Journalism at its worst: Five reasons why Federer is Rubbish [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Journalism at its worst: Five reasons why Federer is Rubbish

ToanNguyen
01-29-2007, 02:56 PM
Who is this guy? Is he really serious? All of his reasons are totally twisted and not making any sense at all. Should be ashame of himself.

Five reasons why Roger Federer is rubbish
Tim Colebatch
January 30, 2007

OK, BUT seriously: sure, he hits the most brilliant shots we've ever seen, hardly makes a mistake, rarely loses and plays with a divine grace come from Heaven. But amid all the adulation, there are some flaws in the Roger Federer record that tell other players not to lose hope.

1. Nadal keeps beating him.
Has there ever been a time when the world No. 2 has so dominated his matches with the world No. 1? Federer has won only three of the nine matches between the two, Nadal six. Sure, four of them were on clay, but even on hardcourts, their matches have split 2-2. For Roger to become the Supreme Being, he has to find a way of forcing Rafa to kneel.
2. He has never won a big one on clay.
OK, last year, he was the best player on claycourts after Nadal. But during his three years as No. 1, he also has lost on clay to Albert Costa in Rome, Gustavo Kuerten in Paris and Richard Gasquet at Monte Carlo. In Rome last year, he barely made it past David Nalbandian and little-known Spaniard Nicolas Almagro. If you're Federer's opponent, where there's clay, there's hope.
3. Tie-breakers can't keep breaking his way.
Yes, Federer is special, but this is ridiculous. When he took the tie-breaker in the first set against Fernando Gonzalez on Sunday night, he won his 14th tie-breaker in a row. He has not lost one since he played James Blake in the US Open. Surely even Federer can't keep that up. When he starts losing tie-breakers, he could start losing matches.
4. Few beat him, but many come close.
Federer lost only five matches last year, four to Nadal and one to Andy Murray, but he came close to losing a dozen or so other matches. He is particularly vulnerable against unusual stylists who take the net away from him. The tiny Belgian Olivier Rochus almost toppled him twice last year, and it was only in the final-set tie-breaker that he put away Nalbandian in Rome, veteran Japanese samurai Takao Suzuki in Tokyo and Thailand's Paradorn Srichaphan in Federer's home town, Basle.
5. He can't play over five sets.
OK, the problem for Federer's opponents is usually the first three sets, but the few times he has been pushed to five sets, he's had trouble. Federer has lost six of the past eight five-set matches he has played, and even since becoming No. 1, his record is only 2-2. We all remember Hewitt coming back from two sets down to beat him in the Davis Cup in 2003, and Safin's miraculous win at the 2005 Australian Open, but Nalbandian did the same at the 2005 Masters. Just stick with him for the first four sets, guys, and history will be on your side.

GlennMirnyi
01-29-2007, 02:59 PM
This guy is an idiot. He mentions matches where Federer "almost lost" as if he had really lost 'em. Joker.

Rosa Luxembourg
01-29-2007, 02:59 PM
Where was this crap published? Any email provided to respond?

thesupreme
01-29-2007, 03:00 PM
The best thing you can do (and this rings true for life itself) is to rise above such obvious nonsense and move on...unless the journalist was joking of course. If not, then we all undoubtedly have shots at being journalist ourselves...

I'm new to the board btw, hi everyone! been watching tennis most of my life!

Shabazza
01-29-2007, 03:02 PM
Sounds more like a private blogger, who has some serious problems with reality, not a journalist.
But apparently everyone can call themselves "journalist" nowadays. Ridicoulus.

Experimentee
01-29-2007, 03:08 PM
It sounds like this article was written to provide some hope to people who think Federer's dominance is boring, by stating that he is beatable. Bit harsh to call him "rubbish" though, I suspect that may be a joke.

BD006
01-29-2007, 03:08 PM
Wow, can points #3 and #4 be any weaker.
Talk about nitpicking.

yakuzaninja
01-29-2007, 03:09 PM
:haha:

Sunset of Age
01-29-2007, 03:10 PM
Is that guy SERIOUS??? Can't believe it if he is.

"Nadal Keeps Beating Him" - yeah, sure... :rolleyes:
Didn't even bother to try and read the rest of this piece of tripe.

MilMilCho
01-29-2007, 03:17 PM
If he didnt write it, possibly nobody would post it and feel bothered to reply it.:rolleyes:

IvŠn
01-29-2007, 03:19 PM
Funniest thing ive read all year.....

Paradorn was VERY CLOSE I MUST ADMIT.

Peacemaster
01-29-2007, 03:24 PM
I could almost hear The Doors playing in the background...

I bet this dude can "see" music. ;)

nobama
01-29-2007, 03:30 PM
This was meant to be a joke, I think.

Joyce_23
01-29-2007, 03:32 PM
I think this guy was being sarcastic here to be honest. I had to laugh after reading it, I don't think it was meant as a 'serious' article. At least I hope it wasn't...If it was then the journalist needs to find another job. :lol:

DavidW
01-29-2007, 03:38 PM
It has to be a joke, right? :)

If not, than this guy is pretty much no more than an attention seeker.

Howard
01-29-2007, 03:42 PM
Godís not so hot either. The universe is going to run down and die eventually, and itís almost impossible to get a plumber on weekends.

I think the article exemplifies an old journalistic rule: If you don't have anything intelligent to say, then say something ridiculous. It sells papers

Sjengster
01-29-2007, 03:44 PM
I doubt it's a joke (well, it is but not intentionally), the humour would be made crushingly obvious if it were. As ever these criticisms contain a grain of truth, but exaggerated to an absurd degree, combined with the kind of sterling analysis that concludes that Costa and Kuerten are bad losses on clay, that Rochus, Nalbandian and Srichaphan are net-rushers, and that manages to completely omit a couple of Federer's five-setters (it's actually 3-3 since he became no. 1, with an alternating pattern of wins and losses).

R.Federer
01-29-2007, 04:44 PM
If you can't see the humor in this guy's piece ....

If you read #2, #3 and #4 and don't get his joke, that's truly unfortunate :lol:
It's a tongue in cheek piece, I thought it was pretty good.

Sjengster
01-29-2007, 04:49 PM
If you can't see the humor in this guy's piece ....

If you read #2, #3 and #4 and don't get his joke, that's truly unfortunate :lol:
It's a tongue in cheek piece, I thought it was pretty good.

The tiebreak record sounded jokey, but the rest didn't. If it's a joke, where are all the crashingly unsubtle analogies that you usually get in these pieces, so that people can have "THIS IS SATIRE" spelled out to them?

senorgato
01-29-2007, 04:54 PM
This guy probably things tennis played with a golf club. That's how little knowledge me demonstrates in his article.

lau
01-29-2007, 04:57 PM
link please (or at least the source)

R.Federer
01-29-2007, 05:10 PM
Another one ;)

I hate to admit it, Serena, but we can even dislike Federer

Richard Hinds
January 28, 2007

SERENA Williams calls them - OK, she calls us - the haters. The people whose sole aim is to bring her and her fellow stars down. Belittle their achievements. Mock their failures. Provide massive global exposure for their sponsors and make them millionaires.

Actually, she might not have mentioned the last two things. But you get the picture.

Never mind the endless pages of glowing endorsements, straitlaced acknowledgement or simple recording of athletic achievement you will see in this and similar publications. Apparently, we are just low-life haters.

So if we're going to hate, let's not pick soft targets like the younger Williams shoving her ubiquitous sponsored handbag in the cameraman's face or mouthing an endless stream of graceless excuses. No more picking on Lleyton Hewitt and his po-faced entourage. We'll even leave the Scud alone to hobble on to the dance floor in pursuit of more celebrity totty.

We are going to prove Serena's theory that we are all a pack of haters by loathing the unloathable. We are going to hate Roger Federer.

I didn't say it was going to be easy. Here is a champion athlete who carries himself with such class, dignity and good humour that, for the normal person, he would be almost impossible not to like. The man chats with strangers in the corridors at Melbourne Park, is humbled in the presence of tennis legends, is genuinely overwhelmed by the tributes his vast accomplishments inspire and grunts only when lifting heavy objects. What's not to like?

Well, let's start with his looks. "Pretty average," is my resident female expert's opinion (I'm obviously not comfortable enough with my own sexuality to start rating other men). "If he wasn't a superstar you might not give him a second look."

Don't you just hate these plain superstars taking space in the magazines where the ultra-hunks should be? But our vicious assault on Federer does not stop there.

We hate him because he remains in a stable relationship with his long-term girlfriend, Mirka Vavrinec. Oh no, you won't see goody-two-shoes Roger bed-hopping from one Hilton to the next (the sisters, we mean, not the hotel). He has too much class to give pudgy, balding hacks like me any vicarious pleasure by chalking up a decent strike rate with supermodels. Don't you hate that?

We're figuring we can work up a bit of hate about that oh-so-humble in victory routine too, even if his tears of joy are entirely genuine.

Like when he was asked after his Australian Open semi-final against Andy Roddick what sort of legacy he would like to leave. "I would just like to be remembered as one of the nice guys," he said with heart-warming sincerity. You've got to hate the ego.

And the way he plays - definitely hate-worthy. It took cynical coaches trying to push teenage champions out of their sweat-shop academies years to eliminate such arcane, hard-to-learn practices as the serve and volley and single-handed backhand.

Yet here is Federer, pushing the game back into the dark ages with his insistence on entertaining crowds by playing the old-fashioned way. Hate you, Feds, just hate you.

Besides, how is my eight year-old supposed to imitate that shot Federer played the other night? The one when Roddick smashed a short ball back at him and he swept a backhand half-volley winner off his shoelaces as if he were waving a conductor's baton. Role model? Huh!

See, Serena, you were right. We can hate anyone. It's just that you make it so much easier.

Source: The Sun-Herald

DrJules
01-29-2007, 05:57 PM
I think this guy was being sarcastic here to be honest. I had to laugh after reading it, I don't think it was meant as a 'serious' article. At least I hope it wasn't...If it was then the journalist needs to find another job. :lol:

I agree.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ToanNguyen
01-29-2007, 07:56 PM
I don't think this is 'tongue in cheek" sarcasm. This guy is actually serious. here is the link.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/five-reasons-why-roger-federer-is-rubbish/2007/01/29/1169919274393.html

jazar
01-29-2007, 08:31 PM
what a load of bollocks

Peacemaster
01-29-2007, 08:41 PM
I don't think this is 'tongue in cheek" sarcasm. This guy is actually serious. here is the link.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/five-reasons-why-roger-federer-is-rubbish/2007/01/29/1169919274393.html

At the very least, it's not entirely unserious.

Yep. I hear Light My Fire...

R.Federer
01-29-2007, 09:03 PM
I don't think this is 'tongue in cheek" sarcasm. This guy is actually serious. here is the link.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/five-reasons-why-roger-federer-is-rubbish/2007/01/29/1169919274393.html

I am incredulous that people think this to be serious. I will read between lines for you how I read this.

This guy is saying to the Tour-- "Look, he's not unbeatable because" and then gives a bunch of stats to show that his ONLY deficiencies are of the strongest, craziest kind. Of course he knows Federer is beatable on any given day, but the odds are SO stacked against someone doing it, he is essentially listing how much you have to hang on to a straw, to have hope.

1) Who beats him in a H2H? Nadal does. Yeah, sure, that should give the rest of the tour a LOT OF HOPE because Nadal of course is just Jo Blo who can't beat anyone else.

2) Tour guys, you will definitely get a chance to beat him. Why? Because despite winning 45 titles, big tournaments and small tournaments, on all surfaces including H, G and C, he has never won one particular one. Yeah, sure, not winning the French means he is SOOO beatable everywhere else. In fact, it means he is rubbish.

3) Tour guys, you have easily have hope to beat him, because he will lose a TB. Some day. Enough Said. HAHAHAHAH.

4) Look, even though no one has beaten him in 7 months, 4 people have come close. That should make you very confident. People have actually come close to beat him. Imagine that!

5) Yes, 5 setters. Does that atrocious record include results from the pre-Federer-era?
This guy has not even been pushed to a single 5 setter in 8 months (that would be in 21 grand slam matches and I don't know how many masters finals). Since 2004 USO, this is how he has lost his 5-setters

lost a Semi final to Safin in 5 sets, 9-7 in the fifth
lost a clay final in 5 sets, tiebreak in the fifth
lost the final to Nalbandian in Shanghai, tiebreak in the fifth


Sure, these give you great chances. You just have to make sure you defy the odds and get him to a fifth set tiebreak. Then, you have it made. :)

DavidW
01-29-2007, 09:25 PM
The Serena/Fed hating article was funny with clear undertones of what it was about.

That, in my opinion, was the post of the thread.

Henry Chinaski
01-29-2007, 09:28 PM
The clue is in the title. If he was serious he would've used something like "overrated" or "overhyped". The use of the hyperbolic "rubbish" clearly shows it's not entirely serious.

Shabazza
01-29-2007, 09:57 PM
The Serena/Fed hating article was funny with clear undertones of what it was about.

That, in my opinion, was the post of the thread.

Agreed. That's what I expect of a funny satiric article. If the other one was intended to be funny, the guy did a bad job at it. Either way he's not a very good writer, imo.

spencercarlos
01-29-2007, 10:35 PM
Who is this guy? Is he really serious? All of his reasons are totally twisted and not making any sense at all. Should be ashame of himself.

Five reasons why Roger Federer is rubbish
Tim Colebatch
January 30, 2007

OK, BUT seriously: sure, he hits the most brilliant shots we've ever seen, hardly makes a mistake, rarely loses and plays with a divine grace come from Heaven. But amid all the adulation, there are some flaws in the Roger Federer record that tell other players not to lose hope.

1. Nadal keeps beating him.
Has there ever been a time when the world No. 2 has so dominated his matches with the world No. 1? Federer has won only three of the nine matches between the two, Nadal six. Sure, four of them were on clay, but even on hardcourts, their matches have split 2-2. For Roger to become the Supreme Being, he has to find a way of forcing Rafa to kneel.
2. He has never won a big one on clay.
OK, last year, he was the best player on claycourts after Nadal. But during his three years as No. 1, he also has lost on clay to Albert Costa in Rome, Gustavo Kuerten in Paris and Richard Gasquet at Monte Carlo. In Rome last year, he barely made it past David Nalbandian and little-known Spaniard Nicolas Almagro. If you're Federer's opponent, where there's clay, there's hope.
3. Tie-breakers can't keep breaking his way.
Yes, Federer is special, but this is ridiculous. When he took the tie-breaker in the first set against Fernando Gonzalez on Sunday night, he won his 14th tie-breaker in a row. He has not lost one since he played James Blake in the US Open. Surely even Federer can't keep that up. When he starts losing tie-breakers, he could start losing matches.
4. Few beat him, but many come close.
Federer lost only five matches last year, four to Nadal and one to Andy Murray, but he came close to losing a dozen or so other matches. He is particularly vulnerable against unusual stylists who take the net away from him. The tiny Belgian Olivier Rochus almost toppled him twice last year, and it was only in the final-set tie-breaker that he put away Nalbandian in Rome, veteran Japanese samurai Takao Suzuki in Tokyo and Thailand's Paradorn Srichaphan in Federer's home town, Basle.
5. He can't play over five sets.
OK, the problem for Federer's opponents is usually the first three sets, but the few times he has been pushed to five sets, he's had trouble. Federer has lost six of the past eight five-set matches he has played, and even since becoming No. 1, his record is only 2-2. We all remember Hewitt coming back from two sets down to beat him in the Davis Cup in 2003, and Safin's miraculous win at the 2005 Australian Open, but Nalbandian did the same at the 2005 Masters. Just stick with him for the first four sets, guys, and history will be on your side.
5 part the numbers after becoming number one are incorrect, i can name at least 3 five set matches that he won (2005 Miami Nadal, 2004 Usopen Agassi, and 2006 Autralian Open Hass), and in fact the 2003 loss to Hewit in Australia was not even when Roger was at the top of the game, and that Davis Cup match was played in Australia nevertheless.

Action Jackson
01-29-2007, 10:37 PM
Richard Hinds is joking, too bad some people can't see that.

R.Federer
01-29-2007, 10:38 PM
5 part the numbers after becoming number one are incorrect, i can name at least 3 five set matches that he won (2005 Miami Nadal, 2004 Usopen Agassi, and 2006 Autralian Open Hass), and in fact the 2003 loss to Hewit in Australia was not even when Roger was at the top of the game, and that Davis Cup match was played in Australia nevertheless.

His record since Ausopen 2004 (shortly after which he became #1) is not 2-2, but it is 3-3, in 5-setters. Won against Haas, Agassi and Nadal, lost against Nadal, Safin and Nalbandian.

Warrior
01-29-2007, 11:09 PM
This is obviously a joke.

ChinoRios4Ever
01-29-2007, 11:16 PM
what an as..ole :mad:

Shabazza
01-30-2007, 01:25 AM
Richard Hinds is joking, too bad some people can't see that.

Oh, sure he is. We're talking about Tim Colebatch. Richard Hinds was just an example brought up, how a funny and witty article should look like. If you would've read through the posts carefully you would've seen that.

drf716
01-30-2007, 01:27 AM
he's just bored!
i understand him hehe.

Action Jackson
01-30-2007, 01:30 AM
Oh, sure he is. We're talking about Tim Colebatch. Richard Hinds was just an example brought up, how a funny and witty article should look like. If you would've read through the posts carefully you would've seen that.

Colebatch isn't serious, just not eloquent enough.

Shabazza
01-30-2007, 01:44 AM
Colebatch isn't serious, just not eloquent enough.

Indeed. As I said a pretty bad writer. He should stick with what he can.

Pfloyd
01-30-2007, 02:06 AM
3 pages?

Come on, such bullshit dosent deserve half the attention.

Oriental_Rain
01-30-2007, 02:31 AM
the more title he wins, the more hater he gets :lol:

TennisGrandSlam
01-30-2007, 03:20 AM
Who is this guy? Is he really serious? All of his reasons are totally twisted and not making any sense at all. Should be ashame of himself.

Five reasons why Roger Federer is rubbish
Tim Colebatch
January 30, 2007

OK, BUT seriously: sure, he hits the most brilliant shots we've ever seen, hardly makes a mistake, rarely loses and plays with a divine grace come from Heaven. But amid all the adulation, there are some flaws in the Roger Federer record that tell other players not to lose hope.

1. Nadal keeps beating him.
Has there ever been a time when the world No. 2 has so dominated his matches with the world No. 1? Federer has won only three of the nine matches between the two, Nadal six. Sure, four of them were on clay, but even on hardcourts, their matches have split 2-2. For Roger to become the Supreme Being, he has to find a way of forcing Rafa to kneel.

But Roger keep beating other Top 10 players :devil:

Also, Federer 3-6 Nadal,

but Nadal 1-3 Berdych, 0-3 Blake, 1-3 F. Gonzalez

and Federer 4-1 Berdych, 6-0 Blake, 10-0 F. Gonzalez

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



2. He has never won a big one on clay.
OK, last year, he was the best player on claycourts after Nadal. But during his three years as No. 1, he also has lost on clay to Albert Costa in Rome, Gustavo Kuerten in Paris and Richard Gasquet at Monte Carlo. In Rome last year, he barely made it past David Nalbandian and little-known Spaniard Nicolas Almagro. If you're Federer's opponent, where there's clay, there's hope.

Who is the winner of three-times ATP Masters-series Hamburg (02, 04, 05)

How many times Clay experts like Coria and Guadio win FED in clay? 0




3. Tie-breakers can't keep breaking his way.
Yes, Federer is special, but this is ridiculous. When he took the tie-breaker in the first set against Fernando Gonzalez on Sunday night, he won his 14th tie-breaker in a row. He has not lost one since he played James Blake in the US Open. Surely even Federer can't keep that up. When he starts losing tie-breakers, he could start losing matches.

Tennis King must be Tie-break King, for example, Pete Sampras



4. Few beat him, but many come close.
Federer lost only five matches last year, four to Nadal and one to Andy Murray, but he came close to losing a dozen or so other matches. He is particularly vulnerable against unusual stylists who take the net away from him. The tiny Belgian Olivier Rochus almost toppled him twice last year, and it was only in the final-set tie-breaker that he put away Nalbandian in Rome, veteran Japanese samurai Takao Suzuki in Tokyo and Thailand's Paradorn Srichaphan in Federer's home town, Basle.

Federer was close to win Nadal in ATP Masters-series Rome 2006 :o



5. He can't play over five sets.
OK, the problem for Federer's opponents is usually the first three sets, but the few times he has been pushed to five sets, he's had trouble. Federer has lost six of the past eight five-set matches he has played, and even since becoming No. 1, his record is only 2-2. We all remember Hewitt coming back from two sets down to beat him in the Davis Cup in 2003, and Safin's miraculous win at the 2005 Australian Open, but Nalbandian did the same at the 2005 Masters. Just stick with him for the first four sets, guys, and history will be on your side.

Less players make Roger to play 5th set means that Roger is so strong. :)




:cool: :cool: :cool:

tripb19
01-30-2007, 03:41 AM
See, this thread is stupid because you cannot understand the context of the article. There was 4 whole pages of glowing praise for Roger in today's Age, and this was a small column going down the right hand side on the 4th page, obviously very tongue in cheek. Not A3 sized pages, either, A2 sized pages of praise, the day after most of the articles had been written. The paper adores him, and the issue of the newspaper came with an A1 size poster of Federer. Not that this post will carry as much weight as the misguided OP.

Allez
01-30-2007, 05:29 AM
Anyone could have written that crap. Why anyone would take it seriously baffles me :shrug:

refero*fervens
01-30-2007, 06:20 AM
LOL. It seems to be a joke, albeit not the best written one. The guy is an economist, after all :lol: ! Here: economics editor for The Age:

http://about.theage.com.au/view_profile.asp?intid=1014

CooCooCachoo
01-30-2007, 06:27 AM
"little-known Spaniard Nicolas Almagro"

:lol: :ignore:

CooCooCachoo
01-30-2007, 06:28 AM
Colebatch isn't serious, just not eloquent enough.


Yes.

FluffyYellowBall
01-30-2007, 07:27 AM
was this posted in amagazine or online? Hes actually a JOURNALIST and hes saying that...