Is it Roger's dominance or his tennis? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is it Roger's dominance or his tennis?

cmurray
10-01-2006, 05:39 PM
This is a serious completely non-bashing question that I have for Federer lovers. Why is it that you like him so much? I mean, is it the beauty of his game? His personality? The fact that he wins so often and it's rewarding to back a winner?
A combination of these things?

I ask because different players appeal to me for different reasons. I like Rafa because of his intensity, because he strikes me as a really nice guy and because he wins. Yep, I admit it. It's fun to cheer for somebody who knows how to win.

But Marat...well, my liking him has NOTHING to do with his ability to win (obviously) and more to do with his game and his...passion. Plus he just entertains the hell out of me. I put Marcos in this category as well. Thanks in advance for your honesty.

Ariadne
10-01-2006, 05:45 PM
I dont get his winner's checks, my life isnt in any way changed on paper if he wins Slams, but still I am wildly passionate about this guy's career and astonishing ability with the racquet. Why?

In short, maybe I believe that if this guy-- so graceful under pressure, crazy successful but truly humble, generous, well-spoken, beautiful strokes, respectful of history, etc -- wins Slams and titles, and makes history, it might somehow have a boomerang effect on all the ugliness out there.

Maybe other people will also behave with more respect, grace, humilty, and create something beautiful. We badly need more beautiful things in the world, more grace and quiet confidence. It's wacky from a psychological standpoint, but that fuels it for me, logical or not. I'm no celebrity junkie, and worship at no altars, but I just feel there's something right with the world when this guy plays, and especially when he wins. I oddly feel more connected to society, and life makes more sense, with Roger Fed at No. 1, with a bullet.

Himura
10-01-2006, 05:46 PM
He`s game. His movement, shotmaking and his tactical sense

Ceri
10-01-2006, 05:53 PM
^^^ yep, exactly. His game is why I like Roger Federer. I don't support players just because they are on a winning streak, that never comes into it for me. I mean, I support players who rarely win titles - it's their game, first and foremosr, then their on-court/off-court persona that appeals second.

BlakeJamitis
10-01-2006, 05:57 PM
As an American, I was a Roddick fan based on nationality. Then I sat down & watched one of their matches a couple of years ago. I wanted to hate Federer but his game is beautiful. I've never seen anything like it in my 20 years of watching tennis.

atheneglaukopis
10-01-2006, 06:11 PM
This is a serious completely non-bashing question that I have for Federer lovers. Why is it that you like him so much? I mean, is it the beauty of his game? His personality? The fact that he wins so often and it's rewarding to back a winner?
A combination of these things?

I ask because different players appeal to me for different reasons. I like Rafa because of his intensity, because he strikes me as a really nice guy and because he wins. Yep, I admit it. It's fun to cheer for somebody who knows how to win.

But Marat...well, my liking him has NOTHING to do with his ability to win (obviously) and more to do with his game and his...passion. Plus he just entertains the hell out of me. I put Marcos in this category as well. Thanks in advance for your honesty.Beautiful tennis is the number one factor. With the exception of Nadal, all my favorites have classically beautiful games.

All that winning is the reason Federer is my absolute favorite over all the other players with beautiful games. For one thing, I admire his ability to deliver week in, week out. For another, dominance just makes me :bowdown:. But if it were, say, Roddick dominating the tour, I would admire in an abstract way, but I wouldn't watch.

While I am a fan of his personality, and it makes me proud to be a Federer fan, it's not a reason I'm a fan, if that makes any sense. I'm a fan of some very different personalities, including Federer's (calm), Baghdatis's & Santoro's (cheerful), Safin's (sometimes explosive, always charismatic), and Nadal's (sometimes intense, sometimes cuddly), and I'm a fan of Haas qua player despite the fact that most of the time I think he needs a good spanking.

Leo
10-01-2006, 06:14 PM
I think it's a combination of both for most fans. I've met so many people that are "die-hard" Federer fans but only became so after 2003 or 2004. Most of them never even saw him play before he won a Grand Slam. They never watched him beat Sampras at Wimbledon '01, for instance. My bet is most of them wouldn't care so much if he wasn't winning 2-3 Slams a year.

Eden
10-01-2006, 06:24 PM
This is a serious completely non-bashing question that I have for Federer lovers. Why is it that you like him so much? I mean, is it the beauty of his game? His personality? The fact that he wins so often and it's rewarding to back a winner?
A combination of these things?


Interesting question :)

I follow tennis for 20 years now, liked players as Edberg, Stich and Rafter, but I have never seen someone playing so beautiful as Roger. Watching his matches make you often just speechless because he can bring up strokes you thought to be impossible. He makes this sport seem so look easy.

I follow his career since 2001 and therefore I didn't became attracted to his dominance ;) It is amazing what Roger has done during the last years and I wish there will be more to come, but I don't ask myself how many Slams he will win. I just wait and see what will happen - and enjoy his matches :)

Roger gives his heart and soul to tennis and therefore I can’t understand it when someone accuses him not to have enough balls.

I have to confess that I’m also a fan of Roger because of his personality. He seems to be such a nice person who stays down to earth and is loyal to the people around him. I doubt there has ever been a number one player being so popular among his colleagues. Just listen to the comments of the other players.

For me Roger is a true champion on and off the court and I’m proud to be able to witness him :)

t0x
10-01-2006, 06:36 PM
His style of play is awesome! I could watch for hours and hours...

Whistleway
10-01-2006, 06:53 PM
Many in the future will come
And may they crumble his records
But none shall come to play
as beautiful as his game

RonE
10-01-2006, 07:09 PM
For me it is his style of play first and foremost that caught my eye- his amazing ability to do amazing things with the ball.

It's nice to see him winning for sure but what I really like about him is his adaptibility. He can change his game from one extreme to another depending on what type of player he is playing- I have never seen such a versatile tennis player who has such an amazing all round game and can adapt so well to just about every style of play. With the exception of Nadal, Roger is the ultimate problem solver to any style of tennis that you can throw at him.

Add to that the fact that he does it so effortlessly, it is just an incredible sensation to see him when his game is on and everything os flowing so rythmicly- it is almost like meditation. It is like a cat purring. When I compare it to the dissonance of someone like Nadal for instance who seems to be very jittery when he is preparing for a shot it feels as if he is snatching and jerking withhis racquet before he makes contact with the ball. I had a similair sensation when I watched Jim Courier play and as silly as it sounds it makes me uneasy.

Safin is another player I really enjoy watching because like Roger he also has those smooth rythmical strokes and elegant movement albeit to a bit of a lesser degree.

tennisgal_001
10-01-2006, 07:20 PM
Roger has the absolute most perfectly well-rounded game. He plays effortless tennis, making it look so darn easy, and if you play tennis yourself, you will admire and appreciate what he does on the court even more. He hits at angles so obscure to your imagination, and sometimes angles you never thought existed! He can do everything, and by that I mean literally EVEYTHING. I consider myself a perfectionist, and that's probably another reason why the Federer package appeals to me. He's always working on the little things, imporving the small, unnoticeable "blips" in his game, always seeking out the best for himself, what's gonna help him stay on top longest, and THAT attitude is just fascinating, for someone who has already achieved what so many dream of. His domination is another part of his magic. We're talking about a guy who almost never loses it. Rarely does he lose when he's expected to win (which is all the time, except against Rafa on clay), and what's surreal, is that he ALWAYS delivers. Whether he's playing Wimby, Miami, Dubai, Bangok, he's always there. Mentally, physically, he's prepared to conquer the field. That's not an easy thing to do. I mean, I've seen Sampras dominate for, what, almost 6 years, and he's nothing comapred to Federer. Sure, Pete showed up, but no way was he's as alert and 'present' as Roger is, even during the most minor events. This on it's own goes to show how much respect he has for the fans, media, tourney organizers, and his fellow players. His consistency, loyalty, and passion to the game makes me even more of a tennis fan. I often hear people say, "ah, he's so boring" "if only someone else won Slams". I partly understand where such comments are coming from, but to me, witnessing sheer brilliance and genius, with a magical touch of elegance, all delievered in the most graceful manner, is more rewarding than anything will ever be. I don't know him in person, but he seems like a "nice" guy. I can't remember someone bad-mouthing him at a press conference, and we always hear how friendly he is toward the people around him. To sum up, his game is freakin' genius, I'm a sucker for perfection, his attitude is so humbling, makes me wanna become a better person, he's always in control of his emotions, which is an attitude I greatly value, and he has so much respect for the game and its history you can't help but admire his character and persona. Hope that answered your question!

acharlesmobile
10-01-2006, 07:29 PM
I admit that i was not a fan of federer until after 2004, but that was probably because i didn't really watch tennis before then. And then iwatch him play and was like damn, this guy plays some sexy tennis. His grace and style are everything a tennis player wants. I would assume that Rafeal Nadal would want strokes as beautiful as that, no? But alas, he is content with what he has and it works for him.

And then i love safin because of his personality. H'es great to his fans and always says something funny.

Paradorn Schriciphan cause he's asian and when i had dinner with him he was extremely friendly.

Blake because i admire his motivation to come back after his injury.

cmurray
10-01-2006, 07:54 PM
Roger has the absolute most perfectly well-rounded game. He plays effortless tennis, making it look so darn easy, and if you play tennis yourself, you will admire and appreciate what he does on the court even more. He hits at angles so obscure to your imagination, and sometimes angles you never thought existed! He can do everything, and by that I mean literally EVEYTHING. I consider myself a perfectionist, and that's probably another reason why the Federer package appeals to me. He's always working on the little things, imporving the small, unnoticeable "blips" in his game, always seeking out the best for himself, what's gonna help him stay on top longest, and THAT attitude is just fascinating, for someone who has already achieved what so many dream of. His domination is another part of his magic. We're talking about a guy who almost never loses it. Rarely does he lose when he's expected to win (which is all the time, except against Rafa on clay), and what's surreal, is that he ALWAYS delivers. Whether he's playing Wimby, Miami, Dubai, Bangok, he's always there. Mentally, physically, he's prepared to conquer the field. That's not an easy thing to do. I mean, I've seen Sampras dominate for, what, almost 6 years, and he's nothing comapred to Federer. Sure, Pete showed up, but no way was he's as alert and 'present' as Roger is, even during the most minor events. This on it's own goes to show how much respect he has for the fans, media, tourney organizers, and his fellow players. His consistency, loyalty, and passion to the game makes me even more of a tennis fan. I often hear people say, "ah, he's so boring" "if only someone else won Slams". I partly understand where such comments are coming from, but to me, witnessing sheer brilliance and genius, with a magical touch of elegance, all delievered in the most graceful manner, is more rewarding than anything will ever be. I don't know him in person, but he seems like a "nice" guy. I can't remember someone bad-mouthing him at a press conference, and we always hear how friendly he is toward the people around him. To sum up, his game is freakin' genius, I'm a sucker for perfection, his attitude is so humbling, makes me wanna become a better person, he's always in control of his emotions, which is an attitude I greatly value, and he has so much respect for the game and its history you can't help but admire his character and persona. Hope that answered your question!



Thanks, tennisgal. While I'm no fan of Roger Federer's, I would never call his tennis boring. It's bloody brilliant, no doubt about it. But his matches are often VERY boring. He wins so easily that there is rarely anything left of his opponents after the first set. Maybe that's what people mean when they say "he's boring". Roger plays trascended tennis. I've been watching tennis for most of my life and I've NEVER seen anyone play the way Roger can, and I can appreciate the asthetics of his game. How could you be a fan of tennis and NOT enjoy it?

BUT....what I like best about tennis is the....fight. I LOVE guys like Nadal and Baghdatis because the fight their asses off. Seldom do I get that sense of satisfaction from a Federer match.

stebs
10-01-2006, 08:16 PM
Thanks, tennisgal. While I'm no fan of Roger Federer's, I would never call his tennis boring. It's bloody brilliant, no doubt about it. But his matches are often VERY boring. He wins so easily that there is rarely anything left of his opponents after the first set. Maybe that's what people mean when they say "he's boring". Roger plays trascended tennis. I've been watching tennis for most of my life and I've NEVER seen anyone play the way Roger can, and I can appreciate the asthetics of his game. How could you be a fan of tennis and NOT enjoy it?

BUT....what I like best about tennis is the....fight. I LOVE guys like Nadal and Baghdatis because the fight their asses off. Seldom do I get that sense of satisfaction from a Federer match.

Agree with the first bit.

As for the second, of course I respect your choice and maybe I misunderstand. Are you saying you don't get the satisfaction because Roger doesn't fight his ass off or because he never has to. If you were saying the first I would have to disagree, when he is in a match which is tough when he is down he may still end up losing but he fights like a champion. :)

RonE
10-01-2006, 08:17 PM
BUT....what I like best about tennis is the....fight. I LOVE guys like Nadal and Baghdatis because the fight their asses off. Seldom do I get that sense of satisfaction from a Federer match.

That is a very uinderrated part of Roger's game I feel- the fight quality. While I can understand your liking of Nadal and Baghdatis for showing that facet openly in their emotions and gestures, another thing I admire about Roger is his fighting qualities and the fact that he does it in such a way that it does not seem he is doing anything spectacular because he shows little emotion but he is actually fighting like a lion.

He rarely ever packs it in during matches- the only matches I have seen it do it this year have been the French Open final against Nadal and in his loss to Murray in Cincinnati. While taking nothing away from Nadal and Murray there was definitely a feeling as if Roger just accepted the inevitable and was going through the motions. To his credit, he does it rather infrequently as opposed to earlier stages in his career. The matches that stick out most are some of his loses- to Safin at the AO down 2-5 in the fifth set after having MPs, many other players would have crumbled with such disappointment of not finishing it off. Roger fought back and kept it close until Safin just outplayed him. TMC 2005 final against Nalbandian- Roger was down and out in the fifth set two breaks down, managed to haul back and get ahead serving for the match before his body just gave out on him. Against Nadal in Rome- two sets to one down and made it to within match point. In MC to a lesser extent down 2 breaks in the 4th set but fought back and took it to a tiebreak. These are the type of matches that he would have lost routinely in the final set or maybe even in three or four sets a few years back. The scary thing is that these losses constitute the vast majority of his losses in the past two years. And of course there are countless other matches he could have easily lost but ended up winning through sheer willpower.

If we are talking about the mental aspect another part of Roger I truly find fascinating is his mental resolve- considering how flaky he used to be and how quickly his temprament would change on a dime, I find it amazing that he has become as strong as he has mentally.

So combine those qualities to the pure talent and shotmaking ability, elegant, effortless and very effective footwork and you have the closest thing to a perfect tennis player the world has ever seen.

World Beater
10-01-2006, 08:20 PM
federer fights like hell, but it is not so apparent perhaps because he doesnt yell and scream all the time. but there have been quite a few matches esp against haas at the ao, and nalbandian at the french where fed wasnt playing as well as he'd like, and he really had to fight and show emotion....

someone said it beautifully here before i did:

others may come and become better players and smash roger's records, or he may never have the records like pete sampras, but for me this is not important. i cant imagine anyone playing tennis with the such beauty.

this is one reason why i was never a sampras fan. he won a lot and i respect his achievements and his greatness but i was never drawn to him either for his game or personality.

i like the fact that he seems so calm, so relaxed, almost like nerves of steel(even though we know this not to be case sometimes). i like the fact that he is respectful most of the time on court and doesnt dance around the court to celebrate his great shots or to rub it in other people's faces. I also like his honesty in his interviews, even if he may make some mistakes. his personality is certainly a bonus, and i think its great we have a #1 who is all business and doesnt resort to gamesmanship even when he's losing. he is the epitome of grace under fire. he shows emotion only when it is warranted

robinhood
10-01-2006, 08:26 PM
I like Fed mainly because of his beautiful game.
His game is something very unique, I think, in the sea of sameness.
I also enjoy watching Santoro for the similar reason.
Of course, it doesn't do your health bad to back a winning horse every time.

stebs
10-01-2006, 08:28 PM
He rarely ever packs it in during matches- the only matches I have seen it do it this year have been the French Open final against Nadal

He packed it in and was going through the motions for two and a half sets but when Rafa served for it was like he woke up and that bought about the incredible defense point which I'm sure you remember. When Rafa got broken serving for the second set at Wimbledon this year he choked, at the French Roger forced that break of serve but in the end it wasn't enough. He may not have fought as he should've for the whole match but he didn't just let it go from beggining to end.

World Beater
10-01-2006, 08:31 PM
i disagree with some people here...i def dont think roger packed it in at rg...i think he tried his best, but he just didnt play well enough to win...he also perhaps played with questionable tactics...but i dont think it was a question of trying.

Adler
10-01-2006, 08:34 PM
"Guys, I've won Wimbledon, but I'd like to play like this guy"
- John McEnroe on Roger Federer

cmurray
10-01-2006, 08:37 PM
Agree with the first bit.

As for the second, of course I respect your choice and maybe I misunderstand. Are you saying you don't get the satisfaction because Roger doesn't fight his ass off or because he never has to. If you were saying the first I would have to disagree, when he is in a match which is tough when he is down he may still end up losing but he fights like a champion. :)


No, I didn't mean that Roger DOESN'T fight but more that he doesn't NEED to fight. I am fully aware that Roger can fight. He wouldn't have been able to take Rafa to a tiebreak in the 4th at RG if he couldn't fight. He wouldn't have beaten Rafa in Miami last year if he couldn't fight.

Incidentally, my favorite match of all time is the 2005 AO open semi against Safin. It remains the only time I've ever been brought to tears by the beauty of the sport of tennis. It has everything I've ever wanted in a tennis match. Artistry, beauty, fight, heart and of course the two most talented players in the world (in my opinion). It would still have been my favorite match even if Marat had lost.

Doris Loeffel
10-01-2006, 09:07 PM
First of all I followed Roger becouse he was Swiss - yes I admitt it I might not have heard of him back in 98 when he won Wimby as a junior if he wouldn't be swiss. At the beginning of his career it was quite hard to get to see him on TV but still followed his matches as good as I could. First time I saw him live was at RG 01 when playing against D. Sanchez. What a joy that was!! And what a joy was it to see him transform from a sometimes rebelish young kid who often wanted to play to good and impress the public and therefore loosing by taking to much risk than rather play save and win the match - to the calm, consistant, still amazingly playing tennis player he is today. He for sure showed the world that you don't need to "abuse" the tennisball to win points. You also can do it by using a great selection of wonderfull and sometimes unique shots. That's the reason I like him.

Fedever
10-01-2006, 09:24 PM
First and foremost it is his game. The incredible shot making, the beautiful, elegant movement. The variety of shots and the way he executes them.

I have been watching tennis for a long time and Federer consistently makes the most AMAZING shots that I have never seen anyone else make. The angles he comes up with are unbelievable and his return of serve is magnificent!

I find him fascinating to watch. It is awe inspiring to watch him play.

I used to always root for the underdog. I tended not to like the most dominate player, until Roger Federer. I want to watch every single match he plays even if I think it will be an easy match for him just to watch him play. I know that in every match there will be a moment (actually many moments) where I just marvel at a shot he just made and think this is unbelievable - did he really just do that?

When I try to describe Roger Federer I start running out of adjectives!

I also like his personality. He is obviously a nice person. The other players like and respect him too as you can tell by their demeanor and their comments.
He is truly a class act!

To me he is the greatest player I have ever seen.:worship:

cmurray
10-01-2006, 11:25 PM
I've seen Roger 3 times in person and I have to admit that you don't get the full impact of exactly how good he is until you've seen him play live. I met him too - he made fun of me a little bit, but I deserved it for being a complete moron. :)

Bremen
10-01-2006, 11:57 PM
cmurray..where did you see Roger play? I have never once seen a tennis match in person...I'm jealous you've seen him play 3 times!!!

What was it like meeting him? How did he make fun of you? And not to be rude or anything but why would you meet him if you're not his fan?

cmurray
10-02-2006, 12:16 AM
cmurray..where did you see Roger play? I have never once seen a tennis match in person...I'm jealous you've seen him play 3 times!!!

What was it like meeting him? How did he make fun of you? And not to be rude or anything but why would you meet him if you're not his fan?

I met him completely by accident, actually. In cincinnati last year, I was walking around the grounds before the matches were set to start for the day. I walked past the spot where the players are dropped off by their drivers. I looked up and BAM! There he was like 5 inches away from me. At first I didn't recognize him because he is MUCH better looking and sexy in person than he is on TV. When I realized it was him, i said, "Oh my GOD. You're Roger Federer." Now, normally I wouldn't be that much of a dipwad, but I was REALLY shocked. You know?

Anyway, I thought he didn't hear me, but he started to laugh and he said, "Yeah. Thanks for telling me." I was so humiliated. As he was walking away i said back to him, "um, that didn't exactly go how I expected it to." And he...well... he laughed at me. Not that I blame him. I was a complete dumbass. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I guess I've actually seen him like 7 times at 3 different tournaments.

Once at US Open in 2003
3 times Cincinnati 2005
3 times Toronto 2006.

atheneglaukopis
10-02-2006, 12:40 AM
I met him completely by accident, actually. In cincinnati last year, I was walking around the grounds before the matches were set to start for the day. I walked past the spot where the players are dropped off by their drivers. I looked up and BAM! There he was like 5 inches away from me. At first I didn't recognize him because he is MUCH better looking and sexy in person than he is on TV. When I realized it was him, i said, "Oh my GOD. You're Roger Federer." Now, normally I wouldn't be that much of a dipwad, but I was REALLY shocked. You know?

Anyway, I thought he didn't hear me, but he started to laugh and he said, "Yeah. Thanks for telling me." I was so humiliated. As he was walking away i said back to him, "um, that didn't exactly go how I expected it to." And he...well... he laughed at me. Not that I blame him. I was a complete dumbass. :rolleyes: He said he did the same thing to Rod Laver, so :lol:.

cmurray
10-02-2006, 12:44 AM
He said he did the same thing to Rod Laver, so :lol:.

Maybe that's why he thought it was so funny. I was SUCH a DOLT!:o

Jlee
10-02-2006, 01:23 AM
I've seen Roger 3 times in person and I have to admit that you don't get the full impact of exactly how good he is until you've seen him play live. I met him too - he made fun of me a little bit, but I deserved it for being a complete moron. :)

I just saw him in person for the first time at the US Open this year, you're so right. Wow :eek: His was definitely the best match to watch for me, behind Andre's match with Becker for obvious reasons.

And I first saw him when I was a casual/Wimbledon-only type of fan in 2001. My mom was watching Sampras playing this, "weird pony-tail guy." She was screaming for me to come watch it because Pete was...actually losing! I've been a fan since I saw that match. I just love watching his game, even when he's dominating he's still amazing to watch.

Corey Feldman
10-02-2006, 01:24 AM
i like his tennis, that is what attracts me to players... especially attacking players... 1 handed BH, sliced BH's, great technique on volleys

growing up for me and how i started to like tennis was always watching Wimbledon in the summer, obviously in the day when the attacking players dominated it most of the time... when i first heard of him ppl always compared him to Sampras, who was the best player to watch.
i seen him at the Olympics one year as a teen, almost reaching the final... then that match v sampras at wimbledon, and i loved the dark eyed pony tailed cold assassin look about him.... was right around that 'new balls please' era starting and he stood out more to me even though the rest were making big moves before he did (hewitt, safin, ferrero all achieved big things faster then federer did but i wasnt fussed about any of them) i wasnt his greatest fan - at that time i was more into henman, escude even krajicek, but i liked him and his play and certainly have not complained at seeing someone like him doing everything he has been doing in the last few years.. its been brilliant!

he doesnt serve and volley hardly at all now compared to back then, sometimes i wish he would but then again... why would he? considering how he can win probably more easily from the back thesedays.

Bremen
10-02-2006, 01:58 AM
Maybe that's why he thought it was so funny. I was SUCH a DOLT!:o

Oh no...that is pretty embarrasing. I would have been too humiliated to ask for an autograph. But you say he's better looking in person? I find him nice looking on tv already so that's kind of interesting.

Anyway...have you ever met nadal or any other players? I wish I lived in a city or a region close by to a tennis tournament. One of these days I'm going to save up some money and go to wimbledon or the us open, hopefully before roger retires.

vahep
10-02-2006, 02:07 AM
Sorry about the rant upcoming, but this is an interesting question and I feel strangely compelled to answer it thoroughly.

I've been playing tennis since I was 5. In fact by the age of 14 I had serious ambitions about being a pro. But after a full year of gettin serious beatdowns at several tournaments I entered, I came to grips with the fact that regardless of how hard I worked at it, I just did not have the genetics to be a pro-level player.

That, however, never stopped me from watching every pro match I could, and following the tour religiously. But for some reason, my interest in following the atp waned during the Sampras/Agassi era. No doubt, I marvelled at the skill and athleticism of of Pete during his prime ( I never cared about his personality) it was actually his game that never interested me. Same with Agassi. I kept waiting for somone to come along and play with a style that was entertaining to me, and have the work ethic and consistency to win impressively and often.

The first player that got me back to following men's tennis again was Rafter. But he was a late bloomer, and for the brief period that he thrived, his results (week in, week out) were mixed. Rios was interesting to watch, but again, his game did not stand the test of time.

I got really excited about tennis watching Safin's incredible performance at the 2000 USO finals. I was sure he would be the next great one, and his game was brilliant to watch, and of course I was disappointed again.

Then came Federer. At first I thought "oh great, another wunderkind who will self-destruct just like Safin". Instead, he just kept getting better and better, until he became nearly unbeatable. A double bonus was another young gun came along who could not only beat Federer, but was far more fun to watch (for me anyway), than any player from the 90's. In addition, we have great players/characters like Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, etc., all in their mid twenties. Not to mention the young guns like Murray, Gasquet & Berdrych. It all adds up to the most fun I've had following the men's game since I started watching 20 years or so ago.

Art&Soul
10-02-2006, 02:36 AM
His tennis and his cool character :cool: not his dominance :)

Bagelicious
10-02-2006, 03:47 AM
I used to always root for the underdog. I tended not to like the most dominate player, until Roger Federer.



To be fair, I caught Roger at exactly the right time - Wimbledon 2003. My sister was more of a tennis watcher back then, so she mentioned that we should watch this guy play. I watched the quarterfinal against Schalken (?) and it was incredibly impressive - even though I was only a casual tennis watcher it was obvious that he played the game like no one else - and he made it look so easy!

The next match was the semifinal against Roddick, and I don't remember who the commentators were, but they made it sound like Roddick's huge serve would slaughter Roger - like Roger was the underdog going into this match. It was all about Roddick and how huge his serve and game was. Remembering the match I'd watched only a couple of days before, I wondered if they were talking about the same Roger.

"He's talented," they said, "but he's just not consistent enough mentally." :haha: Is he consistent enough for you now?

I was initially attracted by his amazing game, but I'm constantly amazed by his mental strength. To go from being a mental flake to one of the most consistent and dominant tennis players EVER is astounding to me. Anyone can be born with talent, but the amount of self-belief and determination to excellence that it takes to dominate the way Roger has done in the past 3 years is what I respect the most.

It's incredibly corny, but he's my hero for this reason. I've felt like a mentally inconsistent flake enough times that all I want is to figure out how he does it, and maybe I can go ahead and surpass my own expectations like he's surpassed his. Much as I love Safin and his game, I wish he could take a cue from Roger and get over his mental issues.

Edit: I also love the fact that he's a nice guy. I think that contributes to his dominance - the fact that he works hard and always respects his opponents - that's how he's able to be 'on' all the time, he doesn't underestimate anyone that he plays. And like Wertheim (a.k.a. Worthless) mentioned a while ago, it must be a little harder for opponents to fire themselves up to beat him when they can't summon up any hatred or anger toward him.

Eden
10-02-2006, 01:34 PM
i disagree with some people here...i def dont think roger packed it in at rg...i think he tried his best, but he just didnt play well enough to win...he also perhaps played with questionable tactics...but i dont think it was a question of trying.

:yeah:

Maybe the last belief in himself had also not been there on this day. The loss to Rafa in Rome was maybe the key to the loss in Paris. But we will never know...

yanchr
10-02-2006, 02:33 PM
I think many have already given good answers and described things perfectly. Actually many of his fans came to like him before he started to dominate. I started to like him in 2002, not that early but still before he became almost invincible. First and most, it's his tennis. I was hugely amazed when I first got to watch him. Then his personality comes through as a bit of a bonus to me. I don't really know him though I've met him personally and closely, but I still feel well-grounded to say he is such a humble, approachable and down-to-earth person that I don't believe anyone else with his fame can ever be. It is simply not easy in his shoes. In my eyes he is as perfect as a man can be in the world, not only as a tennis player. And I didn't believe anyone could be perfect.

I believe his loss in 05AO and 05TMC actually brought him far more fans than his dominance does. Sometimes you are more powerful in influencing when you touch, than you show your dominance. I personally would more enjoy close matches or when he showed his fighting spirit, 04 Wimbledon final, 05 Miami final and the two losses coming to my mind instantly, but what else can I ask for when watching him deliver his sheer brilliance, grace and style match after match that I almost got addicted to, despite of the one-sidedness? Though I have to admit I prefer his earlier years when he tended to be more creative in tennis and more refreshing in person (not that he is not now).

Rogiman
10-02-2006, 03:11 PM
I'm almost convinced the majority of posters in the Federer forum became fans officially after his 2003 Wimbly SF, although some (Mrs. B, Rogifan, Doris and others) have been there for much longer.

Gulliver
10-02-2006, 04:23 PM
I’ve followed the progress of many players over the years (some until they retired!) and I first saw Federer in the latter stages of his match v Malisse at Wimbledon in 2001. They were in a 5 setter and had some amazing rallies, after one of which they grinned broadly at each other. 2 nice young guys enjoying their tennis, I thought. Then Federer defeated Sampras and his skill, sheer delight - and tears - were like a breath of fresh air. He played appallingly against Agassi at the USO (couldn’t convert BPs even then!), but when I next saw him in Hamburg 2002, the skill, the delight, the enjoyment of tennis - and tears - were there again. A real talent, I thought, not only on grass, but also on clay. I’ve followed his progress since then (along with that of many players), but I have to say that it’s his amazing tennis and sheer enjoyment of the game, the exchange of smiles with his opponents, and the tears, that make me say “Oh, good, Federer is playing, we are in for a treat, I really like this guy and his brilliant tennis!” Discount domination, I just love watching him play, win or lose.

cmurray
10-02-2006, 06:19 PM
Oh no...that is pretty embarrasing. I would have been too humiliated to ask for an autograph. But you say he's better looking in person? I find him nice looking on tv already so that's kind of interesting.

Anyway...have you ever met nadal or any other players? I wish I lived in a city or a region close by to a tennis tournament. One of these days I'm going to save up some money and go to wimbledon or the us open, hopefully before roger retires.


I met Andre Agassi at the 2001 USO. I also met James blake at that tournament. He wasn't known at ALL back then. In fact, I was AT the match in Armstrong where Lleyton accused the linesperson of being racist. The crowd was REALLY indignant. It was what made James famous in NY.

Sadly for me, every time I go to a tournament, Rafa loses before I get a chance to see him. In Toronto this year, he lost the day before I went. :sad:

The Federer experience was the most memorable (and humiliating).

And he is MOST DEFINITELY better looking in person. I didn't know he was so tall. Or lean. But to be honest, the very first thing I noticed was his skin - more specifically, his neck. Why that caught my attention, I don't know, but his skin is a really beautiful color and it's all smooth and tight (because, ya know, no extra fat on him). It made me want to take a bite. :o

Just call me draculina. You can imagine my surprise, as I'd always thought him sort of ugly.

Bremen
10-02-2006, 07:20 PM
I met Andre Agassi at the 2001 USO. I also met James blake at that tournament. He wasn't known at ALL back then. In fact, I was AT the match in Armstrong where Lleyton accused the linesperson of being racist. The crowd was REALLY indignant. It was what made James famous in NY.

Sadly for me, every time I go to a tournament, Rafa loses before I get a chance to see him. In Toronto this year, he lost the day before I went. :sad:

The Federer experience was the most memorable (and humiliating).

And he is MOST DEFINITELY better looking in person. I didn't know he was so tall. Or lean. But to be honest, the very first thing I noticed was his skin - more specifically, his neck. Why that caught my attention, I don't know, but his skin is a really beautiful color and it's all smooth and tight (because, ya know, no extra fat on him). It made me want to take a bite. :o

Just call me draculina. You can imagine my surprise, as I'd always thought him sort of ugly.

You're like a curse on Rafa! I think you should go to more tournaments when he plays:devil: !! All kidding aside thanks for all the inside info...do you live somewhere where it's easy to reach all these events or do you spend your time jeting from one tournament to the other?

All of these responses from federer fans have been pretty spot on as to what is so attractive about his play. I wasn't even a fan of the men's game until he came along. I came rather late to the federer mania, just last year in the final against agassi. Even though I enjoy watching agassi I was surprised to be cheering for this other guy.

It seems strange that I didn't really hear much about him until then. I used to watch Venus and Serena, Steffi Graff, Martina Hingis and only now and then a men's match. I did catch the final of the usopen that sampras won. But men's tennis just seemed dull to me. Federer changed my opinion with his awesome play. I'm thinking next year I have to make it to one of his tournaments...just hopefully he's healthy and shows up for it!

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-02-2006, 07:25 PM
Insecure Fedtards only like players who win all the time.

Cheering for a winner helps them get over their own multitude of losses in every aspect of their lives.

wcr
10-02-2006, 07:46 PM
I'm almost convinced the majority of posters in the Federer forum became fans officially after his 2003 Wimbly SF, although some (Mrs. B, Rogifan, Doris and others) have been there for much longer.

The first time I saw Roger play was when he was 19 years old and it was an indoor match in Europe. It was his beautiful technique that caught my eye and I remember thinking "19 years old. Good. Lots more years of this stuff." I always watched for his televised matches after that and when there were none to be found, I wondered where was that kid from Switzerland. Until he won his first slam, almost everyone called him a headcase, wasted talent, you name it. I just figured he didn't know how to manage his emotions. It's been six years since I first saw him and time is going by very fast. The fact that he's on top of the world means I get to see him play more often. Stylistically speaking, he plays the most beautiful tennis I've ever seen and I rather like the fact that he doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve. He is the only player who has come along since Steffi Graf who appears to love playing the game of tennis more than doing anything else in the world. And that's lucky for me and everyone else who appreciates what he brings to the game.

cmurray
10-02-2006, 07:55 PM
Insecure Fedtards only like players who win all the time.

Cheering for a winner helps them get over their own multitude of losses in every aspect of their lives.

But do you really think that's true? If Federer stops winning everything, will all these people not like him anymore? I can't speak for them, but I don't change my favorites simply because they aren't "performing".

cmurray
10-02-2006, 07:58 PM
You're like a curse on Rafa! I think you should go to more tournaments when he plays:devil: !! All kidding aside thanks for all the inside info...do you live somewhere where it's easy to reach all these events or do you spend your time jeting from one tournament to the other?

All of these responses from federer fans have been pretty spot on as to what is so attractive about his play. I wasn't even a fan of the men's game until he came along. I came rather late to the federer mania, just last year in the final against agassi. Even though I enjoy watching agassi I was surprised to be cheering for this other guy.

It seems strange that I didn't really hear much about him until then. I used to watch Venus and Serena, Steffi Graff, Martina Hingis and only now and then a men's match. I did catch the final of the usopen that sampras won. But men's tennis just seemed dull to me. Federer changed my opinion with his awesome play. I'm thinking next year I have to make it to one of his tournaments...just hopefully he's healthy and shows up for it!

I hereby vow NEVER to go to a clay court tourney that Rafa's entered in. I'd probably break his streak. :)

Puschkin
10-02-2006, 08:09 PM
This is a serious completely non-bashing question that I have for Federer lovers. Why is it that you like him so much? I mean, is it the beauty of his game? His personality?

Roger is able to do the unexpected on a tennis-court and this makes his tennis so exciting for me. I like him, because he combines huge talent with hard work, day in day out. I am not certain about his personality. ;) Seriously, how can you judge a person from press transcripts and TV-interviews?

World Beater
10-02-2006, 08:16 PM
i saw roger play ferrero at usopen first...then he became one of my fave players to watch when he beat sampras...his match against haas at the ao a couple of years ago was great too.

cmurray
10-02-2006, 11:03 PM
i saw roger play ferrero at usopen first...then he became one of my fave players to watch when he beat sampras...his match against haas at the ao a couple of years ago was great too.

I remember Patrick McEnroe talking about Federer back in early 2000/2001. At least one of those years, he lost in the first round at Wimby. Patrick just kept saying "I'm TELLING you. Watch this guy - I have NO IDEA why he keeps losing."

Corey Feldman
10-03-2006, 12:28 AM
Insecure Fedtards only like players who win all the time.

Cheering for a winner helps them get over their own multitude of losses in every aspect of their lives.Well said Agassi fan/Nadal fan.

:worship:

Corey Feldman
10-03-2006, 12:32 AM
I'm almost convinced the majority of posters in the Federer forum became fans officially after his 2003 Wimbly SF, although some (Mrs. B, Rogifan, Doris and others) have been there for much longer.For someone who joined the forum in October 2004 that is a tremendous arseclown statement if ever i saw one.

Bremen
10-03-2006, 01:16 AM
I hereby vow NEVER to go to a clay court tourney that Rafa's entered in. I'd probably break his streak. :)

And that would be bad how?? :devil: I wonder who's going to lose first on their favourite surface, nadal or federer?

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-03-2006, 01:49 AM
Well said Agassi fan/Nadal fan.

They are human and have heartbreaking losses and bounce back. They fight against all odds to achieve something against the cyborgs of their respective eras.

cmurray
10-03-2006, 01:49 AM
And that would be bad how?? :devil: I wonder who's going to lose first on their favourite surface, nadal or federer?

Well, if my vote counts........ ;)

Seriously, if Rafa makes it through the 07 season undefeated he'll be at something like 94 straight wins on clay. That would be - astounding. NOt that I think him incapable. I dunno. How about I think they're BOTH going to have their winning streaks snapped in 07. :angel:

Art&Soul
10-03-2006, 06:18 AM
And that would be bad how?? :devil: I wonder who's going to lose first on their favourite surface, nadal or federer?
Nadal of course :)

MariaV
10-03-2006, 07:54 AM
Safin is another player I really enjoy watching because like Roger he also has those smooth rythmical strokes and elegant movement albeit to a bit of a lesser degree.

:eek: again! ;)

For me it is his style of play first and foremost that caught my eye- his amazing ability to do amazing things with the ball.

It's nice to see him winning for sure but what I really like about him is his adaptibility. He can change his game from one extreme to another depending on what type of player he is playing- I have never seen such a versatile tennis player who has such an amazing all round game and can adapt so well to just about every style of play. With the exception of Nadal, Roger is the ultimate problem solver to any style of tennis that you can throw at him.

Add to that the fact that he does it so effortlessly, it is just an incredible sensation to see him when his game is on and everything os flowing so rythmicly- it is almost like meditation. It is like a cat purring. When I compare it to the dissonance of someone like Nadal for instance who seems to be very jittery when he is preparing for a shot it feels as if he is snatching and jerking withhis racquet before he makes contact with the ball. I had a similair sensation when I watched Jim Courier play and as silly as it sounds it makes me uneasy.


Nice description btw. :D Meditation, and a cat purring. :cat: I hope Garfield is doing well, don't overfeed him. :D

Rogiman
10-03-2006, 08:05 AM
For someone who joined the forum in October 2004 that is a tremendous arseclown statement if ever i saw one.I joined RF.com right after that 2003 Wimbly SF match, and signed in here a year later when someone posted a link to this place and I found out all about the Duck Hunt thread ;)

I remember there was a thread in the Fed forum concerning everyone's favourite match, and that Wimbly SF was the popular choice.

Halba
10-03-2006, 08:39 AM
he just doesn't exert much pressure on his body; the way he is playing he could play at a top notch level till the age of 33 or 34

oz_boz
10-03-2006, 09:35 AM
Fed fans only root for a winner because they are losers.

Well said Agassi fan/Nadal fan.

:worship:

:lol:


They are human and have heartbreaking losses and bounce back. They fight against all odds to achieve something against the cyborgs of their respective eras.

As everyone knows, Roger Federer began playing tennis in TMC 2003. Anyone who believes he existed before that is as big a fool as the people who think that Neil Armstrong actually walked on the Moon.

Eden
10-03-2006, 07:09 PM
I believe his loss in 05AO and 05TMC actually brought him far more fans than his dominance does. Sometimes you are more powerful in influencing when you touch, than you show your dominance. I personally would more enjoy close matches or when he showed his fighting spirit, 04 Wimbledon final, 05 Miami final and the two losses coming to my mind instantly, but what else can I ask for when watching him deliver his sheer brilliance, grace and style match after match that I almost got addicted to, despite of the one-sidedness?

Interesting points which you make here :)

Among many Federer fans the match between Roger and Marat at last years Australian Open is one of the best matches ever and this proves that Federer fans don't like Federer only when he is winning (like some people always claim).

As much as I enjoyed Federers great matches in Wimbledon this year where he played brilliant, I have to say that I pay the same tribute to his achievement in Halle. He certainly didn't played his best tennis there, but I was impressed how he handled the matches there imaging coming straight from Roland Garros and one of the most disappointing days of his career when he lost the final.

denisgiann
10-03-2006, 08:05 PM
he just doesn't exert much pressure on his body; the way he is playing he could play at a top notch level till the age of 33 or 34

I totally agree with you.His play is fluid and as effortless as it can be.That is what Nadal fans dont really get:Υου can run like hell ,dive like crazy for every single ball but you cant do it for a long period of time with the same effect or without paying the price (injuries) .
It doesnt mean that if you glide on the court and you seem to handle everything with ease that you have no heart and dont know how to fight.It means that you simply are superior technically and you dont have to trash yourself οn the court.If you win with style and with the least amount of effort that is the sign of true greatness;) .

pistolmarat
10-03-2006, 09:17 PM
I like Federer, manily, cos of his unique game style, superb shotmaking skills and simply genious shot selecting skillz!!!!:worship:
His forehand is a thounderous shot, the backhand slice is one of the best that I've seen, same goes for the serve and vollyes.
Roger's tactical skills are also outstanding. He mixes the play IMHO better than anyone else.:hatoff:
Simply, Roger Federer is probably the most universal player in history of the sport.:yeah:


Though, his matches often lack the drama, fight, intensity and rivalry...
Not only, cos he's playing brilliant tennis at times...but also cos he's got such a great psychological advantage over the field...which makes the tour predictable...
The players must believe that they can challenge Roger, force him to play his best, but I often get the impression, that they're not really determined enough. I don't mind i.e. Malisse losing to Rog in 3 in Toronto, cos he fought his heart out there, but some players lack that fighting spirit, certainly Nadal is not one of them ;)

cmurray
10-03-2006, 09:34 PM
I totally agree with you.His play is fluid and as effortless as it can be.That is what Nadal fans dont really get:Υου can run like hell ,dive like crazy for every single ball but you cant do it for a long period of time with the same effect or without paying the price (injuries) .
It doesnt mean that if you glide on the court and you seem to handle everything with ease that you have no heart and dont know how to fight.It means that you simply are superior technically and you dont have to trash yourself οn the court.If you win with style and with the least amount of effort that is the sign of true greatness;) .

"Nadal fans" get it just fine. Please don't over-generalize. I understand that Rafa isn't always going to be able to play the type of over the top, physical tennis that he is so successful with today. But in my opinion, he is talented enough, and a brilliant enough shotmaker in his own right to be able to adjust his game the way Agassi did, when he doesn't have the speed anymore.

About Roger's technical superiority. You're correct, of course. It's why he wins so many matches so easily. It is also why his matches aren't very enjoyable to me. Does Roger have heart? Hell yes, he does. THe AO 2005 was enough to prove that. But how often do we get to see it? A lot of times, Roger's matches look like a tutorial on how to play perfect tennis. Some people love that; I'm not one of them. I would rather see less perfect tennis and more exciting matches. Does that make me "ignorant"? Probably some of you tennis purists think so, but I make no apologies for it. As I've said before, I like to be "let in" when I'm watching a match. I enjoy the grit of tennis, the fight of a great match and Rafa gives that to me, no matter whether he's down 1-6 in the first set or up 5-0 in the final set.

Bremen
10-03-2006, 10:42 PM
Well, if my vote counts........ ;)

Seriously, if Rafa makes it through the 07 season undefeated he'll be at something like 94 straight wins on clay. That would be - astounding. NOt that I think him incapable. I dunno. How about I think they're BOTH going to have their winning streaks snapped in 07. :angel:

Well any streak is hard to keep up but since Roger only plays two grass tourneys a year his odds are better of keeping his record going aren't they?

MisterQ
10-03-2006, 10:43 PM
he just doesn't exert much pressure on his body; the way he is playing he could play at a top notch level till the age of 33 or 34

I'm not sure about this... Roger may not put great strain on his body (because his movement is indeed fluid), but he DOES rely to a great extent on his incredible footspeed. As he slows down, which is inevitable, he will have to make some adjustments.

Macbrother
10-03-2006, 11:14 PM
I remember Patrick McEnroe talking about Federer back in early 2000/2001. At least one of those years, he lost in the first round at Wimby. Patrick just kept saying "I'm TELLING you. Watch this guy - I have NO IDEA why he keeps losing."

What? Are you saying PMac actually made an accurate prediction?:eek:

cmurray
10-04-2006, 02:37 AM
What? Are you saying PMac actually made an accurate prediction?:eek:

Shocking, isn't it???? :p

Eden
10-05-2006, 06:33 PM
Well any streak is hard to keep up but since Roger only plays two grass tourneys a year his odds are better of keeping his record going aren't they?

Not really, considering that you don't play on this surface for one year and it takes some time to get used to it again.

cmurray
10-05-2006, 06:52 PM
Not really, considering that you don't play on this surface for one year and it takes some time to get used to it again.


This is true, but everyone else is in the same boat as well, no? :) It's not like some people get more grass-court play than others.

Eden
10-07-2006, 07:30 PM
This is true, but everyone else is in the same boat as well, no? :) It's not like some people get more grass-court play than others.

Thats correct. Equal chances for the players.

lunahielo
10-07-2006, 07:55 PM
I dont get his winner's checks, my life isnt in any way changed on paper if he wins Slams, but still I am wildly passionate about this guy's career and astonishing ability with the racquet. Why?

In short, maybe I believe that if this guy-- so graceful under pressure, crazy successful but truly humble, generous, well-spoken, beautiful strokes, respectful of history, etc -- wins Slams and titles, and makes history, it might somehow have a boomerang effect on all the ugliness out there.

Maybe other people will also behave with more respect, grace, humilty, and create something beautiful. We badly need more beautiful things in the world, more grace and quiet confidence. It's wacky from a psychological

standpoint, but that fuels it for me, logical or not. I'm no celebrity junkie, and worship at no altars, but I just feel there's something right with the world when this guy plays, and especially when he wins.

I have been a Federer fan for a long time.
Fedtastic said exactly what I feel~~~and he/she put it into words more elegantly than I ever could.

I am fascinated by Roger's beautiful game~~his intelligence on and off court and as far as I am concerned, he has raised the level of tennis in a way I thought unimaginable.
luna

Fedtastic, I hope you don mind me repeating your words. :)

World Beater
10-07-2006, 08:37 PM
I'm not sure about this... Roger may not put great strain on his body (because his movement is indeed fluid), but he DOES rely to a great extent on his incredible footspeed. As he slows down, which is inevitable, he will have to make some adjustments.

Yes it is indeed true. However, if you notice roger has significantly bulked up over the last year, and is hitting the ball bigger than he ever has esp off the bh side. He knows very well that he cannot rely on his footspeed for very long and i think the adjustments are already in the works.

I can already see the footspeed isnt as fast as say AO 05, when he was lightning fast, but whether this is due to age, injury or bulking up, i am not totally sure.

spencercarlos
10-08-2006, 05:12 AM
This is a serious completely non-bashing question that I have for Federer lovers. Why is it that you like him so much? I mean, is it the beauty of his game? His personality? The fact that he wins so often and it's rewarding to back a winner?
A combination of these things?

I ask because different players appeal to me for different reasons. I like Rafa because of his intensity, because he strikes me as a really nice guy and because he wins. Yep, I admit it. It's fun to cheer for somebody who knows how to win.

But Marat...well, my liking him has NOTHING to do with his ability to win (obviously) and more to do with his game and his...passion. Plus he just entertains the hell out of me. I put Marcos in this category as well. Thanks in advance for your honesty.
He plays tennis better than anyone i have ever seen play. He does everything perfect on the court, his game, his effortless style, his great attitude on court are just some of the reasons, and guess what that game has enabled him to dominate tennis for the last few years.

spencercarlos
10-08-2006, 05:18 AM
"Nadal fans" get it just fine. Please don't over-generalize. I understand that Rafa isn't always going to be able to play the type of over the top, physical tennis that he is so successful with today. But in my opinion, he is talented enough, and a brilliant enough shotmaker in his own right to be able to adjust his game the way Agassi did, when he doesn't have the speed anymore.

About Roger's technical superiority. You're correct, of course. It's why he wins so many matches so easily. It is also why his matches aren't very enjoyable to me. Does Roger have heart? Hell yes, he does. THe AO 2005 was enough to prove that. But how often do we get to see it? A lot of times, Roger's matches look like a tutorial on how to play perfect tennis. Some people love that; I'm not one of them. I would rather see less perfect tennis and more exciting matches. Does that make me "ignorant"? Probably some of you tennis purists think so, but I make no apologies for it. As I've said before, I like to be "let in" when I'm watching a match. I enjoy the grit of tennis, the fight of a great match and Rafa gives that to me, no matter whether he's down 1-6 in the first set or up 5-0 in the final set.
I donīt really agree with you with the bold quote, when i watch professional tennis i want to watch something out of this world, amazing shots, thatīs something that Federer does repeteadly.
I donīt want to see "scrubs" playing a long match but with not as good quality of play.
Itīs not Federerīs fault that the tour has not been able to catch up with him pretty much since second part of 2003 til now.

spencercarlos
10-08-2006, 05:20 AM
Interesting points which you make here :)

Among many Federer fans the match between Roger and Marat at last years Australian Open is one of the best matches ever and this proves that Federer fans don't like Federer only when he is winning (like some people always claim).

As much as I enjoyed Federers great matches in Wimbledon this year where he played brilliant, I have to say that I pay the same tribute to his achievement in Halle. He certainly didn't played his best tennis there, but I was impressed how he handled the matches there imaging coming straight from Roland Garros and one of the most disappointing days of his career when he lost the final.
The way he saved the match points against Rochus in Halle was just :eek: simply amazing :worship: Roger.
Any other player would have lost to Rochus under those circumstances.

World Beater
10-08-2006, 05:36 AM
I donīt really agree with you with the bold quote, when i watch professional tennis i want to watch something out of this world, amazing shots, thatīs something that Federer does repeteadly.
I donīt want to see "scrubs" playing a long match but with not as good quality of play.
Itīs not Federerīs fault that the tour has not been able to catch up with him pretty much since second part of 2003 til now.

:worship:

might as well go watch the juniors, eh?:p

TennisGrandSlam
10-08-2006, 05:56 AM
42th singles title :cool:

Regenbogen
10-08-2006, 06:59 AM
I'm almost convinced the majority of posters in the Federer forum became fans officially after his 2003 Wimbly SF, although some (Mrs. B, Rogifan, Doris and others) have been there for much longer.

What's weird, is that I don't REMEMBER Federer before that SF. I remember that before I watched it, I was pretty sure he'd win, so I already knew about him, but I just don't remember knowing about him. It's very odd.

I've always liked his personality and game but disliked his domination and always used to root against him, I've gotten over that though :lol:

soraya
10-08-2006, 07:02 AM
Thanks, tennisgal. While I'm no fan of Roger Federer's, I would never call his tennis boring. It's bloody brilliant, no doubt about it. But his matches are often VERY boring. He wins so easily that there is rarely anything left of his opponents after the first set. Maybe that's what people mean when they say "he's boring". Roger plays trascended tennis. I've been watching tennis for most of my life and I've NEVER seen anyone play the way Roger can, and I can appreciate the asthetics of his game. How could you be a fan of tennis and NOT enjoy it?

BUT....what I like best about tennis is the....fight. I LOVE guys like Nadal and Baghdatis because the fight their asses off. Seldom do I get that sense of satisfaction from a Federer match.


I agree with the first part of your post, but though I respect your thoughts I think that the word "fight" have differnt meaning and different connotation for different people. What amazes me most about Fed's game is his mind, how he uses to put hid adversary out of their game. It is not a physical fight but a mental fortitude that drives his opponents crazy. To me that is fighting , with brain.

Also don't you think it is contraddicting to say that you can appreciate the aeshtetics of Fed's game, yet you think that his matches are boring?

disturb3d
10-08-2006, 07:09 AM
It is not a physical fight but a mental fortitude that drives his opponents crazy. To me that is fighting , with brain.Don't be silly.

soraya
10-08-2006, 07:17 AM
Don't be silly.

me or what I wrote? no disparagement please!

disturb3d
10-08-2006, 07:26 AM
me or what I wrote? no disparagement please!I'm sorry, your highness!

Roger is the last player who would engage in a mental battle against his opponent.
He's in his own world, out there to better his performance.
I'm sure he'd laugh off claims that his mentality is disabling his opponent.

If I were to play a professional match, my best performance would probably be against him.
He's like a ball-machine, no expression or interaction. You're free to be yourself.

If there's any handicap that comes with playing Roger, it's self-imposed.
A calm demeanor surely can't win you matches.

cmurray
10-08-2006, 06:13 PM
I donīt really agree with you with the bold quote, when i watch professional tennis i want to watch something out of this world, amazing shots, thatīs something that Federer does repeteadly.
I donīt want to see "scrubs" playing a long match but with not as good quality of play.
Itīs not Federerīs fault that the tour has not been able to catch up with him pretty much since second part of 2003 til now.

Come now, let's not over-simplify. I didn't say I like to watch a couple of has-beens playing a terrible match. NOBODY likes that and I suspect that you know that isn't what I meant. Are you honestly trying to tell me that watching Federer decimate Jonas Bjorkman at Wimbledon was more exciting than the match he played against Safin at the AO? No doubt he played brilliantly against Bjorkman, but the match SUCKED. I'm sorry, but it did.

Eden
10-08-2006, 06:15 PM
when i watch professional tennis i want to watch something out of this world, amazing shots, thatīs something that Federer does repeteadly.
I donīt want to see "scrubs" playing a long match but with not as good quality of play.
Itīs not Federerīs fault that the tour has not been able to catch up with him pretty much since second part of 2003 til now.

I couldn't agree more :yeah:

cmurray
10-08-2006, 06:23 PM
Roger is the last player who would engage in a mental battle against his opponent.
He's in his own world, out there to better his performance.
I'm sure he'd laugh off claims that his mentality is disabling his opponent.



I actually agree with this. I think that Roger is so naturally gifted that he rarely has to "out-think" his opponent. He seems to play his game no matter who he's playing against - except for Rafa. And perhaps that's part of the reason why he loses so frequently to Raf. Not that I think Roger isn't a smart player, but I don't think he has to play a completely tactical game like, say, Hewitt does.

tennisgal_001
10-08-2006, 06:31 PM
Come now, let's not over-simplify. I didn't say I like to watch a couple of has-beens playing a terrible match. NOBODY likes that and I suspect that you know that isn't what I meant. Are you honestly trying to tell me that watching Federer decimate Jonas Bjorkman at Wimbledon was more exciting than the match he played against Safin at the AO? No doubt he played brilliantly against Bjorkman, but the match SUCKED. I'm sorry, but it did.

I think I get what you're trying to say: You enjoy matches with a lot of passion/emotion/ups-and-downs/roller-coasters in other words, where the outcome is unpredictable. At the same time, you admire Federer's game and on-court brilliance, but do not find his matches AS INTERESTING simply because, 99.9% of the time, you know he'll be on the winning end, without a significant struggle/battle. You would rather spend your tennis-hours watching a match that gets you involved, emotionally (like a bumpy ride), rather than watch a match that begins and ends in the same pattern of perfection (like a smooth ride)? :wavey:

cmurray
10-08-2006, 06:47 PM
I think I get what you're trying to say: You enjoy matches with a lot of passion/emotion/ups-and-downs/roller-coasters in other words, where the outcome is unpredictable. At the same time, you admire Federer's game and on-court brilliance, but do not find his matches AS INTERESTING simply because, 99.9% of the time, you know he'll be on the winning end, without a significant struggle/battle. You would rather spend your tennis-hours watching a match that gets you involved, emotionally (like a bumpy ride), rather than watch a match that begins and ends in the same pattern of perfection (like a smooth ride)? :wavey:

Succinctly put. And correct on all counts. Are you SURE you're a Federer fan????? You seem so....sensible. :lol: jk. sort of. :angel:

World Beater
10-08-2006, 07:02 PM
Succinctly put. And correct on all counts. Are you SURE you're a Federer fan????? You seem so....sensible. :lol: jk. sort of. :angel:

right...but i think the point that some are trying to make is that, we look at the tennis being played during the point and the strokes themselves. If you weren't aware of the score but considered the quality of tennis, it was extremely high in the bjorkman match. it wasn't as if bjork was hitting error after error. the points usually ended with a winner. So even if the score may be one-sided, i do enjoy seeing a masterful performance.

But yes, there have been some matches where the opponent has gifted points through errors to federer. And those matches aren't ones i particularly enjoy obviously. But a masterclass like the bjorkman, or a hewitt thrashing at the uso, when the tennis is at the highest level is something i like to watch. i am not saying that hewitt played his best in the match, but he played well enough to make it seem that roger was blasting winners past him and creating shots that i haven't seen before.

everyone obviously prefers good tennis AND good competition. But it doesnt mean that one shouldn't enjoy good tennis without competition especially when it is at the highest level. I certainly dont consider these matches to be boring unless it fits the model of the match i described earlier. I think what you will find common in many federer fans is that we are fans of the tennis itself, and we dont need extra-curricular activities to entertain us.

cmurray
10-08-2006, 07:15 PM
right...but i think the point that some are trying to make is that, we look at the tennis being played during the point and the strokes themselves. If you weren't aware of the score but considered the quality of tennis, it was extremely high in the bjorkman match. it wasn't as if bjork was hitting error after error. the points usually ended with a winner. So even if the score may be one-sided, i do enjoy seeing a masterful performance.

But yes, there have been some matches where the opponent has gifted points through errors to federer. And those matches aren't ones i particularly enjoy obviously. But a masterclass like the bjorkman, or a hewitt thrashing at the uso, when the tennis is at the highest level is something i like to watch. i am not saying that hewitt played his best in the match, but he played well enough to make it seem that roger was blasting winners past him and creating shots that i haven't seen before.

everyone obviously prefers good tennis AND good competition. But it doesnt mean that one shouldn't enjoy good tennis without competition especially when it is at the highest level. I certainly dont consider these matches to be boring unless it fits the model of the match i described earlier. I think what you will find common in many federer fans is that we are fans of the tennis itself, and we dont need extra-curricular activities to entertain us.


I understand that some people like that sort of thing. That "master's class" idea. I get it completely. I'm just not one of them. I hope you understand that I am stating my personal preference and not that I think everyone should agree with me????? Unlike some people around here, I'm perfectly capable of accepting that not everyone is going to see things my way.

Your last statement has me confused. Are you suggesting that a tightly contested match is extra-curricular??????

World Beater
10-08-2006, 07:21 PM
I understand that some people like that sort of thing. That "master's class" idea. I get it completely. I'm just not one of them. I hope you understand that I am stating my personal preference and not that I think everyone should agree with me????? Unlike some people around here, I'm perfectly capable of accepting that not everyone is going to see things my way.

Your last statement has me confused. Are you suggesting that a tightly contested match is extra-curricular??????

no no...roger is known for not showing as much emotion or being so vibrant on court...some people want him to show more personality and this is a legitimate request. some people need more than just the tennis to entertain them. But for myself, i am not so concerned by his actions(extra-curriculars), and more about the shots and strokes.

you can disagree with me all you want...i am just explaining my views on why i appreciate federer. :) also to clarify, when i mean master-class i mean when someone is able to hit shots that others can rarely hit. not just hitting lollipop fh or bh. when he is able to turn a neutral rally into a offensive one because of his shot selection and variety...for me it is great to witness.

tennisgal_001
10-08-2006, 07:22 PM
Succinctly put. And correct on all counts. Are you SURE you're a Federer fan????? You seem so....sensible. :lol: jk. sort of. :angel:

:lol:
I've already taken my vitamin B12 pill for the day so, yes, I'm positive.:o
(This thread should become an MTF guideline to the Fednut/Rafanut evolution)

cmurray
10-08-2006, 08:04 PM
no no...roger is known for not showing as much emotion or being so vibrant on court...some people want him to show more personality and this is a legitimate request. some people need more than just the tennis to entertain them. But for myself, i am not so concerned by his actions(extra-curriculars), and more about the shots and strokes.

you can disagree with me all you want...i am just explaining my vie ws on why i appreciate federer. :) also to clarify, when i mean master-class i mean when someone is able to hit shots that others can rarely hit. not just hitting lollipop fh or bh. when he is able to turn a neutral rally into a offensive one because of his shot selection and variety...for me it is great to witness.

Wow. You sure are dedicated. Let me try this again. I understand your position perfectly. I know that some people like to watch perfect tennis. I know that you are one of those people. I'm not disagreeing with you personally.

Oh, and for the record - - it is not Roger's lack of on-court personality that bores me. The fact that he isn't a teeming cauldron of emotion (a la Marat) doesn't bother me at all. What bores me is the fact that his matches aren't competitive. I thought I'd stated that pretty clearly numerous times in this thread???????? Yeesh.

World Beater
10-08-2006, 09:17 PM
Wow. You sure are dedicated. Let me try this again. I understand your position perfectly. I know that some people like to watch perfect tennis. I know that you are one of those people. I'm not disagreeing with you personally.

Oh, and for the record - - it is not Roger's lack of on-court personality that bores me. The fact that he isn't a teeming cauldron of emotion (a la Marat) doesn't bother me at all. What bores me is the fact that his matches aren't competitive. I thought I'd stated that pretty clearly numerous times in this thread???????? Yeesh.

i dont really understand the context of this comment, seeing as how you didnt understand my use of "extra-curriculars"... i was trying to clarify because i was asked to do so:confused:

cmurray
10-08-2006, 09:29 PM
i dont really understand the context of this comment, seeing as how you didnt understand my use of "extra-curriculars"... i was trying to clarify because i was asked to do so:confused:

bwhahahaha. It's sort of like you're speaking German and I'm speaking Italian. :lol: I was referring to the second part of your post where you stated that I'm disagreeing with you all I want.

I just have one question.
Who's on first??????


Let's just call it a truce - we obviously aren't on the same wave-length. :D

World Beater
10-08-2006, 09:32 PM
bwhahahaha. It's sort of like you're speaking German and I'm speaking Italian. :lol: I was referring to the second part of your post where you stated that I'm disagreeing with you all I want.

I just have one question.
Who's on first??????


Let's just call it a truce - we obviously aren't on the same wave-length. :D

well you did disagree with me, no? at least w/ respect to the competitiveness issue...you prefer that over perfect tennis :p but i think you understand the points anyway. so leave it at that

cmurray
10-08-2006, 09:42 PM
well you did disagree with me, no? at least w/ respect to the competitiveness issue...you prefer that over perfect tennis :p but i think you understand the points anyway. so leave it at that

The question is whether YOU understand the points. ;)

federated
10-08-2006, 10:53 PM
the game...the beautiful game.

World Beater
10-08-2006, 11:20 PM
The question is whether YOU understand the points. ;)


thanks, oh wise one:rolleyes:

cmurray
10-09-2006, 12:26 AM
thanks, oh wise one:rolleyes:

now, now. Sarcasm does not become you. Play nice. :angel:

sylacauga
10-09-2006, 05:24 PM
Oh, and for the record - - it is not Roger's lack of on-court personality that bores me. The fact that he isn't a teeming cauldron of emotion (a la Marat) doesn't bother me at all. What bores me is the fact that his matches aren't competitive. I thought I'd stated that pretty clearly numerous times in this thread???????? Yeesh.

If this is the case, then you must nearly fall into a coma during the clay court season with Nadal.

cmurray
10-09-2006, 08:09 PM
If this is the case, then you must nearly fall into a coma during the clay court season with Nadal.

Have you watched Rafa play on clay? He wins, but it isn't always an easy win.

oz_boz
10-09-2006, 08:16 PM
Have you watched Rafa play on clay? He wins, but it isn't always an easy win.

Of the 62 straight wins, only the two Rome finals and Berdych in Båstad were competitive. If you are bored by dominance there are few, if any, worse examples than Nadalīs clay run. But I guess you have other reasons for liking him even though he toys with his opponents. :)

sylacauga
10-09-2006, 08:26 PM
Have you watched Rafa play on clay? He wins, but it isn't always an easy win.

Unless I missed something, the only people who gave Rafa a real test on clay this year were Fed, PHM, and maybe Nieminen. On the other hand, Fed had plenty of struggles this year namely Oz Open, Halle, Rome, and Toronto.

oz_boz
10-09-2006, 08:32 PM
Unless I missed something, the only people who gave Rafa a real test on clay this year were Fed, PHM, and maybe Nieminen. On the other hand, Fed had plenty of struggles this year namely Oz Open,Halle, Rome, and Toronto.

I would beg to differ.

cmurray
10-09-2006, 08:47 PM
Of the 62 straight wins, only the two Rome finals and Berdych in Båstad were competitive. If you are bored by dominance there are few, if any, worse examples than Nadalīs clay run. But I guess you have other reasons for liking him even though he toys with his opponents. :)

REALLY???? I thought for sure he had a tough time against Mathieu at RG? And isn't it the mantra of the Federer fan that Roger gave him "all he could handle" in the RG final??????

He toys with his opponents???? Oh NO! Why didn't you tell me sooner? I have SEEN THE LIGHT! Good bye Rafa, hello Roger. Phew. I was almost a fan of a nice, gracious guy who plays with passion and spirit. That was a CLOSE one. :rolleyes:

Look. What's the big deal if I like Rafa better than Roger? You'd think not being a Federer fan was some sort of crime. He's a great player, just not my favorite. So sue me.

rofe
10-09-2006, 09:21 PM
REALLY???? I thought for sure he had a tough time against Mathieu at RG? And isn't it the mantra of the Federer fan that Roger gave him "all he could handle" in the RG final??????

He toys with his opponents???? Oh NO! Why didn't you tell me sooner? I have SEEN THE LIGHT! Good bye Rafa, hello Roger. Phew. I was almost a fan of a nice, gracious guy who plays with passion and spirit. That was a CLOSE one. :rolleyes:

Look. What's the big deal if I like Rafa better than Roger? You'd think not being a Federer fan was some sort of crime. He's a great player, just not my favorite. So sue me.

I think what posters are trying to point out are that it is perfectly reasonable to like Nadal and not like Fed but the the only reason you gave for not liking Fed is that his matches are not competitive because he keeps winning.

Posters then pointed out that Fed's matches have been competitive (AO, Dubai, Halle, Toronto to name a few) and also pointed out that Nadal's matches have been equally boring during the clay season going by your own logic.

It is fine if you dislike Fed but your "main" reason for disliking him does not seem logical considering that you should therefore dislike Nadal as well (and you don't).

I hope I haven't confused the issue further. ;)

PamV
10-09-2006, 09:41 PM
This is a serious completely non-bashing question that I have for Federer lovers. Why is it that you like him so much? I mean, is it the beauty of his game? His personality? The fact that he wins so often and it's rewarding to back a winner?
A combination of these things?

I ask because different players appeal to me for different reasons. I like Rafa because of his intensity, because he strikes me as a really nice guy and because he wins. Yep, I admit it. It's fun to cheer for somebody who knows how to win.

But Marat...well, my liking him has NOTHING to do with his ability to win (obviously) and more to do with his game and his...passion. Plus he just entertains the hell out of me. I put Marcos in this category as well. Thanks in advance for your honesty.

Federer has the "It" factor and his game is the most beautiful I've ever seen. As for intensity....he is very intense also but it's a smoldering from within intensity that he tries NOT to show.....which is much more attractive to me than a player who shows everything he thinks. Besides all of that he's a nice guy that I can like as a person.....he never puts down the linesmen or gets in a huff with the chair umps.

cmurray
10-09-2006, 09:55 PM
I think what posters are trying to point out are that it is perfectly reasonable to like Nadal and not like Fed but the the only reason you gave for not liking Fed is that his matches are not competitive because he keeps winning.

Posters then pointed out that Fed's matches have been competitive (AO, Dubai, Halle, Toronto to name a few) and also pointed out that Nadal's matches have been equally boring during the clay season going by your own logic.

It is fine if you dislike Fed but your "main" reason for disliking him does not seem logical considering that you should therefore dislike Nadal as well (and you don't).

I hope I haven't confused the issue further. ;)


I'll concede that Nadal is consistent on clay. But Rafa plays 4 big clay court tournaments a year. Roger is boring all year long.:cool: You make a valid point though. My criteria for liking (or not liking) tennis players isn't always the same. For instance : I like Rafi because of the way he plays, his fight, his spirit, his ass and the fact that at the end of the day after the fighting is over, he's generous and speaks kindly of his opponents. Always. I like Marat because he's passionate and emotional and brilliant at times. I also think he's beautiful.

I don't hold the fact that Roger isn't emotional on court against him. Just because I like that quality in other players doesn't mean it's the reason I dislike him. I just don't like the inevitability that he's going to win. Am I making any sense at all? Because if I'm not, then please get back to telling me what you like about Roger so much. That was the intent of this thread - I didn't want to turn it into a bash Roger/Rafa/Cheryl thread. Fair enough?

Cheryl :)

oz_boz
10-10-2006, 08:48 AM
Sorry cmurray/Cheryl, I just think it's contradictive that you say Roger is boring for his dominance, but you still like Rafa. I don't care about your being a Fed fan or not, but I wouldn't say dominance as a factor of boringness makes a case for liking Nadal. IMO Mathieu was never really close, I was sure that he would get tired. And though I rooted for Fed in the RG final I'd never say he gave Nadal all he could handle in that final. But if you think otherwise, fair enough.

Rommella
10-10-2006, 11:22 AM
His beautiful tennis. I was a Sampras fan then (and still am, actually) but without difficulty, I immediately embraced Roger after Wimbledon 2001 and rooted for him thereafter. The way he played and moved, everything was just so fluid and effortless. I watched because I knew I'd almost always have what David Foster Wallace terms as "Federer moments".

DONADANG
10-10-2006, 11:56 AM
I just don't like the inevitability that he's going to win. Am I making any sense at all? Because if I'm not, then please get back to telling me what you like about Roger so much. That was the intent of this thread - I didn't want to turn it into a bash Roger/Rafa/Cheryl thread. Fair enough?

Cheryl :)

Hi Cheryl,

I just can't seem to understand why there is a need for Roger fans to explain to you why we support him.

If you really wanted to find out why we admire this guy - come to his forum...hehehe..not trying to convert you or anything.

:p ;)

cmurray
10-10-2006, 01:08 PM
Hi Cheryl,

I just can't seem to understand why there is a need for Roger fans to explain to you why we support him.

If you really wanted to find out why we admire this guy - come to his forum...hehehe..not trying to convert you or anything.

:p ;)

Certainly you don't NEED to. Roger fans seem to like doing this, as evidenced by the 8 pages of replies so far. And I find it interesting. Participate or don't - it's certainly your prerogative...but if you don't feel it necessary, why bother to reply at all? It isn't like this is a bashing post where you need to jump in to defend his honor... I merely asked for opinions. By all means, scurry back to the Roger forum if you don't feel inclined to give yours. :wavey:

cmurray
10-10-2006, 01:11 PM
Sorry cmurray/Cheryl, I just think it's contradictive that you say Roger is boring for his dominance, but you still like Rafa. I don't care about your being a Fed fan or not, but I wouldn't say dominance as a factor of boringness makes a case for liking Nadal. IMO Mathieu was never really close, I was sure that he would get tired. And though I rooted for Fed in the RG final I'd never say he gave Nadal all he could handle in that final. But if you think otherwise, fair enough.

If you don't see a difference between Roger dominating everyone all year long, and Rafa doing so for 2 months, then I suppose we're just doomed to not understand each other. Which is okay - it's what makes the world go 'round. ;)

bokehlicious
10-10-2006, 01:24 PM
Sorry cmurray/Cheryl, I just think it's contradictive that you say Roger is boring for his dominance, but you still like Rafa.

Roger's butt doesn't fit ;)

yanchr
10-10-2006, 01:47 PM
I'll concede that Nadal is consistent on clay. But Rafa plays 4 big clay court tournaments a year. Roger is boring all year long.:cool: You make a valid point though. My criteria for liking (or not liking) tennis players isn't always the same. For instance : I like Rafi because of the way he plays, his fight, his spirit, his ass and the fact that at the end of the day after the fighting is over, he's generous and speaks kindly of his opponents. Always. I like Marat because he's passionate and emotional and brilliant at times. I also think he's beautiful.

I don't hold the fact that Roger isn't emotional on court against him. Just because I like that quality in other players doesn't mean it's the reason I dislike him. I just don't like the inevitability that he's going to win. Am I making any sense at all? Because if I'm not, then please get back to telling me what you like about Roger so much. That was the intent of this thread - I didn't want to turn it into a bash Roger/Rafa/Cheryl thread. Fair enough?

Cheryl :)
Don't tell me again that you actually admire Roger's tennis whatsoever. I'm tired of it. From all your posts (and also in other threads), all I can say is you don't like Roger or even hate him, cuz you like Rafa, as simple as that, and it's even not necessary to come up with a seemingly logical reason to make yourself look good, cuz things don't always require a reason esp in such a forum. And don't try to tell me you can still admire him while not liking him, just like I can tell you I admire Rafa's fighting spirit and mental strength while I still hate him. It's so fake and sick to me. And this thread started by you, who, at least from what I see, are always mean to Roger while from time to time trying to hide your hatred by making those fake comments, doesn't deserve 8 pages, cuz I don't think you will ever truly understand why Roger fans love him. And is it even necessary?

Actually, I shouldn't have contributed to the 8 pages but I'm just sick of it and bored.

bokehlicious
10-10-2006, 01:52 PM
Don't tell me again that you actually admire Roger's tennis whatsoever. I'm tired of it. From all your posts (and also in other threads), all I can say is you don't like Roger or even hate him, cuz you like Rafa, as simple as that, and it's even not necessary to come up with a seemingly logical reason to make yourself look good, cuz things don't always require a reason esp in such a forum. And don't try to tell me you can still admire him while not liking him, just like I can tell you I admire Rafa's fighting spirit and mental strength while I still hate him. It's so fake and sick to me. And this thread started by you, who, at least from what I see, are always mean to Roger while from time to time trying to hide your hatred by making those fake comments, doesn't deserve 8 pages, cuz I don't think you will ever truly understand why Roger fans love him. And is it even necessary?

Actually, I shouldn't have contributed to the 8 pages but I'm just sick of it and bored.


:worship: :worship: :worship:

Castafiore
10-10-2006, 01:53 PM
There's no need to be hostile, is there?

Besides, why can't you admire a person without actually being a fan?
Or even, why can't you admire a person without liking him/her?
I can think of quite a few sports people I admire for their talent and abilities without actually being a fan. On a rational level, I can value their talent but it takes more (from an emotional point of view perhaps) to be a fan IMHO.

For example, I admire Lance Armstrong but I can't say that I have ever watched a Tour de France as his fan (sitting behind my tv, urging him to attack, to maximize his lead).
It doesn't have to be that black & white: if you're not a fan, you must be a hater. It doesn't work like that for all people.

Hey, this is a good thread IMO. The bashing has been kept to a minimum and I found it interesting to read all the reasons why the Federer fans admire and support Roger.

Rogiman
10-10-2006, 02:06 PM
There's no need to be hostile, is there?

Besides, why can't you admire a person without actually being a fan?
Or even, why can't you admire a person without liking him/her?
I can think of quite a few sports people I admire for their talent and abilities without actually being a fan. On a rational level, I can value their talent but it takes more (from an emotional point of view perhaps) to be a fan IMHO.

For example, I admire Lance Armstrong but I can't say that I have ever watched a Tour de France as his fan (sitting behind my tv, urging him to attack, to maximize his lead).
It doesn't have to be that black & white: if you're not a fan, you must be a hater. It doesn't work like that for all people.

Hey, this is a good thread IMO. The bashing has been kept to a minimum and I found it interesting to read all the reasons why the Federer fans admire and support Roger.But that's because you're an :angel: who can do nothing wrong, always saying what people love to hear and never being controversial. May you one day make your dream of bringing world peace come true :angel: :angel:

yanchr
10-10-2006, 02:08 PM
There's no need to be hostile, is there?

Besides, why can't you admire a person without actually being a fan?
Or even, why can't you admire a person without liking him/her?
I can think of quite a few sports people I admire for their talent and abilities without actually being a fan. On a rational level, I can value their talent but it takes more (from an emotional point of view perhaps) to be a fan IMHO.

For example, I admire Lance Armstrong but I can't say that I have ever watched a Tour de France as his fan (sitting behind my tv, urging him to attack, to maximize his lead).
It doesn't have to be that black & white: if you're not a fan, you must be a hater. It doesn't work like that for all people.

Hey, this is a good thread IMO. The bashing has been kept to a minimum and I found it interesting to read all the reasons why the Federer fans admire and support Roger.
Interestingly enough, when I wrote the above post I thought she/he should get along well with you, cuz you two are so alike, and you actually jumped out immediately :lol:

Rogiman
10-10-2006, 02:10 PM
Interestingly enough, when I wrote the above post I thought she/he should get along well with you, cuz you two are so alike, and you actually jumped out immediately :lol:
Exactly, both are hypocrites who pretend to be saint.

bokehlicious
10-10-2006, 02:11 PM
Interestingly enough, when I wrote the above post I thought she/he should get along well with you, cuz you two are so alike, and you actually jumped out immediately :lol:

Add Mallorn and you've got the winning "unbiased fair Rafa fans" :o

yanchr
10-10-2006, 02:12 PM
But that's because you're an :angel: who can do nothing wrong, always saying what people love to hear and never being controversial. May you one day make your dream of bringing world peace come true :angel: :angel:
:lol: :worship:

Castafiore
10-10-2006, 02:13 PM
But that's because you're an :angel: who can do nothing wrong, always saying what people love to hear and never being controversial. May you one day make your dream of bringing world peace come true :angel: :angel:
Well, thank you for that beautiful answer :rolleyes:

Seriously, why does every bloody thread about Federer or Rafael have to be so damn hostile all the time.

This has been an interesting thread to read but some people simply can't handle a MTF thread without a dosis of hostility.

Being a fan is not totally rational because you have an emotional connection to the sports person so it's mission impossible to explain it to somebody who doesn't have that same emotional connection but nevertheless, it can be great to read things from a different viewpoint.

bokehlicious
10-10-2006, 02:23 PM
Seriously, why does every bloody thread about Federer or Rafael have to be so damn hostile all the time.

Why do the hypocrite Nadal fans don't stay away from Fed related threads? :confused:

Your comments only fool the fools, you actually can't stand Roger but as you hardly find any rational arguments to bash him then the common sense is to label him "boring"...

refero*fervens
10-10-2006, 02:24 PM
On the original thread question, for me it's the tennis. But just something I think yanchr said a few pages back about his loss at AO05 perhaps actually bringing Roger more fans - well, I'd be one of them. When I sit down to watch the tennis I know I'll enjoy a Roger match. I probably don't have much more to add because it's all been said and well said too, except that I don't really think there are true fans out there who can like his dominance but not his tennis. And the dominance comes with a fair share of haters too ;).

Castafiore
10-10-2006, 02:28 PM
Your comments only fool the fools, you actually can't stand Roger but as you hardly find any rational arguments to bash him then the common sense is to label him "boring"...
Don't be so paranoid.

Find me a post of mine where I have labelled him as "boring" and please, don't give me any ESP bullshit: don't even pretend to have the ability to read my mind.

buddyholly
10-10-2006, 02:28 PM
Why do the hypocrite Nadal fans don't stay away from Fed related threads? :confused:

Your comments only fool the fools, you actually can't stand Roger but as you hardly find any rational arguments to bash him then the common sense is to label him "boring"...

I think these are discussion threads. You seem to think they should just be worship threads. How boring would that be?

bokehlicious
10-10-2006, 02:32 PM
I think these are discussion threads. You seem to think they should just be worship threads. How boring would that be?

The thread issue was not about why one don't like/can't stand Federer, was it ? :shrug: The haters need to share their dislike/hatred of Roger on every single thread that is related to him... Quite predictable and boring.

yanchr
10-10-2006, 03:02 PM
I think these are discussion threads. You seem to think they should just be worship threads. How boring would that be?
Yes, that would be quite boring.

I don't mind people expressing their hatred openly. Actually sometimes the fight between the groups is what makes MTF fun. I just can't stand some hypocritical Rafa fans pretentiously saying good things about Roger while actually always try to find ways to dismiss him.

Castafiore
10-10-2006, 05:06 PM
How the hell can you be so pretentious that you think you know if somebody's honest or hypocritical?

Not everybody's a cynical bastard, you know. It's not always black and white. It's not because you're not really a fan that you have to dislike a player.

cmurray
10-10-2006, 06:03 PM
Don't tell me again that you actually admire Roger's tennis whatsoever. I'm tired of it. From all your posts (and also in other threads), all I can say is you don't like Roger or even hate him, cuz you like Rafa, as simple as that, and it's even not necessary to come up with a seemingly logical reason to make yourself look good, cuz things don't always require a reason esp in such a forum. And don't try to tell me you can still admire him while not liking him, just like I can tell you I admire Rafa's fighting spirit and mental strength while I still hate him. It's so fake and sick to me. And this thread started by you, who, at least from what I see, are always mean to Roger while from time to time trying to hide your hatred by making those fake comments, doesn't deserve 8 pages, cuz I don't think you will ever truly understand why Roger fans love him. And is it even necessary?

Actually, I shouldn't have contributed to the 8 pages but I'm just sick of it and bored.



You're SO sick of it and bored that you keep coming back in here to have a go at me???? :wavey: Bring it on.

BTW, stop trying infect this thread with your nastiness. I don't know who you think you are to determine that my "reasons" for not being a fan of Roger are fake...but I've got a newsbreak for you - I don't give a rat's ass.

Maybe it wasn't what you intended, but your idiotic post is quite amusing, actually. You truly believe that the only reason a person might not like Roger is because they like Rafa? Or that if you aren't a fan of somebody, you automatically HATE them? On that score, you are either illiterate and don't understand what the word hate actually means, or you've been fortunate enough to never been given a reason to truly hate someone. Either way, it's ridiculous to accuse somebody else or claim that you yourself "hate" a person you don't even know. Grow up why don't you?

As far as understanding why you all "love" Roger.... Perhaps because you are not capable of understanding someone else's point of view without sharing it, you think that nobody can do so. It's a shame.

I'll tell you what. I'll just be "fake" and "mean to Roger" (because, you know, I talk to him all the time:lol:) and you can go about your business of policing everyone's intentions. I can see that you're imminently qualiified. See ya :wavey:

World Beater
10-10-2006, 06:36 PM
But that's because you're an :angel: who can do nothing wrong, always saying what people love to hear and never being controversial. May you one day make your dream of bringing world peace come true :angel: :angel:

:haha:

World Beater
10-10-2006, 06:47 PM
You're SO sick of it and bored that you keep coming back in here to have a go at me???? :wavey: Bring it on.

BTW, stop trying infect this thread with your nastiness. I don't know who you think you are to determine that my "reasons" for not being a fan of Roger are fake...but I've got a newsbreak for you - I don't give a rat's ass.

Maybe it wasn't what you intended, but your idiotic post is quite amusing, actually. You truly believe that the only reason a person might not like Roger is because they like Rafa? Or that if you aren't a fan of somebody, you automatically HATE them? On that score, you are either illiterate and don't understand what the word hate actually means, or you've been fortunate enough to never been given a reason to truly hate someone. Either way, it's ridiculous to accuse somebody else or claim that you yourself "hate" a person you don't even know. Grow up why don't you?

As far as understanding why you all "love" Roger.... Perhaps because you are not capable of understanding someone else's point of view without sharing it, you think that nobody can do so. It's a shame.

I'll tell you what. I'll just be "fake" and "mean to Roger" (because, you know, I talk to him all the time:lol:) and you can go about your business of policing everyone's intentions. I can see that you're imminently qualiified. See ya :wavey:

If thats the case, maybe you should start the thread in your own forum...that way you can commiserate and wax lyrically about how you hate his domination and you wont have to tolerate other viewpoints. i was trying to give you some possible reasons, and you decided to be subtly nasty yourself. Your posts are quite contradictory. you dont mind rafa's domination, but roger's domination isn't ok? :confused: 60+ matches isnt two months is it? That was the only reason you gave. if there are other reasons thats fine, and perfectly reasonable but that explanation reeks of hypocrisy...you brought the nastiness upon yourself. anyways i have said my piece, you wont have to worry about me infecting your cess pool anymore.

tennisgal_001
10-10-2006, 07:42 PM
It's so sad what this thread has turned into---started out well, and went downhill without looking back. I agree with Castafiore, just because you're not a die-hard fan doesn't mean you're not ALLOWED to admire some of their attributes. I respect, (and I'm quite fond) of Nadal's positive attitude, and willingness to take himself out of his comfort zone, and adapt his game to other surfaces. I'm not a fan of the tennis he plays BUT I like his attitude. Does that mean I'm a Federer-traitor now?!!!!??!

Rogiman
10-10-2006, 07:55 PM
It's so sad what this thread has turned into---started out well, and went downhill without looking back. I agree with Castafiore, just because you're not a die-hard fan doesn't mean you're not ALLOWED to admire some of their attributes. I respect, (and I'm quite fond) of Nadal's positive attitude, and willingness to take himself out of his comfort zone, and adapt his game to other surfaces. I'm not a fan of the tennis he plays BUT I like his attitude. Does that mean I'm a Federer-traitor now?!!!!??!
Nothing wrong with what you're saying, except that the thread starter IS a Fed hater, which is perfectly fine, but pretending to not be one is what makes her look rather pathetic.

cmurray
10-10-2006, 08:27 PM
It's so sad what this thread has turned into---started out well, and went downhill without looking back. I agree with Castafiore, just because you're not a die-hard fan doesn't mean you're not ALLOWED to admire some of their attributes. I respect, (and I'm quite fond) of Nadal's positive attitude, and willingness to take himself out of his comfort zone, and adapt his game to other surfaces. I'm not a fan of the tennis he plays BUT I like his attitude. Does that mean I'm a Federer-traitor now?!!!!??!

Tennisgal - PLEASE! You're trying to be the voice of reason! Doesn't work with these people. They don't want to hear any nonsense about respect. They don't know what respect is. They only know what worship is. And insults - they sure know all about insults.

cmurray
10-10-2006, 08:34 PM
If thats the case, maybe you should start the thread in your own forum...that way you can commiserate and wax lyrically about how you hate his domination and you wont have to tolerate other viewpoints. i was trying to give you some possible reasons, and you decided to be subtly nasty yourself. Your posts are quite contradictory. you dont mind rafa's domination, but roger's domination isn't ok? :confused: 60+ matches isnt two months is it? That was the only reason you gave. if there are other reasons thats fine, and perfectly reasonable but that explanation reeks of hypocrisy...you brought the nastiness upon yourself. anyways i have said my piece, you wont have to worry about me infecting your cess pool anymore.

:baby: :crying2:

You and your little band of Federer the tennis God worshippers made this a cess pool. not me.

stebs
10-10-2006, 08:35 PM
I have to kind of say that people are harshly jumping on the back of cmurray. I mean, it's not a crime to not like someone and maybe his/her reason doesn't make 100% sense but that's the way it is sometimes.

I like Roger for his tennis but I won't deny that his success is also intruiging to me. I like to see this history being made. Another reason for liking him is the fact that because he is #1 he is shown on the TV more. I have other favourites (Gasquet, Baghdatis, Gaudio) but in the end being able to watch Federer far more allows a bigger feeling of support to build.

stebs
10-10-2006, 08:37 PM
:baby: :crying2:

You and your little band of Federer the tennis God worshippers made this a cess pool. not me.

Perhaps true and I just wrote a post defending you but it seems you can take no more as this post clearly shows that you have stooped down to the level of those irritating you. Maybe you are in a cess pool but there is no reason to take another shit, that will just make things worse.

cmurray
10-10-2006, 08:43 PM
Nothing wrong with what you're saying, except that the thread starter IS a Fed hater, which is perfectly fine, but pretending to not be one is what makes her look rather pathetic.


Yep. I'm pathetic because I compliment his tennis and his looks instead of just trash-talking him at every possible moment. His tennis is amazing. he is attractive to me....and I'm not allowed to say this because....I'm a Rafa fan? Because YOU say so? Because you can't conceive that there might be people out there who can be objective in their fandom and like one player without "hating" his rival? Must be a small pitiful world you live in.

cmurray
10-10-2006, 08:50 PM
Perhaps true and I just wrote a post defending you but it seems you can take no more as this post clearly shows that you have stooped down to the level of those irritating you. Maybe you are in a cess pool but there is no reason to take another shit, that will just make things worse.

Point taken. You are correct. I'm quite irritated at being the whipping boy (or girl as the case may be) because I don't conform to their idea of what not liking Roger entails. My apologies for getting down in the cesspool with them.

Incidentally, what you said about being able to watch Roger more, is intriguing. I used to feel that way about Andre - I saw him so often that I sort of built up my own hype.

Bremen
10-10-2006, 11:21 PM
Point taken. You are correct. I'm quite irritated at being the whipping boy (or girl as the case may be) because I don't conform to their idea of what not liking Roger entails. My apologies for getting down in the cesspool with them.

Incidentally, what you said about being able to watch Roger more, is intriguing. I used to feel that way about Andre - I saw him so often that I sort of built up my own hype.

Guys the fighting really needs to stop. Sometimes I think it's funny but there are a lot of other threads for that. I'm actually a huge fed fan and find nadal annoying BUT I'm actually more on the side of cmurray here. She started off saying this wasn't going to be a negative thread and we've had some great responses. let's try to get back to that.

Bagelicious
10-11-2006, 01:54 AM
O the tard-filled joy of MTF,
I have heard the posters cry,
All who dwell with flame wars and trolls
Whom shall they turn to?

O the rational posters,
I have seen them try,
But swiftly they are undermined,
Whom shall they turn to?

O the hellish wrath,
I see their opinions fry,
Under numerous flaming attacks,
Whom shall they turn to?

O such brave posters,
I hope none should cry,
Persevere and ask yourselves not,
Whom shall we turn to?

Fight the good fight, brave posters of MTF!

Not my best effort, but you get the point... I hope.

trickcy
10-11-2006, 08:02 PM
Answering the original question :

I wasn't a fan of tennis until this year. I used to watch women's tennis scores , but hadn't watched a men's single match fully. The first match I saw was Rolang Garros 06 finals. Only finals were broadcasted here, and I switched on the TV and got HOOKED :) ( There's no other word for it ) I didn't know who Roger Federer was or who Rafael Nadal was. Heck, I didn't even know how Roger's first name was pronounced!!! And while watching the match, all I could think watching Roger was " Is tennis really this beautiful?" And I saw Roger lose, so, it isn't a question of dominance. I didn't know he had 7 GS uptil then. I was thinking how could a guy be SO talented and yet lose? The first thing that attracted me to Roger was his sheer talent, grace, beauty and that underlying power.

It didn't make sense that the next day, I spent 3-4 hrs on the net digging up info on Roger, while I didn't care for the winner Rafael... It still doesn't make sense. But that's what happened. I read about his record, his bio, and all that made me respect him more. And now, I'm a diehard RF fan. I spend hours tracking videos of his previous matches, watching the live scoring, spend hrs on the forums of RF.com

And now, after a teeny weeny little bit experience with tennis, I'm still in awe of his beauty. All I see is the perfection in his shots. I don't care if he wins 6-0 6-0 or 7-6 6-7 7-6. All I want is to watch him play. And now, I respect him for his humility, for his agility, speed, dominance, beauty, power, linguistic skills, off court work, but, all the main thing I go :worship: about is his talent.

Eden
10-14-2006, 10:25 AM
All I see is the perfection in his shots. I don't care if he wins 6-0 6-0 or 7-6 6-7 7-6. All I want is to watch him play. And now, I respect him for his humility, for his agility, speed, dominance, beauty, power, linguistic skills, off court work, but, all the main thing I go :worship: about is his talent.

:yeah:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts :)

Eden
10-22-2006, 11:52 AM
When I sit down to watch the tennis I know I'll enjoy a Roger match. I probably don't have much more to add because it's all been said and well said too, except that I don't really think there are true fans out there who can like his dominance but not his tennis. And the dominance comes with a fair share of haters too ;).

To a certain degree I can understand it when fans of other players are getting fed up with Rogers dominance because they want their man to have success as well.

When Becker, Rafter, Kuerten or Agassi competeted against Sampras I was always hoping that they would win and I got sad when they lost to him in a big match. I asked myself how Sampras could win against them nearly all the time.

My opinion about Sampras changed when he won Wimbledon where his parents were sitting on the tribune and Pete was so emotional about his victory and the visits of his parents that he cried. He had won so many titles but this one really meant a lot to him.

Following Federers career today somehow brings me even more respect for Sampras because I compare the pressure under which both players were/are all the time.

I'm quite sure one day some of the people who don't like Federer now will respect his achievements and be glad that they could witness a player making history :)

cmurray
10-22-2006, 12:51 PM
To a certain degree I can understand it when fans of other players are getting fed up with Rogers dominance because they want their man to have success as well.

When Becker, Rafter, Kuerten or Agassi competeted against Sampras I was always hoping that they would win and I got sad when they lost to him in a big match. I asked myself how Sampras could win against them nearly all the time.

My opinion about Sampras changed when he won Wimbledon where his parents were sitting on the tribune and Pete was so emotional about his victory and the visits of his parents that he cried. He had won so many titles but this one really meant a lot to him.

Following Federers career today somehow brings me even more respect for Sampras because I compare the pressure under which both players were/are all the time.

I'm quite sure one day some of the people who don't like Federer now will respect his achievements and be glad that they could witness a player making history :)

This is a very astute observation. I felt the same about Pete years ago - never once did I cheer for him in a match. But now that the entire generation is gone, I find that I miss him very much and I realize what I missed not paying attention to him. I still wouldn't call myself a fan, but I kick myself for dismissing his matches unless he was playing Andre.

This is the reason I pay attention to Roger's tennis. I don't want to have to kick myself again for not taking advantage of at least appreciating genius when it's right in front of me.

Eden
10-24-2006, 09:23 PM
This is a very astute observation. I felt the same about Pete years ago - never once did I cheer for him in a match. But now that the entire generation is gone, I find that I miss him very much and I realize what I missed not paying attention to him. I still wouldn't call myself a fan, but I kick myself for dismissing his matches unless he was playing Andre.

I wouldn't call myself a Sampras fan either - even now I would always cheer for my favourite players competeting against him -, but I see many things from a different perspective and have lots of respect for his achievements.
Just an example: I'm still sad that Agassi lost the US Open final 2002 to him, but on the other hand I think it is a wonderful moment for such a great player as Pete to retire with such a triumph :)



This is the reason I pay attention to Roger's tennis. I don't want to have to kick myself again for not taking advantage of at least appreciating genius when it's right in front of me.

:)

moon
10-24-2006, 10:39 PM
I first started watching Roger out of curiousity, in 2000 and 2001. The more I watched him, the more I realized what an impact he would have on the game of tennis. When he won his first masters, I knew that he would end up as one of the greats. His game is beautiful, and it's just hard to turn away.
I'm happy to witness history in the making.

Fedever
11-21-2006, 02:17 AM
Guys the fighting really needs to stop. Sometimes I think it's funny but there are a lot of other threads for that. I'm actually a huge fed fan and find nadal annoying BUT I'm actually more on the side of cmurray here. She started off saying this wasn't going to be a negative thread and we've had some great responses. let's try to get back to that.

I agree! She asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. Get off cmurray's back!!!

magnoliaewan
11-21-2006, 09:02 PM
I liked Federer since 2000 when he wasn't dominating yet. There was just something about him and his on-court demeanour (I guess the calm, cool, collected attitude) and of course his tennis style that I liked. I just knew he would become a great tennis player and he did. So for me, it was his tennis and his personality that I liked. The dominance is just a bonus and makes it so fun to be a fan when your man is always winning but the fact that I noticed him before his dominance proves that I liked something else about him and that's his beautiful tennis and his on-court personality. People can call it boring but I like quiet, calm and collected grace.

Caerula Sanguis
11-21-2006, 09:47 PM
I love his tennis. I started playing tennis 3 years ago after watching him played in 2003 Wimbledon. I taped his matches, and copy his form (yeah, me , a newbie tried to copy Federer's form LOL). Without any coaching or any proper lessons, now I am able to beat my 3.0 friends and I'm very proud. =P

Andre'sNo1Fan
03-03-2007, 10:42 PM
Neither. His dominance is extremely boring, and once you've seen him play 100 times well whats new.

Bremen
03-03-2007, 10:53 PM
Neither. His dominance is extremely boring, and once you've seen him play 100 times well whats new.

Once you've seen any player play 100 times what's new??

Still every now and then a player will come up with a something different...I haven't seen too many between the leg's no look winners like the one fed hit this week.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Po2fE07Ww8

Andre'sNo1Fan
03-03-2007, 11:02 PM
Yeh well maybe its like watching the Brazil football team play. They play amazing stuff that no-one else can do, but after a while it becomes boring if they win all the time, and have no competition. Brazil will always come up with something different in a match, but the game maybe still boring if the other side has no chance. Its the same thing with Federer.

Bremen
03-03-2007, 11:11 PM
Well we disagree then.

~EMiLiTA~
03-04-2007, 12:13 AM
Yeh well maybe its like watching the Brazil football team play. They play amazing stuff that no-one else can do, but after a while it becomes boring if they win all the time, and have no competition. Brazil will always come up with something different in a match, but the game maybe still boring if the other side has no chance. Its the same thing with Federer.

I agree with you. Yes, Roger plays amazing tennis but that is not enough for me because, as you say, once you have seen him play so many times as I have (and I have been watching him play live since 2000), it becomes boring IF he is not challenged..and at the moment, he is not being challenged. I don't find his white-washing matches interesting no matter how good he has played, because ultimately there was no threat to his winning the match. There will be moments during those matches when I will say "wow, what a great shot" but I would still much prefer closer competition. However, if he is challenged during a match and still can play at that amazing high level (eg. vs Safin at AO 2005) then that definitely is brilliant and then I really do enjoy his matches. Overall though, I find his dominance bad for the sport. That is just my opinion.

Kip
03-04-2007, 12:26 AM
I like his dominance & personality. :cool:

Kolya
03-04-2007, 01:04 AM
Federer's tennis = domination = intimidation = more domination...

cmurray
03-04-2007, 01:16 AM
Federer's tennis = domination = intimidation = more domination...

That is certainly part of it - and I'm sure Roger knows this and employs it the fullest. I know I sure as hell would. And it isn't like he hasn't earned the right to intimidate his opponents...he's given out enough thrashings.....

Federer&Hingis
03-04-2007, 01:42 AM
I am a "die-hard" Federer fan since 2001 (Hopman Cup).

I love his game and his personality.

rofe
03-04-2007, 02:05 AM
That is certainly part of it - and I'm sure Roger knows this and employs it the fullest. I know I sure as hell would. And it isn't like he hasn't earned the right to intimidate his opponents...he's given out enough thrashings.....

He would be stupid not to exploit the intimidation factor.

Anyway, to all those who find his domination boring - I am sure you will cheer up during the clay season.

Bibberz
03-04-2007, 02:06 AM
Federer’s clearly the best I’ve ever seen, but I haven’t wanted him to win a match since Wimbledon 2003. He wins with such alarming frequency that I don’t root for him to win any more than I would root for the sun to rise.

cmurray
03-04-2007, 02:13 AM
Federer’s clearly the best I’ve ever seen, but I haven’t wanted him to win a match since Wimbledon 2003. He wins with such alarming frequency that I don’t root for him to win any more than I would root for the sun to rise.

Interesting way of putting it, David.

Bremen
03-04-2007, 02:28 AM
Federer’s clearly the best I’ve ever seen, but I haven’t wanted him to win a match since Wimbledon 2003. He wins with such alarming frequency that I don’t root for him to win any more than I would root for the sun to rise.

He won a single slam and you never rooted for him again??? That was domination?

Bibberz
03-04-2007, 02:42 AM
He won a single slam and you never rooted for him again??? That was domination?

Tell me you saw that SF match against Roddick. Besides, I was never a "fan" of Federer in the first place--I just wanted him to beat Philippoussis.

~EMiLiTA~
03-04-2007, 02:46 AM
Anyway, to all those who find his domination boring - I am sure you will cheer up during the clay season.

why? I expect him to win more clay tournaments this year, including RG

Bremen
03-04-2007, 02:47 AM
Tell me you saw that SF match against Roddick. Besides, I was never a "fan" of Federer in the first place--I just wanted him to beat Philippoussis.

Well if you were never a fan than I can understand you.

lshdure
03-04-2007, 05:29 AM
On the one hand his tennis - His style, shotmaking, balance, and anticipation are beauty itself. His tennis reminded me of Orchestra. I watched tennis for twenty years; Connores, Borg, McKenro, Lendle, Sampras, Aggassi, etc. But nobody could glued me in front of TV like Federer is doing right now. When i watch his movement without following ball or without opponent's reaction, it's just like dance. Wow! On the other hand, i like his humblness without self-denigration, pride without arrogance, respect for others.

I am not worried about his domination. Watching his tennis itself is joy for me. I don't care whether he will be GOAT or not. For me, Federer is already unique in his style AND total package, and enhancing this sport toward new era. It's for sure.

pinky
03-04-2007, 10:09 AM
This has been posted several times I guess, but still:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Hp-EArV6s8

I saw it live and will always remember it :-)

oz_boz
03-04-2007, 11:45 AM
He would be stupid not to exploit the intimidation factor.

Anyway, to all those who find his domination boring - I am sure you will cheer up during the clay season.

Quoting the thread starter (no offense intended cmurray ;) ): domination 2 months/year isn't as boring as domination 10 months/year. :lol:

tcorinna
03-04-2007, 11:59 AM
His tennis is just brilliant :worship:

When he is on the court playing my heart is beating faster and I'm always amazed ... I mean is no match where I'm not like:WOAUUUU :eek: :eek: ... even when he is not playing his best tennis, his shots are amazing and I'm standing in front of the tv and thinking ... OMG his sooo good :worship: ... OMG what a shot:worship: ... OMG what a match ...:worship:

his tennis boring???:confused: Think again ...

bokehlicious
03-04-2007, 12:48 PM
On the one hand his tennis - His style, shotmaking, balance, and anticipation are beauty itself. His tennis reminded me of Orchestra. I watched tennis for twenty years; Connores, Borg, McKenro, Lendle, Sampras, Aggassi, etc. But nobody could glued me in front of TV like Federer is doing right now. When i watch his movement without following ball or without opponent's reaction, it's just like dance. Wow! On the other hand, i like his humblness without self-denigration, pride without arrogance, respect for others.

I am not worried about his domination. Watching his tennis itself is joy for me. I don't care whether he will be GOAT or not. For me, Federer is already unique in his style AND total package, and enhancing this sport toward new era. It's for sure.


:worship: :worship:

cmurray
03-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Quoting the thread starter (no offense intended cmurray ;) ): domination 2 months isn't as boring as domination 10 months. :lol:

None taken. :p

Federerhingis
03-05-2007, 01:48 AM
Beautiful tennis is the number one factor. With the exception of Nadal, all my favorites have classically beautiful games.

All that winning is the reason Federer is my absolute favorite over all the other players with beautiful games. For one thing, I admire his ability to deliver week in, week out. For another, dominance just makes me :bowdown:. But if it were, say, Roddick dominating the tour, I would admire in an abstract way, but I wouldn't watch.

While I am a fan of his personality, and it makes me proud to be a Federer fan, it's not a reason I'm a fan, if that makes any sense. I'm a fan of some very different personalities, including Federer's (calm), Baghdatis's & Santoro's (cheerful), Safin's (sometimes explosive, always charismatic), and Nadal's (sometimes intense, sometimes cuddly), and I'm a fan of Haas qua player despite the fact that most of the time I think he needs a good spanking.

Yes for me it's almost the same, I've always been attracted to players with traditionally 'attractive games', while one can make a good argument that Pete's game was much too brute with his massive serve and simple volley put away. His volley game was so clean and his technique so classic how one could undermine that aspect of his game is beyond me.

Now considering I've admired and enjoyed watching the likes of Hana Mandlikova, Evonne Goolagong, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Martina Navratilova, John McEnroe, Patrick Rafter and Martina Hingis. It's simple to see why I would enjoy and marvel at Rogers game of tennis.

Besides what's there not to like about the guy? He was born in the same country my dad was born and the guy is humble. My sister could only marvel at his humble nature despite the fact that she was rooting strongly for Agassi to win at the US Open final in 2005.

In conclusion it's really his game that made me an admirer and a fan.

aulus
03-05-2007, 03:01 AM
This has been posted several times I guess, but still:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Hp-EArV6s8

I saw it live and will always remember it :-)

:eek:

maybe the greatest shot i've ever seen.

today i don't think he would have hit that. he would have already hit the BH for a winner instead.

Stensland
09-11-2007, 09:52 AM
i like him for his game and his conduct on and off court.

HNCS
09-11-2007, 10:09 AM
2 factors

I entirely fell in love with the man during his AO 2006 speech. ;) But that was after i got struck by the beauty of his game. you see...he allowed me to realise that sport wasn't just brutal force, he allowed to see the beauty and the art that exsists within sport.

his game, his shots always make me think this is the first time i've ever witnessed him.

:worship:

thesupreme
09-11-2007, 10:31 AM
Its for the simple fact that he plays tennis as god (and indeed man) intended for it to be played....with precision, skill, flair and effortless power whilst at the same time being naturally adaptive. I'm just thankful that i'm of the right era to witness true greatness such as this....:worship:

Forehander
09-11-2007, 11:25 AM
nothing much, he's just a good player and amazing to watch during live. I also really like his dominance yes because he's rewriting tennis history

didadida
09-11-2007, 01:19 PM
i like his game the way he plays ,i really enjoy watching him play more than other players ,he seems like he is a ballet dancer when you watching him you think tennis is very easy to play,he has very good personality in and out the court and most of the players really respect him a lot ,he is so classy and although he has all these records he is not arrogant at all ,he is making history

jasmin
09-11-2007, 02:07 PM
For me it was his game that blew me away. It was just a thing of beauty. Another thing that got me was when my mom told me about his character. Federer likes his cars but with all his money he does such charitable things with it. I'm all for that.

siddy
09-11-2007, 04:01 PM
For me, it's just the sheer spectacle of watching the man play. He is more than a sportsperson -- he's an artist. I wouldn't care if he won 5 slams or 12 -- as long as he plays with that elegance. To strengthen my point -- my favorite among the younger players is Gasquet -- and he hasn't been winning all that much. But it's a great experience watching him play -- something that will undoubtedly get better over the years.

I know a lot of people like Federer just because he beats everyone -- but that's not why I love his game.