Roger Federer's dominance - does it bother you ? Explain yourself. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roger Federer's dominance - does it bother you ? Explain yourself.

prima donna
12-16-2005, 05:30 PM
There's probably been a thread made similar to this before, but I'm not asking if his dominance is bad for tennis. The question here is, is his dominance bad for you ?

Translation: Bad for you (your health, mental state, general attitude, tennis life)
All of the above.

So, this is a question based on personal opinion and not general views, so feel free to be selfish and forget what's good or bad for the game. The only person that matters is you.

Have fun.

I have my reasons for this, aside from the fact that there are dozens of other awful threads right now and it's completely unfair that I've been left out of the fun.

A few signs that it may have become bothersome:
1). Going for months, insisting that even though your username is Federer_Express that you despise Roger and that it's not fair, everyone should lose sometime.
2). Building a shrine of Nadal in your bedroom and anointing him the saviour or some form of hero - more popular, zoro or "Roger Killa", maybe in more basic forms: "Roger beater"
3). You've stopped supporting Roger since he began to dominate, because, well, it's just no fun if everyone doesn't get a piece of the cake.

No antagonizing here, it's a legitimate question and deserves 5 stars, even though for some reason I don't think it'll generate the same audience & popularity from other threads, which are absolute masterpieces.

Rogiman
12-16-2005, 06:28 PM
I don't mind him being tested, I just hope those who beat him happen to play a game as entertaining as his (young Gasquet, for instance), which is very rare nowadays in the era of baseline ball bashers.

So to answer the question - no, I'm not bothered by his dominance, because I keep telling myself the alternative is an ugly dirtballer shouting "Vamos".

lau
12-16-2005, 06:34 PM
I see how this will turn into another Nadal bashing thread :rolleyes: (or another clay bashing thread, or another "what-some-people-call-dirtballers" bashing thread, etc, etc, etc We have plenty of those, people :p )
That´s what really bother´s me, BTW. I am bothered by some Fed fans :) (not all of them) The same happends to me with some Ivan fans ;)
And I would also like to say that Rog´s tennis is beatiful :), that can´t be denied. But I`m not allways in the mood for dominance :lol: Sometimes I want to see how players compete in a tennis match.

keep_er_lit!
12-16-2005, 06:40 PM
I don't have a problem with his dominance - I just enjoy watching someone play who has such an enormous talent for the game.

cobalt60
12-16-2005, 06:42 PM
I think I originally was bothered by the fact that his dominance seemed to make things more boring. So although I had nothing against him I tended to not watch matches on tv or in person when he was playing. But now I have to echo Rogiman's sentiments- as long as the match isn't onesided and both players are giving it their all that's the most important. And once I got to that reality- I started to enjoy watching Federer play and realized how incredible his game is and how he is able to switch gears thinking on court.

adee-gee
12-16-2005, 06:46 PM
No antagonizing here, it's a legitimate question and deserves 5 stars, even though for some reason I don't think it'll generate the same audience & popularity from other threads, which are absolute masterpieces.
:lol: were you talking about all the other threads you started?

Since you asked so nicely, I shall answer the question......

Roger Federer is a nice guy and has a good style of tennis to watch. I do get slightly bored by watching him continously steamroller his way through grand slam draws. I also did not think it was good for the game when Roddick was #2 in the world, and Hewitt was #3 and neither could even get close to winning a set off him. Obviously none of this is Federer's fault, but I would've prefered more competition in tennis.

I also disapprove of certain Federer fans on here (I won't name names) who continually talk down other players because they do not play with as much 'style' as him.

Personally, I am not a fan. The main reason for this is I like players with charisma. Federer is lacking in this department, and I personally don't find his matches enjoyable. I can see why people enjoy watching him though.

Gonzo Hates Me!
12-16-2005, 06:51 PM
It bothers me.

For me, he was like a really obscure band that got really famous and then it just wasn't fun anymore. I used to like him so much when he was having all those mental issuesand everyone was wondering if he would ever pull himself together and win a Slam. It was frustrating to be his fan once upon a time.. And now that he wins every friggin' tournament, I kinda miss that when there was that uncertainty about him

bokehlicious
12-16-2005, 06:54 PM
I don't have a problem with his dominance - I just enjoy watching someone play who has such an enormous talent for the game.


:worship: :worship: :worship:

MariaV
12-16-2005, 07:11 PM
To answer the question - no, it doesn't bother me. :)
I always enjoy watching his beautiful game but I'd have nothing against it if certain 'dirtballer' with beautiful smile and incredible character shouting 'Vamos' would give him a really good fight and maybe even a certain Tatar person who certainly is able to match him talent-wise will manage some kind of comeback. Other young guys are coming too so tennis has never been so exciting for me. :)

garylanders
12-16-2005, 07:26 PM
I dont have a problem with it, I admire Federers game and mental strenght.
Having said that, I believe Federers game to be driven by frustration, not joy.

Freddi22cl
12-16-2005, 07:51 PM
Translation: Bad for you (your health, mental state, general attitude, tennis life)

it will have NO affect on my health whatsoever, my mental state or general attitude. This is a sport, that is all.

affect my tennis life? nope. Enjoy watchign him play. Haven't seen such a pure talent since McEnroe.

HIs dominance? i'm not so sure it will continue. Will be tough for him to match these past two 'sick' years. There's a 19 yr old that did him in rather easily at Roland Garros. I think the game is healthy with these two in the forefront. Hopefully '06 has a bunch of memorable matches for all to enjoy, like the Safin-Federer clash at Melbourne Park and the Paradorn-italian stallion match at Flushign Meadows just to name two off the top of my head.

GonzoFan
12-16-2005, 08:15 PM
I think that if one thinks that watching Federer is boring or don't think his game is great then you don't know what good tennis is. Just my humble opinion.
But if his dominance bothers me? yes, it does bothers me a lot! I'd love to see more competition in tennis. It's kinda annoying to see only one player winning almost everything. :rolleyes:

prima donna
12-16-2005, 08:28 PM
Great responses, I've enjoyed reading each of them.

I was hoping that this thread wouldn't be taken the wrong way.

I'm simply inquisitive, with regard to what exactly drives some to support Roger or not.

Thanks.

shotgun
12-16-2005, 08:29 PM
Actually no, it doesn't bother me. It's really fun to cheer against him, because every time he loses, the feeling of experiencing something unusual is really good. The fewer times he loses, the better it gets. I don't have anything against him, I just like to support the underdogs.

rosespower
12-16-2005, 08:31 PM
i have big problem with his dominance......he ruins the excitement of this sport.........

redsox1133
12-16-2005, 08:33 PM
YES! it really bothers me! for one, i dont think its right that a player can take weeks off and still win a major tournament(ex. Cincinatti) or almost win (Masters cup shanghi). all these other players, roddick and hewitt, are working their asses off to try to win one masters cup, it just doesnt seem fair that with minimal preparation he can win one. also, im a fan of roddick, and it really pisses me off how people are critisizing him for not winning another slam, and im sure he would have won at least one wimbledon if it wasnt for roger.

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 08:35 PM
No, I don't think that Roger's dominance is boring. Just because other players have practically psyched themselves into believing they can't beat him, is no reason to be mad at him. In 06, assuming everyone's healthy, Federer's main competition will be the young guns-Nadal, Gasquet, Berdych, Monfils, Djokovic, and Murray (maybe).

While Roger has solved the "puzzles" that were Agassi and Hewitt, he may still have trouble with Nalbandian, against whom he still has a losing record. I don't know what, if any, effect the Shanghai loss had on Roger's confidence. I guess the upcoming year will tell the story.

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 08:36 PM
YES! it really bothers me! for one, i dont think its right that a player can take weeks off and still win a major tournament(ex. Cincinatti) or almost win (Masters cup shanghi). all these other players, roddick and hewitt, are working their asses off to try to win one masters cup, it just doesnt seem fair that with minimal preparation he can win one. also, im a fan of roddick, and it really pisses me off how people are critisizing him for not winning another slam, and im sure he would have won at least one wimbledon if it wasnt for roger.

That's the way of sport. Roger has trained himself mentally and physically to a point that, if he does take extended breaks, he can pick up where he left off. How's it his fault that his competitors don't have the same level of self-mastery Roger achieved? If anything, it's a testament to his focus and maturity.

keep_er_lit!
12-16-2005, 08:38 PM
all these other players, roddick and hewitt, are working their asses off to try to win one masters cup, it just doesnt seem fair that with minimal preparation he can win one.

You make it sound like Fed puts in no work at all - but nobody, not even someone as talented as Roger can be as successful as he is without a lot of effort behind the scenes.

World Beater
12-16-2005, 08:38 PM
YES! it really bothers me! for one, i dont think its right that a player can take weeks off and still win a major tournament(ex. Cincinatti) or almost win (Masters cup shanghi). all these other players, roddick and hewitt, are working their asses off to try to win one masters cup, it just doesnt seem fair that with minimal preparation he can win one. also, im a fan of roddick, and it really pisses me off how people are critisizing him for not winning another slam, and im sure he would have won at least one wimbledon if it wasnt for roger.

im sorry...but life isnt fair. Some people have to work harder than others, fact of life.

The fact that roddick is getting critisized is a compliment. it means they believe he can beat federer. if he had no chance, no would care.

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 08:44 PM
im sorry...but life isnt fair. Some people have to work harder than others, fact of life.

The fact that roddick is getting critisized is a compliment. it means they believe he can beat federer. if he had no chance, no would care.

:worship:

Furthermore, Hewitt and Roddick are so thoroughly psyched out by Federer, that they are already beaten before they strike a ball.

prima donna
12-16-2005, 08:47 PM
im sorry...but life isnt fair. Some people have to work harder than others, fact of life.

The fact that roddick is getting critisized is a compliment. it means they believe he can beat federer. if he had no chance, no would care.

I'm curious, who would 'they' be in this particular instance ?

The American Media ?

I don't see anyone in the tennis world expecting Roddick to compete with Roger, Marat and Rafael have that expectation, but not many with knowledge of the game.

It is actually rather unfair to Roddick, the pressure applied to him, courtesy of the American Media (whom know little or nothing about tennis - simple lack of interest).

He simply matches up poorly with Roger, but they can't seem to understand that. Most people are a poor match up against Roger, what makes Roddick any different ? Gaudio has turned in better performances against Roger than Roddick has, also is a Slam winner, but I don't see him being bashed by the press, then again the Federer/Roddick affair takes place on a much larger stage. Wimbledon.

World Beater
12-16-2005, 09:00 PM
I'm curious, who would 'they' be in this particular instance ?

The American Media ?

I don't see anyone in the tennis world expecting Roddick to compete with Roger, Marat and Rafael have that expectation, but not many with knowledge of the game.

It is actually rather unfair to Roddick, the pressure applied to him, courtesy of the American Media (whom know little or nothing about tennis - simple lack of interest).

He simply matches up poorly with Roger, but they can't seem to understand that. Most people are a poor match up against Roger, what makes Roddick any different ? Gaudio has turned in better performances against Roger than Roddick has, also is a Slam winner, but I don't see him being bashed by the press, then again the Federer/Roddick affair takes place on a much larger scale. Wimbledon.

many people in tennis world and in america believe that with some improvement, roddick can beat federer...you dont believe i am pretty sure, but some do and who can blame them for having faith in their guy...

prima donna
12-16-2005, 09:01 PM
many people in tennis world and in america believe that with some improvement, roddick can beat federer...you dont believe i am pretty sure, but some do and who can blame them for having faith in their guy...
I think it's based more on wishful thinking.

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 09:03 PM
many people in tennis world and in america believe that with some improvement, roddick can beat federer...you dont believe i am pretty sure, but some do and who can blame them for having faith in their guy...

Roddick had better make improvements quickly if he's going to erase that 10-1 record. For starters, he needs to get a stronger self-belief when it comes to playing Roger.

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 09:04 PM
I think it's based more on wishing thinking.

Or willful ignorance.

prima donna
12-16-2005, 09:07 PM
Roddick had better make improvements quickly if he's going to erase that 10-1 record. For starters, he needs to get a stronger self-belief when it comes to playing Roger.
Prior to Cincinatti, I hadn't noticed there being a lack of self-confidence whenever Andy faced Roger.

There is a reason Roger has the mental edge, not simply because he dominates everyone else, but Andy (along with Lleyton) have shown up playing their best tennis, confident in themselves and have gotten toyed with.

All that damage will take it's toll after a while.

Self-belief; Reality

In this case, is like oil and water.

They don't mix well.

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 09:10 PM
Prior to Cincinatti, I hadn't noticed there being a lack of self-confidence whenever Andy faced Roger.

There is a reason Roger has the mental edge, not simply because he dominates everyone else, but Andy (along with Lleyton) have shown up playing their best tennis, confident in themselves and have gotten toyed with.

All that damage will take it's toll after a while.

Self-belief; Reality

In this case, is like oil and water.

They don't mix well.

Self-belief would require using a new strategy. Andy and Lleyton know that they're Roger's tool right now, and they need to figure something out quickly if they are to be on the winning end of their matchups with him.

World Beater
12-16-2005, 09:17 PM
Self-belief would require using a new strategy. Andy and Lleyton know that they're Roger's tool right now, and they need to figure something out quickly if they are to be on the winning end of their matchups with him.

regarding a new strategy...
many believe that roddick should be serve volleying...thats not his game though. i remember in cincy he was doing it almost every point.

i agree he has to improve his net game, but i think he needs to focus at what he is good at...he needs to be a first strike player like he was under gilbert. serve and then hit the fh hard and flat.

enough of the patience crap. roddick wont outrally federer. its not his game.

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 09:19 PM
regarding a new strategy...
many believe that roddick should be serve volleying...thats not his game though. i remember in cincy he was doing it almost every point.

i agree he has to improve his net game, but i think he needs to focus at what he is good at...he needs to be a first strike player like he was under gilbert. serve and then hit the fh hard and flat.

enough of the patience crap. roddick wont outrally federer. its not his game.

And he clearly cannot serve him off the court, either. Guess Roddick's SOL where it concerns Roger-unless Roger is having a total shit day.

World Beater
12-16-2005, 09:22 PM
And he clearly cannot serve him off the court, either. Guess Roddick's SOL where it concerns Roger-unless Roger is having a total shit day.

yes, roddick cant serve roger off in a five set match. but he doesnt need to.

he needs to crush the next ball with his fh. if he cant do that, then he is SOL

sigmagirl91
12-16-2005, 09:25 PM
yes, roddick cant serve roger off in a five set match. but he doesnt need to.

he needs to crush the next ball with his fh. if he cant do that, then he is SOL

In order to "crush" his forehand, he must have good tactical skills to force his opponent to hit to that side. As of late, that hasn't happened. If anything, Andy's fh would almost always go to Roger's bh, and well...you can finish the sentence.

World Beater
12-16-2005, 09:28 PM
In order to "crush" his forehand, he must have good tactical skills to force his opponent to hit to that side. As of late, that hasn't happened. If anything, Andy's fh would almost always go to Roger's bh, and well...you can finish the sentence.

with andys speed on the serve, its hard to block the ball into roddick's bh esp if roddick is covering that side with his fh. its a very small space to block the ball into. roddick doesnt need to worry about roger hitting return winners down the line because roger doesnt take full swings at roddick's first serve.

jacobhiggins
12-16-2005, 09:53 PM
I saw a video a while back showing Federer training and let me tell you, it was rough! He might be the most fit player on tour, and the guy is a gym rat, you just don't see it!

Kip
12-16-2005, 10:32 PM
Nope! :p

Roger is one of my fav. players and besides
that he's worked hard to get what he has.

He deserves to dominate. If anyone has
issue with that, get on the backs of the
rest of the tour and leave the Fed be. :cool:

nobama
12-16-2005, 10:53 PM
You make it sound like Fed puts in no work at all - but nobody, not even someone as talented as Roger can be as successful as he is without a lot of effort behind the scenes.Here's what Roger's trainer says about his work behind the scenes:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/wimbledon2005/story/0,,1520730,00.html
"Roger is definitely fitter than he was four or five years ago and that's because of the work he does," said Paganini yesterday, half an hour after watching Federer win his third Wimbledon title in a row.

"Tennis is played not just with the hands but with the feet, especially for Roger," said Paganini. "In an intense match or a very long match his footwork has to stay perfect in order for him to make those shots and the reason he can put his feet in exactly the right place over and over again is because he is strong physically and mentally. He was tired even before Wimbledon but he never let it show because even when he is tired his footwork is very precise. You can do that when you are physically and mentally strong. Sometimes his best muscle is his head."

Like most players, Federer has assembled a team around him to keep himself in optimum shape. Paganini works in consulation with Federer's coach of seven months, Tony Roche, and Pavel Kovac, the physiotherapist who travels with Federer to take care of the aches and pains that come as an inevitable result of the hours he spends on court and in the gym.

"I think the most impressive thing about Roger is that he works even harder now than he did before he became really successful," said Paganini. "A lot of players don't mind working hard on the way up because they are desperate to get better and they find it hard to motivate themselves once they start winning big titles, but not Roger. He just keeps wanting to work harder. He works like a challenger even though he is a champion."

Paganini has been helping Federer make tennis look easy for the last 10 years and together they put in 100 hours of fitness training throughout the season, either at tournaments or when Federer is at home in Switzerland. They do a combination of strength and endurance work, circuit training, running and a wide range of exercises designed to practice all the movements Federer is likely to make on a tennis court.

Prior to a big tournament they will work for 10 hours a week or more, depending on the surface he is going to play on, but Paganini says he never hears so much as a murmur of fuss from Federer.

"Roger is a pleasure and a privilege to work with," said Paganini. "He never complains about having to work hard as long as he understands why he is doing it. He asks me what we are doing and why and then he gets to work. He knows that he is talented and that the fitness work we do is going to bring that talent through.

"He's always been the same. You can have all the shots but if you aren't there in time it doesn't matter and Roger knows that. Even when I am really tough on him he never stops working and he never wants to stop. That's the kind of man he is and that's why he is a champion. He really is an amazing person."

nobama
12-16-2005, 11:00 PM
YES! it really bothers me! for one, i dont think its right that a player can take weeks off and still win a major tournament(ex. Cincinatti) or almost win (Masters cup shanghi). all these other players, roddick and hewitt, are working their asses off to try to win one masters cup, it just doesnt seem fair that with minimal preparation he can win one. also, im a fan of roddick, and it really pisses me off how people are critisizing him for not winning another slam, and im sure he would have won at least one wimbledon if it wasnt for roger.How do you know what his preparation is? How do you know he isn't working his ass off too? During the Wimbledon final Johnny Mac commented on what a great athlete Roger is, and said that Roger's athleticism is underrated. Just because he sometimes makes it look easy doesn't mean he hasn't put in a lot of hard work to get to that point.

jacobhiggins
12-16-2005, 11:09 PM
He works harder then probablly everybody on tour, no offense to Nadal and Hewitt, but that video of him training was ridiculous, he collapsed against the net when he was done!

DrJules
12-17-2005, 12:16 AM
He has only ended the year number 1 twice so far. A bit early to talk of domination.

Julio1974
12-17-2005, 12:21 AM
It's a bit boring for me to know who is going to win Wimbledon or the US Open since the very first day... But it's not Federer's fault to be so good.

prima donna
12-17-2005, 12:32 AM
He has only ended the year number 1 twice so far. A bit early to talk of domination.
Where do you find such good drugs ?

virm_coria
12-17-2005, 12:33 AM
It's a bit boring for me to know who is going to win Wimbledon or the US Open since the very first day... But it's not Federer's fault to be so good.

Exactly what I think
When Fed is in a tournament, I always know that he has the 90% of the chances to win it, so yeah, it's kinda boring, but he deserves it a lot because of his hard work and all his effort to make it to the top. he's an idol :worship:

jole
12-17-2005, 12:48 AM
I couldn't care less.

Professional tennis is professional tennis is professional tennis. If someone is dominating then they are doing something right, and deserve it. There are still a plethora of players I enjoy and support, and I while I'd love them to be as successful as possible, it doesn't bother me in the least that they aren't a certain rank.

shotgun
12-17-2005, 12:50 AM
Professional tennis is professional tennis is professional tennis.

:bowdown:

Federerthebest
12-17-2005, 01:31 AM
He works harder then probablly everybody on tour, no offense to Nadal and Hewitt, but that video of him training was ridiculous, he collapsed against the net when he was done!

And unlike Nadal, he doesn't need to take steroids.

mandoura
12-17-2005, 01:33 AM
To answer the question - no, it doesn't bother me. :)
I always enjoy watching his beautiful game but I'd have nothing against it if certain 'dirtballer' with beautiful smile and incredible character shouting 'Vamos' would give him a really good fight and maybe even a certain Tatar person who certainly is able to match him talent-wise will manage some kind of comeback. Other young guys are coming too so tennis has never been so exciting for me. :)

Maria, I find myself very inclined to your answer, specially for that "certain Tatar person" :D . The "Vamos" kid is also not bad at all ;) .

For me, the three of them are sheer beauty to watch because beauty is not just talent. The beauty of Federer is in his talent, the way he execute the shots, constructs the points, sometimes reacts on simple instinct. The beauty of Safin is in his mind, his pure impulsive talent. He might be weird to some, but to me he is a joy to watch. Nadal's beauty is another story. It is the beauty of the heart and the passion he plays with (sorry Rogiman but I just love this kid). His smile is big enough to include the whole world.

For me, all three of them are naturals. They all have talent, feel of the ball, character, instincts but in different ratios.

Finally, I don't mind at all if Rogelio is being challenged or if he is dominating. He is setting a standard and it is up to the other players to beat him. What should he do? Lower his standard or tank matches? I don't think so. :)

heya
12-17-2005, 02:40 AM
No, but no one should tank their matches and show up with no match toughness.
That's boring crap.

Corey Feldman
12-17-2005, 03:06 AM
It's a bit boring for me to know who is going to win Wimbledon or the US Open since the very first day... But it's not Federer's fault to be so good.Well take advantage of it, stick a wad of cash on him to win the tourneys and sit back and count the bucks coming home :)

i like rogi's domination, since 2001 when he played sampras and henman at Wimbledon ive loved his tennis and ice-cool temprament, if someone had to dominate post sampras/agassi era then couldnt have been anyone better for me to do it than Fed (Henman or Escude never quite made it :p )
there's still plenty for him to chase as well, Roland garros... Davis cup, Olympics, Number of slams won, tourneys, Weeks as No1... its exciting watching his career go on and try to further his legend.

Billabong
12-17-2005, 03:24 AM
As I'm a Rogi fan since 2001, I like it a lot:D

TennisGrandSlam
12-17-2005, 04:22 AM
Is Jimmy Connors dominant in 1974 ?

Australian Open
Roanoke
Little Rock,
Birmingham
Salisbury
Hampton
Salt Lake City
Tempe
Wimbledon
Indianapolis
US Open
L.A.
London
Johannesburg



Is JohGuillermo Vilas dominant in 1977 ?

Springfield
Buenos Aires
Virginia Beach
Roland Garros
Kitzbuhel
Washington
Louisville
South Orange
Columbus
US Open
Paris
Tehran
Bogota
Santiago
Buenos Aires -2
Johannesburg WCT

But I don't know why Jimmy Connors was YEAR-END NO.1 in that year! :rolleyes:



Is Bjorn Borg dominant in 1979 ?

Richmond WCT
Rotterdam
Monte Carlo
Las Vegas
Roland Garros
Wimbledon
Bastad
Toronto
Palermo
Tokyo Indoor
Masters



Is John McEnroe dominant in 1984 ?

Philadelphia
Richmond WCT
Madrid
Brussels
Dallas WCT
Forest Hills WCT
Queens
Wimbledon
Toronto
US Open
San Francisco
Stockholm
Masters

Action Jackson
12-17-2005, 05:15 AM
No.

Rafa = Fed Killa
12-17-2005, 09:15 AM
Roger doesn't bother me.

Some of his fans do.
Anytime he loses they have an excuse and they whine and cry.
If someone does good against Fed (Nadal) they insult the player (steroids)

I can never put myself in a group with the above people because they are the most childish and insecure tennis fans.

I enjoy the sport and no one can win every tournament.
Fed fan plz realize this.
If Nadal beat Fed does not mean Nadal is "evil" or on "steroids" or a "dirtballer" or that "clay sucks" and is "third world"
I can't cheer for a person who drives the above fanaticism which tries to undermine his competition.

World Beater
12-17-2005, 10:21 AM
Roger doesn't bother me.

Some of his fans do.
Anytime he loses they have an excuse and they whine and cry.
If someone does good against Fed (Nadal) they insult the player (steroids)

I can never put myself in a group with the above people because they are the most childish and insecure tennis fans.

I enjoy the sport and no one can win every tournament.
Fed fan plz realize this.
If Nadal beat Fed does not mean Nadal is "evil" or on "steroids" or a "dirtballer" or that "clay sucks" and is "third world"
I can't cheer for a person who drives the above fanaticism which tries to undermine his competition.




you certainly arent any better than these supposed "fed trolls" . you parade around with your anti federer username and proclaim nadal to be some sort of fed stopper when in reality he isnt.

bokehlicious
12-17-2005, 10:46 AM
you certainly arent any better than these supposed "fed trolls" .

Someone saying that Roger is the best player nowadays is called a Fed troll... :rolleyes: Funny :) :p

linus
12-17-2005, 10:56 AM
Roger himself not bother me.

If other wonderful guys out too early just Roger left to fight which does bother me a bit and if it lasts longer, it bothers more ;)

nobama
12-17-2005, 02:40 PM
I can't cheer for a person who drives the above fanaticism which tries to undermine his competition.But you have no problem with a screen name like Rafa=Fed Killa. :scratch: You seem to be just as childish and insecure as those Fed fans you rant against.

virm_coria
12-17-2005, 04:46 PM
And unlike Nadal, he doesn't need to take steroids.

haha. I agree

Rafa = Fed Killa
12-17-2005, 06:00 PM
Hey Mirka do I make direct attacks at Federer. I don't say he is on steroids or gay, etc. The childish Fed fans make direct attacks at players who beat Fed. I don't there is the big difference.

P.S. You are one of the most decent Fed fans around and nothing from my first post applies to you.

MariaV
12-17-2005, 06:14 PM
(Henman or Escude never quite made it :p )
:awww: :hug: :hug:
if someone had to dominate post sampras/agassi era then couldnt have been anyone better for me to do it than Fed
Totally agree. :D

lau
12-17-2005, 06:21 PM
haha. I agree
:haha: :haha: And why am I not surprised??

:secret: you should talk with him/her about Coria, aka "third world dirtballer" acording to Federerthebest ;) I want front seats please :)

mandoura
12-17-2005, 06:34 PM
Roger doesn't bother me.

Some of his fans do.
Anytime he loses they have an excuse and they whine and cry.
If someone does good against Fed (Nadal) they insult the player (steroids)

I can never put myself in a group with the above people because they are the most childish and insecure tennis fans.

I enjoy the sport and no one can win every tournament.
Fed fan plz realize this.
If Nadal beat Fed does not mean Nadal is "evil" or on "steroids" or a "dirtballer" or that "clay sucks" and is "third world"

I don't think Rogelio's fans use the terms "dirtballer" or "clay sucks" because Rogelio is after Rolland Garros and wants to conquer clay. On the other hand and like you, I don't like personal attack on players.

I can't cheer for a person who drives the above fanaticism which tries to undermine his competition.

How can you blame someone for the act of others? :scratch:

Corey Feldman
12-17-2005, 08:26 PM
Some of his fans do.
Anytime he loses they have an excuse and they whine and cry.
If someone does good against Fed (Nadal) they insult the player (steroids)

I can never put myself in a group with the above people because they are the most childish and insecure tennis fans.

I enjoy the sport and no one can win every tournament.
Fed fan plz realize this.
If Nadal beat Fed does not mean Nadal is "evil" or on "steroids" or a "dirtballer" or that "clay sucks" and is "third world"
I can't cheer for a person who drives the above fanaticism which tries to undermine his competition.Look at your username arsehole, thats fanaticism.
i recall your thread about Fed having no charmisa compared to Nadal, and you talk about Fed fans undermining nadal.
as sjengster put it..
Fed = Charisma killa
:devil:

prima donna
12-17-2005, 08:35 PM
I think it's a bit nasty to identify posters (only in extremely obvious cases) by their likes or dislikes for particular players. I have no idea where the name calling comes from, I can only name a few posters that constantly boast of Roger's accomplishments.

The reason I choose to support Roger has little or nothing to do with his reign over the tennis world, but more so the type of person that he is. He's a good guy, fair and had a charity in South Africa far before he came to be known as Mr. Federer.

Plenty of players give to charity, something that's completely good in every way, no matter how you slice it. Even if it happens to be a masquerade for the public. Roger is one of the few that has remained level-headed and maintained self-dignity throughout his career.

He also plays a classic style of tennis, most beautiful tennis ever, maybe so, but there have been plenty that play beautiful tennis and don't have Roger's wits or compassion for human beings. It's what sets him apart from others. Class.

shotgun
12-17-2005, 08:57 PM
as sjengster put it..
Fed = Charisma killa
:devil:

This is called irony. ;)

nobama
12-18-2005, 12:26 AM
Hey Mirka do I make direct attacks at Federer. I don't say he is on steroids or gay, etc. The childish Fed fans make direct attacks at players who beat Fed. I don't there is the big difference.Ok so you admit you attack Federer. So what's the difference between that and someone who attacks a player that beat Federer? Nothing. Are there some Fed fans that are over the top? Yes, but the same could be said for fans of any player.

bad gambler
12-18-2005, 12:34 AM
No - because like everything it will not last forever, and it may be sooner then we think

Kristen
12-18-2005, 12:39 AM
I think Roger is aawesome, but yeah, it's the actions of some fans that irks me at times. However, compared to fans of certain Australian and British players (particularly British!!) his fans don't even register on the scale.

Rafa = Fed Killa
12-18-2005, 01:37 AM
My name says I believe Nadal can beat Federer in a tennis match.
That is not a direct attack like saying Nadal is "gay" or on "steroids".

nobama
12-18-2005, 01:50 AM
My name says I believe Nadal can beat Federer in a tennis match.
That is not a direct attack like saying Nadal is "gay" or on "steroids".And you know for sure it's only Fed fans who say stuff like that about Nadal?

Rafa = Fed Killa
12-18-2005, 01:57 AM
Federerthebest sound like the name of a Fed fan. Doesn't it? :D

Eden
12-06-2006, 12:04 AM
*bump*

To answer the question of the title: Not at all :)

It is exciting for me to witness someone making history and playing such beautiful tennis.

But on the other hand I can understand when people who support other players want their favourites to win. There is nothing wrong to prefer other players and cheer for them, but I don't think it is to much asked for to respect the achievements of someone even if you don't like him.

Sofyaxo
12-06-2006, 12:19 AM
Nasty thread. Grow up people.


I'm not a huge fan of Roger's but his dominace doesn't bother me at all. It isn't like he doesn't play amazing tennis. He doesn't always have easy wins, and he does lose.

It just doesn't bother me because he's not a horrible person, and he works for what he has.

Blazed
12-06-2006, 12:26 AM
Federer's dominance doesn't necessarily bother me but I'd like for it to be a bit more challenging. Here's the thing for me. I like Federer, but he's not my favorite player. To see someone other than your favorite dominate, especially in the way that he has/is, is never going to be as good. But I appreciate his talent and those who put up a good fight against him (the first ones that come to mind are Nadal and surprisingly Roddick -- people who at least have the belief). So, in essence, I'd just like to see more tight matches where he and his opponent are playing well, maybe another upset here or there. But it's not his fault that he's that much better.

R.Federer
12-06-2006, 12:30 AM
Being a fan of his, it does not bother me at all, but I can completely see why it might bother those who are fans of players who aren't able to beat Roger in so many tries. Obviously his domination is easier to enjoy for those who are fans of his.

GlennMirnyi
12-06-2006, 12:48 AM
Of course not. I'd be bothered if some moonballer were #1.

JustmeUK
12-06-2006, 01:00 AM
sometimes I wish for a bit more excitement. I've been watching Roger for quite awhile now. since his win over Pete and I've seen a lot of his beautiful tennis :). so much so I'm sometimes jaded by some of the more routine "beautiful" shots now.. you know the ones.. the extreme angled bh shot.. or the forehand winners from everywhere on the court.

still as I'm fond of saying I'd rather watch Roger win beautifully then watch two moonballers at work.

casabe
12-06-2006, 01:03 AM
I am not a fan of federer, but I am happy to see him playing...in 20, 30 or 40 years he will be a legend for sure and I am happy to be one of those who have saw his dominance.

ezekiel
12-06-2006, 01:29 AM
it's ok, he has a good personality to be a dominant player, he knows how to behave set aside his occasional outburst at his rivals . He is a bit too conservative where it's hard for non fans to relate to him

Fedever
12-06-2006, 02:13 AM
No, I don't mind his dominance. That is because I LOVE to watch him play!
I think his is the most gifted player ever to play the game, and I have been a fan of tennis since the late 80's. If he were to retire tomorrow, I personally would consider him the greatest player who ever lived. I never get tired
of seeing him play! I do however like to see him tested and play people that bring out his best tennis like Safin and Nadal.

Another reason I don't mind him being dominate is that here in America if he were not the number 1 player I would not get to see him play as much. That is because they always want to show the Americans even though I personally don't like any of them right now. I did like Agassi, Mac and Connors, but of course they are all gone now.


Long live the king!!:worship:

Fedever
12-06-2006, 02:19 AM
I dont have a problem with it, I admire Federers game and mental strenght.
Having said that, I believe Federers game to be driven by frustration, not joy.

I don't understand. What do you mean by this? Very curious. Please elaborate.

Fedever
12-06-2006, 03:11 AM
That's the way of sport. Roger has trained himself mentally and physically to a point that, if he does take extended breaks, he can pick up where he left off. How's it his fault that his competitors don't have the same level of self-mastery Roger achieved? If anything, it's a testament to his focus and maturity.

I'm curious, who would 'they' be in this particular instance ?

The American Media ?

I don't see anyone in the tennis world expecting Roddick to compete with Roger, Marat and Rafael have that expectation, but not many with knowledge of the game.

It is actually rather unfair to Roddick, the pressure applied to him, courtesy of the American Media (whom know little or nothing about tennis - simple lack of interest).

He simply matches up poorly with Roger, but they can't seem to understand that. Most people are a poor match up against Roger, what makes Roddick any different ? Gaudio has turned in better performances against Roger than Roddick has, also is a Slam winner, but I don't see him being bashed by the press, then again the Federer/Roddick affair takes place on a much larger stage. Wimbledon.

His inability to beat Roger is not the only reason he has been bashed in the press. There are many things that Roddick has been criticized for: his arrogance for one, and his stubbornness to work to improve his game, (until recently with Connors) He has a lot of room for improvement and for many years he has done nothing about it. Boo hoo he feels pressure. Do you think he is the only player that feels pressure from his country? Also, during his slump I have seen him give up during a match and no one likes to see this nor does it generate any admiration, quite the opposite.

As far as Roddicks game matching up poorly against Federer, I don't agree with this. He took a set off him in Wimby and USO Finals and they have had some competitive sets and a very competitive match at the Masters where Roddick had match points. That does not reflect someone who’s game does not match up well against Federer's. The fact that they have had competitive sets/matches has always surprised me since I think that Roddick has a very one dimensional game and is not even close to Federer's level. But there it is.

decrepitude
12-06-2006, 10:39 PM
When Sampras was winning everything in sight I was very bored; serve, ace: serve, ace: serve, ace: serve, ace: - next game. I watched matches only in the hope that somebody would beat him. Which Federer did. . . :clap2:

Federer winning all the time does not bother me at all, he has so much variety of shot. I find it fascinating watching to see how many records he can break.

:secret: Tho' I didn't mind too much when Murray beat him:devil: :p

cmurray
12-06-2006, 10:42 PM
Yes.

Gonzo Hates Me!
12-07-2006, 03:57 AM
yes. Monotony IS boring.

silverarrows
12-07-2006, 04:49 AM
Not at all. Watching his beautiful and sublime tennis never gets me bored. He has so much variation in his game which I love so much. He's a legend in the making and I'm proud to witness it. ;) :cool:

Johnny Groove
12-07-2006, 04:52 AM
I dont want to screw up the bandwith and/or crash MTF, so I wont write my answer :angel:

bokehlicious
12-07-2006, 07:30 AM
The more he's dominant, the more I enjoy reading hater's sour grapes on here. Keep it up Rog' !

Exodus
12-07-2006, 07:37 AM
yes it bothers me a little bit since tennis has becoming a little boring but i will rather have federer win than seeing nadal win. i hope that safin and blake will be able to challenge him next year.

Edith09
12-07-2006, 05:24 PM
His game is grat to watch, no doubt, but sometimes I would like to see another players to win the biggest events.

stebs
12-07-2006, 05:56 PM
Yes.

Roger Federer's dominance - does it bother you ? Expain yourself.

You didn't do much as far as the bolded part is concerned did you? I'd say that's a pretty weak argument and isn't really worth it to post.

Of course it doesn't bother me because I'm a fan ut as it happens I don't think it would bother me if someone else was dominating either. I find it interesting being in the presence of greatness much as I did when Sampras was around but I didn't like him. I think having a dominating figure is good for the game and it makes things very exciting when there is a challenger such as Nadal. You have to have the king built up to make it more of a spectacle when he comes down from his throne. Also, his tennis is extremely attractive.

mtw
12-07-2006, 06:04 PM
This would not be very bothering. Roger is the best. He plays very fair, he has the great talent and analitical mind ( he can work out every player and win )

Pfloyd
12-07-2006, 06:08 PM
Yes and No.

Like many of you have previosuly stated. Federer may well go down as the best player of all time, and quite frankly, 20 years from now, I would like to be able to say that I watched him play.

Now, one thing that does annoy me is that many players lose to Federer even before they step on the court. This is not to say that his opponents don't try to at least give him some sort of challenge. The truth of the matter remains, many players, when asked in there post-match interviews why they lost the match, there answer is simple, and almost always the same: " I lost to Roger Federer ".

Of course, Federer has worked his ass off to gain the reputation he currently has. However, I would like other players that face Federer to have the "Nadal" mentality when they face him. Give it you all and then some. Players ought to enter the tennis court against Federer thinking "this is a tennis match, the future is not written in stone, I will try my best to win but remember, Tennis is just a sport, there is no need to get frustrated, he is the world no.1 this is true, but his ranking will not defeat me, have fun and most importantly play hard and do not give up".

Players like Blake or Roddick simply get to frustrated and live in the past when they face Federer, they worry too much about previous matches, and it seems to me they seem to "know" they are pre-determined to lose against him.

So yes, Federer is a blessing for those who admire exquisite tennis, I'll I ask for is that people try harder and make tennis more competitive.

stebs
12-07-2006, 06:19 PM
Yes and No.

Like many of you have previosuly stated. Federer may well go down as the best player of all time, and quite frankly, 20 years from now, I would like to be able to say that I watched him play.

Now, one thing that does annoy me is that many players lose to Federer even before they step on the court. This is not to say that his opponents don't try to at least give him some sort of challenge. The truth of the matter remains, many players, when asked in there post-match interviews why they lost the match, there answer is simple, and almost always the same: " I lost to Roger Federer ".

Of course, Federer has worked his ass off to gain the reputation he currently has. However, I would like other players that face Federer to have the "Nadal" mentality when they face him. Give it you all and then some. Players ought to enter the tennis court against Federer thinking "this is a tennis match, the future is not written in stone, I will try my best to win but remember, Tennis is just a sport, there is no need to get frustrated, he is the world no.1 this is true, but his ranking will not defeat me, have fun and most importantly play hard and do not give up".

Players like Blake or Roddick simply get to frustrated and live in the past when they face Federer, they worry too much about previous matches, and it seems to me they seem to "know" they are pre-determined to lose against him.

So yes, Federer is a blessing for those who admire exquisite tennis, I'll I ask for is that people try harder and make tennis more competitive.

I think this viewpoint is fairly naive. The suggestion that there are many players who don't try against Federer is simply ridiculous. It is true that they may be intimidated but a lot of the time they aren't it is not that rare to see somone play their best tennis when facing Federer. The ease with which he sees of challenges may make it look to the contrary but I assure you that the players are trying every bit as hard as they can.

richie21
12-07-2006, 06:48 PM
Roger being the number 1 absolutely doesn t bother me......it's more how much he is dominating the tour that bothers me a bit
Bar Nadal on clay and sometimes on hard,nearly nobody beats him!

Andre'sNo1Fan
12-07-2006, 06:56 PM
Yes because perfect is pretty boring, and while Federer is clearly not perfect he's about as near to it as it comes in tennis. Watching the same player win all the time doesn't hold much interest for me.

ExpectedWinner
12-07-2006, 07:21 PM
Watching the same player win all the time doesn't hold much interest for me.

In the worst case scenario Fed plays 7/6/5 matches per tournarment.There are other 100+/50+, etc., matches to watch played by 127/63/31, etc. players. Stop complaining, ignore Fed, and concentrate on other players. If you are not able to do that, then this sport is not for you.

madmanfool
12-07-2006, 07:24 PM
My answer is rather complicated perhaps, but it does bother me, yes. I acknowledge Federer's greatness, he's a joy to watch, some of the shots he pulls of are out of this world. But everything has become so predictable, everything he enters he wins. Just imagine, Baghdatis winning the Australian open, Blake winning the Masters cup,... i miss these kind of stories. I guess you could say i wish he would be challenged more. Safin beating him at the Australian open, Nalbandian at the Masters cup. I can only name two. (making an exception Roland Garros or other clay tournaments, i don't care much about them personally.)
I miss those things, just imagine Agassi winning the Usopen in 2005. Fabulous, but off course Federer was there again. (i'm aware that Agassi could have lost that final if he played someone else btw)

Oh well, i still have have Rafter's 3-0 record to hold on to lol
but what does it mean,
nothing really,
peanuts :)

cmurray
12-07-2006, 07:35 PM
Roger Federer's dominance - does it bother you ? Expain yourself.

You didn't do much as far as the bolded part is concerned did you? I'd say that's a pretty weak argument and isn't really worth it to post.

Of course it doesn't bother me because I'm a fan ut as it happens I don't think it would bother me if someone else was dominating either. I find it interesting being in the presence of greatness much as I did when Sampras was around but I didn't like him. I think having a dominating figure is good for the game and it makes things very exciting when there is a challenger such as Nadal. You have to have the king built up to make it more of a spectacle when he comes down from his throne. Also, his tennis is extremely attractive.


Sigh. Personally, I think you just want me to explain myself so that all the lovely Federer fans can chase me around, call me retarded and in general insult me. I'd hoped a simple yes might avoid that. Apparently not. That's okay, I can take the abuse. :)

It bothers me insofaras there are at LEAST 15 other players I'd rather see win than Roger. You know how some people on here don't like Rafa on principle? Well, you might say that I don't like Roger on principle.

Pfloyd
12-07-2006, 08:35 PM
I think this viewpoint is fairly naive. The suggestion that there are many players who don't try against Federer is simply ridiculous. It is true that they may be intimidated but a lot of the time they aren't it is not that rare to see somone play their best tennis when facing Federer. The ease with which he sees of challenges may make it look to the contrary but I assure you that the players are trying every bit as hard as they can.

I disagree.

NYCtennisfan
12-07-2006, 09:11 PM
Do players get intimidated when Federer starts to roll a bit in the first set? Yes. Do they know going in tha they have to play one hell of match just to be in contention to win? Yes. Do they roll over for Federer NO.

Some may, but most just get beat by a superior game that has very little weaknesses. He applies pressure on almost all serve games since he can block back big serves. He applies pressure in the rallies with his FH as his opponent knows that one semi-short ball and it is either going to be hit back as a winner or a penetrating shot followed up with a volley. It is the GAME that is beating his opponents, not his opponents giving up. When you cannot go anywhere to win a game against Federer in the zone, what else is there to do but to be dejected? For someone like Roddick, it is frustrating that he can't win all the points off of his 1st serve. For Blake, no matter how hard he hits, he can't blow Fed off of the court because it seems as though Fed knows where the ball is going and his anticipation and movement cuts off Blake's shot. . I remember watching Jordan play basketball. Players tried really hard against him, but when he was on, nobody could stop him from scoring. Nothing that anyone did could stop him especially in those old days when NBA teams could not play zone.

Blue Heart24
12-07-2006, 09:16 PM
Yes it is.Bad for my tennis life and bad for mental state.he is so boring...the game is boring when he plays...
And he beats all the players
That's why I hate him

stebs
12-07-2006, 09:32 PM
Sigh. Personally, I think you just want me to explain myself so that all the lovely Federer fans can chase me around, call me retarded and in general insult me. I'd hoped a simple yes might avoid that. Apparently not. That's okay, I can take the abuse. :)

It bothers me insofaras there are at LEAST 15 other players I'd rather see win than Roger. You know how some people on here don't like Rafa on principle? Well, you might say that I don't like Roger on principle.

Okaaaay. :confused:

I'm thinking someone has been arguing a little too much, no need to get so defensive over it. :p

I don't want to chase you around and call you retarded or insult you. It's not that yes to some things isn't a fine answer I just found it strange that anyone would give a one word answer to a question which specifically asks for explanation.

So as for the answer it is the fact that it is a player you don't like winning rather than having a dominant figure in the game? If Rafa or Marat were in the same situation would you really enjoy that or find it a little too much?

richie21
12-07-2006, 11:48 PM
Do players get intimidated when Federer starts to roll a bit in the first set? Yes. Do they know going in tha they have to play one hell of match just to be in contention to win? Yes. Do they roll over for Federer NO.

Some may, but most just get beat by a superior game that has very little weaknesses. He applies pressure on almost all serve games since he can block back big serves. He applies pressure in the rallies with his FH as his opponent knows that one semi-short ball and it is either going to be hit back as a winner or a penetrating shot followed up with a volley. It is the GAME that is beating his opponents, not his opponents giving up. When you cannot go anywhere to win a game against Federer in the zone, what else is there to do but to be dejected? For someone like Roddick, it is frustrating that he can't win all the points off of his 1st serve. For Blake, no matter how hard he hits, he can't blow Fed off of the court because it seems as though Fed knows where the ball is going and his anticipation and movement cuts off Blake's shot. . I remember watching Jordan play basketball. Players tried really hard against him, but when he was on, nobody could stop him from scoring. Nothing that anyone did could stop him especially in those old days when NBA teams could not play zone.

Blake and Roddick both lack talent ,that's why they can t beat Federer.....that's as simple as that.:o

PamV
12-08-2006, 12:47 AM
There's probably been a thread made similar to this before, but I'm not asking if his dominance is bad for tennis. The question here is, is his dominance bad for you ?

Translation: Bad for you (your health, mental state, general attitude, tennis life)
All of the above.

So, this is a question based on personal opinion and not general views, so feel free to be selfish and forget what's good or bad for the game. The only person that matters is you.

Have fun.

I have my reasons for this, aside from the fact that there are dozens of other awful threads right now and it's completely unfair that I've been left out of the fun.

A few signs that it may have become bothersome:
1). Going for months, insisting that even though your username is Federer_Express that you despise Roger and that it's not fair, everyone should lose sometime.
2). Building a shrine of Nadal in your bedroom and anointing him the saviour or some form of hero - more popular, zoro or "Roger Killa", maybe in more basic forms: "Roger beater"
3). You've stopped supporting Roger since he began to dominate, because, well, it's just no fun if everyone doesn't get a piece of the cake.

No antagonizing here, it's a legitimate question and deserves 5 stars, even though for some reason I don't think it'll generate the same audience & popularity from other threads, which are absolute masterpieces.

I love his dominance. It seems to me that when ever he loses....even just once, he is treated as if he is on the way out. He's got to keep winning in order not to get trashed by the media.

I think this year was particularly interesting in that people were at first just expecting that he would decline and perhaps just win one major in 2006. Then even after he won AO and IW and Miami, when he failed to win FO, he was then looked down upon and treated as if he had a huge major flaw and that basically he was a head case who was soon to be a hasbeen. So Roger had to pour in it on and show the media again that instead of being a flawed, head case......he was actually the fittest guy on tour and he managed not to let the FO loss get him down. Instead he ended up having the best year he ever had and set a record for points.

PamV
12-08-2006, 12:49 AM
Yes it is.Bad for my tennis life and bad for mental state.he is so boring...the game is boring when he plays...
And he beats all the players
That's why I hate him

But without Federer it would be pretty lackluster. He's the shinning star that is defining the era. Would you also have said that you wished Laver never existed in his era because he was too dominant?

cmurray
12-08-2006, 12:51 AM
Okaaaay. :confused:

I'm thinking someone has been arguing a little too much, no need to get so defensive over it. :p

I don't want to chase you around and call you retarded or insult you. It's not that yes to some things isn't a fine answer I just found it strange that anyone would give a one word answer to a question which specifically asks for explanation.

So as for the answer it is the fact that it is a player you don't like winning rather than having a dominant figure in the game? If Rafa or Marat were in the same situation would you really enjoy that or find it a little too much?

Actually, I've been trying to avoid arguing for some time now. And I wasn't referring to you in the least (I was making a little joke) - unless you've been calling me retarded and I didn't know about it??? When I said some lovely Federer fans, I meant some of the loonies who quite literally follow me around in threads to look for real or imagined insults to their Messiah. Sometimes I'm even lucky enough to be brought up in threads in which I haven't even posted. I'm gloriously popular that way. :lol:

Yep. mostly my problem with it is that it's Roger, and I've just never liked him that much. I used to think that the problem was that it was a single person winning everything. I realize now that this isn't the case. If Marat were winning everything under the sun, I would be THRILLED. In fact, I've often thought that it's a damn shame that I'm not a Federer fan, because it seems like it would be very rewarding to cheer for a guy who wins all the time.

Honestly, I was just teasing....I wasn't trying to imply that you personally were out to insult me. :hug:

alexa18
12-08-2006, 01:09 AM
it doesn't really bother me but every time I see him play I feel like:zzz: his not the most interesting player to watch:o

Johnny Groove
12-08-2006, 01:18 AM
Actually, I've been trying to avoid arguing for some time now. And I wasn't referring to you in the least (I was making a little joke) - unless you've been calling me retarded and I didn't know about it??? When I said some lovely Federer fans, I meant some of the loonies who quite literally follow me around in threads to look for real or imagined insults to their Messiah. Sometimes I'm even lucky enough to be brought up in threads in which I haven't even posted. I'm gloriously popular that way. :lol:

which is why you should stop beating around the bush and make posts like this:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4453416&postcount=1710

Kalliopeia
12-08-2006, 01:39 AM
Yep. mostly my problem with it is that it's Roger, and I've just never liked him that much. I used to think that the problem was that it was a single person winning everything. I realize now that this isn't the case. If Marat were winning everything under the sun, I would be THRILLED. In fact, I've often thought that it's a damn shame that I'm not a Federer fan, because it seems like it would be very rewarding to cheer for a guy who wins all the time.

I'd be thrilled too, but I'd totally understand if it bothered other people. I certainly would not be rolling my eyes and telling those people that they aren't real tennis fans if they didn't love him too, as some Federer fans tend to do. Because honestly, it's just not that much fun if you don't like the one dominating. And in tennis, unlike in other sports, he's pretty much inescapable.

cmurray
12-08-2006, 02:27 AM
I'd be thrilled too, but I'd totally understand if it bothered other people. I certainly would not be rolling my eyes and telling those people that they aren't real tennis fans if they didn't love him too, as some Federer fans tend to do. Because honestly, it's just not that much fun if you don't like the one dominating. And in tennis, unlike in other sports, he's pretty much inescapable.


Well see...there's where you have it wrong, Kalli. If your favorite player proves himself to be nearly unbeatable, you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to treat fans of all other players with thinly veiled contempt. Because obviously they are complete peasants with no tennis knowledge whatsoever.

You're actually suggesting that you might be tolerant of other viewpoints??? Kalli, that isn't the MTF way. I'd think you would know that by now. :angel:

Kalliopeia
12-08-2006, 02:29 AM
Well see...there's where you have it wrong, Kalli. If your favorite player proves himself to be nearly unbeatable, you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to treat fans of all other players with thinly veiled contempt. Because obviously they are complete peasants with no tennis knowledge whatsoever.

You're actually suggesting that you might be tolerant of other viewpoints??? Kalli, that isn't the MTF way. I'd think you would know that by now. :angel:


I have so much to learn!!

cmurray
12-08-2006, 02:32 AM
I have so much to learn!!

Grasshoppa, I have so much to teach you......

Bagelicious
12-08-2006, 02:52 AM
There's thinly veiled contempt on both sides, my Rafa-loving friends. All Federer fans are only supporting him because he wins and supporting a winner is the only way to compensate for all the things we lack in our lives.

We are all uninteresting, dry-toast eating, ballet-loving bores for even liking his game.

We are morally deficient for supporting a player whose personality isn't prone to energetic celebrations after every winner (imagine how annoying that would be, what with all the amazing shots he manages to pull off).

Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

Fedever
12-08-2006, 03:16 AM
There's thinly veiled contempt on both sides, my Rafa-loving friends. All Federer fans are only supporting him because he wins and supporting a winner is the only way to compensate for all the things we lack in our lives.

We are all uninteresting, dry-toast eating, ballet-loving bores for even liking his game.

We are morally deficient for supporting a player whose personality isn't prone to energetic celebrations after every winner (imagine how annoying that would be, what with all the amazing shots he manages to pull off).

Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

cmurray
12-08-2006, 03:22 AM
There's thinly veiled contempt on both sides, my Rafa-loving friends. All Federer fans are only supporting him because he wins and supporting a winner is the only way to compensate for all the things we lack in our lives.

We are all uninteresting, dry-toast eating, ballet-loving bores for even liking his game.

We are morally deficient for supporting a player whose personality isn't prone to energetic celebrations after every winner (imagine how annoying that would be, what with all the amazing shots he manages to pull off).

Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

I've no contempt whatsoever for most people who like Roger Federer. In fact, I'm even woman enough to realize why he has so many fans - that exquisite tennis and all... What I DO have a problem with is being called ignorant and retarded because I don't share that view. It seems as though liking Rafa is plenty reason enough

Have you ever known me to say "I can't understand how you could POSSIBLY like Roger Federer." ??? Of course not. But I've had that asked of me about Rafa more times than I can count. I've an issue with the bullying, but nothing more than that. Nice to meet you, kettle. ;)

Bagelicious
12-08-2006, 03:34 AM
Have you ever known me to say "I can't understand how you could POSSIBLY like Roger Federer." ??? Of course not. But I've had that asked of me about Rafa more times than I can count. I've an issue with the bullying, but nothing more than that. Nice to meet you, kettle. ;)

Have you ever known me to say "I can't understand how you could possibly like Rafael Nadal?"

You're not the only Rafa fan out there, just like I'm not the only Federer fan. You may not be one of the more, tactless ones, but there's plenty of contemptuous fans on both sides. I just though I'd bring it to your attention.

cmurray
12-08-2006, 03:43 AM
Have you ever known me to say "I can't understand how you could possibly like Rafael Nadal?"

You're not the only Rafa fan out there, just like I'm not the only Federer fan. You may not be one of the more, tactless ones, but there's plenty of contemptuous fans on both sides. I just though I'd bring it to your attention.

I don't believe I've ever accused you of doing so? In fact, I seem to recall mostly getting on pretty well with you. Regardless, point taken.

Havok
12-08-2006, 03:53 AM
Good god it fucking irritates me. I have absolutely nothing against Federer himself (he's a really nice guy, intelligent and pretty much the best tennis player to ever play the game period) but dominance is B-O-R-I-N-G. Dominating for one year, ok. Two years still passes under the "ok" mark, but it's been going on 3-4 years now, give it a rest already :help:. You try and enjoy the tour as a whole, but honestly how can you when every fucking big title is already determined no matter who else has entered once you know ROger is in there (off clay). Please make dominance end. It was so much more fun beforehand where you had a group of guys who were dominating the tour, not primarily one (Nadal only owns clay and Fed, thats it).

Fedex
12-08-2006, 04:31 AM
Poor Naldo :sad: :crying2: :sobbing:
Please, you're not going to be able to sell me the idea that you would not be positively pleased if it was Roddick dominating instead of Federer. Its only ok if your favorite player is dominating, and I can understand that. But please spare us from your pathetic, whiny, bitchy rants about Federer dominating. It gets old real fast.

Metis
12-08-2006, 05:32 AM
Peace people! I think you have all misunderstood the thread starter's intentions.

Definition of the word 'dominance': the acceptance of love from another person, accompanied by increasing responsibility; imperial dominance is an addiction in masculines which ignores the needs of love in the search for a spontaneity which is never complete. analog: submission.

And here is the original post of this thread. I urge you to reconsider your answers according to the above definition of the key word! (I have highlighted some of the important sections)

There's probably been a thread made similar to this before, but I'm not asking if his dominance is bad for tennis. The question here is, is his dominance bad for you ?

Translation: Bad for you (your health, mental state, general attitude, tennis life)
All of the above.

So, this is a question based on personal opinion and not general views, so feel free to be selfish and forget what's good or bad for the game. The only person that matters is you.

Have fun.

I have my reasons for this, aside from the fact that there are dozens of other awful threads right now and it's completely unfair that I've been left out of the fun.

A few signs that it may have become bothersome:
1). Going for months, insisting that even though your username is Federer_Express that you despise Roger and that it's not fair, everyone should lose sometime.
2). Building a shrine of Nadal in your bedroom and anointing him the saviour or some form of hero - more popular, zoro or "Roger Killa", maybe in more basic forms: "Roger beater"
3). You've stopped supporting Roger since he began to dominate, because, well, it's just no fun if everyone doesn't get a piece of the cake.

No antagonizing here, it's a legitimate question and deserves 5 stars, even though for some reason I don't think it'll generate the same audience & popularity from other threads, which are absolute masterpieces.


It's pretty clear to me that everybody submits (sometimes without a fight) to Roger and there's only one person Roger likes to submit to (and honestly, who could blame him for it... ;)). But I completely understand it if people believe that others should also get access to the 'cake' from time to time. :tape:

senorgato
12-08-2006, 06:32 AM
The only thing that bothers me about Roger's dominance right now is that he hasn't won his 15th GS title already, including a French Open, so everyone can just shut up about who's the Greatest.

Oh, and that he only had the chance to whup Sampras' butt once. Again, so everyone would just shut it.

bokehlicious
12-08-2006, 06:57 AM
The only thing that bothers me about Roger's dominance right now is that he hasn't won his 15th GS title already, including a French Open, so everyone can just shut up about who's the Greatest.


:yeah: The day Roger cracks his 15th slam (including a couple of French of course), Pete will nevertheless remain by far the GOAT (unlike Federer, Pete didn't play in a MM tennis era) :worship: :angel: :rolleyes:

senorgato
12-08-2006, 07:45 AM
:yeah: The day Roger cracks his 15th slam (including a couple of French of course), Pete will nevertheless remain by far the GOAT (unlike Federer, Pete didn't play in a MM tennis era) :worship: :angel: :rolleyes:


What's a "MM tennis era"? And that's a load of crap either way you look at it.

Sunset of Age
12-08-2006, 02:25 PM
Thankees, Metis for the above post!

I've tried to avoid posting in this thread for obvious reasons. Fact is, the tards will be out to get me again... without further addressing the subspecies of tards. From some of the very nice :rolleyes: PMs and badreps I recieved I can tell everyone that it's not like it's only Fed who has tards among his fans!

Defending Player A will lead to bashing from tards of players C, D, E, etc. And vice versa. It's unfortunately been like that all along. I've never understood why, as I'm very well capable of liking players for very different reasons (hey, I very much like fish 'n' chips, but I appreciate kaviar too!)
Let alone the idea of hating a player - fact is, we don't even KNOW them! So: PEACE, please, people.

Okay, sorry for this off-topic boring intermezzo.
Back to topic: I don't mind Rogi's dominance at all. Quite in contrary, I feel blessed that I'm allowed to witness one of the greatest players ever perform his excellence at the game. He's not just an athlete, but also an artist, and yeah, that doesn't at all hurt my eyes.
That said, I'm thrilled at anyone who manages to beat him, not just in the past, but in the future as well, whoever it will be. Rogi won't stay forever, and I'm sure he's pretty aware of that fact, too.
And till it's time for him to hand over the Crown: show me more of your beautiful playing, Rogi! :worship:

Castafiore
12-08-2006, 03:04 PM
Why was this thread moved back on page 1?

I think that most of us can agree that Roger has a "beautiful" game from a classic point of view.
Just like many others, I can admire great looking shots. I love Henin's backhand for example.

However, admiring great looking shots is not enough for me. I've never subscribed to the idea that Roger or any sport star is an "artist". I know that others, like claybuster do so, but - I don't see sport that way.

Sports thrives on competition and utter domination is never good for a sport from my point of view.
I admired Lance's professional attitude and his willpower but knowing the winner of the Tour de France at least 3 weeks in advance kills much of the fun. It was great to watch his killer instinct but it's a whole lot more fun for me if it's a nailbiting event. With Lance, you could even predict when he was going to attack and how the rest would react.
I was a huge Schumi fan and I can't say that I was exactly sobbing when he won race after race in his dominant year. Of course I preferred to see him win but I had a lot more fun when he was pushed. Before that year, I would get up in the middle of the night to watch F1 if I had to but in that dominant year, I didn't (due to the predictablility). I watched much less of it. So, even when it's one of my own favorites, I still prefer tough battles over utter domination.

Sport without tough competition, the element of surprise,...is never good in my viewpoint. Like I said, beauty isn't enough for me.

That said: of course, it's not Roger's fault. He does what he's supposed to do: win and it's up to others to really challenge him for victories.

PamV
12-08-2006, 04:41 PM
Sports thrives on competition and utter domination is never good for a sport from my point of view.


Sport without tough competition, the element of surprise,...is never good in my viewpoint. Like I said, beauty enough isn't enough for me.

That said: of course, it's not Roger's fault. He does what he's supposed to do: win and it's up to others to really challenge him for victories.


To those who say that Roger is only dominant because the rest of the field is so weak......well if that were true then without Roger all we would have to look at is a weak field playing itself. That would really be boring.

Nadal is dominant on clay....he's won FO, MC, Rome, Barcelona two years in a row. Does that mean he has no competition and you hope someone beats him a few times on clay in 2007 to make it interesting?

Roger's game is both beautiful and exciting and furthermore, it's not like he wins everything easily. Some times there are easy wins and sometimes there is a hard fought win. (That's the same for every player.) Sampras also had plenty of easy wins....like Wimbledon final against Pioline. People now are just forgetting that Sampras had plenty of easy wins.....they think he only faced Agassi, Becker, Edberg in finals and that they were all in the their prime at the same time and that all Sampras did was struggle in epic matches. Pete's playing style allowed him to win without as much effort as what Roger puts in to win right now. Sure there are always a few one sided matches for any #1 player.....but overall Pete won mainly by viture of his big serve setting up the point for an easy volley put away, or it was an ace. So to me Pete's dominance was truly boring because there wasn't much variety in just watching a servathon.

It's really lucky for tennis that Roger came along when he did. Before Roger, the thought was that the next big tennis star would be another big server like Sampras and especially in American tennis the focus was all on the serve and not on having a complete game or on stamina and fitness. Roger brought the old school style back with his variety and classic technique. He has a complete game which is something we should hope kids will want to copy.

Eden
12-08-2006, 09:29 PM
What's a "MM tennis era"?

I guess MM stands for MickeyMouse ;)

Haven't you followed the latest discussions about the so-called weak generation of players? You can find several threads on GM about it.

senorgato
12-09-2006, 12:36 AM
I guess MM stands for MickeyMouse ;)

Haven't you followed the latest discussions about the so-called weak generation of players? You can find several threads on GM about it.

Honestly, no I haven't followed those. I'm very selective about which posts I look into. If a thread is more than 3 pages long, I don't even bother because this place is all about the constant back-and-forth of who's better than whom. It's actually pretty ridiculous. I'm even more selective of what threads I post to.

But thanks for the clarification. And the only reason anyone would call it MickeyMouse tennis is because Roger makes it look that way.

ReservoirCat
12-09-2006, 01:21 AM
It doesn't bother me at all that Roger blows everyone off the court. I hope he continues to do so. :angel:

He's dominant everywhere.:aplot:

Gulliver
12-09-2006, 01:28 AM
From what I've read on various threads and on various forums the Fed fans are the last ones to think that the outcome of his matches is predictable. Most of them are praying, having heart attacks, waiting for him to be broken when serving for the set, and doom scenarios are rife. They don't view him as dominant until the umpire says GSM Federer. And post match analysis nearly always focuses on the UEs with much advice on how he can improve. So dominance in end result more often than not, but the process is what IMO keeps it from being boring.

CmonAussie
12-09-2006, 02:08 AM
From what I've read on various threads and on various forums the Fed fans are the last ones to think that the outcome of his matches is predictable. Most of them are praying, having heart attacks, waiting for him to be broken when serving for the set, and doom scenarios are rife. They don't view him as dominant until the umpire says GSM Federer. And post match analysis nearly always focuses on the UEs with much advice on how he can improve. So dominance in end result more often than not, but the process is what IMO keeps it from being boring.

:wavey:
Good point:cool:

At AO he could have lost to Haas in Rd4, Davydenko in the QF, & Baggy in the final;) ... in the end Roger`s mental strength saw him through:worship:

Halle was another
FO SFs
Toronto too
USO final was on the line mid-way thru the 3rd set
Tokyo nearly lost to Suzuki:eek:
Basel nearly lost to Paradorn
TMC down 3mps against Roddick

... It`s not boring when Federer is put under pressure like this:p

Not to mention him losing 4-finals to Nadal this year:sad:

Havok
12-09-2006, 03:19 AM
:wavey:
Good point:cool:

At AO he could have lost to Haas in Rd4, Davydenko in the QF, & Baggy in the final;) ... in the end Roger`s mental strength saw him through:worship:

Halle was another
FO SFs
Toronto too
USO final was on the line mid-way thru the 3rd set
Tokyo nearly lost to Suzuki:eek:
Basel nearly lost to Paradorn
TMC down 3mps against Roddick

... It`s not boring when Federer is put under pressure like this:p

Not to mention him losing 4-finals to Nadal this year:sad:


All these close matches account for probably 10-15% of all the matches Roger played throughout the course of the year. Not enough imo. If he's constantly pushed in big matches and everytime he plays a top player (though it does seem like trend is going this way somewhat) then it wouldn't be as boring, at least to me. Still boring because he's always winning, but at least the matches will be competitive and somewhat exciting, not like his conntinuous waxing at the hands of James Blake :o.

Fedever
12-09-2006, 04:30 AM
To those who say that Roger is only dominant because the rest of the field is so weak......well if that were true then without Roger all we would have to look at is a weak field playing itself. That would really be boring.

Nadal is dominant on clay....he's won FO, MC, Rome, Barcelona two years in a row. Does that mean he has no competition and you hope someone beats him a few times on clay in 2007 to make it interesting?

Roger's game is both beautiful and exciting and furthermore, it's not like he wins everything easily. Some times there are easy wins and sometimes there is a hard fought win. (That's the same for every player.) Sampras also had plenty of easy wins....like Wimbledon final against Pioline. People now are just forgetting that Sampras had plenty of easy wins.....they think he only faced Agassi, Becker, Edberg in finals and that they were all in the their prime at the same time and that all Sampras did was struggle in epic matches. Pete's playing style allowed him to win without as much effort as what Roger puts in to win right now. Sure there are always a few one sided matches for any #1 player.....but overall Pete won mainly by viture of his big serve setting up the point for an easy volley put away, or it was an ace. So to me Pete's dominance was truly boring because there wasn't much variety in just watching a servathon.

It's really lucky for tennis that Roger came along when he did. Before Roger, the thought was that the next big tennis star would be another big server like Sampras and especially in American tennis the focus was all on the serve and not on having a complete game or on stamina and fitness. Roger brought the old school style back with his variety and classic technique. He has a complete game which is something we should hope kids will want to copy.

I couldn't agree more!:)

Bagelicious
12-09-2006, 05:55 AM
The only thing that bothers me about Roger's dominance right now is that he hasn't won his 15th GS title already, including a French Open, so everyone can just shut up about who's the Greatest.

Oh, and that he only had the chance to whup Sampras' butt once. Again, so everyone would just shut it.

... I think I love you.

FluffyYellowBall
12-09-2006, 07:33 AM
Im not the least bit bothered b roers dominence. yes, i would have liked to see a better TMC final but this was a great year for roger and as for the OTHER plaers who previously beat him *cough cough*, they werent at their best during the hard court season. It was almost like a trial and error season for nadal

aussie_fan
12-09-2006, 08:35 AM
no not really, only when he plays my favourite players though. But really, we are witnessing something special in Federer and in 20 years time everyone will be complaining about how much we want federer playing again.

silverarrows
12-09-2006, 09:02 AM
There will always be a "shining star" in every era(Laver, Borg, Sampy), and that's what makes tennis history memorable. ;) Were so lucky that we are witnessing a player who will re-write the record and history books. :cool:

Joyce_23
12-09-2006, 11:56 AM
I would be lying if I said it didn't bother me. Yes, I love him as a tennis player, the guy is brilliant but I miss the excitement I used to have whenever there was a Grand Slam. I have no doubt what so ever that he will win the AO and I really don't like that. Not the fact that he will win but just the fact that all the tension is gone. It seems odd since I was a Sampras fan but Pete never dominated like Roger does and there was always an interesting rivalry with Agassi. In conclusion: I like the fact that we get to witness him rewrite history but I'm not really a fan of his total domination.

Joyce_23
12-09-2006, 12:08 PM
Sure there are always a few one sided matches for any #1 player.....but overall Pete won mainly by viture of his big serve setting up the point for an easy volley put away, or it was an ace. So to me Pete's dominance was truly boring because there wasn't much variety in just watching a servathon.

I think that may be the sole reason why I have trouble with Fed's domination. It's not the guy itself nor his tennis. I think he's the best and I even think he's better then Pete. Yes, I see that too. What drives me absolutely crazy is the lack of respect for Sampras just because Federer came along. Pete was not just a serve, yes his serve was his strongest weapon but he was not all about that. He had a complete game, much stronger then most people give him credit for now. He set the records Roger is chasing now and he did it not even four years ago. To see that people can dismiss a great player so easily really annoys me. But I guess life is like that, in ten years everyone will be busy downtalking Fed and talking about the new GOAT without taking into consideration what Roger has done for the game.

Oriental_Rain
12-09-2006, 12:22 PM
it doesnt bother me coz first, I am a fan. second, hes a beauty to watch. third, hes a good ambassador for tennis :worship:

PamV
12-09-2006, 01:33 PM
no not really, only when he plays my favourite players though. But really, we are witnessing something special in Federer and in 20 years time everyone will be complaining about how much we want federer playing again.

That's true. It's such a double standard...... If Roger had only won 1 major this year, people would have said he's past his prime and a shell of his former self. Do the complainers ever really what his matches? He doesn't win everything easily.

PamV
12-09-2006, 02:07 PM
I think that may be the sole reason why I have trouble with Fed's domination. It's not the guy itself nor his tennis. I think he's the best and I even think he's better then Pete. Yes, I see that too. What drives me absolutely crazy is the lack of respect for Sampras just because Federer came along. Pete was not just a serve, yes his serve was his strongest weapon but he was not all about that. He had a complete game, much stronger then most people give him credit for now. He set the records Roger is chasing now and he did it not even four years ago. To see that people can dismiss a great player so easily really annoys me. But I guess life is like that, in ten years everyone will be busy downtalking Fed and talking about the new GOAT without taking into consideration what Roger has done for the game.

You are mixing up two things.....Federer himself and what some Federer fans think about Sampras. What does one thing have to do with the other? Why should what Fed fans think of Sampras affect your like or dislike of Roger's dominance?

I only brought Sampras into my argument in order to prove the point to current day Fed bashers that in fact, one of the greatest Number 1's of all time (Sampras) was able to win matches with less worry and less baseline work than what Federer does today. My argument was directed at those who keep on saying that Federer wins with such little effort as compared to greats of the past.

Even before Roger came along I thought that watching Pete was boring. Sorry....but I think back then I wasn't into the game as much and just on the surface it looked like Pete was in servathons against opponents who were helpless. Something in Roger motivates me to want him to win and to care enough to follow every match he plays. I never felt that about Pete. Maybe if I was able to follow all Pete's matches and know more about Pete back in his prime I would have cared. However Pete was more of a private person back then. With the internet we are now able to know players much better. The one time I remember rooting for Pete was when he was facing Rusedski at the 2000 USOpen. Rusedski was calling Pete an old hasbeen, so then Pete became the underdog.

PamV
12-09-2006, 02:10 PM
There will always be a "shining star" in every era(Laver, Borg, Sampy), and that's what makes tennis history memorable. ;) Were so lucky that we are witnessing a player who will re-write the record and history books. :cool:

True. An era with no standout #1 would be nondescript and looked at as a dry period. When we look at tennis history we always site the former greats who won 7 or more majors or who dominated for a long period.

PamV
12-09-2006, 02:14 PM
Im not the least bit bothered b roers dominence. yes, i would have liked to see a better TMC final but this was a great year for roger and as for the OTHER plaers who previously beat him *cough cough*, they werent at their best during the hard court season. It was almost like a trial and error season for nadal

Even if the TMC final was one sided there were several tense matches for Roger. He lost the 1st set in his RR match to Nalbandian. He was down match points to Roddick in their RR match. There was a lot of tension in the SF match against Nadal and Roger produced some wildly good shots.

Nothing to complain about really as far as the excitement factor if you look at the TMC as a whole.

PamV
12-09-2006, 02:22 PM
Yep. mostly my problem with it is that it's Roger, and I've just never liked him that much. I used to think that the problem was that it was a single person winning everything. I realize now that this isn't the case. If Marat were winning everything under the sun, I would be THRILLED. In fact, I've often thought that it's a damn shame that I'm not a Federer fan, because it seems like it would be very rewarding to cheer for a guy who wins all the time.



Good to see this honesty. I really think there is an intangible likeability factor that goes in to about 90% of whom we root for. It's a personal preference matter and there is not much control over it, as far as I can see.

LK_22
12-09-2006, 02:35 PM
Not really....

PamV
12-09-2006, 02:39 PM
I would be lying if I said it didn't bother me. Yes, I love him as a tennis player, the guy is brilliant but I miss the excitement I used to have whenever there was a Grand Slam. I have no doubt what so ever that he will win the AO and I really don't like that. Not the fact that he will win but just the fact that all the tension is gone. It seems odd since I was a Sampras fan but Pete never dominated like Roger does and there was always an interesting rivalry with Agassi. In conclusion: I like the fact that we get to witness him rewrite history but I'm not really a fan of his total domination.

But Sampras was not always facing Agassi in a Major final. Sampras won every time that he played Agassi at a USOpen match or a Wimbledon match in any round. Right now you are glossing over Pete's career and just thinking of highlights. Pete also had plenty of easy matches and plenty of easy one sided finals at majors. That is normal in the course of a long career.


Roger has had plenty of tough matches, that you might have forgotten.

Remember the 2004 Windy QF against Agassi that went to 5 sets? That could have gone either way it was very tense and crazy because Roger hates the wind.

Didn't he have to beat two nemesis opponents at the AO 2004 (Hewitt and Nalbandian) ??? Those were not easy wins.

Remember that TMC SF match with Safin where the 2nd set tie break when to 20-18 ?

For that matter remember Roger's SF loss to Safin at the AO 2005. That was a high quality tough match that went 5 sets.

In 2006 Roger was in tough battles at MC, Rome, and FO and he lost to Nadal. Those were tense struggles and on Roger's worst surface.

In 2006 Roddick gave Roger two battles. The USOpen final and the TMC RR match. In both cases Roddick gave Roger a scare.

DwyaneWade
12-09-2006, 04:45 PM
But Sampras was not always facing Agassi in a Major final. Sampras won every time that he played Agassi at a USOpen match or a Wimbledon match in any round. Right now you are glossing over Pete's career and just thinking of highlights. Pete also had plenty of easy matches and plenty of easy one sided finals at majors. That is normal in the course of a long career.


Roger has had plenty of tough matches, that you might have forgotten.

Remember the 2004 Windy QF against Agassi that went to 5 sets? That could have gone either way it was very tense and crazy because Roger hates the wind.

Didn't he have to beat two nemesis opponents at the AO 2004 (Hewitt and Nalbandian) ??? Those were not easy wins.

Remember that TMC SF match with Safin where the 2nd set tie break when to 20-18 ?

For that matter remember Roger's SF loss to Safin at the AO 2005. That was a high quality tough match that went 5 sets.

In 2006 Roger was in tough battles at MC, Rome, and FO and he lost to Nadal. Those were tense struggles and on Roger's worst surface.

In 2006 Roddick gave Roger two battles. The USOpen final and the TMC RR match. In both cases Roddick gave Roger a scare.

Eh...maybe at TMC but Roger was never in danger of losing the USO...Roddick was playing out of his mind and STILL was only barely hanging around.

Federer's dominance does bother me (but let me clarify). I laud Roger for his accomplisments and believe him to be the GOAT just based purely on peak form and the past three years.

But as a fan I do feel a lack of surprise to be disheartening at times; that is why I kind of stopped following tennis outside the slams until Nadal went on his mini-tear against Roger on clay this year. The prospect of a rivarly sucked me back into the sport and now when I watch Federer I usually root for the other player to win because: a) we will probably get an amazing match and b) I am curious to see how Roger reacts when his dominance starts fading. That is, will he pull a Sampras and start focusing only on the biggies or will he push himself at every single tournament.

cmurray
12-09-2006, 06:34 PM
I don't mean this to be insulting in the least....but I've notice something VERY interesting. Dedicated Federer fans really sweat it when, say, Roddick gets close to beating him. Whereas we non-fans are thinking the whole time "He's gonna pull it out just like he always does. Ho-hum." I'm always truly surprised when Roger loses. Even when his opponent has match point, in the back of my mind, I'm still assuming that Roger will win. You could have scraped me off the floor with a putty knife when Safin actually beat him at the 05 AO.

stebs
12-09-2006, 06:59 PM
I don't mean this to be insulting in the least....but I've notice something VERY interesting. Dedicated Federer fans really sweat it when, say, Roddick gets close to beating him. Whereas we non-fans are thinking the whole time "He's gonna pull it out just like he always does. Ho-hum." I'm always truly surprised when Roger loses. Even when his opponent has match point, in the back of my mind, I'm still assuming that Roger will win. You could have scraped me off the floor with a putty knife when Safin actually beat him at the 05 AO.

I'd say that's pretty usual for all fan bases. You see some of the Croatards starting to panic about Mario Ancic if he's up 5-0 40-0 and loses one point. I mean, I'm sure that you get more edgy about Rafa being in a tight situation than I would which is natural.

As a matter of fact I was just thinking that personally, I would probably prefer it if tennis was a little more open. I'd like to see some great battles and open fights for GS titles. I am not just talking about Roger, when it came to clay this year everyone was saying, "Thank god we get some tennis where we don't know the result". In fact, it turned out that the clay season was even less interesting than the rest of the year.

The thing is, now that Roger has gotten to where he is I would far prefer to see him become the GOAT or at least win the FO and complete the career slam and a few more achievements. However, if he had never started this incredible 3 year streak of destruction I think I would prefer a slightly more open field.

Naranoc
12-09-2006, 07:02 PM
It's been said before in this thread, but the answer to the thread question is yes and no.

No: It's fantastic to see someone playing brilliant, and for the most part untouchable tennis. He's not going to be playing at this level forever, so we may as well appreciate it while it lasts.

Yes: I'd like to watch a tournament where I don't have a clear cut idea of who's going to be holding the trophy in 1/2 weeks. For me, it would make the tour a lot more intriguing if there were various players who all have a stab at winning. 'Variety is the spice of life' ; dominance = eventually tedious if you're not a Federer fan.

PamV
12-09-2006, 07:23 PM
I don't mean this to be insulting in the least....but I've notice something VERY interesting. Dedicated Federer fans really sweat it when, say, Roddick gets close to beating him. Whereas we non-fans are thinking the whole time "He's gonna pull it out just like he always does. Ho-hum." I'm always truly surprised when Roger loses. Even when his opponent has match point, in the back of my mind, I'm still assuming that Roger will win. You could have scraped me off the floor with a putty knife when Safin actually beat him at the 05 AO.

I notice that too. I think that's because we Fed fans are paying much closer attention to each point and the look on Roger's face etc.

I was in total shock when Roger some how managed to turn the tide in his RR match with Roddick in the TMC. Roddick was unbreakable for two sets. Roddick is a very tough opponent when he is on and believing in himself.

PamV
12-09-2006, 07:33 PM
Yes: I'd like to watch a tournament where I don't have a clear cut idea of who's going to be holding the trophy in 1/2 weeks. For me, it would make the tour a lot more intriguing if there were various players who all have a stab at winning. 'Variety is the spice of life' ; dominance = eventually tedious if you're not a Federer fan.

Then that's the difference between how Fed fans think and the non-Fed fans. I never assume Roger is going to win any tournament or any match. In 2006 he had to struggle to win Halle. I think almost every match went to 3 sets. Then at Wimbledon Roger drew in his quarter all the same guys who gave him trouble in Halle. I was on pins and needles with Roger facing Gasquet first round! Each of his matches had the potential for an upset. For that matter at the start of the tournament even JMac was saying that Roger might not make it out of his quarter. Then after Roger won those matches decidedly JMac did a flip flop and called it an easy draw.

I agree most with whomever said that it all boils down to who we like. If we like a certain player then we view that guy as interesting and are happy if he dominates. If a guy we hate dominates then it's boring. I don't think we need to justify our own personal preferences, but we should realize that what ever we like is our opinion and doesn't mean that is what the rest of the world thinks.

cmurray
12-09-2006, 07:40 PM
I'd say that's pretty usual for all fan bases. You see some of the Croatards starting to panic about Mario Ancic if he's up 5-0 40-0 and loses one point. I mean, I'm sure that you get more edgy about Rafa being in a tight situation than I would which is natural.

As a matter of fact I was just thinking that personally, I would probably prefer it if tennis was a little more open. I'd like to see some great battles and open fights for GS titles. I am not just talking about Roger, when it came to clay this year everyone was saying, "Thank god we get some tennis where we don't know the result". In fact, it turned out that the clay season was even less interesting than the rest of the year.

The thing is, now that Roger has gotten to where he is I would far prefer to see him become the GOAT or at least win the FO and complete the career slam and a few more achievements. However, if he had never started this incredible 3 year streak of destruction I think I would prefer a slightly more open field.


All very true. I *do* bite my nails a little more when Rafa plays - especially on clay. Weird, I know. But when he plays on, say, grass, I'm not really expecting him to win, so when he does, it's like an added bonus. But on clay, where expectations are SO high for him, I watch with my eyes half closed - almost as if I think if he loses one match, he's never going to win anything ever again. Whereas everyone else is like "So Rafa won on clay. Big hairy deal". to which I reply, "but Roger ALMOST had him in Rome. Didn't you SEE that match!!!????!!!????" :p

That being said, men's tennis was more....interesting when every tournament was a crap shoot. The only problem was that you ended up having some strange players in finals (martin verkerk anyone?).

PamV
12-09-2006, 07:41 PM
Eh...maybe at TMC but Roger was never in danger of losing the USO...Roddick was playing out of his mind and STILL was only barely hanging around.

Federer's dominance does bother me (but let me clarify). I laud Roger for his accomplisments and believe him to be the GOAT just based purely on peak form and the past three years.

But as a fan I do feel a lack of surprise to be disheartening at times; that is why I kind of stopped following tennis outside the slams until Nadal went on his mini-tear against Roger on clay this year. The prospect of a rivarly sucked me back into the sport and now when I watch Federer I usually root for the other player to win because: a) we will probably get an amazing match and b) I am curious to see how Roger reacts when his dominance starts fading. That is, will he pull a Sampras and start focusing only on the biggies or will he push himself at every single tournament.


It seems to me that Roddick was pretty tough in sets 2 and 3 of the USO final. If Roger hadn't broken Roddick when he did in the 3rd set, who knows? In any case, to a Fed Fan, that match was a roller coaster ride and very scary. I much prefered watching Roger play Hewitt in 2004 USO.

Don't forget the fact that part of Roger's battle is also to have the stamina to go from winning one tournament on to winning the next one....sometimes with just 2 or 3 days of rest. That's not easy. I don't think Roger would even play as many tournaments as he does if it weren't for the fact that Nadal has a lock on the clay season and gets over 2,000 points from that every year.

cmurray
12-09-2006, 07:45 PM
Then that's the difference between how Fed fans think and the non-Fed fans. I never assume Roger is going to win any tournament or any match. In 2006 he had to struggle to win Halle. I think almost every match went to 3 sets. Then at Wimbledon Roger drew in his quarter all the same guys who gave him trouble in Halle. I was on pins and needles with Roger facing Gasquet first round! Each of his matches had the potential for an upset. For that matter at the start of the tournament even JMac was saying that Roger might not make it out of his quarter. Then after Roger won those matches decidedly JMac did a flip flop and called it an easy draw.

I agree most with whomever said that it all boils down to who we like. If we like a certain player then we view that guy as interesting and are happy if he dominates. If a guy we hate dominates then it's boring. I don't think we need to justify our own personal preferences, but we should realize that what ever we like is our opinion and doesn't mean that is what the rest of the world thinks.


Halle was....weird. Honestly, though he says otherwise, I think Rafa threw him for a loop when he beat Roger in Paris. Roge was just off his game a tad. For about 10 minutes, I actually thought he might not defend Wimby....that was until he dismantled everyone in his quarter of the draw.

Fuego Frío
12-09-2006, 07:48 PM
it bothers me. ATP is getting kinda boring now, u can basically write federer's name in the wimbledon cup as well as the ao and the us open. the wta is much better for tennis. more open

PamV
12-09-2006, 07:50 PM
All very true. I *do* bite my nails a little more when Rafa plays - especially on clay. Weird, I know. But when he plays on, say, grass, I'm not really expecting him to win, so when he does, it's like an added bonus. But on clay, where expectations are SO high for him, I watch with my eyes half closed - almost as if I think if he loses one match, he's never going to win anything ever again. Whereas everyone else is like "So Rafa won on clay. Big hairy deal". to which I reply, "but Roger ALMOST had him in Rome. Didn't you SEE that match!!!????!!!????" :p

That being said, men's tennis was more....interesting when every tournament was a crap shoot. The only problem was that you ended up having some strange players in finals (martin verkerk anyone?).

I have exactly the same feelings when Roger is playing. He is expected to win so when he does lose it seems to mean much more than when other players lose...... people will say he's over the hill right away. So many matches were very close and only won by sheer resilience and concentration.

I don't agree that tennis is more interesting when it's a crap shoot. For example Hamburg and Paris were more boring this year. If you have Robredo and Davydenko playing each other you don't know who is going to win......but you probably don't care either unless you are one of their fans. It ends up boiling down to who is less fatigued....big deal.

PamV
12-09-2006, 07:55 PM
it bothers me. ATP is getting kinda boring now, u can basically write federer's name in the wimbledon cup as well as the ao and the us open. the wta is much better for tennis. more open

Did you think it was good for tennis when Laver won the calendar grand slam in 1962 and 1969 ? Did you mind when Borg won 5 Wimbledons and 5 French Opens, each in a row? Was it bad for tennis when Sampras won 7 Wimbledon's?

Not too long ago people were putting down Roger because he didn't start winning majors until he was 22 years old. He is just making up for lost time now.

cmurray
12-09-2006, 07:58 PM
I have exactly the same feelings when Roger is playing. He is expected to win so when he does lose it seems to mean much more than when other players lose...... people will say he's over the hill right away. So many matches were very close and only won by sheer resilience and concentration.

I don't agree that tennis is more interesting when it's a crap shoot. For example Halle and Paris were more boring this year. If you have Robredo and Davydenko playing each other you don't know who is going to win......but you probably don't care either unless you are one of their fans. It ends up boiling down to who is less fatigued....big deal.


I agree to some extent. I certainly don't want uncertainty at the expense of quality play....but I admit that I *did* find tennis a little more exciting when every tournament was up for grabs. But I can understand you're viewpoint as well. Bad tennis is a high price to pay for an open field.

And may I just say that this is BY FAR the most civilized "federer's dominance" discussion I've ever seen on MTF? I'm impressed. :)

DwyaneWade
12-09-2006, 08:20 PM
It seems to me that Roddick was pretty tough in sets 2 and 3 of the USO final. If Roger hadn't broken Roddick when he did in the 3rd set, who knows? In any case, to a Fed Fan, that match was a roller coaster ride and very scary. I much prefered watching Roger play Hewitt in 2004 USO.

Don't forget the fact that part of Roger's battle is also to have the stamina to go from winning one tournament on to winning the next one....sometimes with just 2 or 3 days of rest. That's not easy. I don't think Roger would even play as many tournaments as he does if it weren't for the fact that Nadal has a lock on the clay season and gets over 2,000 points from that every year.

He would have beaten him in the tiebreak. Roddick suckered me into thinking he could win for about 10 minutes. But he couldn't touch Roger's serve at that point.

I think every fan is paranoid about their favorite losing; but just because you as a fan were afraid he would lose doesn't mean he was actually going to lose. He was never in danger of losing that match. In fact, at the slams last year, I can think of only 6 matches I thought he was in danger of losing: Baghdatis at Aus Open, Nalby at RG, Nadal at RG, Nadal at Wimbly, and Blake at US. The fact he went 5-1 in those matches is a testament to his consistency.

I think what Roger is doing week in and out is very impressive; I wonder though if he doesn't win RG this year whether he will struggle mentally through Wimbledon. This year he escaped disaster in Halle but he may not be as fortunate or as clutch next year. Once the streak is broken, he could get taken out at Wimbly (same could be said for Nadal at RG).

I can't wait for someone to step up their "A" game and take Fed out on grass and Nadal out on clay; and hopefully it will be those two ending each other's streak, that would be great for tennis.

DwyaneWade
12-09-2006, 08:22 PM
I agree to some extent. I certainly don't want uncertainty at the expense of quality play....but I admit that I *did* find tennis a little more exciting when every tournament was up for grabs. But I can understand you're viewpoint as well. Bad tennis is a high price to pay for an open field.

And may I just say that this is BY FAR the most civilized "federer's dominance" discussion I've ever seen on MTF? I'm impressed. :)

Like in 2003ish right? That was the best of it; Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, plus Hewitt and Safin.

But before that....Ugh. The Sampras era from about 1997-2002 was absolutely awful in terms of excitement/great matches. Outside of Guga, Rafter, and Wimbly 2001 of course :D

PamV
12-09-2006, 10:38 PM
Halle was....weird. Honestly, though he says otherwise, I think Rafa threw him for a loop when he beat Roger in Paris. Roge was just off his game a tad. For about 10 minutes, I actually thought he might not defend Wimby....that was until he dismantled everyone in his quarter of the draw.

My take on all of that is that Roger's backhand was fatigued by the time of the French Open. He had won IW and Miami back to back. Then he got to the finals of MC, Rome, and the French Open. That is a lot when clay is not a players best surface. I don't know if Roger saw it the same as me, but I felt the real disappointment of losing FO was from the backstabbing by the media and former advocates like JMac. Getting to all those clay finals for the first time was a big accomplishment for Roger, yet he was treated as if he were a third rate putz. I couldn't believe how hot and cold the media was with him. If he had won the French Open he would have been the proclaimed the best player of all time. Since he lost it he was proclaimed a nervous head case. No one bothered to realize that he could be fatigued from the string of finals he was in.

So by the time of Halle, I think Roger was still recovering physically. I was really nervous about his Wimby quarter. What a relief he could get through that.

PamV
12-09-2006, 10:44 PM
He would have beaten him in the tiebreak. Roddick suckered me into thinking he could win for about 10 minutes. But he couldn't touch Roger's serve at that point.

I think every fan is paranoid about their favorite losing; but just because you as a fan were afraid he would lose doesn't mean he was actually going to lose. He was never in danger of losing that match. In fact, at the slams last year, I can think of only 6 matches I thought he was in danger of losing: Baghdatis at Aus Open, Nalby at RG, Nadal at RG, Nadal at Wimbly, and Blake at US. The fact he went 5-1 in those matches is a testament to his consistency.

I think what Roger is doing week in and out is very impressive; I wonder though if he doesn't win RG this year whether he will struggle mentally through Wimbledon. This year he escaped disaster in Halle but he may not be as fortunate or as clutch next year. Once the streak is broken, he could get taken out at Wimbly (same could be said for Nadal at RG).

I can't wait for someone to step up their "A" game and take Fed out on grass and Nadal out on clay; and hopefully it will be those two ending each other's streak, that would be great for tennis.

The thing with Roddick is that he doesn't seem to do well in tie breaks, but we never know when coach Connors is going to work on that weakness and turn the tide. I just would not assume something in advance. Connors has already made great strides in getting Roddick to improve his fitness to the point where he can stay in long rallies and be more aggressive.

Of course, I am hoping Roger can win as many Wimbledon's in a row as possible. When Roger's gone he will be gone.....but I hope he leaves a nice legacy that we can talk about for generations.

speedemonV12
12-10-2006, 01:14 AM
Publicly, I would love to see Federer win as much as possible.

Personally. I hate it. I wish that there was more competition for him. He is wining a lot, and for players that are coming up on tour, it will be very hard for them to even get close to touching his records. Not because he is such an amazing player ( he is one of the best ever) but because he has not had the competition that other generations of tennis had. Back in the 80's, Borg, McEnroe, Conners, Vilas, Lendal, and im sure im missing a few. These guys all played about the same time, and it was great for the game. They didnt hold all the records, but were still recognized as some of the best players ever. Im not saying that Federer would for sure still not hold all the records that he does. But if there were more people to give him trouble, maybe he would choke, or just get tight, a larger toll on his body. He might not win as much.

Eden
12-10-2006, 12:36 PM
Halle was....weird. Honestly, though he says otherwise, I think Rafa threw him for a loop when he beat Roger in Paris. Roge was just off his game a tad. For about 10 minutes, I actually thought he might not defend Wimby....that was until he dismantled everyone in his quarter of the draw.

Although Halle was beside Cincinatti probably the tournament where Roger didn't played his best tennis this year Roger has shown for me during the Gerry Weber Open something which he is often accused of non fans to be missed: Fighting spirit and mental strength.

The French Open final was disappointing for Roger. He had lost one of his most important matches in his career. But like a few times before when he had some frustrating losses Roger came back stronger from a defeat. This time not after a break as he had to play the next tournament within a few days. Roger could have lost in Halle to Gasquet and surely against Rochus, but he was able to come trough and get enough self-confidence for the Wimbledon tournament. There he got a difficult draw but he could play exempted - until the final where surely all memories off the whole Nadal rivalry came up again. The pressure on Rogers shoulders was huge, but this time he was able to handle it.