

Because I am a fan on all types of tennis, if you read my earlier post you would see that. I like bang-bang tennis for sure.

It'd be fine if you added - " in my opinion" part. If I'm not mistaken you were the one who found the last year Wimbledon final very entertaining. It's worth to remember that on the road to the final many matches are played, and Federer participated in some close, high quality contests.
what high class matches did he play that he didnt lose in :confused:

It'd be fine if you added - " in my opinion" part. If I'm not mistaken you were the one who found the last year Wimbledon final very entertaining. :rolleyes: It's worth to remember that on the road to the final many matches are played, and Federer participated in some close, high quality contests.


Oh yea, for sure Federer has but I was just bringing up all his results that supported my case. :devil:

lol...but seriously, I was just showing in general Federer matches have a general nature to be a one sided contests.

oh yea....

*edit*
the post you have quoted IMHO

My point is that Nadal gives more interesting matches than Federer.

This is rather controversial. It depends what one wants to see in a tennis match. I personally prefer Roger's style of playing, but that does not make me so blind not appreciate Nadal's qualities. They are just different.

This isn't about Roger being a good or bad player. It's about quality tennis that makes you smile. :)

And that's exactly the reason Roger's matches *are* interesting.

And that's exactly the reason Roger's matches *are* interesting.

haha...touche :) :worship:

what high class matches did he play that he didnt lose in :confused:

I don't know what's your definition of "high class".

From the top of my head some close and/or high quality matches.

2003 Wombledon SF vs Roddick not close, but quality from Fed is :eek: , even haters must admit. ;)

2003 Masters Cup RR vs Agassi, close, high quality

2003 Masters Cup Fianal with Agassi ( see Roddick's match description)

2004 AO R16 vs Hewitt on Australian's independent day, very close, Hewitt " almost" was 2 sets up.

2004 AO QF vs Nalbandian, bad quality from both but very close.

2004 Dubai 1st round vs Safin, very close, 7-6, 7-6

2004 IW SF vs Agassi, close with OK quality

2004 Hamburg 1st round vs Gaudio, very close with some :eek: tennis from Gaudio and custom choking at the end.

2004 W final vs Roddick, close

2004 Gstaad final vs Andreev, close, dead tired after W gutted the win

2004 Toronto SF vs T. Johansson, very ugly tennis, but close match

2004 USO 2nd round vs Baghdatis, I found that match entertaining, fine shotmaking from both

2004 USO QF vs Agassi, ugly tennis under ridiculous conditions, but close as it can be.

2004 Bangkok, close SF against in form Srichaphan and his home crowd.

2004 TMC Sf vs Safin, discussed to death :)

2005 Rotterdam F vs Ljubicic, very close with OK quality

2005 R16 Dubai vs Ferrero, very close, good quality

2005 Dubai, Final vs Ljubicic ( see Ferrero)

2005 Miami Final vs Nadal. Bad tennis, close match

2005 MonteCarlo, R16 vs Gonzalez, close match

2005 Halle F against Safin, entertaing, close

2005 W R32 vs Kiefer, some scare, almost went into 5th set

2005 W R16 vs Ferrero , 3 sets, but good quality from both

2005 W Final vs Roddick, not close, but level from Fed- :eek: ( see the beginning of the post)

I apologize that I took too much space in the topic about Rafa. But I had to answer this question.

It's amusing that those matches have been overlooked on the board full of " tennis experts" ;)

very close with ok quality- not entertaining
high quality but not very close- not entertaining
however i am a nice person and i will give you,:
2004 AO R16 vs Hewitt on Australian's independent day, very close, Hewitt " almost" was 2 sets up.

2004 Dubai 1st round vs Safin, very close, 7-6, 7-6

2004 USO 2nd round vs Baghdatis, I found that match entertaining, fine shotmaking from both

2004 TMC Sf vs Safin, discussed to death

2005 R16 Dubai vs Ferrero, very close, good quality

2005 Halle F against Safin, entertaing, close

2005 W R32 vs Kiefer, some scare, almost went into 5th set
:wavey:

very close with ok quality- not entertaining
high quality but not very close- not entertaining.

I'm not a nice person. I must say you either don't understand the game of tennis , or you just hate Fed. If the second second option is true, you are excused. Like everybody else you are alowed to have your own biases, but it makes a "quality" discussion with you impossible. :wavey:

a very close match can be max mirnyi vs Pim Pim with every shot being an ace going up to 3 TB. that is not entertaining.
if you have a match between two artistic players and there brilliant shotmaking but its a double bagel. that is not entertaining.

i dont hate fed but i just think that some of his matches are a bit boring. does that mean he is not a very goos player no it just means that i'd rather not watch him if i had a chance to watcha Safin-Nadal match or even a Nadal-Hewitt match and definetely a Hewitt-coria match. Its about personality, sometimes.

Boys boys boys!!

I was talking about the finals he's been in. I know that a close contest doesn't always mean an interesting one but a beatdown is never interesting...unless however, you are a fan of the guy beating up on the other guy.

Boys boys boys!!

I was talking about the finals he's been in. I know that a close contest doesn't always mean an interesting one but a beatdown is never interesting...unless however, you are a fan of the guy beating up on the other guy.

And I told you right away that I don't understand why we have to look only at finals. More often than not, finals, especially at GS, are rather anticlimatic. Finals that sometimes Mr. Coria plays rarely happen. ;) I don't think that my list includes too many beat downs, except for a couple of matches where the quality was outstanding.

Also I have to say that personalities mean nothing to me. Well, they did when I was a kid. But when I strated playing myself, naturally my view of the game has changed.

Boys boys boys!!

I was talking about the finals he's been in. I know that a close contest doesn't always mean an interesting one but a beatdown is never interesting...unless however, you are a fan of the guy beating up on the other guy.
nadal delivers just as many beatdowns as federer does. federer just does it with more class. so i dont no how u get the concept that nadals matchs r more interesting basing it on the fact the federers wins are straights. :shrug:

a very close match can be max mirnyi vs Pim Pim with every shot being an ace going up to 3 TB. that is not entertaining.
if you have a match between two artistic players and there brilliant shotmaking but its a double bagel. that is not entertaining.

i dont hate fed but i just think that some of his matches are a bit boring. does that mean he is not a very goos player no it just means that i'd rather not watch him if i had a chance to watcha Safin-Nadal match or even a Nadal-Hewitt match and definetely a Hewitt-coria match. Its about personality, sometimes.
and wot is your defination of personality? sum1 jumping around the court shouting vamos sticking their hands up their arse? that gives no clarification that nadal has personality.u nor i know him so we dont know his personality. in his interviews he cums across as a shy pussy trying to impress with his new found english skills. and its quite obvious u hate fed considering with your past posts.

i'm getting tired of saying i dont hate fed. i hate fed-is-god-to-be-worshipped-and-adored-thru-good-and-boring folks.
you dont define charisma or personality. you either have it or you dont. Safin has it, Canas doesnt, Hewitt has it, Davydenko doesnt, Kiefer has it, Nalbandian doesnt, Nadal has it, Federer doesnt.

and wot is your defination of personality? sum1 jumping around the court shouting vamos sticking their hands up their arse? that gives no clarification that nadal has personality.u nor i know him so we dont know his personality. in his interviews he cums across as a shy pussy trying to impress with his new found english skills. and its quite obvious u hate fed considering with your past posts.
For somebody who uses Federer's 'class' in his argument, you certainly could use a bit of that class in your answers.

Mariano is VERY tough... but I hope that Rafa does well and beats him. Rafa is taking Montreal by storm, they just LUUUUV HIM! and for many reasons: he is a great tennis player, he is very passionate and a great treat to look at...

Q. You are the top seed. At the start of the tournament you gave the impression you thought you might not be the favorite. Do you think you're the favorite to win the tournament now?

RAFAEL NADAL: I am the No. 1 in the tournament, but you know not always win the No. 1 in the tournament. So I am not the favorite.

I think all players stay in quarterfinals, all players we are playing good, we have chance all players. I don't think I am the favorite. We have Agassi is the most favorite for me.

Q. Agassi ?

RAFAEL NADAL: I think. He won a tournament two weeks before or last week, so he's playing good in this court. He's the favorite, I think. I hope play good tomorrow, and if I stay in semifinals, I have chance, of course.

:scratch: favorite games :aplot: Now it's Andre. Smart boy :yeah:

i'm getting tired of saying i dont hate fed. i hate fed-is-god-to-be-worshipped-and-adored-thru-good-and-boring folks.
you dont define charisma or personality. you either have it or you dont. Safin has it, Canas doesnt, Hewitt has it, Davydenko doesnt, Kiefer has it, Nalbandian doesnt, Nadal has it, Federer doesnt.
u r so stupid. u define charisma as being a twat on the court.by shouting and jumping around. im sorry but that is so stupid.wot is your proof to say federer doesnt have charisma? bcoz he doesnt shout and jump around? u call that charisma? then u r one stupid sun of a bitch to be honest. none of us kbnow the players,none of us know their personalitys so its impossible to call someone this or that. i dont even know why im wasting my energy typing this message. i have no time for twats like u.

i'm getting tired of saying i dont hate fed. i hate fed-is-god-to-be-worshipped-and-adored-thru-good-and-boring folks.
you dont define charisma or personality. you either have it or you dont. Safin has it, Canas doesnt, Hewitt has it, Davydenko doesnt, Kiefer has it, Nalbandian doesnt, Nadal has it, Federer doesnt.

So Roger doesn't have it because he doesn't look like a backstreet boy or a girl in the face? He has to be pretty looking not masucline looking in the face to have charisma?

For somebody who uses Federer's 'class' in his argument, you certainly could use a bit of that class in your answers.
iam writing a statement not a fucking poem.

Rafa is only in the semis because FEDERER isn't there. If FEDERER was there Rafa would have played him every round and finally lost in the QF. He should send FEDERER a Xmas card for this gift. Mirka too.

So Roger doesn't have it because he doesn't look like a backstreet boy or a girl in the face? He has to be pretty looking not masucline looking in the face to have charisma?
Um, who died and made Kiefer not masculine? Like, who the Hell are you even talking about here.

If Safin, Hewitt, and Nadal look like women or backstreet boys, I am yet to meet these women or hear of these new backstreet boys.

Rafa is only in the semis because FEDERER isn't there. If FEDERER was there Rafa would have played him every round and finally lost in the QF. He should send FEDERER a Xmas card for this gift. Mirka too.
I will good rep you for that! :yeah:

Um, who died and made Kiefer not masculine? Like, who the Hell are you even talking about here.

If Safin, Hewitt, and Nadal look like women or backstreet boys, I am yet to meet these women or hear of these new backstreet boys.

I'm talking about people who say Roger isn't charismatic. They are saying it because he doesn't look a certain way. I disagree, I hope you can see that.

Rafa is only in the semis because FEDERER isn't there. If FEDERER was there Rafa would have played him every round and finally lost in the QF. He should send FEDERER a Xmas card for this gift. Mirka too.
wtf r u talking about?

I'm talking about people who say Roger isn't charismatic. They are saying it because he doesn't look a certain way. I disagree, I hope you can see that.
I don't think that is what Nimomunz was saying :shrug:

I don't think that is what Nimomunz was saying :shrug:

He said Federer doesn't have it in terms of star quality. Read his post at the top of this page.

He said Federer doesn't have it in terms of star quality. Read his post at the top of this page.
Um, ya. His post says this:

i'm getting tired of saying i dont hate fed. i hate fed-is-god-to-be-worshipped-and-adored-thru-good-and-boring folks.
you dont define charisma or personality. you either have it or you dont. Safin has it, Canas doesnt, Hewitt has it, Davydenko doesnt, Kiefer has it, Nalbandian doesnt, Nadal has it, Federer doesnt.

Now tell me, what in God's name does that have to do with this?

I'm talking about people who say Roger isn't charismatic. They are saying it because he doesn't look a certain way.

Did Nimomunz talk about Roger not looking like a backstreet boy or a woman on the other page and I missed it?

He said Federer doesn't have it in terms of star quality. Read his post at the top of this page.
hes an ass

I don't think charisma necessarily has anything to do with having good looks or not.

You either have it or you don't.
Like others have said: Agassi has it (he's not that good looking either to me but some might argue with me over that), Safin has it (he is good looking) and Nadal has it.
Federer does not have charisma, in my opinion. It does not matter all that much to me although it's always fun to see a player with charisma but Roger's game can be so amazing to look at and he has a great personality.

hes an ass
Don't you mean "wot"?

Rafa is only in the semis because FEDERER isn't there. If FEDERER was there Rafa would have played him every round and finally lost in the QF. He should send FEDERER a Xmas card for this gift. Mirka too.

:confused:

Some people are seriously in need of help.

I'm talking about people who say Roger isn't charismatic. They are saying it because he doesn't look a certain way. I disagree, I hope you can see that.

Roger has about as much charisma as a toad. :D

Sun they are just Federer haters (who I can never figure out why they hate him) who can't stand his success and calls him boring because he is nice and amiable with press and fans alike. He doesn't make enough noise for the haters.

:confused:

Some people are seriously in need of help.
No kidding.

:confused:

Some people are seriously in need of help.


:o some people totally missed Chloe's point.

I don't think charisma necessarily has anything to do with having good looks or not.

You either have it or you don't.
Like others have said: Agassi has it (he's not that good looking either to me but some might argue with me over that), Safin has it (he is good looking) and Nadal has it.
Federer does not have charisma, in my opinion. It does not matter all that much to me although it's always fun to see a player with charisma but Roger's game can be so amazing to look at and he has a great personality.
and tell me exactly "in your opinion" y nadal has it and federer doesnt. i would love to hear conclusion to why nadal has it and federer doesnt.

Sun they are just Federer haters (who I can never figure out why they hate him) who can't stand his success and calls him boring because he is nice and amiable with press and fans alike. He doesn't make enough noise for the haters.
Everybody who doesn't want to dry hump his left leg are hatas. Vamos Ninja, down with da hatas.

Roger has about as much charisma as a toad. :D
and your a fucking dick :)

:o some people totally missed Chloe's point.

Some people are Chinese...

Infact alot of them are...China is pretty big. ;)

Don't you mean "wot"?
no

:confused:

Some people are seriously in need of help.
Don't take it so seriously...you just need to read that Federer comment with a huge number of ;) ;) ;)

This is just my interpretation (I can't speak for the author of the comment) but my guess is that this comment is more aimed at certain fanatical Federer fans than at Federer himself.

For people who think Federer doesn't have charisma, can somebody explain any specific reasons why? Or to you is it just something you 'have" or "don't have" ?

Everybody who doesn't want to dry hump his left leg are hatas. Vamos Ninja, down with da hatas.

You just want to argue for the sake of it.

no
Don't you meant "wot r u toking abot?"

Some people are seriously in need of help.[/QUOTE
Don't take it so seriously...you just need to read that Federer comment with a huge number of ;) ;) ;)

This is just my interpretation (I can't speak for the author of the comment) but my guess is that this comment is more aimed at certain fanatical Federer fans than at Federer himself.

Ok. I didn't read the whole argument, and when I read that I didn't get it. :o My bad.

You just want to argue for the sake of it.

And how about you?

You came up with a reply that had nothing to do with the discussion (no one said Fed has no charisma because he doesn't look like a BSB), don't complain after if people point out your reply didn't make any sense.

Federer has no charisma. It doesn't really matter, I don't know why it's suddently a sensitive issue.

You just want to argue for the sake of it.

Welcome to a message board. :)

Some players that I like have about as much charisma as a toad too. I'm with Paul Banks on this one - who cares? They appeal to me, I appreciate they don't have mass appeal. Um, mind you, most of the players that I like do I have IT ;)

Ok. I didn't read the whole argument, and when I read that I didn't get it. :o My bad.

Come around GM when Federer's playing or if you are really interested, dig up old threads with Federer in GM although there's plenty. ;)

I was trying to make a point that Federer doesn't lack charisma, if you missed it then oh well. You are right it's shouldn't be a sensitive issue but I just thought it was ridiculous to say Roger has no charisma but some people maybe just don't see that in him.

Sun they are just Federer haters (who I can never figure out why they hate him) who can't stand his success and calls him boring because he is nice and amiable with press and fans alike. He doesn't make enough noise for the haters.
yeah i know but i aint gonna let them hate and do nothing about it. im gonna stick my butt in and cause some god damn controversy and do sum hating myself

Don't you mean "wot"?


no

Hahaha....I am in tears. :haha:

Welcome to a message board. :)

Thanks Reality Ryan oops I mean Queen Rebecca, shit no thanks Skylar no wrong again. Thanks for welcoming me Fumus.

Federer has no charisma. It doesn't really matter, I don't know why it's suddently a sensitive issue.
hey because Fed is god. he is perfection personified and is without any form of fault, deficiency or defect. :)

yeah i know but i aint gonna let them hate and do nothing about it. im gonna stick my butt in and cause some god damn controversy and do sum hating myself
I think that you mean "wot?!"

Thanks Reality Ryan oops I mean Queen Rebecca, shit no thanks Skylar no wrong again. Thanks for welcoming me Fumus.

No problem, it still doesn't change the fact that Rafa is awesome, Federer is boring, and you are gymnist.

and tell me exactly "in your opinion" y nadal has it and federer doesnt. i would love to hear conclusion to why nadal has it and federer doesnt.

i would guess its because he digs his asshole to pull out his undies in plain view, and then does a fistpump
that to many people=charisma/personality

Don't you meant "wot r u toking abot?"
wtf?

I was trying to make a point that Federer doesn't lack charisma, if you missed it then oh well. You are right it's shouldn't be a sensitive issue but I just thought it was ridiculous to say Roger has no charisma but some people maybe just don't see that in him.
No, you implied that the post you quoted thought charisma was looks based, when in fact that poster said absolutely nothing about looks in that post. Like, where did you make a wrong turn?

i would guess its because he digs his asshole to pull out his undies in plain view, and then does a fistpump
that to many people=charisma/personality

I guess that's better than milking your cow where no one can see you. :)

u r so stupid. u define charisma as being a twat on the court.by shouting and jumping around. im sorry but that is so stupid.wot is your proof to say federer doesnt have charisma? bcoz he doesnt shout and jump around? u call that charisma? then u r one stupid sun of a bitch to be honest. none of us kbnow the players,none of us know their personalitys so its impossible to call someone this or that. i dont even know why im wasting my energy typing this message. i have no time for twats like u.
who the fucks doing the charisma-defining repeatedly, post after post, with no avail, despite my statements to the contrary? You.

wtf?
It's not "wottf?"?:confused:

yeah i know but i aint gonna let them hate and do nothing about it. im gonna stick my butt in and cause some god damn controversy and do sum hating myself
The sad thing in this whole silly little thread, 1sun, is that the vast majority of the posters in here DO NOT HATE, Federer.
Don't overreact just because some people don't think that he has charisma.
What do you care, anyway?
Why are you so nasty about all this?
He's perhaps not everybody's favorite player but most people respect him a lot, I think.

Relax, man. :smoke:


i dont no how u get the concept that nadals matchs r more interesting
:)

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
shut up please

wtf?

Almost, just remove the "f" and add an "o" inbetween the w and t.

Sun they are just Federer haters (who I can never figure out why they hate him) who can't stand his success and calls him boring because he is nice and amiable with press and fans alike. He doesn't make enough noise for the haters.
wahaaaaaaa waaaaa why doesnt noone worship at the feet that are federers? Quit crying pussy!

I guess that's better than milking your cow where no one can see you. :)

no actually its worse
some things are intended for private spaces so as not to create mass gagging

shut up please

I am sorry but this is my thread if you forgot, please post else where if you don't like my commentary. :o

And how about you?


Federer has no charisma. It doesn't really matter, I don't know why it's suddently a sensitive issue.
thats your opinion. please state that next time.twat

no actually its worse
some things are intended for private spaces so as not to create mass gagging


Mass happiness and joy you mean. :)

Happy Happy Joy Joy?

thats your opinion. please state that next time.twat
And here I was thinking that Paul Bank's posted to state Dirk's opinion.

Say wot?

oh i am in tears.

Thanks Reality Ryan oops I mean Queen Rebecca, shit no thanks Skylar no wrong again. Thanks for welcoming me Fumus.
:haha:

I much prefer Fed to Nadal but I agree with the fact that one has charisma and the other not and that the one who has it is Nadal.

I was trying to make a point that Federer doesn't lack charisma, if you missed it then oh well. You are right it's shouldn't be a sensitive issue but I just thought it was ridiculous to say Roger has no charisma but some people maybe just don't see that in him.

In what way Federer is charismatic? He's rather introverted and there's nothing special about his personality. Sure, he's nice, he's brilliant on the court, but I'm not sure it's enough to call him "charismatic".

No problem, it still doesn't change the fact that Rafa is awesome, Federer is boring, and you are gymnist.

If you think winning most of your matches due to causing your opponent to make errors is awesome and entertaining but think winning matches mostly on winners is boring then you a very good liar. Being a gymnist is great for the body and flexibility and they are some of the most fit people on the planet. You should put the beer down and give it a try.

thats your opinion. please state that next time.twat

Why are you getting so upset over this?


Why the need to react so nasty just because some people have the sheer audacity to write that according to them (of course it's their opinion...whose opinion do you think it is? The pope?) Federer has no charisma?

If you think winning most of your matches due to causing your opponent to make errors is awesome and entertaing but think winning matches mostly on winners is boring then you a very good liar. Being a gymnist is great for the body and flexibility and they are some of the most fit people on the planet. You should put the beer down and give it a try.
Don't you mean "fat ass"?

thats your opinion.

Really? I thought it was Elton John opinion :confused:

I much prefer Fed to Nadal but I agree with the fact that one has charisma and the other not and that the one who has it is Nadal.
I smell another Ninja hater. Karate CHOP!

Why are you getting so upset over this?


Why the need to react so nasty just because some people have the sheer audacity to write that according to them (of course it's their opinion...whose opinion do you think it is? The pope?) Federer has no charisma?
dont worry he just has blue balls.........hence the constant reference to dicks and twats?

Hey 1sun go wank already!! :)

Being a gymnist is great for the body and flexibility and they are some of the most fit people on the planet. You should put the beer down and give it a try.

I prefer sex and tennis for my exercise.

This is a dead end. Everyone's definition of charisma is different, I suppose.
For example, I've never found Agassi's multiple personalities appealing, and Safin is too childish for my taste, and Hewitt is annoying, and the list goes on... Having said that, both Agassi and Safin are on my list of favorite players tennis wise.

I prefer sex and tennis for my exercise.
tell that to 1sun.

No problem, it still doesn't change the fact that Rafa is awesome, Federer is boring, and you are gymnist.
and nothing changes the fact that rafa is an ass tugging twat who wont come outa the closet and that roger is the king of tennis.

Don't you mean "fat ass"?

No it was directed to Fummy not you.

and nothing changes the fact that rafa is an ass tugging twat who wont come outa the closet and that roger is the king of tennis.
again with the reference to womens genitalia.......... why pray tell??

and nothing changes the fact that rafa is an ass tugging twat who wont come outa the closet and that roger is the king of tennis.

Don't you mean Queen? :o

You may think Rafa's weggies are gross but I think Federer's nose looks like a crushed melon.

No it was directed to Fummy not you.

She was helping you make fun of me, you need some assitance cuz you were doing such a knockout job. If this was gymnastics you would only score a 8.8 :sad:

Don't you mean Queen? :o

You may think Rafa's weggies are gross but I think Federer's nose looks like a crushed melon.
is that a subliminal reference to whether Fed like a bone with his meat? :o

i would guess its because he digs his asshole to pull out his undies in plain view, and then does a fistpump
that to many people=charisma/personality
and thats exactly why they say he has charisma. i honestly really cant understand that. people these days :rolleyes:

This is a dead end. Everyone's definition of charisma is different, I suppose.
For example, I've never found Agassi's multiple personalities appealing, and Safin is too childish for my taste, and Hewitt is annoying, and the list goes on... Having said that, both Agassi and Safin are on my list of favorite players tennis wise.

But looking at things objectively, clearly Safin is a charismatic person. Sure he can be childish, but he always finds a way to be random and special. It doesn't mean the whole universe will love him, but he certainly has "it".

Agassi is charismatic too. Again, it doesn't mean he's worshipped by everyone (certainly not by me), but his appeal is largely due to his charismatic nature.

No it was directed to Fummy not you.
Right right. You save "fat ass" for me. You need a cute nickname for Fumus too. "Beer belly" was a pretty good one.

fed is respected but would you invite him to your party...no. :yawn:
Safin on the other hand i would invite into my bedroom. :devil:

who the fucks doing the charisma-defining repeatedly, post after post, with no avail, despite my statements to the contrary? You.
who the fuck doesnt understand the defination of charisma?You.

who the fuck doesnt understand the defination of charisma?You.
who has the universal definition of "charisma" figured out? no one. so shut up.

who the fuck doesnt understand the defination of charisma?You.
Don't you mean "WOT?!"?

and nothing changes the fact that rafa is an ass tugging twat who wont come outa the closet and that roger is the king of tennis.

Just because Nadal doesn't have a girlfriend right now doesn't mean that he is gay or does it??? Fed is the king of tennis but the king will be dethroned one day because Fed is not invinicble (I am a RF fan,too).

The sad thing in this whole silly little thread, 1sun, is that the vast majority of the posters in here DO NOT HATE, Federer.
Don't overreact just because some people don't think that he has charisma.
What do you care, anyway?
Why are you so nasty about all this?
He's perhaps not everybody's favorite player but most people respect him a lot, I think.


well im gonna defend my favorite player, if people are bad mouthing him, and so would you. its only natural.

who the fuck doesnt understand the defination of charisma?You.
who the fuck hasnt said so far what his definition of charisma is but keeps assuming that mine is a dude with his hand up his ass? you.
so tell us

Don't you mean "WOT?!"?
:lol:
:lol:

But looking at things objectively, clearly Safin is a charismatic person. Sure he can be childish, but he always finds a way to be random and special. It doesn't mean the whole universe will love him, but he certainly has "it".

Agassi is charismatic too. Again, it doesn't mean he's worshipped by everyone (certainly not by me), but his appeal is largely due to his charismatic nature.
you are going to objectively define charisma? have you missed the last 4 pages of this thread? to some people Federer will never have it. to some people nadal will always have it -- which objective view is correct? there is no such thing as objective charisma

ok soooo... dirk and sun, can you please explain us why you think that roger has charisma? :) thank you. :p

In what way Federer is charismatic? He's rather introverted and there's nothing special about his personality. Sure, he's nice, he's brilliant on the court, but I'm not sure it's enough to call him "charismatic".
u havent answered my question yet. pleae tell me what makes you think nadal is charismatic?

well im gonna defend my favorite player, if people are bad mouthing him, and so would you. its only natural.

It's not bad-mouthing Federer. If someone points out Federer isn't a genius in math, is it bad-mouthing him? No one can be a genius in every field and have every positive aspect a human can have. Federer not being the most charismatic person isn't really important, just like Federer not being a genius in math, biology, physic or international politics isn't an issue.

u havent answered my question yet. pleae tell me what makes you think nadal is charismatic?

When did I say Nadal is charismatic?

btw i dont know the definition of charisma but I know how it looks:


















:aplot:






















http://www.celebrity-pictures-world.com/pics/c/charisma-carpenter/charisma-carpenter-005.jpg

:tape:

you are going to objectively define charisma? have you missed the last 4 pages of this thread? to some people Federer will never have it. to some people nadal will always have it -- which objective view is correct? there is no such thing as objective charisma

There is, to a certain level. Fed doesn't have charisma.

btw i dont know the definition of charisma but I know how it looks:
http://www.celebrity-pictures-world.com/pics/c/charisma-carpenter/charisma-carpenter-005.jpg

:tape:

see now i dont think this porn star wannabe has any charisma

Don't you mean Queen? :o

You may think Rafa's weggies are gross but I think Federer's nose looks like a crushed melon.
and i think nadals ass is an oversized melon.

But looking at things objectively, clearly Safin is a charismatic person. Sure he can be childish, but he always finds a way to be random and special. It doesn't mean the whole universe will love him, but he certainly has "it".

Agassi is charismatic too. Again, it doesn't mean he's worshipped by everyone (certainly not by me), but his appeal is largely due to his charismatic nature.

Sorry, but for me they both don't have "it'. :shrug: I'm absolutely sure about Safin because there's no language barrier. Nobody is "right" or "wrong" about personalities, just different strokes for different folks.

There is, to a certain level. Fed doesn't have charisma.
Ah, I think you're confused. Opinions don't equal objective views
If I said I thought you were stupid, it makes it my opinion. Not the consensus of all of MTF and everyone else

lol. im going to have soo many bad reps after this.

see now i dont think this porn star wannabe has any charisma
this is CHARISMA carpenter :o

this is CHARISMA carpenter :o
Sure, in that fine "objective" sense

Federer could be more charismatic if he lost more often and then retired from tennis...then he could be the most charismatic guy that ever charisma-ed.

Ah, I think you're confused. Opinions don't equal objective views
If I said I thought you were stupid, it makes it my opinion.

No, no, it's not an opinion, it's a wrong fact.

Anyway so if charisma is subjective, why on earth someone would get mad if someone says "X is not charismatic"? It's like to be mad because someone says "the color green is ugly".

Don't you mean "WOT?!"?
seriously, shut up. your the bugging the shit out of me.

lol. im going to have soo many bad reps after this.

do you care? I never did. In fact I never gave anyone a bad rep. Its so immature ---"you pissed me off, I can't do anything about it, so I'll bad rep you, that will set you straight". ooooh, how frightening

Charisma:

1. a.A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
b. Personal magnetism or charm: a television news program famed for the charisma of its anchors.

2. Christianity. An extraordinary power, such as the ability to perform miracles, granted by the Holy Spirit. :worship: Ok JesusFed does have charisma!! :bowdown: :bowdown:

Fed doesn't have charisma.

I'm a straight man, not very much into mens harisma. But my gf thinks he does, in his own, quiet way. :shrug:

seriously, shut up. your the bugging the shit out of me.
Don't you mean "UR"?

Charisma:

1. a.A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
b. Personal magnetism or charm: a television news program famed for the charisma of its anchors.


That really sounds like the definition of Federer... NOT. :wavey:

i think the best description is personal magnetism or charm:now tell me fed has that!

Sure, in that fine "objective" sense
:awww:

:secret: i prefer men btw, i dont find her attractive AT ALL! ;)

No, no, it's not an opinion, it's a wrong fact.

Anyway so if charisma is subjective, why on earth someone would get mad if someone says "X is not charismatic"? It's like to be mad because someone says "the color green is ugly".

who's getting mad? Everyone is countering Federer has it and nadal has it or neither has it, with their own opinions of Federer has melon something nose and nadal has ass digging abilities. i don't think anyone's actually getting mad

there are all kinds of dudes and dudettes who have opined that Federer is ugly. i don't agree with it, but i accept its their opinion just like its my opinion agassi has never been charismatic.

and "wrong fact"? what kind of oxymoron is that? like the square circle and the reddish white??

who's getting mad?
um, ...............1sun, dirk etc

and i think nadals ass is an oversized melon.

How is that a bad thing...better than Federer's flat ass. :o

beauty is subjective but charisma is not

i don't think anyone's actually getting mad


Geez, tell that some people in this thread who almost sound hysterical.

beauty is subjective but charisma is not

Safin has charisma, Fed doesn't. Next!

Charisma:

1. a.A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.

sounds like the leader of the ATP --you know, the one who arouses fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm from his fans-- met the precise dictionary definition of charisma

Safin has charisma, Fed doesn't. Next!
agreed :worship:

Ok Federer has 1.a. charisma, Safin has 1.b. charisma, END OF DISCUSSION! :)

sounds like the leader of the ATP --you know, the one who arouses fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm from his fans-- met the precise dictionary definition of charisma
his tennis arouses blah blah blah! look at safin who has women (and teeny boppers) throwing themselves on him even when hes oafing up with the best of them. Safin , men wanna be him (or at least friends) women wanna screw him. fed.... ithink nt

Ok Federer has 1.a. charisma, Safin has 1.b. charisma, END OF DISCUSSION! :)

And Serena has 36.D. charisma.

his tennis arouses blah blah blah! look at safin who has women (and teeny boppers) throwing themselves on him even when hes oafing up with the best of them. Safin , men wanna be him (or at least friends) women wanna screw him. fed.... ithink nt
you haven't been to the Fed forum then. believe me, there are men, women and other beings that wanna be him and screw him
and Safin being charismatic doesn't preclude other people being charismatic. no one here seems to dispute that safin has charisma --its the other players who are in the contentious circle

i never said that safin is the only one with charisma. just that fed doesnt. dont worry that wont make him less of a tennis player.
fed doesnt!!

i never said that safin is the only one with charisma. just that fed doesnt. dont worry that wont make him less of a tennis player.
fed doesnt!!
yeah, if you read above you'll see that there are those that share your opinion and those that don't
saying fed doesn't with or withour four exclamation points does not make it more or less any general consensus than my saying :
fed does!!!!

fed does!!!!
why? :) explain me your point of view please. i'm curious. ;)

ok lets simplify it: Fed fans think he has charisma
Everyone else disagrees

The name of this thread is "Montreal is Rafa's for the taking" (for those who forgot), RF is not even playing in this event & pepole are talking about him anyway. Who gives a fuck whether he has charisma or not, the most important thing is that most of the ATP players (like A-rod) need to stop kissing his ass (i.e. complimenting him 24/7) and kick his ass (beat him). I would like to see more rivalries right now like they did back in the day:

Borg/Mac
Borg/Connors
Mac/Connors
Mac/Lendl, etc.(you can argue whether these guys had charisma if you want to but that is not what the thread is about)

ok lets simplify it: Fed fans think he has charisma
Everyone else disagrees
i think that's a fair comment. and except for very few players (e.g. Safin who seems to have universal appeal), i think its true for most other players --their fans think they have it (which is often but not always why they're their fans in the first place)

And Serena has 36.D. charisma.

haha...I enjoy every inch of it. :devil:

and i think nadals ass is an oversized melon.

You are so wrong about nadal's backside. It's the best ass on tour no question about it. It's just so big, I just love to see it on court.

Go Nadal, take the TMS. It's yours. You deserve it.

Anyway, it's not Nadal's charisma which will help him to get the first place in the ranking to Fed.

Federer could be more charismatic if he lost more often and then retired from tennis...then he could be the most charismatic guy that ever charisma-ed.

Sure. The only true statement in this bs thread.

You are so wrong about nadal's backside. It's the best ass on tour no question about it. It's just so big, I just love to see it on court.

Go Nadal, take the TMS. It's yours. You deserve it.
ditto :p

How is that a bad thing...better than Federer's flat ass. :o

That is so true.

Nadal looks like Vincent the beast. Now I loved that show in the eighties especially Vincent (and he was really sweet in fact) so it's not such an insult as it seems. He just reminds me of him;)

I'm a straight man, not very much into mens harisma. But my gf thinks he does, in his own, quiet way. :shrug:

My girlfriends and I think Federer has a lot of charisma, I am biased I am a big fan of his tennis and his demeanour but my friends are Roddick fans for drooling purposes and they still think Federer has charisma and they cant stand Nadal. So really charisma is objective. Look at Agassi, people say he is very charismatic, he doesnt show any emotions on court or anything until after the match :confused:

Fumus :wavey: I know you dislike Federer a lot, but dont you think there are a lot of Nadal vs Federer threads to begin with. I feel I need a break from MTF, all these threads are so exhausting, defending players, taking digs at other players.

Nadal has lots of charisma, at least for the ones who think so :)

I see more and more people liking him, the more people see him, the more they like him.

LOL! Of course, I think it's totally the opposite. Roger is classy and has a certain sultry quality to his eyes. Hey the very first time I saw Roger, he was the guy for me like no other tennis player I've ever seen. I think he's got a lot of charisma. It all depends on what type you like.

However, I also think that perhaps the general public will see charisma according to how they are lead to think by commentators. In the US many commentators equate getting angry and pumping one's fist as the equivalent of having a personality and being entertaining. I don't think that is the case. It's all a lot deaper than that I wouldn't want every player to follow that same format.

Borg was a sex symbol and he was quiet when he played. McEnroe was brash and obnoxious but I don't remember that girls swooned over him much.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/Interview.jpg

are we supposed to swoon at the pic and agree. long time ago in this thread we decided that charisma wasnt based on looks!

Nadal has class too, he shows it differently. He is just VERY passionate.

Someone seemed to have changed the thread title. I dunno what happened to Rafa taking Montreal topic anymore?

u r so stupid. u define charisma as being a twat on the court.by shouting and jumping around. im sorry but that is so stupid.wot is your proof to say federer doesnt have charisma? bcoz he doesnt shout and jump around? u call that charisma? .

I agree with your point....charisma isn't about being loud and agressive or argumentative or clown-like. It's is more just something that comes from within, that a person is born with. I guess we all read it differently though because I think Roger has tons of charisma. I think Safin has it, and Agassi does to a degree.

I was just going to say that apparently the media thinks that what the public finds attractive and exciting is to see pictures of players with a pumped fist and a primal scream on their face. I see pics like that over and over. I think they are missing the mark entirely. Maybe some 10-14 year old boys find that macho and tough and get all pumped up with that image. Actually that kind of pose makes for an unattractive face and it's been done way to much and it's now boring.

I am not picking on Nadal here. Many of the players have shots like that of them fist pumping and screaming. My point is just that it's so silly that the media thinks that translates into something exciting for the fans.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/Flying-Federer.jpg

It depends on the appeal to a person. You could like the quiet type, or you could prefer the more agressive type, or both. Roger and Rafael are great in their own ways, seriously, it's not everytime that we get two top players like those two. Roger's tennis is so shockingly superb that this is enough. But the treat is that he has a great attitude and is classy and has good interviews and can show some humour as well. Rafael is his will on the court but then he has pump up moments which is great and just right in good taste. Not like that Hewitt. Roger and Rafael are great champions and people.

are we supposed to swoon at the pic and agree. long time ago in this thread we decided that charisma wasnt based on looks!

Of course it's not based entirely on looks. My point in posting the pic was to illustrate that Roger's eyes have a sultry sex appeal which is part of his charimsa. A person with dull vaccant eyes DOES NOT have charisma. Roger's eyes show intensity, intelligence, and lively sense of humor depending on the circumstance.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/RogerSmiles.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/federer_houston20.jpg

i think if you put an average guy and girl who know nothing bout tennis in a room with marat, fed and nadal and after a period of time ask them who is more charismatic. who were they drawn to, it would go Safin, Nadal, Federer

Of course it's not based entirely on looks. My point in posting the pic was to illustrate that Roger's eyes have a sultry sex appeal which is part of his charimsa. A person with dull vaccant eyes DOES NOT have charisma. Roger's eyes show intensity, intelligence, and lively sense of humor depending on the circumstance.


honey you've missed the entire point of the thread. did you go back and read the thread b4? :shrug:

I'm a straight man, not very much into mens harisma. But my gf thinks he does, in his own, quiet way. :shrug:

Often times the quiet guys are the ones that seem the most exciting to women. Roger has that smoldering deep quality that tells you there's a lot going on under the surface.....and you want to find out what it's all about.

Before I gave the example that although Borg was quiet and stoic on court the girls were crazy for him, but not for the brash loud mouth McEnroe.

sounds like the leader of the ATP --you know, the one who arouses fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm from his fans-- met the precise dictionary definition of charisma

Right you are Matildas. Hey by the way where did you say that "Federer" store is located again? I must go there!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/StoreFront.jpg

The original rewording of the title was to get a response from Federer fans--that's all. Someone went fishing hoping to reel in some big catches. I would just ignore this.

The original rewording of the title was to get a response from Federer fans--that's all. Someone went fishing hoping to reel in some big catches. I would just ignore this.

Who are the big catches on this board?

It depends on the appeal to a person. You could like the quiet type, or you could prefer the more agressive type, or both. Roger and Rafael are great in their own ways, seriously, it's not everytime that we get two top players like those two. Roger's tennis is so shockingly superb that this is enough. But the treat is that he has a great attitude and is classy and has good interviews and can show some humour as well. Rafael is his will on the court but then he has pump up moments which is great and just right in good taste. Not like that Hewitt. Roger and Rafael are great champions and people.

I also think that we can find charisma in all types, not just stick to liking one type. The bottom line is that the charisma seems to just come from within and the person is born with it.

The original rewording of the title was to get a response from Federer fans--that's all. Someone went fishing hoping to reel in some big catches. I would just ignore this.And why do Fed fans always take the bait. Some people here just want to get a rise out of ultra sensitive Fed fans and and unfortunately they play right into their hands.

As far as whether Fed has charisma or not, who gives a shit? No one is going to agree, and then you just end up with 14 pages of bs.

Before I gave the example that although Borg was quiet and stoic on court the girls were crazy for him, but not for the brash loud mouth McEnroe.

Not to mention that Borg was drop dead gorgeous and JMac wasn't. :) :) :) :)

Who are the big catches on this board?The ones going waco in the previous 13 pages of this thread? :unsure:

The kind of title id expect from a true arse clown..

And why do Fed fans always take the bait. Some people here just want to get a rise out of ultra sensitive Fed fans and and unfortunately they play right into their hands.

As far as whether Fed has charisma or not, who gives a shit? No one is going to agree, and then you just end up with 14 pages of bs.

But all this is so entertaining after a long and stressful day :)

can't believe so many took the bait :shrug:

I didnt take any bait, but any excuse to ridicule an arse clown cant be missed :)

Look at the thread origninator, what the thread originally started as and what it has become. The goal was pure and simple: to cause an uproar for giggles and it worked. Such a thread that's only used for provocation does not need responses.

But all this is so entertaining after a long and stressful day :)
I'm sure for a lot of people taking the piss out of (some) Fed fans does equate to entertainment.:lol: Unfortunately some Rogi fans are all too happy to oblige. :banghead:

Look at the thread origninator, what the thread originally started as and what it has become. The goal was pure and simple: to cause an uproar for giggles and it worked. Such a thread that's only used for provocation does not need responses.


check your PM :)

Sorry :topic:

Not to mention that Borg was drop dead gorgeous and JMac wasn't. :) :) :) :)
He still is :angel:
Compare...
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2000/nov/10mac.jpg

:secret: I might be a shallow woman, but I like handsome champs :p

How many fans here have seen either Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal up close and personal? The nosebleed section of any stadium isn't close enough. Seeing them move through a crowd from a distance isn't close enough. Watching them on television isn't close enough. Looking at their pictures in a magazine tells you nothing. It is not about the camera loving someone or not.

Charisma is something you feel when you see it. It's that "je ne sais quoi" vibe that comes from a person who is larger than life. Like someone at the top of their game who is supremely confident.

It's unmistakable.

^Very nice post.

Often times the quiet guys are the ones that seem the most exciting to women. Roger has that smoldering deep quality that tells you there's a lot going on under the surface.....and you want to find out what it's all about.

You mean the Steve McQueen and James Bond kind of guys?

This charisma business is just a smokescreen. It shouldn't disguise the actual message of this thread: that the Fumigator has now found someone who can rival and regularly defeat Federer, ergo someone whom he can live through vicariously.

And why do Fed fans always take the bait. Some people here just want to get a rise out of ultra sensitive Fed fans and and unfortunately they play right into their hands.

As far as whether Fed has charisma or not, who gives a shit? No one is going to agree, and then you just end up with 14 pages of bs.

Well, in my case I am relatively new here and did not realize that this was a baiting of Fed fans. I don't know most of the people on this board. In any case, I don't think Fed fans are any more sensitive than the Nadal fans when he is put down. At this point most Fed fans are probably rather bored with the Montreal tournament.......so talking about Roger's charisma is a nice treat.

When Cincy begins we will go back to talking more tennis.

Not to mention that Borg was drop dead gorgeous and JMac wasn't. :) :) :) :)

True. I think that the charisma is always linked to looks. A person doesn't have to look perfect but there has to be something there to work with.

This charisma business is just a smokescreen. It shouldn't disguise the actual message of this thread: that the Fumigator has now found someone who can rival and regularly defeat Federer, ergo someone whom he can live through vicariously.
:worship:
like a rat who jumped from Roddick's sinking ship

But all this is so entertaining after a long and stressful day :)
Any time we Fed fans can zone out thinking about Roger is welcomed. Hey thanks to whomever brought up the subject.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/Cheers.jpg

You mean the Steve McQueen and James Bond kind of guys?
Yep!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/LaureusAward.jpg

Any time we Fed fans can zone out thinking about Roger is welcomed. Hey thanks to whomever brought up the subject.

The only thing roger enjoys kissing more than Mirka??
http://img2.menstennisforums.com/504/8317285federer.jpg
;)

:worship:
like a rat who jumped from Roddick's sinking ship

Yeah, I think you've got it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/PoorAndy.jpg

Good one Escude! Nice Pic. Love the hair especially.

:worship:
like a rat who jumped from Roddick's sinking ship

I don't think he's given up on Roddick entirely, that would be too cynical, but I find it odd to imagine his tastes switching from the Roddick style of play to the Nadal style of play so swiftly. They're not exactly mirror images of each other in their tennis, and while an appreciation of differing players is commendable, I personally wouldn't want to support players just so I'm guaranteed a winner in every part of the season.

I'm no expert, but I would have thought charisma was something subjective, just as good looks are. Incidentally, there are plenty of pictures of Federer doing the Nadal primal scream, mouth agape, but they're usually negative and are not exactly an encouraging sight for his supporters. And then when they are positive, they look something like this:

I'm no expert, but I would have thought charisma was something subjective, just as good looks are. Incidentally, there are plenty of pictures of Federer doing the Nadal primal scream, mouth agape, but they're usually negative and are not exactly an encouraging sight for his supporters. And then when they are positive, they look something like this:

Don't you know that he don't show any emotin on court. He was just mocking his opponent in that picture.

It's all an act, you know. ;)

http://www.rogerfederer.com/data/img/0503sm_miamif_10_1764.jpg

http://www.rogerfederer.com/data/img/0408SB_usopen_4_go2_2520.jpg

http://www.rogerfederer.com/data/img/0408SB_usopen_4_victory_2516.jpg

http://www.rogerfederer.com/data/img/0506sb_wimbledonsf_12_798.jpg

http://www.tennis.info/images/Houston4/08Sat/Federer9461.jpg

My word, I never knew Roger's molars could be SO charismatic. They're almost turning me gay as I look at them.

Now we can't forget this classic...
http://www.rogerfederer.com/data/img/0501sb_ausopensf_4_1976.jpg

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

So let me clarify: ten further pages of discussion have been generated in a thread started by someone who writes this? How on earth could so many people take him seriously?

And the thing is, there was the seed of an interesting debate in this thread before it was deliberately hijacked by trivialities. Nadal has had some very good battles in finals, better than a lot of Federer's, and it's safe to say that both of them bring different things to the table that will be appreciated by different people. I think watching Nadal is like watching tennis being played underwater, but that doesn't mean I can't recognise that the Rome final this year was an all-time classic the likes of which will rarely be seen again. Equally, the IW final this year was a bore in terms of the scoreline, but I will never find a reflex backhand half-volley winner played virtually from behind the body, off a powerful shot from the opponent, to be dull.

Of course, there is nothing the media likes more than to generalise, and they'd love to paint Federer as the artist and Nadal as the competitor, but Federer has not won 21 finals in a row entirely by being in a different league to his opponent every time; similarly, Nadal has not won 34 straight matches on clay just because he fights harder and longer than everyone else. Both men have a whole range of weapons in their armoury, both mentally and tennistically, but it's the most prominent aspects of their game that will attract different kinds of fans, bring people down on one side or the other (not that there aren't fans of both players, of course).

There's nothing wrong with falling into one particular camp, of criticising the other player on the basis of their tennis. But good God, do we have to define a player's greatness, or rather lack of greatness, by how bulbous their nose is, or how large their ass is? This is the kind of relentless shallowness that occupies thread after thread in GM. For the record, I didn't even notice Nadal's "ass-digging" propensities until it suddenly became his defining quality on MTF. I don't watch Federer play at his best, finally seeing someone who can combine stylish tennis with consistency and mental toughness, and bemoan the fact that he doesn't look like Brad Pitt. To borrow heya's phrase, he may well be Mona Ostrich, but I say: all hail to the ostrich!

My word, I never knew Roger's molars could be SO charismatic. They're almost turning me gay as I look at them.

Sjengst, I was just wondering where you'd been lately... missed you and your witty turn of phrase... which reminds me... ! :angel:

Right you are Matildas. Hey by the way where did you say that "Federer" store is located again? I must go there!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/StoreFront.jpg

canton st gallen
i dont know what they sell. they are not related to Roger's family
Federer is an old surname in CH

Sjengst, I was just wondering where you'd been lately... missed you and your witty turn of phrase... which reminds me... !

The decorators have been in to put new wallpaper in the room where the PC is, everything had to be shipped out, including an absolute ton of books that now fill the house. Nice colour scheme, but boy they took a while putting it up - a Monday to Friday job.

The decorators have been in to put new wallpaper in the room where the PC is, everything had to be shipped out, including an absolute ton of books that now fill the house. Nice colour scheme, but boy they took a while putting it up - a Monday to Friday job.

Wow! Either your room is the size of Buck House OR there were 10 layers of old wallpaper that had to be removed first OR the decorators were taking you to the cleaners! :p

It's a large room and they've been doing some more work around the place, repainting door frames and fences, but yes, they worked at an absolute snail's pace.

Charisma:

1. a.A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
b. Personal magnetism or charm: a television news program famed for the charisma of its anchors.

2. Christianity. An extraordinary power, such as the ability to perform miracles, granted by the Holy Spirit. :worship: Ok JesusFed does have charisma!! :bowdown: :bowdown:Man, this thread had me in stitches. Chloe had me crying. I'm glad it was renamed, or else I would have skipped it. A good read for the end of the day.



I went looking for the definition of "charisma" also. Interestingly enough, here's the definition from my dictionary:"the power to inspire devotion and enthusiasm"Using that definition, Roger has it in spades! If you don't believe me, just read through this thread again (if you dare). :) Personally, I think all of the top guys have charisma. The contrasts in their personalities just adds to the sport and makes things more interesting.