Why doesn't anyone like Fed-Man? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why doesn't anyone like Fed-Man?

fetch
01-29-2007, 01:57 PM
Okay, I was at AO with my girlfriend and her brother. We went to the Grand Final and the Fed vs Duck match because we wanted to see some serious ass kicking take place.

We weren't disappointed.

However, I noticed in both these matches that the crowd was always rooting for Fed's opponent which I found weird because his skills obviously surpassed his opponent's by about ten million. Every time Federer unforced-error'd or faulted, the audience would just explode into cheers and scream 'Go GONZO!' or 'GO ANDY!' depending on which demolition you went to. You guys must've surely noticed it on TV, but if you didn't or if it didn't seem that bad on television, let me tell you, it was almost embarassing for the Fed. However, when he hit a winner, there was a smattering of applause and low murmurings.

I said to my girlfriend between the second and third set of the Duck match, "Gee, the audience is really siding with Roddick, huh?" and her (gay) brother went, "Duh. He's so much sexier than Federer." And then my girlfriend said it was probably because the crowds always rooted for the underdog or perhaps it was because they didn't want the match to end because they'd paid good money for their seats.

But I don't know, I always had a bit of an underlying feeling that maybe the AO crowd doesn't particularly like Federer. I mean, they clapped for him at the end of every match when he won, but it was more like polite applause, as opposed to when the loser went back to the locker room, it was like a mosh pit.

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:01 PM
You said it all: people want a long match with drama, so they root for Fed's opponent. Especially in late stage of GS where they know Fed wouldn't tank, they want to see THE upset. Very cruel for Rog but very human...
Might be more and more like that in coming slams, except RG where Fed will be the crowd favourite for obvious reasons. Another pressure for Fed.
It doesn't show too much on TV.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 02:01 PM
Federer copes with rude crowds throughout the year (except when playing in Basel or Gstaad), even though it's pretty sad I guess it' no longer a big deal to him.

Rogiman
01-29-2007, 02:04 PM
my girlfriend said it was probably because the crowds always rooted for the underdog or perhaps it was because they didn't want the match to end because they'd paid good money for their seats.
83 minutes to take the Duck out, had the match taken place in the US there would have been a huge protest on the crowd's behalf for not even completing a second round of hamburgers...

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:09 PM
83 minutes to take the Duck out, had the match taken place in the US there would have been a huge protest on the crowd's behalf for not even completing a second round of hamburgers...

lol
but we know that in the US Fed likes to please the crowd when facing local heroes: one set to Agassi in 05, one set to Blake and Roddick in 06, then he can play his normal level and switch gear. An they get their second hamburger/sausage (it depends) ;)
This guy will be the best exhibition player ever, with uncanny ability to control the scoreline...

Rosa Luxembourg
01-29-2007, 02:12 PM
maybe because his opponents (especially Roddick) usually need all the help they could get to beat Roger?

fetch
01-29-2007, 02:13 PM
I was in Miami for a while and those Yankees would not stop chowing down donuts. I was in Homer Simpson land for a while there.

Rogiman
01-29-2007, 02:15 PM
I was in Miami for a while and those Yankees would not stop chowing down donuts. I was in Homer Simpson land for a while there.:haha:

Auscon
01-29-2007, 02:19 PM
On the contrary, i think the crowd, at least for his semi and final, were very happy for Roger to win

Sure some people just want to see the underdog win, and so they'll get more vocal support, but others were still happy for Roger to take it out, but may have been wanting to see a closer match, so they'll go fo the guy who's down....

I'd like to think though that everyone there appreciated the brilliance of Roger, even just very casual fans could see it,and walk away happy knowing they saw the best at his best. My dad likes tennis, but would never bother to sit down and watch a match on tv...i met him in Melbourne for the semi's/final, and like many others he wanted to see tough, close matches, but he was gob-smacked at the tennis Roger was playing, he really was completely amazed at what he was seeing

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 02:19 PM
Because he's boring, and never involves the crowd when he plays ?

cmurray
01-29-2007, 02:19 PM
lol
but we know that in the US Fed likes to please the crowd when facing local heroes: one set to Agassi in 05, one set to Blake and Roddick in 06, then he can play his normal level and switch gear. An they get their second hamburger/sausage (it depends) ;)
This guy will be the best exhibition player ever, with uncanny ability to control the scoreline...

Wow. That's amazingly ridiculous. I suppose he let Baggy take a set off him in Melbourne last year on purpose too? And Rafa at Wimbledon? (and let's not even TALK about Paris). Are you honestly contending that the only reason Roger ever loses a set is because he intends to? Way to raise the "absurd post" bar. :yeah:

Magus13
01-29-2007, 02:22 PM
When I was at the US Open semis, I was almost hoping Davydenko would get a set. When you pay all that money, you want to be out there for a bit.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 02:23 PM
and never involves the crowd when he plays ?

WTF ?!?! :confused:

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:24 PM
Wow. That's amazingly ridiculous. I suppose he let Baggy take a set off him in Melbourne last year on purpose too? And Rafa at Wimbledon? (and let's not even TALK about Paris). Are you honestly contending that the only reason Roger ever loses a set is because he intends to? Way to raise the "absurd post" bar. :yeah:

(half) joking :cool:

Rogiman
01-29-2007, 02:25 PM
WTF ?!?! :confused:
Don't bother to read Rafa's #1 sex-instrument's posts, there's no logics whatsoever in'em.

*Ljubica*
01-29-2007, 02:28 PM
Most people want to see the underdog do well - and Roger is such an exceptional player his opponent is always the underdog! However, as Auson says - whenever I have seen Roger play live he always has a lot of applause because "real" tenis fans appreciate his ability. Whether you support him or not, I think all knowledgable and sensible tennis fans think he is "one in a million" and to be there to watch hm play live is a privelage.

fetch
01-29-2007, 02:29 PM
I like Federer, dontgetmewrongbutyouprobablywill, and he's BRILLIANT AND AMAZING AND IS PROBABLY THE BEST TENNIS PLAYER WE WILL EVER SEE...but. Here's the big but.

When I watch him play, I'm not excited. When I watched Agassi and Sampras play in the good 'ol days, I was excited. I was pumped. If they hit a winner, I'd shriek and kill everyone's eardrums. If they faulted or did something stupid, I'd shriek and throw my beer bottle at the TV.

When I'm watching Federer, I'm not that excited. If he hits a winner, I'd go, 'Yep, that's amazing, yep, he's fantastic, yep, that's a brilliant shot." If he faults or does something stupid I'd probably just change the channel.

I think the key is that he doesn't exude a certain charm on court that the likes of Agassi or Laver or heck, even Roddick (you didn't hear it from me) do. He just doesn't excite people.

cmurray
01-29-2007, 02:29 PM
(half) joking :cool:

uh-huh. That half part worries me. Okay. Say it with me.

"Roger is NOT Jesus Christ"

again

"Roger is NOT Jesus Christ" :p

Also, just to let you know...(and this is pure speculation on my part) I don't think Roger can control the weather. On the other hand, who knows what kind of hidden talents the guy has........

Rosa Luxembourg
01-29-2007, 02:30 PM
Because he's boring, and never involves the crowd when he plays ?

Are you saying that player touching his crack every 40sec pleases the crowd more? :p

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:30 PM
"Roger is NOT Jesus Christ"


no, you kiddin'

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:31 PM
Are you saying that player touching his crack every 40sec pleases the crowd more? :p

At least he involves some psychiatrist in the crowd...

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 02:33 PM
He just doesn't excite people.

He excites true knowledgable and sensible tennis fans, and I'm conviced that for him is what matters in the end... :)

Puschkin
01-29-2007, 02:35 PM
Federer copes with rude crowds throughout the year (except when playing in Basel or Gstaad)...

don't make Switzerland the only paradise, by far not all other crowds are hostile to Roger and certainly not Roland Garros, where he might need it. ;)

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 02:35 PM
WTF ?!?! :confused:
What I mean is he never lets anyone know his emotions. He just stands there with same expression whatever the score maybe. People who enjoy cheering, can't really relate to him in comparison to say Marat Safin or Rafa Nadal.

I mean he doesn't really have any personality when playing tennis, and I think fans struggle to get involved with him.

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:35 PM
I think the key is that he doesn't exude a certain charm on court that the likes of Agassi or Laver or heck, even Roddick (you didn't hear it from me) do. He just doesn't excite people.
I think he's more appreciated by people who know well the game, and I agree that my friends who hear about him aren't get caught by his charisma like an Agassi. But what he's doing technically, physcially, mentally and tactically is unique, that's why he gets so much praise by his peers and greats. Sampras was not that an entertainer IMO

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:36 PM
What I mean is he never lets anyone know his emotions. He just stands there with same expression whatever the score maybe. People who enjoy cheering, can't really relate to him in comparison to say Marat Safin or Rafa Nadal.
True but these guys would sell their mothers to have his resume, so...

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 02:37 PM
What I mean is he never lets anyone know his emotions. He just stands there with same expression whatever the score maybe. People who enjoy cheering, can't really relate to him in comparison to say Marat Safin or Rafa Nadal.

I mean he doesn't really have any personality when playing tennis, and I think fans struggle to get involved with him.

I advise you to see him more often playing before writing such bs... :zzz:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 02:40 PM
Don't bother to read Rafa's #1 sex-instrument's posts, there's no logics whatsoever in'em.
And you've got logics :lol:

Anyone who sees your avatar knows what a clown you are.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 02:43 PM
Are you saying that player touching his crack every 40sec pleases the crowd more? :p
Not really, but showing passion, emotion and a heart gets the crowd on your side.

fetch
01-29-2007, 02:43 PM
He excites true knowledgable and sensible tennis fans, and I'm conviced that for him is what matters in the end... :)

Psh. Sometimes there's just plain old entertainment factor where you can just sit down, put your feet up and watch the bloody match, without having to worry about technique and strategy and whatnot.

I've played tennis for fourteen years. And when it comes down to pure entertainment factor, the guy sucks.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 02:45 PM
I advise you to see him more often playing before writing such bs... :zzz:
Its not bs, he just hasn't got any charisma court. He's not as bad as Sampras, but he's certainly no Connors or McEnroe, Nadal or Safin. He may have beautiful tennis, but he's very boring otherwise on court.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 02:49 PM
Its not bs, he just hasn't got any charisma court. He's not as bad as Sampras, but he's certainly no Connors or McEnroe, Nadal or Safin. He may have beautiful tennis, but he's very boring otherwise on court.

Thanks for sharing your opinion :) quite subjective one though...

cmurray
01-29-2007, 02:49 PM
I think he's more appreciated by people who know well the game, and I agree that my friends who hear about him aren't get caught by his charisma like an Agassi. But what he's doing technically, physcially, mentally and tactically is unique, that's why he gets so much praise by his peers and greats. Sampras was not that an entertainer IMO

I agree with this. Federer's tennis is FAR more entertaining than Pete's. And while I'm certainly not one to stick up for Roger, I'm not sure it's fair to compare him to Andre. There had never really been anyone like Andre in tennis before...and to that point, maybe there won't be again.

Some of you probably weren't watching back in the day when Andre first started out. I did. He was positively mesmerizing. Not just the hair and the clothes (though they certainly caught your attention) - there was something...different about him. It was this bizarre combination - amazing talent, brash personality and style - and yet you could always sense the "tortured soul" part of Andre. He was a teeming mass of contradictions. He could exceed your every expectation in one moment, and completely self-destruct in another. All of this combined with (yes) tennis genius made it impossible not to watch. Not everyone liked, of course...but everyone watched.

Roger is never going to have that kind of pull on people. Probably nobody will.

richie21
01-29-2007, 02:51 PM
i love Federer's game and also the person he is but i'm clearly beginning to dislike the way he is dominating.......he is completely killing the suspense!
i have absolutely no problem with him being the number 1 but i have problems with the fact he is dominating that much.
For the tennis 's best interest ,i think we need a player who will challenge him more seriously than he is challenged right now AND in every surface,not only on clay........
hopefully ,one of the youngsters will have a major step up and will challenge him a lot more than he has been until now......i'm saying "one of the youngsters" because it's becoming clearer and clearer that the likes of Hewitt,Roddick,Blake,Nalbandian,Haas or Gonzalez will probably always remain Federer's bitches.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 02:51 PM
I've played tennis for fourteen years.

That doesn't mean you have any tennis knowledge I'm afraid...

TheMightyFed
01-29-2007, 02:51 PM
It's a weapon used by Borg as well: don't show your emotions. And both learned this lesson the hard way when they were younger. It's a trade-off I think. But you can still enjoy Rafa, Safin and Haas, Kiefer, Monfils, you name one... Davydenko ? Kidding...

Or Levy
01-29-2007, 03:04 PM
I don't know, I'm a new fan to Tennis, I never played the game and if I had to hit a ball with something, I'm much more likely to miss than not.

And watching Roger is exciting to me, first of all because I recognize how excellent he is, and because his reactions are so understated, I enjoy looking for them :). The occasional hand-pump, the annoyed shake of head when he does an UE, the rare 'come-on', the shy smile on occasion if he does something spectacular that made the entire crowd cheer. Some other players get so excited whenever they do ANYTHING right, it's not AS special as watching Roger get exciting about something.

fetch
01-29-2007, 03:06 PM
That doesn't mean you have any tennis knowledge I'm afraid...


I'd laugh, but I'm too lazy.

yakuzaninja
01-29-2007, 03:11 PM
His dominance is the reason a lot wanna see him lose, although I'll root for him at the French.

rosamunda
01-29-2007, 03:16 PM
I just don't get all this. I've been watching tennis for over 40 years and I've had lots of favourites along the way. But the one player who has excited me more than any other player - by gazillions of miles - is Federer. It's not just the shot-making and the beauty of his game; it's the fact that I know he's an extremely emotional man underneath, and used to be a complete headcase; that he's managed to control all that while on the court makes his achievements all the more impressive. It clearly bores the knickers off many people, but it impresses the hell out of me.

I'm afraid I never 'got' Agassi.......:confused:

decrepitude
01-29-2007, 03:20 PM
I just don't get all this. I've been watching tennis for over 40 years and I've had lots of favourites along the way. But the one player who has excited me more than any other player - by gazillions of miles - is Federer. It's not just the shot-making and the beauty of his game; it's the fact that I know he's an extremely emotional man underneath, and used to be a complete headcase; that he's managed to control all that while on the court makes his achievements all the more impressive. It clearly bores the knickers off many people, but it impresses the hell out of me.

I'm afraid I never 'got' Agassi.......:confused:

Take this post, substitute 50 years for 40, and I could have written it myself. Agree absolutely.

magnoliaewan
01-29-2007, 03:20 PM
What I mean is he never lets anyone know his emotions. He just stands there with same expression whatever the score maybe. People who enjoy cheering, can't really relate to him in comparison to say Marat Safin or Rafa Nadal.

I mean he doesn't really have any personality when playing tennis, and I think fans struggle to get involved with him.

Funny, that's exactly why I was attracted to Federer when I first saw him play. At that time, 2002, he wasn't dominating yet but he was fast becoming my favourite player. I just love how he's able to stay so calm and serene, like he had no nerves, even when he was losing, he just never seems to lose it completely like other players. It made me go "I wish I was able to be that calm in bad situations". It was inspirational to me. I knew then that he would become a great tennis player and lo and behold, he hasn't proved me wrong. Now, his tennis and his calmness and smoothness just continues to amaze me.

I don't really need all the big explosive dramatic personalities to keep me entertained. I guess I'm more into the very calm, controlled and highly skilled ninja type.

Peacemaster
01-29-2007, 03:20 PM
I liked the older, calmer Andre way more than the young, brash one. Give me Pete and Roger any day over a Connors or a Mcenroe. I don't mind a young soul like Nadal showing emotion on court - he will learn. But, what players like Johnny Mac and Jimbo did in their advanced years was positively embarassing. It turned me off tennis to see something so powerfully weak and "country".

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 03:26 PM
I agree with this. Federer's tennis is FAR more entertaining than Pete's. And while I'm certainly not one to stick up for Roger, I'm not sure it's fair to compare him to Andre. There had never really been anyone like Andre in tennis before...and to that point, maybe there won't be again.

Some of you probably weren't watching back in the day when Andre first started out. I did. He was positively mesmerizing. Not just the hair and the clothes (though they certainly caught your attention) - there was something...different about him. It was this bizarre combination - amazing talent, brash personality and style - and yet you could always sense the "tortured soul" part of Andre. He was a teeming mass of contradictions. He could exceed your every expectation in one moment, and completely self-destruct in another. All of this combined with (yes) tennis genius made it impossible not to watch. Not everyone liked, of course...but everyone watched.

Roger is never going to have that kind of pull on people. Probably nobody will.

I just don't get all this. I've been watching tennis for over 40 years and I've had lots of favourites along the way. But the one player who has excited me more than any other player - by gazillions of miles - is Federer. It's not just the shot-making and the beauty of his game; it's the fact that I know he's an extremely emotional man underneath, and used to be a complete headcase; that he's managed to control all that while on the court makes his achievements all the more impressive. It clearly bores the knickers off many people, but it impresses the hell out of me.

I'm afraid I never 'got' Agassi.......:confused:


Of course, because Agassi is just a phony. I don't believe in anything that guy ever said or pulled in court.

Or Levy
01-29-2007, 03:27 PM
I just don't get all this. I've been watching tennis for over 40 years and I've had lots of favourites along the way. But the one player who has excited me more than any other player - by gazillions of miles - is Federer. It's not just the shot-making and the beauty of his game; it's the fact that I know he's an extremely emotional man underneath, and used to be a complete headcase; that he's managed to control all that while on the court makes his achievements all the more impressive. It clearly bores the knickers off many people, but it impresses the hell out of me.

I'm afraid I never 'got' Agassi.......:confused:


Exactly! Emotionless? Whoever saw him sobbing his heart out after that loss in Basel in 2001, or his reactions last year when Rod Laver presented him with trophy last year in the AO HAS to know he is definitly an emotional person, who just learned to control those emotions until when there's no match to lose anymore.

Denise
01-29-2007, 03:38 PM
I like him...............a bit :devil:

senorgato
01-29-2007, 03:41 PM
I like Federer, dontgetmewrongbutyouprobablywill, and he's BRILLIANT AND AMAZING AND IS PROBABLY THE BEST TENNIS PLAYER WE WILL EVER SEE...but. Here's the big but.

When I watch him play, I'm not excited. When I watched Agassi and Sampras play in the good 'ol days, I was excited. I was pumped. If they hit a winner, I'd shriek and kill everyone's eardrums. If they faulted or did something stupid, I'd shriek and throw my beer bottle at the TV.

When I'm watching Federer, I'm not that excited. If he hits a winner, I'd go, 'Yep, that's amazing, yep, he's fantastic, yep, that's a brilliant shot." If he faults or does something stupid I'd probably just change the channel.

I think the key is that he doesn't exude a certain charm on court that the likes of Agassi or Laver or heck, even Roddick (you didn't hear it from me) do. He just doesn't excite people.

Federer plays what appears to be a no-effort game. His strokes seem effortless. His movement seems even more effortless. His calm temperament seems effortless. And that's why it's underappreciated. What he does is he creates a beautiful piece of art every time he steps on the court.

And to answer the original question. Like some have already said, fans always tend to go for the underdog. They love to see upsets because it makes the challenge exciting.

Sunset of Age
01-29-2007, 03:42 PM
Exactly! Emotionless? Whoever saw him sobbing his heart out after that loss in Basel in 2001, or his reactions last year when Rod Laver presented him with trophy last year in the AO HAS to know he is definitly an emotional person, who just learned to control those emotions until when there's no match to lose anymore.

Yes... those who consider Roger as 'emotionless' have little knowledge about the variety by which different people show emotion. Roger is indeed a VERY EMOTIONAL guy, but he won't show that by yelling out loud on court, or the like - he has a lot more subtle ways to show his emotions. Look at his facial expressions, the way his eyes turn black when he gets fired up...

And of course, he can be a true crybaby on occasions - always AFTER a match, as if he finally can't controll his feelings anymore when it's over. I adore this, it only makes me love the guy even more.

Whistleway
01-29-2007, 03:46 PM
It is true to an extend. Based on the live matches I have seen with him play, it tends to be on boring side unless you are a true tennis nerd with passion for technique etc..

Tennis after all is entertainment and Roger fails on this regard. Yeah, he hits great shots etc, but, the connection with audience and drama is sorely missing. And his off-court demeanor doesn't add any charisma either.

He's a great great player and I, for one throughly enjoy watching his greatness unfold. But for a casual fan, it is a yawner unfortunately :(

mickymouse
01-29-2007, 03:46 PM
Would they give him a standing ovation if they didn't like him? Any neutral tennis fan would love the match to go the distance instead of a 3 set thrashing which ends in little more than an hour. It's called getting your money worth. Moreover it makes more sense to cheer for the underdog than for the guy who's winning everything, doesn't it?

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 03:50 PM
It is true to an extend. Based on the live matches I have seen with him play, it tends to be on boring side unless you are a true tennis nerd with passion for technique etc..

Tennis after all is entertainment and Roger fails on this regard. Yeah, he hits great shots etc, but, the connection with audience and drama is sorely missing. And his off-court demeanor doesn't add any charisma either.

He's a great great player and I, for one throughly enjoy watching his greatness unfold. But for a casual fan, it is a yawner unfortunately :(
The fact that even a Federer fan can see this tell its own story ;)

CooCooCachoo
01-29-2007, 03:55 PM
Your girlfriend's brother is living up to the stereotypes that many gay men, among which myself, is fighting against :rolleyes:

Apemant
01-29-2007, 03:55 PM
Excitement is overrated. :devil:


But, to each their own. Some people enjoy the rush of adrenaline, I prefer peaceful harmony. Whatever.

nanoman
01-29-2007, 03:56 PM
Fed is as popular as he can get for someone this dominant. During the match, of course, the crowd cheers for the underdog. But before and after the match he always gets the most thunderous roars and applause. I can't seem to remember Pete, Lendl, Williams or Nadal at RG getting this kind of appreciation.

*Ljubica*
01-29-2007, 03:56 PM
Take this post, substitute 50 years for 40, and I could have written it myself. Agree absolutely.

And if you substitute 30 for 50 I coud have written it too!

€Stah
01-29-2007, 04:12 PM
Because he is as boring as his cows (not Mirka).

guga2120
01-29-2007, 04:12 PM
Of course, because Agassi is just a phony. I don't believe in anything that guy ever said or pulled in court.

that is such an idiotic post.

The guy did more for tennis than anybody thats ever played.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:14 PM
that is such an idiotic post.

The guy did more for tennis than anybody thats ever played.

You're such a fanboy.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:16 PM
You're such a fanboy.
Why? Because he likes Agassi. Listen to yourself sometimes :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:18 PM
Why? Because he likes Agassi. Listen to yourself sometimes :rolleyes:

Exactly. What has this phony done to tennis then?

guga2120
01-29-2007, 04:19 PM
Exactly. What has this phony done to tennis then?

your not that stupid are you about tennis?

€Stah
01-29-2007, 04:21 PM
Exactly. What has this phony done to tennis then?

More than your fellow beast will ever do.

€Stah
01-29-2007, 04:22 PM
Oh yeah, before I forget it "TMC champion". :haha::haha::retard:

Klaas_nalbandian
01-29-2007, 04:24 PM
for me the reason is that I almost never cheer for the favourite who wins it all, just like lance amstrong in the tour the france

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:25 PM
Exactly. What has this phony done to tennis then?
Agassi is the most popular player in tennis history. If that on its own isn't enough, I don't know what is. Oh but he can't volley :lol:

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:26 PM
your not that stupid are you about tennis?

Of course not, that's why I see the phoniness.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:27 PM
More than your fellow beast will ever do.

Haven't you been banned yet? It's just a matter of time, anyway.

Agassi is the most popular player in tennis history. If that on its own isn't enough, I don't know what is. Oh but he can't volley :lol:

Most popular? :haha:

guga2120
01-29-2007, 04:28 PM
the phoniness.:retard:

yeah he was a real phony, you could tell at his last match at Wimbledon and the US Open, everybody thought that, nobody even seemed to care he was retiring

vahep
01-29-2007, 04:29 PM
This crap again?....

Of course Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander, etc. were all performing circus tricks in between points to keep the crowd entertained right? Personally, I tuned out the game (men's game anyway) ever since Mcenroe retired, until about 4 years ago. I never liked Mcenroe mind you. I hated the way he ran my boy Borg out of the game, but I could not take my eyes off the genius of his shotmaking and strategy.

I never stopped playing the game I love, but I stopped watching men's tennis not long after that. I would jump back in occasionally for a month or two to see if there was anything worth watching....nope. Then all of sudden Federer comes along, and I am riveted to his play exactly as I was to Mac. The only difference between them is that I actually like Federer's on and off court personality as well. So to each his own, Fed may have cost tennis millions of fans blah blah blah, but he sure brought one back from the grave who also did not "get" the whole Andre thing.

Oh, and anybody who thinks Roddick is sexier than Fed never saw both of them up close and in person.

€Stah
01-29-2007, 04:30 PM
Haven't you been banned yet? It's just a matter of time, anyway.



Most popular? :haha:

Why should I be banned? You're the idiot here.:wavey:

martinatreue
01-29-2007, 04:32 PM
I love Fed's game so much. I love his introverted personality and genuine emotion. I don't relate to the chest-pumping, macho types that Agassi and Roddick represent. Just a personal preference. Fed lets his racquet do the talking and then shows us his heart afterwards.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:33 PM
:retard:

yeah he was a real phony, you could tell at his last match at Wimbledon and the US Open, everybody thought that, nobody even seemed to care he was retiring

People are sheep, believing that "good boy" act. It was just an act to inflate the ego. His dream was pulling a Sampras, but he couldn't do it, so he had to do that little show.

€Stah
01-29-2007, 04:33 PM
I love Fed's game so much. I love his introverted personality and genuine emotion. I don't relate to the chest-pumping, macho types that Agassi and Roddick represent. Just a personal preference. Fed lets his racquet do the talking and then shows us his heart afterwards.

There goes the last piece of intelligence owned by a Federer lover.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:34 PM
Most popular? :haha:
Yeah, if every player was like your fav, there would be no interest in tennis, it would just die.

Agassi has done so much for tennis, and no haters like you can ever deny it. You haven't even got an argument.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:34 PM
Why should I be banned? You're the idiot here.:wavey:

You're calling Federer a dopefeed and I'm the idiot? Go figure.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 04:34 PM
This crap again?....

Of course Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander, etc. were all performing circus tricks in between points to keep the crowd entertained right? Personally, I tuned out the game (men's game anyway) ever since Mcenroe retired, until about 4 years ago. I never liked Mcenroe mind you. I hated the way he ran my boy Borg out of the game, but I could not take my eyes off the genius of his shotmaking and strategy.

I never stopped playing the game I love, but I stopped watching men's tennis not long after that. I would jump back in occasionally for a month or two to see if there was anything worth watching....nope. Then all of sudden Federer comes along, and I am riveted to his play exactly as I was to Mac. The only difference between them is that I actually like Federer's on and off court personality as well. So to each his own, Fed may have cost tennis millions of fans blah blah blah, but he sure brought one back from the grave who also did not "get" the whole Andre thing.

Oh, and anybody who thinks Roddick is sexier than Fed never saw both of them up close and in person.

Nice to read some brilliant messages among jealous haters crap :worship: ;)

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:36 PM
Yeah, if every player was like your fav, there would be no interest in tennis, it would just die.

Agassi has done so much for tennis, and no haters like you can ever deny it. You haven't even got an argument.

Interesting that you can't even say what he has supposedly done for tennis. Maybe because you are a fangirl that should be watching football, not tennis.

guga2120
01-29-2007, 04:37 PM
People are sheep, believing that "good boy" act. It was just an act to inflate the ego. His dream was pulling a Sampras, but he couldn't do it, so he had to do that little show.

you posts just get crazier and crazier.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:39 PM
you posts just get crazier and crazier.

You know as much as I do that Agassi's dream was pulling a Sampras, but he would never do it, then he decided to pull that circus thing to end his career. Not that hard to guess.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:41 PM
This crap again?....

Of course Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander, etc. were all performing circus tricks in between points to keep the crowd entertained right? Personally, I tuned out the game (men's game anyway) ever since Mcenroe retired, until about 4 years ago. I never liked Mcenroe mind you. I hated the way he ran my boy Borg out of the game, but I could not take my eyes off the genius of his shotmaking and strategy.

I never stopped playing the game I love, but I stopped watching men's tennis not long after that. I would jump back in occasionally for a month or two to see if there was anything worth watching....nope. Then all of sudden Federer comes along, and I am riveted to his play exactly as I was to Mac. The only difference between them is that I actually like Federer's on and off court personality as well. So to each his own, Fed may have cost tennis millions of fans blah blah blah, but he sure brought one back from the grave who also did not "get" the whole Andre thing.

Oh, and anybody who thinks Roddick is sexier than Fed never saw both of them up close and in person.

See, there's more people that can grasp the phony-acting.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:43 PM
Interesting that you can't even say what he has supposedly done for tennis. Maybe because you are a fangirl that should be watching football, not tennis.
LOL. Mmmm what has he done for tennis.

1) One of only 5 players in the history of the game to win all 4 majors, and the only won who has won them all on 4 different surfaces.

2) Competed in one of the most famous and intense rivalries of all time.

3) Attracted more crowd support than any other player I have known.

4) Attracted a new, different type of fan to tennis (not the ignorant stuck up type, like yourself for example). He was a rebel and people could relate to them.

5) Unbelievable intelligence for the game.

Shall I go on....

Meanwhile, you still haven't come up with anything to help your argument...

guga2120
01-29-2007, 04:46 PM
LOL. Mmmm what has he done for tennis.



this issue is not even worth explaining, if somebody can't get that, just forget it. Its not like its debatable.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 04:46 PM
2) Competed in one of the most famous and intense rivalries of all time.


Another annoying subjective statement... :rolleyes:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:48 PM
Another annoying subjective statement... :rolleyes:
How is that subjective. Do people still talk about that rivalry now - yes they do so I'm not sure how its subjective. If you didn't like thats too bad, but it doesn't make it any less famous or intense.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:49 PM
this issue is not even worth explaining, if somebody can't get that, just forget it. Its not like its debatable.
I guess you're right.......but I would just like to try and see what sort of crap these fools come up with. Its kinda funny :lol:

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:51 PM
LOL. Mmmm what has he done for tennis.

1) One of only 5 players in the history of the game to win all 4 majors, and the only won who has won them all on 4 different surfaces.

2) Competed in one of the most famous and intense rivalries of all time.

3) Attracted more crowd support than any other player I have known.

4) Attracted a new, different type of fan to tennis (not the ignorant stuck up type, like yourself for example). He was a rebel and people could relate to them.

5) Unbelievable intelligence for the game.

Shall I go on....

Meanwhile, you still haven't come up with anything to help your argument...

1) Winning all the majors only matters if it's in the same year, like Federer's trying to do.
2) Subjective :bs: Sampras played much less time and won much more.
3) and 4) A bunch of people that don't know and don't care about tennis and shouldn't even be watching it. People like you who only degenerate the sport.
5) Yeah, of course just hitting harder and harder and harder is pure intelligence. This way Serena Williams is a tennis genius.

this issue is not even worth explaining, if somebody can't get that, just forget it. Its not like its debatable.

If you can't explain it, then you have no point.

Another annoying subjective statement... :rolleyes:

See, JMPower gets things straight. You have no objective statements, only subjective dreams.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 04:53 PM
I guess you're right.......but I would just like to try and see what sort of crap these fools come up with. Its kinda funny :lol:

Funny is the fact that someone that admits that doesn't watch tennis and doesn't care for the sport is trying, with mediocre statements and absolutely no objectiveness, convince people that watch and care for the sport for a long time.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:56 PM
And your opinions are objective :lol:

Biggest joke I've heard all week.

1) Winning all the majors only matters if it's in the same year, like Federer's trying to do.
Right. So if its so easy, why haven't more people achieved it. If Federer wins RG this year but fails to win other slams, I hope you dismiss it as unimportant. Somehow I doubt it.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 04:58 PM
Funny is the fact that someone that admits that doesn't watch tennis and doesn't care for the sport is trying, with mediocre statements and absolutely no objectiveness, convince people that watch and care for the sport for a long time.
Whats more funny is there are people like yourself who act like they are some expert in tennis, when in fact you just chat so much rubbish its almost unreal. Get a reality check dude, you don't know as much as you think you do.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 04:59 PM
How is that subjective. Do people still talk about that rivalry now - yes they do so I'm not sure how its subjective. If you didn't like thats too bad, but it doesn't make it any less famous or intense.

If Federer was not around, this era would have plenty rivalries too, with the likes of Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Safin having more slams in their bags. Or bring Federer tens years back and he could also possibly have dominated the same way he is currently... No one has the answer, so yes it's subjective to state that it was more intense back then.

Rogiman
01-29-2007, 05:00 PM
LOL. Mmmm what has he done for tennis.

1) One of only 5 players in the history of the game to win all 4 majors, and the only won who has won them all on 4 different surfaces.

2) Competed in one of the most famous and intense rivalries of all time.

3) Attracted more crowd support than any other player I have known.

4) Attracted a new, different type of fan to tennis (not the ignorant stuck up type, like yourself for example). He was a rebel and people could relate to them.

5) Unbelievable intelligence for the game.

Shall I go on....

Meanwhile, you still haven't come up with anything to help your argument...

He hasn't done any of it "for the game", Andre's #1 tool, he's done it for himself, and for himself only, which is perfectly fine, just no need to create dispensable myths.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 05:02 PM
And your opinions are objective :lol:

Biggest joke I've heard all week.

Right. So if its so easy, why haven't more people achieved it. If Federer wins RG this year but fails to win other slams, I hope you dismiss it as unimportant. Somehow I doubt it.

No, I'm not Federer's fanboy. They only invented this "Career Slam" because in the modern game very few people can win the Grand Slam. It's like a consolation prize.
There's no "Career Slam". It may be important for the player and for his banking account, but in the future, people will remember only those who won the Grand Slam.

Whats more funny is there are people like yourself who act like they are some expert in tennis, when in fact you just chat so much rubbish its almost unreal. Get a reality check dude, you don't know as much as you think you do.

Coming from someone like you, that has no clue about tennis, it's a compliment. If you think I'm wrong, that means I'm being reasonable, as you have no clue about tennis.
Really, go watch football. You'll get more of your so wanted "competition".

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 05:02 PM
He hasn't done any of it "for the game", Andre's #1 tool, he's done it for himself, and for himself only, which is perfectly fine, just no need to create dispensable myths.
What and Federer doesn't do it for himself? So therefore, what has he supposed to have brought to tennis?

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 05:05 PM
He hasn't done any of it "for the game", Andre's #1 tool, he's done it for himself, and for himself only, which is perfectly fine, just no need to create dispensable myths.

:hatoff:

Couldn't expect less from you, mate.

What and Federer doesn't do it for himself? So therefore, what has he supposed to have brought to tennis?

Federer doesn't try to be a myth like some phonies. Federer wins for himself and that's it.

What Federer is bringing to tennis will be felt in some years, when the new players will be much more complete, and not just baseline counter-punchers.

Rogiman
01-29-2007, 05:06 PM
What and Federer doesn't do it for himself? So therefore, what has he supposed to have brought to tennis?Has anyone here claimed the future of tennis has been Fed's main concern?
It's you who keeps jerking off to you Agassi poster :retard:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 05:06 PM
No, I'm not Federer's fanboy. They only invented this "Career Slam" because in the modern game very few people can win the Grand Slam. It's like a consolation prize.
There's no "Career Slam". It may be important for the player and for his banking account, but in the future, people will remember only those who won the Grand Slam.



Coming from someone like you, that has no clue about tennis, it's a compliment. If you think I'm wrong, that means I'm being reasonable, as you have no clue about tennis.
Really, go watch football. You'll get more of your so wanted "competition".
I hope you plan to become a comedian. It would suit you.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 05:09 PM
I hope you plan to become a comedian. It would suit you.

Get your pom-pons and practice, cheerleader.

Has anyone here claimed the future of tennis has been Fed's main concern?
It's you who keeps jerking off to you Agassi poster :retard:

:lol:

llama
01-29-2007, 05:11 PM
You know as much as I do that Agassi's dream was pulling a Sampras, but he would never do it, then he decided to pull that circus thing to end his career. Not that hard to guess.

I honestly don't understand hatred like yours. How can you hate someone you don't know? And be a judge of their "phoniness"? And deny their accomplishments even when they're laid out in front of you? Facts are facts.

Before I knew anything about tennis, I knew the name Andre Agassi..

I'm not the greatest Fed fan - but I can't deny he's probably the greatest tennis player in history (or will end up being, when he retires). I don't pull for him because I like more competition in tennis. It's too predictable and boring for me - but that's ME - I can certainly understand how others can love watching him play. And although he's not "charismatic" - he certainly seems like a very decent human being.

From your signature I'm assuming that your favourite player is Max Mirnyi. I saw a Tennis Channel program on him and he seems like a really nice person, with a beautiful wife and gorgeous little girl - and he was happy to point out a picture on his living room wall of Agassi holding her.

As for Agassi wanting to "pull a Sampras"? What an odd statement - I can remember Agassi saying that if he and Pete had to change personalities for a day, both of them would be desperate for it to be over. I also remember him saying after winning the French Open that from that point on he was completely happy and content with what he had accomplished in his career.

And in post-tennis life it would be nice if Sampras could "pull an Agassi". With all his millions he could do a lot of good - but I suppose you consider Agassi's Foundation a "phony" too...

Rogiman
01-29-2007, 05:13 PM
Let's ignore the little #1 phony-fan, Gustavo.
So, what's your take on the piggy-roasting situation so far this season?

Gonzo Hates Me!
01-29-2007, 05:14 PM
There's a difference between not liking Federer the tennis player and not liking his dominance. Why are people so offended that a person could be bored with dominance? It's dominance for Christ-sake. It's completely natural and humane for someone to be hostile towards that. It is not to dismiss the talent of Federer--we all know he is gifted, perhaps divinely gifted if their is a God.

Furthermore, what if people actually don't like him? What if? So what? People are disliked all the time--so why are people so personally afflicted by this. It's just funny. There will never be a time in the life of the Earth where the whole population will all share the same sentiments. Can people just get over it?

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 05:15 PM
I honestly don't understand hatred like yours. How can you hate someone you don't know?

I never understood hatred toward Fed on here either, but have to cope with it. If you're too sensitive stay off of GM :wavey:

Rogiman
01-29-2007, 05:17 PM
As for Agassi wanting to "pull a Sampras"? What an odd statement - I can remember Agassi saying that if he and Pete had to change personalities for a day, both of them would be desperate for it to be over. If I may answer your question, I think he was refering to Agassi's attempt to retire right after winning a Slam, going out on a bang that is, I don't think he meant Andre tried to be like Pete in any other aspect of either tennis or life.

I, for one, am not an Agassi hater at all, I can fully appreciate his achievements, and I also enjoyed watching him play, I just can't stand all that "Andre the saint" talking.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 05:18 PM
I honestly don't understand hatred like yours. How can you hate someone you don't know? And be a judge of their "phoniness"? And deny their accomplishments even when they're laid out in front of you? Facts are facts.

Before I knew anything about tennis, I knew the name Andre Agassi..

I'm not the greatest Fed fan - but I can't deny he's probably the greatest tennis player in history (or will end up being, when he retires). I don't pull for him because I like more competition in tennis. It's too predictable and boring for me - but that's ME - I can certainly understand how others can love watching him play. And although he's not "charismatic" - he certainly seems like a very decent human being.

From your signature I'm assuming that your favourite player is Max Mirnyi. I saw a Tennis Channel program on him and he seems like a really nice person, with a beautiful wife and gorgeous little girl - and he was happy to point out a picture on his living room wall of Agassi holding her.

As for Agassi wanting to "pull a Sampras"? What an odd statement - I can remember Agassi saying that if he and Pete had to change personalities for a day, both of them would be desperate for it to be over. I also remember him saying after winning the French Open that from that point on he was completely happy and content with what he had accomplished in his career.

And in post-tennis life it would be nice if Sampras could "pull an Agassi". With all his millions he could do a lot of good - but I suppose you consider Agassi's Foundation a "phony" too...

You know, I don't care about Mirnyi's personal life. I like his game. Got it?

Pull a Sampras as in leaving after winning a GS, on top, not being spanked by a moonballer on grass or a Benjamin Becker that can't win a challenger right now.

I don't like people that act. Agassi is pure acting. The whole "I'm a good boy" thing. Just to inflate his ego. His image is just an invention, all made up by the media. The whole "I've done a lot for tennis".

About foundations, I don't care about that either. I said before: I care about what happens inside the court, not outside. If a player wanna sell his trophies, I don't care. If he wants to drink like a madman, I couldn't care less either. So I don't care about foundations and such.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 05:20 PM
Let's ignore the little #1 phony-fan, Gustavo.
So, what's your take on the piggy-roasting situation so far this season?

I'm eagerly awaiting the clay-court season and the first mud roasting of the last couple of years... ;)

If I may answer your question, I think he was refering to Agassi's attempt to retire right after winning a Slam, going out on a bang that is, I don't think he meant Andre tried to be like Pete in any other aspect of either tennis or life.

I, for one, am not an Agassi hater at all, I can fully appreciate his achievements, and I also enjoyed watching him play, I just can't stand all that "Andre the saint" talking.

That's exactly what I can't stand either.

ianbez7
01-29-2007, 05:23 PM
They do, I love him!

Gonzo Hates Me!
01-29-2007, 05:26 PM
You know, I don't care about Mirnyi's personal life. I like his game. Got it?

Pull a Sampras as in leaving after winning a GS, on top, not being spanked by a moonballer on grass or a Benjamin Becker that can't win a challenger right now.

I don't like people that act. Agassi is pure acting. The whole "I'm a good boy" thing. Just to inflate his ego. His image is just an invention, all made up by the media. The whole "I've done a lot for tennis".

About foundations, I don't care about that either. I said before: I care about what happens inside the court, not outside. If a player wanna sell his trophies, I don't care. If he wants to drink like a madman, I couldn't care less either. So I don't care about foundations and such.

For someone who "cares only about what happens inside the court," you sure do make a grand statement of what you think of Agassi off the court.

llama
01-29-2007, 05:28 PM
You know, I don't care about Mirnyi's personal life. I like his game. Got it?

Pull a Sampras as in leaving after winning a GS, on top, not being spanked by a moonballer on grass or a Benjamin Becker that can't win a challenger right now.

I don't like people that act. Agassi is pure acting. The whole "I'm a good boy" thing. Just to inflate his ego. His image is just an invention, all made up by the media. The whole "I've done a lot for tennis".

About foundations, I don't care about that either. I said before: I care about what happens inside the court, not outside. If a player wanna sell his trophies, I don't care. If he wants to drink like a madman, I couldn't care less either. So I don't care about foundations and such.

Your perogative. My - you must be such a happy person...

llama
01-29-2007, 05:30 PM
I never understood hatred toward Fed on here either, but have to cope with it. If you're too sensitive stay off of GM :wavey:

I'm not sensitive in the least - what I am is rational.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 05:39 PM
Let's ignore the little #1 phony-fan, Gustavo.
So, what's your take on the piggy-roasting situation so far this season?
Ignoring me because you don't like what I say and don't agree with your biased statements is real mature :lol: How about opening your mind a bit, but I understand it maybe difficult for you, as you're so short-sighted.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 05:41 PM
I never understood hatred toward Fed on here either, but have to cope with it. If you're too sensitive stay off of GM :wavey:
You don't understand it, because you're in love with him. Love is blind and all that :)

DrJules
01-29-2007, 05:44 PM
Okay, I was at AO with my girlfriend and her brother. We went to the Grand Final and the Fed vs Duck match because we wanted to see some serious ass kicking take place.

We weren't disappointed.

However, I noticed in both these matches that the crowd was always rooting for Fed's opponent which I found weird because his skills obviously surpassed his opponent's by about ten million. Every time Federer unforced-error'd or faulted, the audience would just explode into cheers and scream 'Go GONZO!' or 'GO ANDY!' depending on which demolition you went to. You guys must've surely noticed it on TV, but if you didn't or if it didn't seem that bad on television, let me tell you, it was almost embarassing for the Fed. However, when he hit a winner, there was a smattering of applause and low murmurings.

I said to my girlfriend between the second and third set of the Duck match, "Gee, the audience is really siding with Roddick, huh?" and her (gay) brother went, "Duh. He's so much sexier than Federer." And then my girlfriend said it was probably because the crowds always rooted for the underdog or perhaps it was because they didn't want the match to end because they'd paid good money for their seats.

But I don't know, I always had a bit of an underlying feeling that maybe the AO crowd doesn't particularly like Federer. I mean, they clapped for him at the end of every match when he won, but it was more like polite applause, as opposed to when the loser went back to the locker room, it was like a mosh pit.

Compared to Blake and the New York crowd, this crowd was highly civilised and friendly.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 05:47 PM
You don't understand it, because you're in love with him. Love is blind and all that :)

So if you're not in love with someone you have to necessarily hate him ? :confused: Waooh :retard:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 05:50 PM
So if you're not in love with someone you have to necessarily hate him ? :confused: Waooh :retard:
Of course not. I don't hate anyone, but u gotta understand that just because you love a player, don't expect everyone to love them or even like them. And if you could just open your mind a little bit, you may see why some people might not like Federer. People hate Nadal, and thats fine by me. Each to their own.

Gonzo Hates Me!
01-29-2007, 05:54 PM
Compared to Blake and the New York crowd, this crowd was highly civilised and friendly.

Those people Blake pays to be his fans should not account as the common crowd.

AgassiDomination
01-29-2007, 05:57 PM
Okay, I was at AO with my girlfriend and her brother. We went to the Grand Final and the Fed vs Duck match because we wanted to see some serious ass kicking take place.

We weren't disappointed.

However, I noticed in both these matches that the crowd was always rooting for Fed's opponent which I found weird because his skills obviously surpassed his opponent's by about ten million. Every time Federer unforced-error'd or faulted, the audience would just explode into cheers and scream 'Go GONZO!' or 'GO ANDY!' depending on which demolition you went to. You guys must've surely noticed it on TV, but if you didn't or if it didn't seem that bad on television, let me tell you, it was almost embarassing for the Fed. However, when he hit a winner, there was a smattering of applause and low murmurings.

I said to my girlfriend between the second and third set of the Duck match, "Gee, the audience is really siding with Roddick, huh?" and her (gay) brother went, "Duh. He's so much sexier than Federer." And then my girlfriend said it was probably because the crowds always rooted for the underdog or perhaps it was because they didn't want the match to end because they'd paid good money for their seats.

But I don't know, I always had a bit of an underlying feeling that maybe the AO crowd doesn't particularly like Federer. I mean, they clapped for him at the end of every match when he won, but it was more like polite applause, as opposed to when the loser went back to the locker room, it was like a mosh pit.

Because Federer's fans (thread starter) say words like Fed-Man and Gee.

DrJules
01-29-2007, 06:03 PM
Those people Blake pays to be his fans should not account as the common crowd.

The infamous "J-Block":lol: :lol: :lol:

SAtennis
01-29-2007, 06:27 PM
Most people want to see the underdog do well - and Roger is such an exceptional player his opponent is always the underdog! However, as Auson says - whenever I have seen Roger play live he always has a lot of applause because "real" tenis fans appreciate his ability. Whether you support him or not, I think all knowledgable and sensible tennis fans think he is "one in a million" and to be there to watch hm play live is a privelage.

Exactly!:D

cmurray
01-29-2007, 06:32 PM
If I may answer your question, I think he was refering to Agassi's attempt to retire right after winning a Slam, going out on a bang that is, I don't think he meant Andre tried to be like Pete in any other aspect of either tennis or life.

I, for one, am not an Agassi hater at all, I can fully appreciate his achievements, and I also enjoyed watching him play, I just can't stand all that "Andre the saint" talking.

I don't think Andre ever claimed to be a saint. I know I've never said as much. But listen, you guys want to know what Andre did for the sport? Allow me to enumerate for a moment.

1. He was recognizable. Especially for American tennis, the importance of this cannot be overstated enough. Andre is probably the only tennis player alot of people know. When he played, more people watched. When he won, it was a bigger story. I'd say only about half the people I am aquainted with have no earthly clue who Federer is. They ALL know Andre. The ENTIRE WORLD knows Andre

2. He made tennis interesting for the casual observer. And he made tennis interesting for kids. I should know - I'm one of the kids he sucked in. :) And I know a LOT of people who became lifelong tennis fans because of him.

3. He was actually mad-talented. For all the bratty behavior and attention grabbing hair and clothes, there was amazing talent underneath it all. I didn't know it at the time, but he was priming me to appreciate good tennis.

4. Because he played for so long in the public eye, we all got to watch him grow up before our eyes. I don't think Andre is perfect. Far from it. He was a troubled, bratty kid who had to grow up too quickly. He became an adult who matured enough to "control" the brat in him most of the time. See, now it pisses me off when people call Andre fake because he did this. As far as I can tell, Federer did the exact same thing. They both used to behave poorly on the court and they decided that it was time to grow up. The only difference is Federer didn't have the world breathing down his neck from the time he was 16 years old.

5. Whether Glenn and others like to admit it, the Pete/Andre rivalry was a HUGE draw. Nike did much to "move" this along, of course. :)


Anyway, I don't think for a moment that Andre did all of these things altruistically. It doesn't change the fact that he did them.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 06:38 PM
I'd say only about half the people I am aquainted with have no earthly clue who Federer is.

Within 3 years Roger will be more famous worldwide... As always, the USA might remain the exception though (tennis is actually growing bigger outside this country, so it's not that important)

Samuel
01-29-2007, 07:01 PM
Within 3 years Roger will be more famous worldwide... As always, the USA might remain the exception though (tennis is actually growing bigger outside this country, so it's not that important)

Exactly what I would have said, if Federer is not as well-knwon as Andre no wonder, he is not an american and I'm sorry to say so but Americans don't share a great interest for things or people outside their country. Now this is no american bashing, but even americans say it's true.
On the other hand, Federer is very well known in the rest of the world and also very popular in Asia for instance.
I certainly belive you cmurray that Andre is more famous than Federer in the USA but Worldwide...I don't think so.

yana
01-29-2007, 07:02 PM
Psh. Sometimes there's just plain old entertainment factor where you can just sit down, put your feet up and watch the bloody match, without having to worry about technique and strategy and whatnot.

I've played tennis for fourteen years. And when it comes down to pure entertainment factor, the guy sucks.


I can see that you received a bunch of badrep for saying that. :haha:
Advise: don't ever say a bad thing about Fed or...

cmurray
01-29-2007, 07:03 PM
Exactly what I would have said, if Federer is not as well-knwon as Andre no wonder, he is not an american and I'm sorry to say so but Americans don't share a great interest for things or people outside their country. Now this is no american bashing, but even americans say it's true.
On the other hand, Federer is very well known in the rest of the world and also very popular in Asia for instance.
I certainly belive you cmurray that Andre is more famous than Federer in the USA but Worldwide...I don't think so.


All very fair statements. But let me ask you this. Do you think there are a lot of people who know who Roger Federer is, but not Andre Agassi?

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 07:11 PM
All very fair statements. But let me ask you this. Do you think there are a lot of people who know who Roger Federer is, but not Andre Agassi?

Andre has played for two decades, let Roger some time... And his unbelievable achievements sport wise (not only recognized in tennis world but in sports world) will have a huge and greater impact worldwide.

Black Adam
01-29-2007, 07:15 PM
He excites true knowledgable and sensible tennis fans, and I'm conviced that for him is what matters in the end... :)
No, what matters is that the crowd who pay to enjoy thier matches getto enjoy them, not watch a machine who hits winner after winner without any emotion. And it's only a beginning, Nobody will be attending his matches because it's so predictable and boring. At least guys like Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg managed to get the crowd involved and enjoying themselves.

cmurray
01-29-2007, 07:21 PM
Andre has played for two decades, let Roger some time... And his unbelievable achievements sport wise (not only recognized in tennis world but in sports world) will have a huge and greater impact worldwide.


I expect Roger to have the kind of impact on the world that Steffi Graf did. I remember thinking as a kid "wow. I can't believe somebody wins that much".

As for "popular", I suppose it would depend on one's definition of popular.

Komodo
01-29-2007, 07:26 PM
I am a huge Federer fan, but I definitely agree with what Cmurry has to say on this topic.

IMO, Agassi in the latter stage of his career was carried by the media personality wise, but I honestly didn't see a really charismatic guy. I saw boring press conferences, a boring personality & of course a hugely talented tennis player. I was often amazed by the tennis Agassi was playing, but it could get really boring as well, as it was very one dimensional.


I don't see why anybody would want to put down what Agassi did in order to boost Federer. There really isn't any need for that.
GlennMirnyi, you say that Agassi winning all the four slams doesn't count for anything? Get a clue man, that is nothing less than an amazing achievement!

However, in the same spirit, I can't understand the complete idiots like Andres No1 Fan, who try to come with delusional arguments against Federer. Oh, he's already achieved more than Andre..but..but..Agassi did more for the game!! Right. Seriously, Federer is revolutioning the game of tennis, is showing something that has never even remotely been seen before. He plays beautiful, has all the shots, all the abilities. He brings people to tennis just like Agassi did.

In Sweden, there was a huge tennis boom in the 80s & early 90s when everybody sent their kids to play tennis to become the next Borg, Wilander and Edberg. In Germany, tennis got huge with Becker etc.
Of course, Federer isn't necessarily good for american tennis, as can be sented already by all the american journalistic hostility towards Federer; but I am certain that Federer is pulling loads of kids to tennis in Switzerland, France & Germany.
Another aspect is the money, which to a large extent comes from the US which provides an argument that Fed is bad for tennis in general, but who, except for americans, honestly wants to bash him for not being born in the country of burgers, extra large fries & hotdogs?

Why do people say that Federer isn't charismatic? I can't remember having seen a top tennis player who had as much class as Federer has. The man knows how to carry himself, speaks three languages fluently, seems to be a really nice & genuine guy. Pretty funny, really comfy to be around.
I really like Fena, but just compare the way these two carried themselves in the Oz Open award ceremony. Gonzo seems like a little boy compared to Fed, yet very symphatic.

And please, when you are the most dominant player ever & just keep winning and winning, you just have to get a little bit arrogant. It's not that Federer is showing a lot of that, but, just generally, i hope that everybody understands the concept of that. I for one won't blame a guy in a situation where each & everybody wants a piece of you & you are forced to start declining and selecting for becoming a bit arrogant, if it's not too much.
Federer certainly isn't by any means, if you judge by what all the others players have to say of him. For example, he doesn't distance himself from the other players like Sampras did according to his peers :).

Finally, I really don't feel that nobody likes Mr 10 (had to come up with a new nickname). On the contrary, I think he has loads of fans & even more admirers . I honestly don't think that anybody who understands tennis & loves the game can dislike what they see when the man steps onto the court.

It is a natural thing that a) people want to see good, competitive matches and b) a guy who wins everything and thus beats a lot of peoples favourites will aquire a lot of people who don't like him.

Komodo

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 07:28 PM
I expect Roger to have the kind of impact on the world that Steffi Graf did. I remember thinking as a kid "wow. I can't believe somebody wins that much".

As for "popular", I suppose it would depend on one's definition of popular.

I guess you have no idea which impact Roger is starting to have outside the US (Asia i.e.)... Steffi Graf never had that kind of impact. Roger will remembered on a same level as Pele or Jordan.

nanoman
01-29-2007, 07:36 PM
No, what matters is that the crowd who pay to enjoy thier matches getto enjoy them, not watch a machine who hits winner after winner without any emotion. And it's only a beginning, Nobody will be attending his matches because it's so predictable and boring. At least guys like Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg managed to get the crowd involved and enjoying themselves.

Nobody will be attending ?!
Everybody want to see a legend live. Tournament directors pay big figures because he is selling. Also, :haha: for including boring Pete getting crowd involved.

DrJules
01-29-2007, 07:39 PM
No, what matters is that the crowd who pay to enjoy thier matches getto enjoy them, not watch a machine who hits winner after winner without any emotion. And it's only a beginning, Nobody will be attending his matches because it's so predictable and boring. At least guys like Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg managed to get the crowd involved and enjoying themselves.

An attribute of Sampras and Borg was their ability to avoid opponents knowing how they were feeling. Comentators often said Borg was the calmest person in the arena. He emotionally gave nothing away to his opponent.

You often do not want your opponent to know how you are feeling.

cmurray
01-29-2007, 07:40 PM
I guess you have no idea which impact Roger is starting to have outside the US (Asia i.e.)... Steffi Graf never had that kind of impact. Roger will remembered on a same level as Pele or Jordan.

If you say so. :shrug: I remember Steffi having that exact same impact. I was 14 years old when she won the golden slam. I knew NOTHING about tennis. I knew Steffi though. I think that's a pretty big impact. Then again, I'm just an American.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 07:40 PM
No, what matters is that the crowd who pay to enjoy thier matches getto enjoy them, not watch a machine who hits winner after winner without any emotion. And it's only a beginning, Nobody will be attending his matches because it's so predictable and boring. At least guys like Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg managed to get the crowd involved and enjoying themselves.

Just have a look at Oz global attendance this year and you'll see you're plain wrong. Thanks god pure brilliance doesn't seem to bother that much people :)

*Ljubica*
01-29-2007, 07:40 PM
I guess you have no idea which impact Roger is starting to have outside the US (Asia i.e.)... Steffi Graf never had that kind of impact. Roger will remembered on a same level as Pele or Jordan.

I definately agree with that. I am a member of another Internet Forum - not specifically a ternis one, but more a news and current events thing. Many of the posters there are from India, Pakistan and both the Far East and Middle East. Tennis is not a big feature there but is obviously mentioned occasionally (during a Grand Slam for example) and I was surprised just how popular Roger is, especially in India where he seems to be up there with their own Sania Mirza who they all seem to idolise. At the risk of racial stereotyping, - and these comments have come from some of the Indian posters themselves - they love him because he has "dignity, class and manners" and they are virtues that people from that part of the world still rate very highly.

DrJules
01-29-2007, 08:17 PM
This former player and commentator disagrees with the title of this thread.

http://annabelcroft.blogs.eurosport.com/

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 08:18 PM
No, what matters is that the crowd who pay to enjoy thier matches getto enjoy them, not watch a machine who hits winner after winner without any emotion. And it's only a beginning, Nobody will be attending his matches because it's so predictable and boring. At least guys like Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg managed to get the crowd involved and enjoying themselves.
I dunno about Sampras, but I agree with the rest of your post. Federer is like Michael Schumacher, ppl recognise his greatness but are glad when they retire. It becomes predictable and boring, and who wants to see uncompetitive matches ?

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 08:22 PM
who wants to see uncompetitive matches ?

People who care about tennis perfect shotmaking skills :shrug:

almouchie
01-29-2007, 08:23 PM
i envy u got to watch the match in the stands

how was atmosphere like?

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 08:27 PM
People who care about tennis perfect shotmaking skills :shrug:
Tennis is a sport, not an art. If you wanna see art, go and watch ballet or go to the national gallery.

I would never waste my money going to a Federer match, because it would be over after an hour. Would rather be entertained by a couple of emotional guys, fighting with all their hearts for 5 sets. Not some emotionless player who wins too easily.

Aerion
01-29-2007, 08:29 PM
I assume you mean 'like' him as a person or as a player?
As a person I have the utmost respect for him.
As a player he is the best.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 08:29 PM
Tennis is a sport, not an art. If you wanna see art, go and watch ballet or go to the national gallery.

I would never waste my money going to a Federer match, because it would be over after an hour. Would rather be entertained by a couple of emotional guys, fighting with all their hearts for 5 sets. Not some emotionless player who wins too easily.

Gustavo was right, football is definitely your sport...

Eden
01-29-2007, 08:43 PM
This former player and commentator disagrees with the title of this thread.

http://annabelcroft.blogs.eurosport.com/

Thanks for sharing this one :) These words only confirm what I have read about Roger in the media. I can't remember ever reading an disrespectful article about Rogers achievements or his behaviour on and off the court. The journalists are always astonished how such a successful sportsman keeps staying so down to earth and being so liked among everyone on the tour.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-29-2007, 08:48 PM
Gustavo was right, football is definitely your sport...
Well yeh, football is my first sport. But looking at it, there is a reason why football is a more popular sport (even in america), when tennis attracts some of these kinda fans. People seemed to be obsessed by class, and how a player acts - that stuck up views imo. Just watch the game, they're sportsman, not angels or gods. The more emotion a player shows the better, and I will enjoy the antics they get up to as well.

World Beater
01-29-2007, 09:03 PM
Exactly what I would have said, if Federer is not as well-knwon as Andre no wonder, he is not an american and I'm sorry to say so but Americans don't share a great interest for things or people outside their country. Now this is no american bashing, but even americans say it's true.
On the other hand, Federer is very well known in the rest of the world and also very popular in Asia for instance.
I certainly belive you cmurray that Andre is more famous than Federer in the USA but Worldwide...I don't think so.

dlol.

the swiss dont even appreciate roger all that much. why do people expect him to be so recognizable in the US?

here you have possibly the most dominant athlete ever, and he wasnt named swiss athlete of the year until this year.

listen, i like roger's game a lot and I think for a #1 player, he is a good guy. Of course the guy is a little bit arrogant, but he is no more arrogant that all the #1 players before him.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 09:06 PM
here you have possibly the most dominant athlete ever, and he wasnt named swiss athlete of the year until this year.


He was named in 2003 and 2004 already.

Eden
01-29-2007, 09:07 PM
Most people want to see the underdog do well - and Roger is such an exceptional player his opponent is always the underdog! However, as Auson says - whenever I have seen Roger play live he always has a lot of applause because "real" tenis fans appreciate his ability. Whether you support him or not, I think all knowledgable and sensible tennis fans think he is "one in a million" and to be there to watch hm play live is a privelage.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Rosie :)

I can only judge from the view in front of my tv but I don't think that the audience doesn't like or appreciate Roger. How often have we seen his victory speeches, the laugh and applause of the audience?

I really think for such a dominant sportsman he is quite respected in general.

World Beater
01-29-2007, 09:14 PM
I dunno about Sampras, but I agree with the rest of your post. Federer is like Michael Schumacher, ppl recognise his greatness but are glad when they retire. It becomes predictable and boring, and who wants to see uncompetitive matches ?

first, i fail to see your argument here. jordan and woods werent ones to show excessive emotion either. When jordan hit a game winner or made an amazing shot, he did acknowledge it. but its not like he pumped his fist after every jumpshot.

second, i dont see why federer should be blamed for his dominance. If anything, its guys like nadal, roddick etc who should be out there competing instead of losing early all the time

third, If mens tennis is so boring because of rodge, then dont watch it. i hear boys singles is pretty competetive. or how about wheelchair...or better yet, go to the local ymca and watch two 80 somethings duke out a couple of games. contrary to what you think people watch tennis at the highest level because the shots themselves are entertaining not the personalities. The personalities, emotion are all secondary.

i actually think roger is bringing tennis to a new level of popularity around the world. nadal, roddick etc are doing the same. if federer werent there, a lot of people wouldnt be watching. tennis has something for everyone. why one person wants to rag on a particular player, i wont understand. enjoy your fave player and then enjoy tennis. If everyone were as emotive as nadal, tennis would not be as popular. the same goes if everyone were as serene or suave as rodge.

i find it funny that a football fan wants to criticize a tennis players arrogance, when that sport is far more full of jerks

World Beater
01-29-2007, 09:15 PM
He was named in 2003 and 2004 already.

ok my bad. but one things is true, the swiss dont show his matches enough...at least thats what i hear from swiss fans. he is underappreciated.

bokehlicious
01-29-2007, 09:22 PM
ok my bad. but one things is true, the swiss dont show his matches enough...at least thats what i hear from swiss fans. he is underappreciated.

Things are changing. In 2005 I was complaining about that lack of interest even in his home country. But as everywhere else, people start to realize what he's just doing and he's becoming huge in Switzerland as well.

r2473
01-29-2007, 09:34 PM
lol
but we know that in the US Fed likes to please the crowd when facing local heroes: one set to Agassi in 05, one set to Blake and Roddick in 06, then he can play his normal level and switch gear. An they get their second hamburger/sausage (it depends) ;)
This guy will be the best exhibition player ever, with uncanny ability to control the scoreline...

Good stuff :worship:

takuma
01-29-2007, 10:07 PM
I noticed in both these matches that the crowd was always rooting for Fed's opponent which I found weird because his skills obviously surpassed his opponent's by about ten million. Here ou have the anwser..what's the point cheering for him while he surpasses his oponent that much?He can handle the match himself;)
And then my girlfriend said it was probably because the crowds always rooted for the underdog or perhaps it was because they didn't want the match to end because they'd paid good money for their seats.
Listen to your gf, she knows what she's talking bout. Doubt you'll find more accurate explanation in here.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 10:14 PM
For someone who "cares only about what happens inside the court," you sure do make a grand statement of what you think of Agassi off the court.

No. Have I said something like he's arrogant, blah blah blah? Of course not. I'm saying that he does all kinds of stunts to inflate his own ego, and that's inside the court, not outside.

Your perogative. My - you must be such a happy person...

I'm not so happy, but you know, they say "ignorance is bliss".

I don't think Andre ever claimed to be a saint. I know I've never said as much. But listen, you guys want to know what Andre did for the sport? Allow me to enumerate for a moment.

1. He was recognizable. Especially for American tennis, the importance of this cannot be overstated enough. Andre is probably the only tennis player alot of people know. When he played, more people watched. When he won, it was a bigger story. I'd say only about half the people I am aquainted with have no earthly clue who Federer is. They ALL know Andre. The ENTIRE WORLD knows Andre

2. He made tennis interesting for the casual observer. And he made tennis interesting for kids. I should know - I'm one of the kids he sucked in. :) And I know a LOT of people who became lifelong tennis fans because of him.

3. He was actually mad-talented. For all the bratty behavior and attention grabbing hair and clothes, there was amazing talent underneath it all. I didn't know it at the time, but he was priming me to appreciate good tennis.

4. Because he played for so long in the public eye, we all got to watch him grow up before our eyes. I don't think Andre is perfect. Far from it. He was a troubled, bratty kid who had to grow up too quickly. He became an adult who matured enough to "control" the brat in him most of the time. See, now it pisses me off when people call Andre fake because he did this. As far as I can tell, Federer did the exact same thing. They both used to behave poorly on the court and they decided that it was time to grow up. The only difference is Federer didn't have the world breathing down his neck from the time he was 16 years old.

5. Whether Glenn and others like to admit it, the Pete/Andre rivalry was a HUGE draw. Nike did much to "move" this along, of course. :)

Anyway, I don't think for a moment that Andre did all of these things altruistically. It doesn't change the fact that he did them.

Nothing for tennis, all for some supposed popularity.

I dunno about Sampras, but I agree with the rest of your post. Federer is like Michael Schumacher, ppl recognise his greatness but are glad when they retire. It becomes predictable and boring, and who wants to see uncompetitive matches ?

People will realise now that F1 will go downhill without Schumacher.

Tennis is a sport, not an art. If you wanna see art, go and watch ballet or go to the national gallery.

I would never waste my money going to a Federer match, because it would be over after an hour. Would rather be entertained by a couple of emotional guys, fighting with all their hearts for 5 sets. Not some emotionless player who wins too easily.

Tennis is not an art. I agree, but it's not mud-wrestling too.

Well yeh, football is my first sport. But looking at it, there is a reason why football is a more popular sport (even in america), when tennis attracts some of these kinda fans. People seemed to be obsessed by class, and how a player acts - that stuck up views imo. Just watch the game, they're sportsman, not angels or gods. The more emotion a player shows the better, and I will enjoy the antics they get up to as well.

You show in each and every post that you don't care and don't have any idea about tennis. Go discuss football, leave tennis for people that people that care about it.

Jlee
01-29-2007, 10:18 PM
People usually root for underdogs. Unlike you, most people love to see someone who may very well be less talented, but who fights it out to the end. And, on occasion, pulls off an upset to remember. That's the fundamental core of sports. Everyone loves a good Cinderella story. Nobody would watch if there wasn't the possibility for an upset, otherwise they'd just hand Federer 10 GS titles now. ;)

Your girlfriend is absolutely correct.

It's not a question of liking or disliking Federer, it's just that people love to see battles. They'd root for Federer if he was second to someone else. There's no personal issue with the player or his game, they'd just like to see it matched.

Action Jackson
01-29-2007, 10:21 PM
He hasn't done any of it "for the game", Andre's #1 tool, he's done it for himself, and for himself only, which is perfectly fine, just no need to create dispensable myths.

Saint Agassi was the greatest thing ever to hit tennis and the game of tennis didn't exist before him and will struggle now he has gone away.

Back to the original question, there are more than enough people who appreciate Federer, but at the same time he has won a lot and it's a natural thing for wanting the underdog and they are all underdogs compared to him at the moment to win. Once he starts losing more and isn't on top, more than likely that will change in favour of Fed, well it even happened to Lendl at the end of his career.

Pfloyd
01-29-2007, 10:29 PM
He's too good.

TennisGrandSlam
01-30-2007, 12:37 AM
Major FED-haters:

1. American (especially A-Rod Fans)

2. Nadal's Fans

drf716
01-30-2007, 01:18 AM
3. people who don't like to get bored.

Allure
01-30-2007, 01:23 AM
I think because he is so dominant and beat ppl's favorite players.

~EMiLiTA~
01-30-2007, 01:33 AM
crowds, particularly australian crowds, like to support underdogs

fetch
01-30-2007, 03:33 AM
I would never waste my money going to a Federer match, because it would be over after an hour. Would rather be entertained by a couple of emotional guys, fighting with all their hearts for 5 sets. Not some emotionless player who wins too easily.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. :worship:

Listen to your gf, she knows what she's talking bout. Doubt you'll find more accurate explanation in here.

She's a keeper, eh? ;)

TennisGrandSlam
01-30-2007, 03:36 AM
3. people who don't like to get bored.


1+3. Like many ppl don't like Pete Sampras (except American :devil: )

fetch
01-30-2007, 03:52 AM
i envy u got to watch the match in the stands

how was atmosphere like?

I've been to three grand slams and I have to say (however much it pains me to feed the American's egos) that the US Open crowd is definitely the best. Everyone is involved right from the word 'go' and it's all very enthusiastic and fun. There are the personal cheer squads for each respective player and it's nothing like you've seen in other countries. They're decked out in face paint, massive flags, national costumes/colours and they have voiceboxes to rival the awful Mariah Carey. And it's actually not that annoying unlike in some other countries, it's all very fun and entertaining. And everyone's super friendly. Every match I went to, I always managed to get into a conversation with my neighbour and go home with a phone number and/or free dinner.

The Australian crowd takes a little while to warm up. They warm up in about mid to late first set and then they calm down a bit in the break between sets and it takes a little while for them to get fired up again. But they're definitely very friendly.

I think the Wimbledon crowd is more subdued. There's lots of cheering, but I just didn't feel it from them. I dunno. Maybe it's just me.

ExpectedWinner
01-30-2007, 04:05 AM
I would never waste my money going to a Federer match.

Fine. Probably you should stop wasting your time and reduce the amount of essays about a player you supposedly don't watch either live, or on TV.

artlinkletter
01-30-2007, 04:09 AM
That's exactly what I've been trying to say. :worship:

Then how come you went to the finals, when you knew Fed would be playing and was the favourite to win? I can only imagine how much those tickets must have cost you, so why waste your money(in your eyes), knowingly?

fetch
01-30-2007, 04:14 AM
Then how come you went to the finals, when you knew Fed would be playing and was the favourite to win? I can only imagine how much those tickets must have cost you, so why waste your money(in your eyes), knowingly?

Ah, the human mind is such a complex, complex thing. :angel:

(I didn't buy them.)

artlinkletter
01-30-2007, 04:17 AM
You lucky bastard! *jealous*

fetch
01-30-2007, 04:21 AM
You lucky bastard! *jealous*

Some guys just walk in the light. :angel:

trickcy
01-30-2007, 04:35 AM
I don't think people dislike Federer personally. It's not like they hate him or anything, it's just that they want other players to win and cheer for the underdogs. During a match, the crowd will probably cheer for his opponents as they want a long match, and they want their money's worth. However, as we saw, during the AO, he got a standing ovation at the end of the match. He is appreciated, his talents are appreciated. It's just that they want someone ele to win.

As for all this, no one watches tennis, his matches and all that, the AO had the highest number of people attending. If they knew he would win, and didn't want to see it, why would they attend?

Agassi and Steffi were popular and they drew fans to the sport, no doubt about that. But, that doesn't mean that Federer isn't. With those whom I speak to, the at the very least know who he is. Even if they don't follow tennis, they know that Federer is the #1 tennis player. And as someone else mentioned, on the internet boards I visit, he is mentioned occasionally.

As for his contributions to the sport, that can only be seen a few years down the lane. We'll have more players trying to have a complete game.

Right now, people don't want him winning so much. But when he starts losing, he will be supported b the crowd. We saw that in Roland Garros, in Shanghai 2005. It's not that they don't want him to win, just that they want it to be a drawn out match.

When he retires, people will possibly appreciate him, his achievements more. I used to follow tennis during the early 90's and stopped during the late 90's. I started to follow it a bit during 2003. It was only in 2005-2006 that I followed it closely again. When Sampras was playing, people, often complained of how boring it was, inspite of Agassi being involved in of the 'most fiercest rivalries ever'. Now, I wish that I had followed it more, to know how it went on. We'll probably see the same with Federer.

FluffyYellowBall
01-30-2007, 07:52 AM
No one dislikes rger federer besides people who classify tennis as "american tennis". Imagine he was american! Its scary coz hes not agassi or sampras, he might be even better. Personally thats what i think and Federer off court is definately more likeable than andre or pete

Art&Soul
01-30-2007, 10:08 AM
i don't agree with your statemen . i presume u live in america and so u r judging his popularity based mostly in america . here mostly in the subcontinents (india, pakistan ,etc) and south east asia ,tennis is getting quite huge which was not evident for quite some time (even agassi could not help improve the game's popularity) . it is becoming popular because of roger federer and not because of some intense competition or rivalry or like some say the lack of it. many over here(india) don't follow tennis completely or regularly but are still aware of this great man and what he is doing in his field and r wanting to see him to actually get a feel of why is he so damn good . and the name Roger Federer is becoming bigger and bigger as time is passing by and many are actually started talking about him (even if they hve no knowledge of tennis as a sport) . yes every great sports superstar who is in a league of his own would always hve haters and also people saying it is becoming too predictable but when general public are talking more about roger federer than the sport of tennis tht speaks a lot about this guy and how well he is helping tennis to get better and bigger (globally).

I agree. Roger is so popular in Europe and Asia and he is popular with tennis fans all over the world as well that's why he is voted three consecutive fan favorite award and i'm sure he will WIN it this year too. So yes a lot ppl love him, that's no doubt about that...

Apemant
01-30-2007, 10:15 AM
I agree. Roger is so popular in Europe and Asia and he is popular with tennis fans all over the world as well that's why he is voted three consecutive fan favorite award and i'm sure he will WIN it this year too. So yes a lot ppl love him, that's no doubt about that...

Why do you have 7 sad faces in yor sig?

Gulliver
01-30-2007, 11:40 AM
It's such a pity that the title of your thread "Why doesn't anyone like Fed-Man" is such a gross generalisation. It's as bad as "all eyes are on....." and "everyone knows the answer to that".

You gave your own personal interpretation of crowd reaction to certain moments in the match, tempered with, one has to say, the more reasoned opinions of your friends, but then leapt to a grossly unwarranted conclusion. Regrettably, this tells us more about your tendency to be swayed by the moment than the whole picture.

That said, a provocative title has led to a debate which has been rehearsed many times before. All I can add is that you and I must have been watching different matches and my hearing is better than yours.

Action Jackson
01-30-2007, 11:48 AM
The Australian crowd takes a little while to warm up. They warm up in about mid to late first set and then they calm down a bit in the break between sets and it takes a little while for them to get fired up again. But they're definitely very friendly.

I think the Wimbledon crowd is more subdued. There's lots of cheering, but I just didn't feel it from them. I dunno. Maybe it's just me.

Try and see matches away from Rod Laver Arena or Vodafone then there is plenty of noise at the AO and yes I have heard it with my own ears. You don't get the Swedes, Germans, Dutch, Croats, Greeks, Chileans for example at the other events in the same numbers.

cmurray
01-30-2007, 12:13 PM
i don't agree with your statemen . i presume u live in america and so u r judging his popularity based mostly in america . here mostly in the subcontinents (india, pakistan ,etc) and south east asia ,tennis is getting quite huge which was not evident for quite some time (even agassi could not help improve the game's popularity) . it is becoming popular because of roger federer and not because of some intense competition or rivalry or like some say the lack of it. many over here(india) don't follow tennis completely or regularly but are still aware of this great man and what he is doing in his field and r wanting to see him to actually get a feel of why is he so damn good . and the name Roger Federer is becoming bigger and bigger as time is passing by and many are actually started talking about him (even if they hve no knowledge of tennis as a sport) . yes every great sports superstar who is in a league of his own would always hve haters and also people saying it is becoming too predictable but when general public are talking more about roger federer than the sport of tennis tht speaks a lot about this guy and how well he is helping tennis to get better and bigger (globally).



It wasn't a statement, it was a question.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 12:48 PM
No one dislikes rger federer besides people who classify tennis as "american tennis". Imagine he was american! Its scary coz hes not agassi or sampras, he might be even better. Personally thats what i think and Federer off court is definately more likeable than andre or pete
I don't consider tennis 'american'. I don't live there, never even been there, yet I dislike Roger. It comes down to personal tastes at the end of the day...

rafa_maniac
01-30-2007, 01:02 PM
I like Federer, he is a polite, relatively humble man and a good figurehead for men's tennis, but he bores me. His perfection is not exciting perfection, it is machine manufactured perfection. That is how it comes across. His lacks charisma on court, and a general level of excitement to his game. I may be impressed by him, but I could never cheer for him.

I also have to laugh at this notion that to not love Federer unconditonally and root for him is to be 'ignorant' of what good Tennis really is. Quite the opoosite. I respect that he is an amazing talent, but Tennis (in the form of singles) is a TWO person sport. If this were not the case, then I would simply watch Federer hit amazing returns from a ball machine for hours on end. As Serena Williams herself puts it, Tennis is 80% mental. In other words, 20% shotmaking, 80% struggle, mental toughness, and the ability to produce the goods at the right times. Tennis is by nature Gladiatorial, it's two people battling it out to see who can physically and mentally outdo, and outlast, each other. In this way, I think many of Federer's more serious fans are off base in their idea that Federer's matches are true 'good tennis', when in fact, they are really anything but. Good tennis is in the interplay between two 'warriors' on court if you will, and the struggle that ensues, it's not a dance routine.

cmurray
01-30-2007, 01:04 PM
I don't consider tennis 'american'. I don't live there, never even been there, yet I dislike Roger. It comes down to personal tastes at the end of the day...

And though I live in America, none of my favorite players (besides Andre) have ever been American.

See, this makes me mad. You people act as though America is the only country in the world that "favors" it's own players.

You think Roger is more popular in Chile than Fena?
Or Murray in GB?
Or Rafa in Spain?


And you can plug just about any athlete and his home country in there and get the same results.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 01:07 PM
I like Federer, he is a polite, relatively humble man and a good figurehead for men's tennis, but he bores me. His perfection is not exciting perfection, it is machine manufactured perfection. That is how it comes across. His lacks charisma on court, and a general level of excitement to his game. I may be impressed by him, but I could never cheer for him.

I also have to laugh at this notion that to not love Federer unconditonally and root for him is to be 'ignorant' of what good Tennis really is. Quite the opoosite. I respect that he is an amazing talent, but Tennis (in the form of singles) is a TWO person sport. If this were not the case, then I would simply watch Federer hit amazing returns from a ball machine for hours on end. As Serena Williams herself puts it, Tennis is 80% mental. In other words, 20% shotmaking, 80% struggle, mental toughness, and the ability to produce the goods at the right times. Tennis is by nature Gladiatorial, it's two people battling it out to see who can physically and mentally outdo, and outlast, each other. In this way, I think many of Federer's more serious fans are off base in their idea that Federer's matches are true 'good tennis', when in fact, they are really anything but. Good tennis is in the interplay between two 'warriors' on court if you will, and the struggle that ensues, it's not a dance routine.

Hey, thats a great post, but don't expect a good response from the Federer fans....

cmurray
01-30-2007, 01:12 PM
Hey, thats a great post, but don't expect a good response from the Federer fans....

yeah...we're gonna see a line of red next to their name soon.

BTW, I feel exactly the same way.

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 01:12 PM
Hey, thats a great post, but don't expect a good response from the Federer fans....

Another boring rafatard bitterness... So predictable and as always never backed up :zzz:

Sjengster
01-30-2007, 01:20 PM
It's quackers, that's why. I don't see why shot-making skills and competitive, exciting matches have to be mutually exclusive things. The way you all talk in this thread, and that includes people like JMPower, every Federer match is just a tennis clinic without any drama to it, which is complete tripe. This AO was the first Slam he's ever won without dropping a set, and it's fair to say it was one of his easier draws. I've seen more than enough heart-stopping matches involving Federer over the last few years, yes including a few he won as well, and believe it or not I wasn't going ga-ga over his perfect technique during the match, I was actually involved in the contest itself. Or was he just trying to showboat for the crowd throughout those 12-10, 14-12, 16-14, 20-18 tiebreaks that he's won over the years?

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 01:39 PM
It's quackers, that's why. I don't see why shot-making skills and competitive, exciting matches have to be mutually exclusive things.
Well they're not mutually exclusive at all, but in the majority of cases with Federer, well they are. You cannot deny that.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 01:42 PM
Another boring rafatard bitterness... So predictable and as always never backed up :zzz:
:retard: I'll back up my arguments with half of your posts, if you like.

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 01:44 PM
Well they're not mutually exclusive at all, but in the majority of cases with Federer, well they are. You cannot deny that.

Federer shotmaking IS exciting. Period.

Sjengster
01-30-2007, 01:46 PM
Well they're not mutually exclusive at all, but in the majority of cases with Federer, well they are. You cannot deny that.

I can, and do. Sue me. And this coming from the no. 1 fan of Agassi, master of the emotionless 1-hour beatdown, is little short of remarkable.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 01:48 PM
Federer shotmaking IS exciting. Period.
Why are you so short-sighted to think that is all people want from tennis. Some people like drama, but you would prefer some kind of beautiful tennis. Thats fine, but be a little bit open minded and realise other people can like other things, rather than believing that if someone doesn't like Federer they don't like tennis. Thats just closed minded.

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 01:52 PM
Why are you so short-sighted to think that is all people want from tennis. Some people like drama, but you would prefer some kind of beautiful tennis. Thats fine, but be a little bit open minded and realise other people can like other things, rather than believing that if someone doesn't like Federer they don't like tennis. Thats just closed minded.

People who prefer fist-pumping, ass picking and grunting over beautiful shot-making cannot be considered tennis fans imo. Main difference between you and me I guess...

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 01:54 PM
People who prefer fist-pumping, ass picking and grunting over beautiful shot-making cannot be considered tennis fans imo. Main difference between you and me I guess...
See thats why you are so ignorant. I guess you think anyone who dislikes Federer is not a fan of tennis, what great thinking.

Washa Koroleva
01-30-2007, 01:58 PM
Everyone likes Fed-Man. Thise who don't seem it are just annoyed about him winning most of the time.

Castafiore
01-30-2007, 02:02 PM
So...

Everybody who does not like Federer, does not like/understand tennis.
His tennis matches are exciting if only for the shot making ability.
People who do not like Federer are haters.
--> Everybody who disagrees with this is a moron.

Can we move on now?


We've had this sort of discussions so many times before.

Seriously for a second:
I think that most people (who are not total clowns) respect Federer but not everyone of those people actually like him.
Respecting a player is not the same thing as liking him. There are plenty of people I admire and respect for their talent, knowledge,...without actually liking that person.
Besides, most of us don't know Federer at all so what's the big deal if some people claim to not like him.

The things that excite you in life do not necessarily excite others. Get over it.
Sheesh.

Komodo
01-30-2007, 02:03 PM
I like Federer, he is a polite, relatively humble man and a good figurehead for men's tennis, but he bores me. His perfection is not exciting perfection, it is machine manufactured perfection. That is how it comes across. His lacks charisma on court, and a general level of excitement to his game. I may be impressed by him, but I could never cheer for him.

I also have to laugh at this notion that to not love Federer unconditonally and root for him is to be 'ignorant' of what good Tennis really is. Quite the opoosite. I respect that he is an amazing talent, but Tennis (in the form of singles) is a TWO person sport. If this were not the case, then I would simply watch Federer hit amazing returns from a ball machine for hours on end. As Serena Williams herself puts it, Tennis is 80% mental. In other words, 20% shotmaking, 80% struggle, mental toughness, and the ability to produce the goods at the right times. Tennis is by nature Gladiatorial, it's two people battling it out to see who can physically and mentally outdo, and outlast, each other. In this way, I think many of Federer's more serious fans are off base in their idea that Federer's matches are true 'good tennis', when in fact, they are really anything but. Good tennis is in the interplay between two 'warriors' on court if you will, and the struggle that ensues, it's not a dance routine.


Oh my. I hope you realize what you just have done. You are actually blaming Federer for being too good & for winning too easily. You make it sound like that's a reason not to like him, while, if anything, you should blame all those other guys who all had the prodigy stamp on them while coming up but have ended up looking inferior to Federer.

You also got the definition wrong in my opinion. Good tennis is what one tennis player produces, his shots, his movement, his strategy. Federer is amazing in all of these departments.
A good tennis match, on the other hand, is created by the intensity between two players & Federer has certainly participated in a few of those aswell.

If you are to blame someone for not making it a good tennis match, please turn to Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Blake etc., because Federer will always match up with what you throw at him & thus take the tennis as far as it possibly can get in terms of excitement and skill. He isn't the limit, his opponents are.

What you are doing is blaming the man who takes tennis, and can take a tennis match, to a level unseen before, when the other players can't keep up and prematurely end what could become breathtaking rallies & incredibly high skilled, close matches.
Again, Federer isn't the limit. It's not like he is a serve & hit player like Pete was who doesn't play the points; he plays them as long as it takes; he uses every tactic & every facette of the game.
It is important that you reflect over this point. If not, you better replace the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel! ( ;) )

Finally, I find Federer very charismatic, definitely off court, but also on court. The fact that he doesn't openly show in your face emotions, doesn't mean he isn't emotional, it's just more subtile.
And finally, there certainly isn't anything machinal in his game, because it is so very varied that anything can happen at any time & he often shows negative/positive feelings & also does that "ticky" headshake :).
But I understand that this is a subjective feeling, so we can agree to disagree on it, just like I don't like your favourite player for embarassing in your face fist pumps, in-eyes stare downs, point delaying, medical timeouts & the general feeling that he, just like Hewitt used to, is trying to intimidate his opponent.
I don't dislike Nadals tennis either, though, and I have nothing to say about his off-court persona.

Also one small comment on Andre's No 1 fan: Mate, it is embarassing to have to make others make your point for you & then quote it and write a provocative one-liner under it. At least Rafa_Maniac tries to clarify how he feels and makes a point.

Komodo

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 02:10 PM
Also one small comment on Andre's No 1 fan: Mate, it is embarassing to have to make others make your point for you & then quote it and write a provocative one-liner under it. At least Rafa_Maniac tries to clarify how he feels and makes a point.

:retard: Why don't you go and check some of my posts, I mean I'm not gonna sit repeating myself time after time. I've got my opinions and have already stated them, now stop making such foolish statements.

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 02:15 PM
:retard: Why don't you go and check some of my posts, I mean I'm not gonna sit repeating myself time after time. I've got my opinions and have already stated them, now stop making such foolish statements.

Funny the way you avoided responding to Sjengster's statement. Missed it ? :angel: Nothing to back up maybe... :angel:

"And this coming from the no. 1 fan of Agassi, master of the emotionless 1-hour beatdown, is little short of remarkable."

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 02:24 PM
Funny the way you avoided responding to Sjengster's statement. Missed it ? :angel: Nothing to back up maybe... :angel:

"And this coming from the no. 1 fan of Agassi, master of the emotionless 1-hour beatdown, is little short of remarkable."
Not that you respond to most things, knowing you can't back anything up, but anyways.

Sure Agassi had boring games, just the same as anyone else. I'm not denying that. But Andre did not have 1 hr matches in semis and finals of grand slams, on a regular basis. Sure I know he has had easy slam finals, but its not all the time. As for the emotionless Agassi, well as he got older he did become less emotional on the court, but i took to him when he was young.

Komodo
01-30-2007, 02:32 PM
Not that you respond to most things, knowing you can't back anything up, but anyways.

Sure Agassi had boring games, just the same as anyone else. I'm not denying that. But Andre did not have 1 hr matches in semis and finals of grand slams, on a regular basis. Sure I know he has had easy slam finals, but its not all the time. As for the emotionless Agassi, well as he got older he did become less emotional on the court, but i took to him when he was young.



Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 13-Jan-03, O, Hard , Draw: 128
Vahaly, Brian (USA)
7-5 6-3 6-3
R64
Lee, Hyung-Taik (KOR)
6-1 6-0 6-0
R32
Escude, Nicolas (FRA)
6-2 3-6 6-3 6-4
R16
Coria, Guillermo (ARG)
6-1 3-1 RET
Q
Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA)
6-3 6-2 6-2
Ferreira, Wayne (RSA)
6-2 6-2 6-3
Schuettler, Rainer (GER)
6-2 6-2 6-1

Sjengster
01-30-2007, 02:33 PM
Federer's two straight-sets wins in AO finals have lasted about an hour longer than Agassi's last two against Clement and Schuettler. On the other hand, Agassi's comeback year in 1999 did include two five-set Slam finals, both won from a deficit of course. Anyhow, interesting point about how you took to the emotional Agassi when he was young; I took to the comparatively emotionless Federer when he was young too, so it takes all sorts. Your point about how everyone shouldn't feel obligated to like beautiful tennis applies equally well to charismatic "personalities" on court; people who don't find them essential to support a player have as legitimate a viewpoint as those who need to see the emotion.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 02:34 PM
Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 13-Jan-03, O, Hard , Draw: 128
Vahaly, Brian (USA)
7-5 6-3 6-3
R64
Lee, Hyung-Taik (KOR)
6-1 6-0 6-0
R32
Escude, Nicolas (FRA)
6-2 3-6 6-3 6-4
R16
Coria, Guillermo (ARG)
6-1 3-1 RET
Q
Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA)
6-3 6-2 6-2
Ferreira, Wayne (RSA)
6-2 6-2 6-3
Schuettler, Rainer (GER)
6-2 6-2 6-1
Pretty boring, huh?

Komodo
01-30-2007, 02:37 PM
Australian Open 2001
R128
Vanek, Jiri (CZE)
6-0 7-5 6-3
R64
Goldstein, Paul (USA)
6-1 6-3 6-1
R32
Prinosil, David (GER)
7-6(11) 5-0 RET
R16
Ilie, Andrew (AUS)
6-7(1) 6-3 6-0 6-3
Q
Martin, Todd (USA)
7-5 6-3 6-4
S
Rafter, Patrick (AUS)
7-5 2-6 6-7(5) 6-2 6-3
W
Clement, Arnaud (FRA)
6-4 6-2 6-2

Actually lost 2 sets against the mighty Rafter!

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 02:37 PM
Pretty boring, huh?

Andre the Great can't be boring ! True charisma is never boring...



:angel:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 02:44 PM
Andre the Great can't be boring ! True charisma is never boring...



:angel:
Matches can always be boring, no matter who is playing. I will admit matches are boring with my favs in, but the difference is you're so blinded you won't.

*Ljubica*
01-30-2007, 02:45 PM
Andre the Great can't be boring ! True charisma is never boring...



:angel:

JM - if I were you I wouldn't rise to the bait and get involved in inane discussions with some people on this topic - it is really not worth your time and effort. Just accept that they have their views and you have yours - or even better - put them on IGNORE - and move on - life's too short :)

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 02:47 PM
Matches can always be boring, no matter who is playing. I will admit matches are boring with my favs in, but the difference is you're so blinded you won't.

Of course I won't, I'm never disappointed with Roger's matches, even in the beatdowns there's always awesome shot-making to please the tennis fan I am.

Komodo
01-30-2007, 02:50 PM
It's not about if the scorelines are boring. You said that Agassis matches were more exciting & that he at least didn't win big matches in grand slams in one hour like Federer. I'm just showing you the scores that beg to differ, but you are totally disregarding your initial statement.

Sure, you threw in the little "some of Agassis matches were easy as well" remark as an airbag, but then you don't have a point any more, now do you?
It's not Federer hasn't played tight matches.
Nevermind, I'm out of this kind of discussion. :angel: Edit: Rosie, you are just too spot on.

Regards
Komodo

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 02:50 PM
Of course I won't, I'm never disappointed with Roger's matches, even in the beatdowns there's always awesome shot-making to please the tennis fan I am.
So you were pleased with his performance against Murray last yr in Cincinatti.

Its fine, but don't go around accusing others of not being a tennis fan if they don't find it interesting.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 02:51 PM
JM - if I were you I wouldn't rise to the bait and get involved in inane discussions with some people on this topic - it is really not worth your time and effort. Just accept that they have their views and you have yours - or even better - put them on IGNORE - and move on - life's too short :)
Another person who thinks they know it all :rolleyes:

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 02:52 PM
JM - if I were you I wouldn't rise to the bait and get involved in inane discussions with some people on this topic - it is really not worth your time and effort. Just accept that they have their views and you have yours - or even better - put them on IGNIORE - and move on - life's too short :)

:worship: Rosie, I know it's not worth it but sometimes I can't help :shrug: ... I'll do my best to ignore the bait, point taken ;)

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 02:53 PM
It's not about if the scorelines are boring. You said that Agassis matches were more exciting & that he at least didn't win big matches in grand slams in one hour like Federer. I'm just showing you the scores that beg to differ, but you are totally disregarding your initial statement.

Sure, you threw in the little "some of Agassis matches were easy as well" remark as an airbag, but then you don't have a point any more, now do you?
It's not Federer hasn't played tight matches.
Nevermind, I'm out of this kind of discussion. :angel: Edit: Rosie, you are just too spot on.

Regards
Komodo
Did I say all of Agassi's matches were interesting? No I didn't please check the facts. Of course Agassi has played in one sided matches, but Federer has been involved in far more, and he's much younger.

GlennMirnyi
01-30-2007, 03:22 PM
So you were pleased with his performance against Murray last yr in Cincinatti.

Its fine, but don't go around accusing others of not being a tennis fan if they don't find it interesting.

You say that yourself, that you're not a tennis fan.

Did I say all of Agassi's matches were interesting? No I didn't please check the facts. Of course Agassi has played in one sided matches, but Federer has been involved in far more, and he's much younger.

That's because Federer is much better.

soonha
01-30-2007, 03:24 PM
Believe me. I was(still am I think) a casual tennis fan for almost 30 yrs. Then I witnessed Federer playing Hewitt in Wimbledon 2004 QF match. I'd never seen a player playing like him before. Since then I've been like a teenager who gets crazy about a movie star. Started following every tennis match, surfing tennis websites on internet and of course hanging out here everyday. Go figure. He made me kind of a tennis fanatic.

I've never seen Federer or his game as boring or uncharismatic. On the contrary, everytime he steps on the court and hits those picture-perfect winners, I feel almost ecstatic. Even from this casual fan's view, he is THAT good. I believe that many of people out there feel the same way.

*Ljubica*
01-30-2007, 03:35 PM
Believe me. I was(still am I think) a casual tennis fan for almost 30 yrs. Then I witnessed Federer playing Hewitt in Wimbledon 2004 QF match. I'd never seen a player playing like him before. Since then I've been like a teenager who gets crazy about a movie star. Started following every tennis match, surfing tennis websites on internet and of course hanging out here everyday. Go figure. He made me kind of a tennis fanatic.

I've never seen Federer or his game as boring or uncharismatic. On the contrary, everytime he steps on the court and hits those picture-perfect winners, I feel almost ecstatic. Even from this casual fan's view, he is THAT good. I believe that many of people out there feel the same way.

Great post :worship: I remember being at Wimbledon the day Roger beat Sampras - it really was like watching a "changing of the guard" and I am still glad that I happened to have tickets for that particular day, and could watch history kind of unfolding in front of my eyes.

Black Adam
01-30-2007, 04:15 PM
Believe me. I was(still am I think) a casual tennis fan for almost 30 yrs. Then I witnessed Federer playing Hewitt in Wimbledon 2004 QF match. I'd never seen a player playing like him before. Since then I've been like a teenager who gets crazy about a movie star. Started following every tennis match, surfing tennis websites on internet and of course hanging out here everyday. Go figure. He made me kind of a tennis fanatic.

I've never seen Federer or his game as boring or uncharismatic. On the contrary, everytime he steps on the court and hits those picture-perfect winners, I feel almost ecstatic. Even from this casual fan's view, he is THAT good. I believe that many of people out there feel the same way.
Yes but some of you can't come to accept that there are also people who don't feel the same way and you will be probably wasting your time if you try to convince people to believe what you believe.

bokehlicious
01-30-2007, 04:22 PM
Yes but some of you can't come to accept that there are also people who don't feel the same way and you will be probably wasting your time if you try to convince people to believe what you believe.

I don't think Soonha tried to convince anybody with her message. :shrug:

How many posts can we read on here about Federer being boring ? Plenty each day. Those comments won't convice Federer fans either... Waste of time too. :shrug:

Rogiman
01-30-2007, 04:25 PM
Andre's #1 whore, do you realise Federer just won his 10th Slam?

Be a man (and not the little whinny bitch you are) for a change, say "too good, congrats" and stfu for the near future, your non-stop crying over a player who's just extended his legacy, like it or not, only makes you look even dumber than you already are anyway.

And finally, it's not Federer's fault your mother dropped you on your head when you were a baby, get over it.

soonha
01-30-2007, 04:30 PM
Yes but some of you can't come to accept that there are also people who don't feel the same way and you will be probably wasting your time if you try to convince people to believe what you believe.

I never tried to convince anybody(BTW, thanks, JMPower). I just SAID what I believe and what I feel. Besides I don't care if my time will be wasted. I already wasted my precious time just by being here and replying to your post.

GlennMirnyi
01-30-2007, 04:30 PM
Andre's #1 whore, do you realise Federer just won his 10th Slam?

Be a man (and not the little whinny bitch you are) for a change, say "too good, congrats" and stfu for the near future, your non-stop crying over a player who's just extended his legacy, like it or not, only makes you look even dumber than you already are anyway.

And finally, it's not Federer's fault your mother dropped you on your head when you were a baby, get over it.

:worship:

:haha:

FluffyYellowBall
01-30-2007, 04:32 PM
Andre's #1 whore, do you realise Federer just won his 10th Slam?

Be a man (and not the little whinny bitch you are) for a change, say "too good, congrats" and stfu for the near future, your non-stop crying over a player who's just extended his legacy, like it or not, only makes you look even dumber than you already are anyway.

And finally, it's not Federer's fault your mother dropped you on your head when you were a baby, get over it.


awww, no need to be so honest!
but i agree, hes already proved hes surpassed andre.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 04:33 PM
Andre's #1 whore, do you realise Federer just won his 10th Slam?

Be a man (and not the little whinny bitch you are) for a change, say "too good, congrats" and stfu for the near future, your non-stop crying over a player who's just extended his legacy, like it or not, only makes you look even dumber than you already are anyway.

And finally, it's not Federer's fault your mother dropped you on your head when you were a baby, get over it.
Hahaha. Clown. I couldn't give a damn if he'd just won his 100th slam, I'm not gonna like him, and you or anyone else is not gonna change my mind. So do us all a favour, and keep it shut.

Rogiman
01-30-2007, 04:39 PM
Hahaha. Clown. I couldn't give a damn if he'd just won his 100th slam, I'm not gonna like him, and you or anyone else is not gonna change my mind. So do us all a favour, and keep it shut.You say you don't give a damn, but you haven't slept for the last few days, spending your life spamming this website with your nonesense 24/7, I'd tell you to get a life, but that'd ring hollow as there's no chance of that ever happening, I take it your parents also happen to be brother and sister, otherwise this much dumbness is inexplicable.

You certainly have issues with excellence, must have been tough to suck in anything you've ever taken to.

GlennMirnyi
01-30-2007, 04:40 PM
Fangirl.

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2007, 04:46 PM
You say you don't give a damn, but you haven't slept for the last few days, spending your life spamming this website with your nonesense 24/7, I'd tell you to get a life, but that'd ring hollow as there's no chance of that ever happening, I take it your parents also happen to be brother and sister, otherwise this much dumbness is inexplicable.

You certainly have issues with excellence, must have been tough to suck in anything you've ever taken to.
Coming from someone who nearly has 7,000 posts......thats rich. I'd suggest you should get a life, but you seem more interested in spending your life making avatars which are hateful, and that really is a sad indication about how you've been brought up. But you can't change now, its too late.

Rogiman
01-30-2007, 04:48 PM
Coming from someone who nearly has 7,000 posts......thats rich. I'd suggest you should get a life, but you seem more interested in spending your life making avatars which are hateful, and that really is a sad indication about how you've been brought up. But you can't change now, its too late.:sobbing:

vahep
01-30-2007, 05:38 PM
I don't have a problem with anybody disliking Fed. Free will is a biatch but nothing, and no one has ever been universally liked across the board, no matter how little fodder one gives as reasons for disliking a public figure, if they don't like em, they don't like em, and no amount of logic or reason or even subjective diatribes is going to sway them.

What I do have a problem with is the utter ignorance of making comparisons that are so completely absurd that anyone with a pair of eyes and half a brain stem can recognize as pure b.s.. Specifically, somone earlier compared Federer's "game" to Graf's. See Graf is truly one instance of the "domination gets boring" arguement actually holding a couple of drops of water. Graf's game was truly "mechanical" and "repetitive" (big forehand, slice backhand, big forehand, big forehand , error, next point). You could pretty much watch any one Graf matches in full and it was groundhog's day after that. To compare a total pattern player whose one dimensional style was never fully solved during her career, to someone who just totally improvises every point, every match, the way Federer does is beyond ignorant.

You can accuse the guy of a lot of things, i.e. matches lack suspense, outcome predetermined, contemporaries suck, doesnt have a conniption after every point and is therefore emotionless and does not involve the crowd, etc. etc. , but to even imply that matches which he plays, point by point, are not at the very least sponteaneously creative is absolute horseshit. In fact you could say, he is the first tennis player I have ever seen that truly has no style or pattern. It's almost like even he has no idea how he is about to win the upcoming point, it just sort of unfolds almost always in a way you don't expect. Kind of reminds me of "Enter The Dragon", Bruce Lee, when asked what his style was ..."I call it the art of fighting, without fighting".

That's what has magnetized me into following him after so many years of not following the men's game. As much as I dislike hyperbolic statements, sometimes they are just warranted. Federer has gone beyond the mastery of his sport to where he truly has no style, he has transcended the game.

Sorry about the rant, but the comapison to Graf really made me laugh. I mean if you want to make the comparison in terms of achievements, fine, but the game that Roger plays is incomparable, especially to a pure pattern player like Graf.

Komodo
01-30-2007, 05:57 PM
While I agree with your view of Federers game, I don't understand why you feel the need to dismiss Grafs tennis, which was really beautiful with that amazing slice that she was actually attacking with, the top notch forehand & of course the incredible movement that made it seem like she was floating, not actually running on the court.
Nothing wrong with being compared to probably the greatest female tennis player ever, though Federer definitely has more game & more possibilities. But that applies for any man compared to a female player; the men can do a lot more different things with the ball.

Komodo

cmurray
01-30-2007, 06:04 PM
What I do have a problem with is the utter ignorance of making comparisons that are so completely absurd that anyone with a pair of eyes and half a brain stem can recognize as pure b.s.. Specifically, somone earlier compared Federer's "game" to Graf's. See Graf is truly one instance of the "domination gets boring" arguement actually holding a couple of drops of water. Graf's game was truly "mechanical" and "repetitive" (big forehand, slice backhand, big forehand, big forehand , error, next point). You could pretty much watch any one Graf matches in full and it was groundhog's day after that. To compare a total pattern player whose one dimensional style was never fully solved during her career, to someone who just totally improvises every point, every match, the way Federer does is beyond ignorant.




Right on! Except you didn't read what I WROTE. I didn't say that Seffi's TENNIS was like Roger's. I don't watch women's tennis, so I wouldn't even be able to make an educated guess as to how her game is the same or differs from Roger's. What I SAID was that he is getting public attention the same way she did - because he keeps winning everything. And when that happens, people sit up and pay attention. That's the only comparison I was drawing.

Perhaps next time, before you froth at the mouth over imagined insults, you should re-read what somebody writes.

Also, you are delusional if you think Roger actually improvises every point of every match. That would mean he walks into every match with no game plan whatsoever. What? You think he gets to the end of a point and says to himself - "gee! won that one! Wonder how that happened???!!??" There is no doubt about it - the man's ability to improvise when needed (well, except at RG) is nothing short of amazing. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the man doesn't know EXACTLY what he's doing when he walks onto the court. He's much MUCH smarter than that.

GlennMirnyi
01-30-2007, 06:12 PM
Right on! Except you didn't read what I WROTE. I didn't say that Seffi's TENNIS was like Roger's. I don't watch women's tennis, so I wouldn't even be able to make an educated guess as to how her game is the same or differs from Roger's. What I SAID was that he is getting public attention the same way she did - because he keeps winning everything. And when that happens, people sit up and pay attention. That's the only comparison I was drawing.

Perhaps next time, before you froth at the mouth over imagined insults, you should re-read what somebody writes.

Also, you are delusional if you think Roger actually improvises every point of every match. That would mean he walks into every match with no game plan whatsoever. What? You think he gets to the end of a point and says to himself - "gee! won that one! Wonder how that happened???!!??" There is no doubt about it - the man's ability to improvise when needed (well, except at RG) is nothing short of amazing. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the man doesn't know EXACTLY what he's doing when he walks onto the court. He's much MUCH smarter than that.

I agree there. Federer isn't an improviser. Federer actually play pretty much a "bread and butter" tennis. He has all shots but he usually goes for the simple solution. Maybe because he has all the shots, people think he's actually trying something different every point, but it's not like that.

cmurray
01-30-2007, 06:17 PM
I agree there. Federer isn't an improviser. Federer actually play pretty much a "bread and butter" tennis. He has all shots but he usually goes for the simple solution. Maybe because he has all the shots, people think he's actually trying something different every point, but it's not like that.

OMG! Glenn, did you just AGREE with me?? :sobbing: Oh I'm so happy! A red-letter day! :smooch: :lol:

On a serious note - you are correct. Roger plays smart tennis, no doubt about it.

vahep
01-30-2007, 06:42 PM
Did I say Graf was not a great champion? Certainly not. Did I dismiss her achievements? Not on your life. I'm simply stating the obvious which is if you are going to accuse anybody of "boring dominance" Graf , whose game relied almost entirely upon two shots, one designed just to keep her in the point, and the other as simply a bludgeon to induce errors or weak replies that led to an easy winner, is definitely the candidate you should be pointing to. And it has nothing to do with the women vs men debate either. Sampras, Edberg, Borg, Agassi. Lendl, etc, all were great champions to be sure, but none of them had anywhere near the variety or creativity of Federer. In other words I could predict pretty accurately what each player was going to do with each shot, but I'm constantly surprised by the way Fed plays each shot, and I have a lot of fun trying to figure out why he played it that way. So basically watching tennis for me pre-Fed was just enjoying the beautiful game played by it's best practicians, as well as the competitiveness of two men or women trying overcome one another's talent and will. I still get all that by watching a Roger match, but I also learn and understand more about the game from trying to figure out why he played each shot the way he did. It just add layers, complexities, and dimensions to the game I never knew existed. I'll even go so far as to say that I personally have become a better player due to analysing shots and point construction.

vahep
01-30-2007, 07:08 PM
OMG! Glenn, did you just AGREE with me?? :sobbing: Oh I'm so happy! A red-letter day! :smooch: :lol:

On a serious note - you are correct. Roger plays smart tennis, no doubt about it.

I always knew you two had a Sam & Diane thing going ....

World Beater
01-30-2007, 07:49 PM
I always knew you two had a Sam & Diane thing going ....


:haha:

World Beater
01-30-2007, 07:55 PM
I agree there. Federer isn't an improviser. Federer actually play pretty much a "bread and butter" tennis. He has all shots but he usually goes for the simple solution. Maybe because he has all the shots, people think he's actually trying something different every point, but it's not like that.

federer can improvise, and in fact this was the way he used to play when he was younger.

after maturing, he plays a more calculated style and only when forced, does he have to improvise. you can see this on the big points especially. he has "go to plays" that he uses.

renz
01-30-2007, 08:02 PM
Please don't hurt me...as you can tell from my screen name, I'm a Federer fan, but I sometimes wonder if the reason so many people find Roger's game dull is because he so good. He's so good, he makes it look easy. He makes it look like anyone could pull it off. And when there's no 150 km serve blasting its way to a fault, no guttural grunt on every stroke and he rarely has to huff and puff his way across court, because he's so deceptively fast and moves so well, the amazing things he does on a tennis court seem comparatively diminished.

sykotique
01-30-2007, 09:19 PM
I can understand not liking Federer, but I think person's need to be be upfront about why they don't like him. There are a lot of persons on the ATP without much personality, you could say, but Federer will take the most shtick for being stoic and reserved, because he is the #1 and he is defeating everybody else.


It would be much easier for people to like Federer more if he lost more, but that is certainly not his fault. He goes out there to win and to win as comfortably as possible. He should not try to lower his game to please others. The incentive is not with him to make the match competitive, but rather with his opponents and in his instance, you cannot blame him, but rather his opposition.


Why does no one blame Blake or Roddick or Robredo or Davydenko for making Roger's matches so "dull"? After all, it takes 2 to play tennis.


But at the same time, if you don't like Federer, there is nothing wrong with that, but you should not "make up" reasons as to why you dislike him. "I don't like the fact that he wins so much" is fair enough. "I don't think he shows much emotion, but if that is how he wins, then more power to him" is also a fair assessment. Roger goes out there and does what he has to. His goal is not to go out there and be beloved, it is to go out there and win and that is the goal of every single tennis player on the face of the planet. Entertainment is always secondary to the victory.

Castafiore
01-30-2007, 09:41 PM
Entertainment is always secondary to the victory.
Some people actually go to a sports match to have a great time as well as hoping to see their favorite team or sports person win and see some great sports action.

It's not secondary in the eye of the public in general.

you should not "make up" reasons as to why you dislike him
And who's going to be the judge whether somebody's own personal reasons are "real" enough or "made up"?
Next up, you'll need a lawyer to represent you when you write down your own opinion on some message board.
Everybody's simply writing down an opinion. We do not know most of these pro players well enough to actually have sufficient reasons to like or dislike him as a person and back that up with hard facts.

cmurray
01-30-2007, 09:46 PM
I can understand not liking Federer, but I think person's need to be be upfront about why they don't like him. There are a lot of persons on the ATP without much personality, you could say, but Federer will take the most shtick for being stoic and reserved, because he is the #1 and he is defeating everybody else.


It would be much easier for people to like Federer more if he lost more, but that is certainly not his fault. He goes out there to win and to win as comfortably as possible. He should not try to lower his game to please others. The incentive is not with him to make the match competitive, but rather with his opponents and in his instance, you cannot blame him, but rather his opposition.


Why does no one blame Blake or Roddick or Robredo or Davydenko for making Roger's matches so "dull"? After all, it takes 2 to play tennis.


But at the same time, if you don't like Federer, there is nothing wrong with that, but you should not "make up" reasons as to why you dislike him. "I don't like the fact that he wins so much" is fair enough. "I don't think he shows much emotion, but if that is how he wins, then more power to him" is also a fair assessment. Roger goes out there and does what he has to. His goal is not to go out there and be beloved, it is to go out there and win and that is the goal of every single tennis player on the face of the planet. Entertainment is always secondary to the victory.


A valiant post, sykotique...but it won't wash around here. There is no such thing as a "fair assessment" when it comes to not liking Roger. Everyone should like Roger, no matter what. There is no room for "different strokes".

I've never liked Roger (and by "dislike", what I mean is that I rarely cheer for him to win)...and I openly admit that a large part of the reason for that is that he routinely wiped the court with Andre's ass. :lol:

And after I was over that, he just never grew on me. I've always had a tepid reaction to him, and as he gets more and more perfect, I get less and less interested. Not his fault, certainly...but in all seriousness this talk of "holding things against him" is just....ridiculous. I don't know Roger, I'll never have an impact on him in anyway. What difference in the WORLD does it make if I don't pine away for him to win matches? none. THere is no harm done in being a fan of somebody else.

Oh, and you haven't been paying attention if you think Roddick Blake and Davydenko don't get heat for getting a beating by the guy. :lol:

dasdas22
01-30-2007, 10:20 PM
Because he is responsible for making tennis a boring sport.

Nevertheless, i quite like him.

rosamunda
01-30-2007, 10:59 PM
[QUOTE=Castafiore;4783426]Some people actually go to a sports match to have a great time as well as hoping to see their favorite team or sports person win and see some great sports action.

It's not secondary in the eye of the public in general.




But it's secondary to the player, or should be and I, as a member of "the public in general" wouldn't want it to be otherwise. Players can't be expected to think about 'pleasuring' the public at the expense of their game. It, in any case, depends on what you want for entertainment. What is defined by "great sports action"? For some it's clearly a gladitorial battle to the death with everything but the blood actually being spilt. For others it's to see the game played to the highest level - whether it's one-sided or not. I happen to fall into the latter category, but I can fully appreciate why many want a full-scale drama every time - we're all different and we all like different things.....just a fact of life.

rafa_maniac
01-31-2007, 01:28 AM
Oh my. I hope you realize what you just have done. You are actually blaming Federer for being too good & for winning too easily. You make it sound like that's a reason not to like him, while, if anything, you should blame all those other guys who all had the prodigy stamp on them while coming up but have ended up looking inferior to Federer.

You also got the definition wrong in my opinion. Good tennis is what one tennis player produces, his shots, his movement, his strategy. Federer is amazing in all of these departments.
A good tennis match, on the other hand, is created by the intensity between two players & Federer has certainly participated in a few of those aswell.

If you are to blame someone for not making it a good tennis match, please turn to Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Blake etc., because Federer will always match up with what you throw at him & thus take the tennis as far as it possibly can get in terms of excitement and skill. He isn't the limit, his opponents are.

What you are doing is blaming the man who takes tennis, and can take a tennis match, to a level unseen before, when the other players can't keep up and prematurely end what could become breathtaking rallies & incredibly high skilled, close matches.
Again, Federer isn't the limit. It's not like he is a serve & hit player like Pete was who doesn't play the points; he plays them as long as it takes; he uses every tactic & every facette of the game.
It is important that you reflect over this point. If not, you better replace the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel! ( ;) )

Finally, I find Federer very charismatic, definitely off court, but also on court. The fact that he doesn't openly show in your face emotions, doesn't mean he isn't emotional, it's just more subtile.
And finally, there certainly isn't anything machinal in his game, because it is so very varied that anything can happen at any time & he often shows negative/positive feelings & also does that "ticky" headshake :).
But I understand that this is a subjective feeling, so we can agree to disagree on it, just like I don't like your favourite player for embarassing in your face fist pumps, in-eyes stare downs, point delaying, medical timeouts & the general feeling that he, just like Hewitt used to, is trying to intimidate his opponent.
I don't dislike Nadals tennis either, though, and I have nothing to say about his off-court persona.

Also one small comment on Andre's No 1 fan: Mate, it is embarassing to have to make others make your point for you & then quote it and write a provocative one-liner under it. At least Rafa_Maniac tries to clarify how he feels and makes a point.

Komodo

I am not 'blaming' anyone, it is what it is. I respect that Federer is a great tennis PLAYER, but 99% of the time, his matches are not 'good tennis', that is why he bores me. Great shotmaking and a great battle are not mutually exclusive, but as I have already stated, tennis is a TWO PERSON sport. Why not put a ball machine (or 'pong' for Aussie viewers ;) ) up the other end then and watch Federer go at it? I am aware that he can't help outclassing opponents time and time again, but it doesn't mean I have to enjoy it.

sykotique
01-31-2007, 02:56 AM
Some people actually go to a sports match to have a great time as well as hoping to see their favorite team or sports person win and see some great sports action.

It's not secondary in the eye of the public in general.


And who's going to be the judge whether somebody's own personal reasons are "real" enough or "made up"?
Next up, you'll need a lawyer to represent you when you write down your own opinion on some message board.
Everybody's simply writing down an opinion. We do not know most of these pro players well enough to actually have sufficient reasons to like or dislike him as a person and back that up with hard facts.

I don't mean the general public. I mean the players. Let's be honest. Most players would choose winning a Grand Slam ugly that going out in the first round playing beautifully and showing emotion (I'm of the opinion that Federer does both adequately, but I'm just explaining my point). The players are out there to earn a living as well as entertain in the public, but there is nothing in their contracts saying that matches must be of a certain duration or that he must display his emotions in a defined manner. All you can really ask is that they go out there and be themselves and perform to the best of their ability. I like Fed's on court personality, Nadal's on court personality and Safin's on court personality, all for different reasons.


And secondly, there are such things as made up opinions. Let me give you an example:

Ask someone who their favourite player is. Ask them if they like seeing that player win. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win the Australian Open. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win Roland Garros. Ask them if they would like they favourite to win Wimbledon and the US Open. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win as much tournaments as possible.


If they answer yes to all those questions, what you ultimately derive from that is that they would like to see their player DOMINATE. In other words, they wouldn't mind seeing their favourite have the success that Fed has had. But yet, some view Fed's domination as a reason to dislike him. To me, unless you're a completely neutral observer with absolutely no allegiance to a player whatsoever, there is no way you could convince me that a player's domination is the reason you don't like them personally, because we ALL would like to see our favourites dominate in some shape, form or fashion at some level, at the expense of other players.


Finally, every player CANNOT go out on court and act like Fed. That would be boring. Likewise, every player CANNOT go out on court and act like Nadal. That would also be boring. Factory made, prototype personalities do not make the game interesting. It is the blend of personalities that does this. If everyone acted like a particular player, there would be no difference in personality, so we shouldn't criticise players for having the personality that suits them best. It's their personality and so long as it is not immoral or disingenous, they have a right to it.

Allure
01-31-2007, 03:19 AM
I don't mean the general public. I mean the players. Let's be honest. Most players would choose winning a Grand Slam ugly that going out in the first round playing beautifully and showing emotion (I'm of the opinion that Federer does both adequately, but I'm just explaining my point). The players are out there to earn a living as well as entertain in the public, but there is nothing in their contracts saying that matches must be of a certain duration or that he must display his emotions in a defined manner. All you can really ask is that they go out there and be themselves and perform to the best of their ability. I like Fed's on court personality, Nadal's on court personality and Safin's on court personality, all for different reasons.


And secondly, there are such things as made up opinions. Let me give you an example:

Ask someone who their favourite player is. Ask them if they like seeing that player win. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win the Australian Open. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win Roland Garros. Ask them if they would like they favourite to win Wimbledon and the US Open. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win as much tournaments as possible.


If they answer yes to all those questions, what you ultimately derive from that is that they would like to see their player DOMINATE. In other words, they wouldn't mind seeing their favourite have the success that Fed has had. But yet, some view Fed's domination as a reason to dislike him. To me, unless you're a completely neutral observer with absolutely no allegiance to a player whatsoever, there is no way you could convince me that a player's domination is the reason you don't like them personally, because we ALL would like to see our favourites dominate in some shape, form or fashion at some level, at the expense of other players.


Finally, every player CANNOT go out on court and act like Fed. That would be boring. Likewise, every player CANNOT go out on court and act like Nadal. That would also be boring. Factory made, prototype personalities do not make the game interesting. It is the blend of personalities that does this. If everyone acted like a particular player, there would be no difference in personality, so we shouldn't criticise players for having the personality that suits them best. It's their personality and so long as it is not immoral or disingenous, they have a right to it.

Wow I want to good rep you. Brilliant. Rational. Unbiased.

BTW I agree with you. I say that I don't like Federer because he is dominant. But if Gasquet always win, I don't mind it. So basically I admitted to myself that I am a hypocrite because I love if my favorite player(s) dominate but I have a problem with Federer dominating. And I think it goes for others too. They say they dislike Fed because he always wins, but if their faves win all the time, will they hate that? Hmmm

Castafiore
01-31-2007, 08:00 AM
If they answer yes to all those questions, what you ultimately derive from that is that they would like to see their player DOMINATE.
Of course, everybody prefers to see their favorites winning. That goes without saying. But quite honestly, utter dominance bores me just a bit even if I'm talking about my favorites and I have enough experiences in other sports to back that opinion up.

Example:
I'm a Michael Schumacher fan. Looking back on his career, I have much greater memories of the tense years, the years he had to fight hard for a world title and had to fight off fierce competition.
However, there was one year in particular when he dominated from start to finish. Nobody could come close to him. Now, I admit that it was fun to boast about his victories to some of my friends who simply love to hate Schumi, it was still less exciting to watch.
The best memories I have of F1 for example were the intense battles between Prost and Senna (gosh, I miss Senna) or Schumi against Mika Hakkinen or Damon Hill. I still cherish Schumi's easier victories of course but I had the most fun (adrenaline boost?) during the tense battles.
I used to get up in the middle of the night to watch a F1 race when I had to but that season, I just didn't do it since the outcome was predictable and the battle not intense enough (for me).

Personally, I can't say that I "dislike" a sportsperson for simply dominating since he's only doing his job at the highest level. I may not like to watch a boring match, but I don't really blame the people for that usually (unless I see them tank a match on purpose for example). I don't think that many people really "blame" a sports person for dominating. How can you blame a person for being good? That's just silly.
However, while admiring the skill and the dedication it requires to dominate and you can not blame the sport person for being that good, utter domination is a bit boring for me as a spectator.

But it's secondary to the player, or should be and I, as a member of "the public in general" wouldn't want it to be otherwise. Players can't be expected to think about 'pleasuring' the public at the expense of their game
It's secondary to the player and so it should be. You're right about that. However, that doesn't change the fact that some matches are more exciting to watch than others and most of these players are playing to win in the first place and not to entertain a crowd.

I don't quite understand why it's so hard to accept that not everybody likes to watch the same things.

That's about all I'm going to say in this thread since I think that we're going in circles a bit.

bokehlicious
01-31-2007, 08:19 AM
but 99% of the time, his matches are not 'good tennis',

You have no clue what "good tennis" is then...

People hate/dislike Federer only because he kicks their faves' ass day in day out and they can't stand it, so everything's good to bash him (boring, arrogant, etc...)... Nothing new under the sun... :zzz:

fetch
01-31-2007, 09:28 AM
Of course, everybody prefers to see their favorites winning. That goes without saying. But quite honestly, utter dominance bores me just a bit even if I'm talking about my favorites and I have enough experiences in other sports to back that opinion up.

Example:
I'm a Michael Schumacher fan. Looking back on his career, I have much greater memories of the tense years, the years he had to fight hard for a world title and had to fight off fierce competition.
However, there was one year in particular when he dominated from start to finish. Nobody could come close to him. Now, I admit that it was fun to boast about his victories to some of my friends who simply love to hate Schumi, it was still less exciting to watch.
The best memories I have of F1 for example were the intense battles between Prost and Senna (gosh, I miss Senna) or Schumi against Mika Hakkinen or Damon Hill. I still cherish Schumi's easier victories of course but I had the most fun (adrenaline boost?) during the tense battles.
I used to get up in the middle of the night to watch a F1 race when I had to but that season, I just didn't do it since the outcome was predictable and the battle not intense enough (for me).

Personally, I can't say that I "dislike" a sportsperson for simply dominating since he's only doing his job at the highest level. I may not like to watch a boring match, but I don't really blame the people for that usually (unless I see them tank a match on purpose for example). I don't think that many people really "blame" a sports person for dominating. How can you blame a person for being good? That's just silly.
However, while admiring the skill and the dedication it requires to dominate and you can not blame the sport person for being that good, utter domination is a bit boring for me as a spectator.


It's secondary to the player and so it should be. You're right about that. However, that doesn't change the fact that some matches are more exciting to watch than others and most of these players are playing to win in the first place and not to entertain a crowd.

I don't quite understand why it's so hard to accept that not everybody likes to watch the same things.

That's about all I'm going to say in this thread since I think that we're going in circles a bit.

That was a spectacular post. Definitely the best one in this thread. :worship:

I respect Federer as a player. I think he's incredible. But I won't watch his matches because (IMO) they lack, excitement, intensity and raw emotion.

rafa_maniac
01-31-2007, 11:39 AM
I don't mean the general public. I mean the players. Let's be honest. Most players would choose winning a Grand Slam ugly that going out in the first round playing beautifully and showing emotion (I'm of the opinion that Federer does both adequately, but I'm just explaining my point). The players are out there to earn a living as well as entertain in the public, but there is nothing in their contracts saying that matches must be of a certain duration or that he must display his emotions in a defined manner. All you can really ask is that they go out there and be themselves and perform to the best of their ability. I like Fed's on court personality, Nadal's on court personality and Safin's on court personality, all for different reasons.


And secondly, there are such things as made up opinions. Let me give you an example:

Ask someone who their favourite player is. Ask them if they like seeing that player win. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win the Australian Open. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win Roland Garros. Ask them if they would like they favourite to win Wimbledon and the US Open. Ask them if they would like their favourite to win as much tournaments as possible.


If they answer yes to all those questions, what you ultimately derive from that is that they would like to see their player DOMINATE. In other words, they wouldn't mind seeing their favourite have the success that Fed has had. But yet, some view Fed's domination as a reason to dislike him. To me, unless you're a completely neutral observer with absolutely no allegiance to a player whatsoever, there is no way you could convince me that a player's domination is the reason you don't like them personally, because we ALL would like to see our favourites dominate in some shape, form or fashion at some level, at the expense of other players.


Finally, every player CANNOT go out on court and act like Fed. That would be boring. Likewise, every player CANNOT go out on court and act like Nadal. That would also be boring. Factory made, prototype personalities do not make the game interesting. It is the blend of personalities that does this. If everyone acted like a particular player, there would be no difference in personality, so we shouldn't criticise players for having the personality that suits them best. It's their personality and so long as it is not immoral or disingenous, they have a right to it.

Actually, it might interest you to know that Federer was actually my favourite player many years ago. Long before most people (outside of Switzerland) had even heard of him, I saw him play in the Hopman Cup in Perth on TV teaming up with Martina Hingis (they won). She was the focal point of the media, but it was FEDERER that grabbed my attention. He was my favourite player for many years, until early 2004 when, I don't know, he just started to bore me :confused: Was it just the domination thing, or was it the WAY her was dominating?

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-31-2007, 11:44 AM
You have no clue what "good tennis" is then...

People hate/dislike Federer only because he kicks their faves' ass day in day out and they can't stand it, so everything's good to bash him (boring, arrogant, etc...)... Nothing new under the sun... :zzz:
Hahaha. You're the biggest fanboy there is. OPEN YOUR EYES. I've never liked Federer, even when he was beating no-one.

Stop going on about this good tennis is, you obviously have no clue that tennis is a sport between 2 competitors.

rafa_maniac
01-31-2007, 11:44 AM
You have no clue what "good tennis" is then...

People hate/dislike Federer only because he kicks their faves' ass day in day out and they can't stand it, so everything's good to bash him (boring, arrogant, etc...)... Nothing new under the sun... :zzz:

Actually, I have a VERY good idea what Good Tennis is (I have played for ten years) and can accept that not everybody likes watching the same type of tennis. It's the same with movies, it's the same with books, why should it be any different in sport? Of course, because my view of 'good tennis' doesn't fit into your view of it, I must automatically be wrong :rolleyes:

Besides, my favourite player is Rafael Nadal, and Federer certainly doesn't kick his ass "day in day out" (in fact quite the opposite), so your whole theory is bunk :p

refero*fervens
01-31-2007, 12:03 PM
Hahaha. You're the biggest fanboy there is. OPEN YOUR EYES. I've never liked Federer, even when he was beating no-one.

Stop going on about this good tennis is, you obviously have no clue that tennis is a sport between 2 competitors.

:confused:

Andre'sNo1Fan, I was browsing through the old threads, and I couldn't help but notice this post - now, I know you don't give Roger any love from recent posts, and :shrug: ok, but - a genuine question - did someone else write the below post? I'm not trying to stir anything, but :confused:


http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=310840#post310840

I love watching Roger play. One of my fav matches of the yr was that Wimbeldon semi final. He really gave Roddick a lesson in tennis. He has every shot in the book. I'm not sure if he'll win the slam or match Sampras cos sometimes i can still see some weaknesses in his mentality. He does have the ability to do it though.

*Ljubica*
01-31-2007, 12:11 PM
:confused:

Andre'sNo1Fan, I was browsing through the old threads, and I couldn't help but notice this post - now, I know you don't give Roger any love from recent posts, and :shrug: ok, but - a genuine question - did someone else write the below post? I'm not trying to stir anything, but :confused:


http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=310840#post310840

:haha: :haha: Thanks for posting that! I am off sick from work today - feeling pretty sorry for myself - and that gave me the best laugh ever :bigclap: Credibility completely out of the window!!!!!

bokehlicious
01-31-2007, 12:11 PM
:confused:

Andre'sNo1Fan, I was browsing through the old threads, and I couldn't help but notice this post - now, I know you don't give Roger any love from recent posts, and :shrug: ok, but - a genuine question - did someone else write the below post? I'm not trying to stir anything, but :confused:


http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=310840#post310840

:lol: nice pump ;)

I'm looking forward to her geniune explanation though :lol:

refero*fervens
01-31-2007, 12:18 PM
You're welcome guys ;) glad to lighten the thread by even the slightest bit - I do, in all seriousness, eagerly await the answer, though...

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-31-2007, 12:25 PM
:confused:

Andre'sNo1Fan, I was browsing through the old threads, and I couldn't help but notice this post - now, I know you don't give Roger any love from recent posts, and :shrug: ok, but - a genuine question - did someone else write the below post? I'm not trying to stir anything, but :confused:


http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=310840#post310840
Nah mate, I did used to like Federer's tennis, I've never really liked his persona though. But even his tennis wavers a bit thin with me now. And btw, I was more pleased with that match because Roddick got destroyed than anything else. I've never loved him, although of course I do admire his tennis. But in general, I've never liked him.

bokehlicious
01-31-2007, 12:48 PM
Nah mate, I did used to like Federer's tennis, I've never really liked his persona though. But even his tennis wavers a bit thin with me now. And btw, I was more pleased with that match because Roddick got destroyed than anything else. I've never loved him, although of course I do admire his tennis. But in general, I've never liked him.

Back when you wrote that message Andre was not already owned by Roger... It would have been a more rational answer I guess :o :lol:

Keep up the nice job :yeah: :retard:

Apemant
01-31-2007, 12:58 PM
Back when you wrote that message Andre was not already owned by Roger... It would have been a more rational answer I guess :o :lol:

Keep up the nice job :yeah: :retard:

Yeah, Rogi surely destroyed Andre in that final... for an Agassi fan it must have been really tough.

People are often irrational, as Mother Theresa said. I knew a guy who detested Andre, and always rooted against him, mainly because of his clothing style when he was a young rebel. Only managed to forgive him when Andre eventually lost both his hair and his rebellious nature. :devil: But for me, Andre was great in both of those distinctive periods of his life. They are both parts of who he is, in fact.