PDA

View Full Version : Fed interview


tlm
01-17-2011, 08:17 AM
How many saw the fed interview on espn? Fed + modesty have nothing in common. I played a great match, my forehand was great +on+on. Proving again how big his ego really is.

rommil
01-17-2011, 08:30 AM
How many saw the fed interview on espn? Fed + modesty have nothing in common. I played a great match, my forehand was great +on+on. Proving again how big his ego really is.

Go ahead and ruffle some feathers :) ........


The thing I noticed though is that Roger sounded so eager and enthusiastic, didn't sound like he was an ageing over the hill tired veteran. It was a great interview.

Underhand
01-17-2011, 08:38 AM
How many saw the fed interview on espn? Fed + modesty have nothing in common. I played a great match, my forehand was great +on+on. Proving again how big his ego really is.

The man with the golden purse just gave up on beating Humblito in his own game.

AM95
01-17-2011, 08:39 AM
haha federer's forehand was on. dont be upset because he routed the guy who bageled nadal in doha.

bezs
01-17-2011, 09:14 AM
It ain't called bragging if you can back it up.

tlm
01-17-2011, 09:22 AM
This is not bragging? Okay i understand this is a perfect example
of fed lovers logic. No he was not bragging at all just humbly stating how much he is in love with himself.

sureshs
01-17-2011, 09:23 AM
Nadal will put an end to his bragging

Applecider
01-17-2011, 10:15 AM
gosh... he was probably happy the way he played. Suck it up! Do you brag about yourself when you win a match?

jwbarrientos
01-17-2011, 10:15 AM
haha federer's forehand was on. dont be upset because he routed the guy who bageled nadal in doha.

It was proved Nadal was sick :roll:

Li Ching Yuen
01-17-2011, 10:21 AM
It was proved Nadal was sick :roll:

Rumour has it he had cancer for about half an hour.

OrangePower
01-17-2011, 10:24 AM
How many saw the fed interview on espn? Fed + modesty have nothing in common. I played a great match, my forehand was great +on+on. Proving again how big his ego really is.

Yeah I thought he did go on a bit too much. Although he did play really well, so he was speaking the truth. Still, no reason to go on about it. Maybe sending out a challenge to the rest of the field?

MichaelNadal
01-17-2011, 10:24 AM
It ain't called bragging if you can back it up.

I agree completely actually.

IvanAndreevich
01-17-2011, 10:29 AM
LOL so when you wipe someone out 6-1 6-1 6-3 you have to be modest? Not really. He played a great match, and he can say it freely.

dlk
01-17-2011, 10:53 AM
LOL so when you wipe someone out 6-1 6-1 6-3 you have to be modest? Not really. He played a great match, and he can say it freely.

Agree. It's better than the standard, "he's a tough player, who plays well" etc... If a player is on, I want to hear him say I was smoking today.

cueboyzn
01-17-2011, 10:53 AM
This is what I like about Roger. He is quite comfortable speaking his mind and stating what he actually thinks, within reason, and his skills and achievements have earned him that. Contrast that to the comments Nadal comes out with, which are just pure and simple false modesty and PR crap / gamesmanship to try deflect the pressure elsewhere than himself.

Federer is a true champion and No. 1, not needing to remove the pressure from himself through false modesty, because he in fact he thrives in that position. In fact he is quite refreshing when following the ATP bulls..t tour, where apart from guys like Roddick, 97% of the top guys as soon as they open their mouths you know it's the same PC and/or PR drivel coming out.

nikdom
01-17-2011, 10:55 AM
"I feel my game is exactly where I want it to be," Federer told reporters. "That's all I can really ask for. I'd love to win. If I don't win, look, someone else was better."

Article here (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus11/columns/story?columnist=ubha_ravi&id=6029268)

This is all that he really wants to say. Simple, self-aware yet respectful of the field and his chances.


Obviously that's not good enough for reporters who want him to elaborate, he will have to say something! He can't do false modesty; what would you like to hear from him, something like this?

"No I really don't feel that great, no? I just practise hard and it was tough opponent. I really lucky to make it to second round, no? Winning the title is almost impossible no? I only take one match at a time and for sure Simon is tough opponent. I gonna try my best no?"

bolo
01-17-2011, 10:58 AM
Fed. was like all I was thinking about was the borg's record at wimbledon and rafa must be the same now with the 4 in a row.

Dude still hasn't figured out people are different.

rommil
01-17-2011, 10:59 AM
Roger played a good match, he talked about how his shots worked in the match, his forehand, dropshots and also about how he has been hitting over his backhand lately as opposed to slicing it , that he did when he was younger. Discussed about the Rafa slam as well. It was an honest straightforward interview. He also talked about approaching Rod Laver and seeing how he can help considering Laver is from the devastated area. That's more enlightening to hear than somebody mentioning having a fever, flu or no rest, or the goldfish getting a divorce.

[Z]engin
01-17-2011, 11:41 AM
He played a terrific match, admits it.

Haters: he's bragging, he's arrogant, what a big ego he has.

He plays a terrible match, admits it.

Haters: he can't accept defeat, he's using excuses.


Lol. There's nothing wrong to conclude that you played a good/great match, a lot of players say it, if I recall, Rafa 'apologized' to Soderling after he won the french for the 5th time, saying that he played his best/one of the best matches of all time.

I guess going with the logic of the OP, Rafa is an arrogant ******* aswell? And god, there are dozens of examples of other players aswell. :neutral:

JoelDali
01-17-2011, 11:44 AM
Watching Fed play these 4.0 guys is so comical.

Love Roger for courage discipline best class really loving Roger today classy athlete.

Djokolate
01-17-2011, 11:48 AM
engin;5328704']He played a terrific match, admits it.

Haters: he's bragging, he's arrogant, what a big ego he has.

He plays a terrible match, admits it.

Haters: he can't accept defeat, he's using excuses.


Lol. There's nothing wrong to conclude that you played a good/great match, a lot of players say it, if I recall, Rafa 'apologized' to Soderling after he won the french for the 5th time, saying that he played his best/one of the best matches of all time.

I guess going with the logic of the OP, Rafa is an arrogant ******* aswell? And god, there are dozens of examples of other players aswell. :neutral:

haha got that spot on with thehaters

meltphace 6
01-17-2011, 12:05 PM
How many saw the fed interview on espn? Fed + modesty have nothing in common. I played a great match, my forehand was great +on+on. Proving again how big his ego really is.
To achieve what RF did you need a huge ego! Get real.

sureshs
01-17-2011, 12:21 PM
To achieve what RF did you need a huge ego! Get real.

No. Nadal has achieved more (H2H and Olympics and soon Grand Slam) and doesn't have the ego.

TBrady
01-17-2011, 12:36 PM
He can't do false modesty; what would you like to hear from him, something like this?

"No I really don't feel that great, no? I just practise hard and it was tough opponent. I really lucky to make it to second round, no? Winning the title is almost impossible no? I only take one match at a time and for sure Simon is tough opponent. I gonna try my best no?"

Exactly, that obvious bull crap gets so old.

Speranza
01-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Roger played a good match, he talked about how his shots worked in the match, his forehand, dropshots and also about how he has been hitting over his backhand lately as opposed to slicing it , that he did when he was younger. Discussed about the Rafa slam as well. It was an honest straightforward interview. He also talked about approaching Rod Laver and seeing how he can help considering Laver is from the devastated area. That's more enlightening to hear than somebody mentioning having a fever, flu or no rest, or the goldfish getting a divorce.

Holmes: Brilliant! LoL! :)

ManFed
01-17-2011, 01:09 PM
No. Nadal has achieved more (H2H and Olympics and soon Grand Slam) and doesn't have the ego.

Until today at 3:14 PM CT. 16 GS titles were more than 9 GS Titles. So, unless the whole universe changed. Federer has achieved more than Nadal.

ledwix
01-17-2011, 01:29 PM
No. Nadal has achieved more (H2H and Olympics and soon Grand Slam) and doesn't have the ego.

ITT, the biggest achievement possible is the Olympic singles gold medal and a winning H2H against Roger Federer.

TMF
01-17-2011, 01:34 PM
No. Nadal has achieved more (H2H and Olympics and soon Grand Slam) and doesn't have the ego.

Stop trolling !

sureshs
01-17-2011, 01:34 PM
Until today at 3:14 PM CT. 16 GS titles were more than 9 GS Titles. So, unless the whole universe changed. Federer has achieved more than Nadal.

What is the point in winning Slams against losers?

Like a 3.5 club player can be more successful than Federer by winning against more people. Does it count?

Tennis is a mano-amano fight. The winner achieves more. Nadal is the king. By his win in this AO, he will have all 4 Slams at once, joining the elite club of Laver and Budge of which Federer is not a member.

dandelion_smiley
01-17-2011, 01:48 PM
What is the point in winning Slams against losers?

Hasn't Nadal been winning Slams since the 2005 French Open? How many Slams has Federer won since then? 12, well if you count Nadal as a nobody then you're right, it's all losers

Bobby Jr
01-17-2011, 01:51 PM
The thing people like the the OP don't seem to consider is Federer spends his life either practising, playing matches, recovering or analysing his and his opponent's matches. When he has a bad day, he knows it. When he says he thought he played well he usually says it and when he has a nightmare, such as against Berdych at Wimbledon last year, he says it.

His matter-of-fact comments on matches are not a lack of modesty, rather a highly polished awareness of what happened - a trait which has undoubtedly helped him be one of the most dominant players in history.

The guy he destroyed like some half-arsed practice session is ranked high enough (top 100) to be considered a good player and one who can easily make a great living playing tennis. Ironically, Fed is a little unlucky that he makes matches like this look like cakewalks - people can be forgiven for forgetting just how much insane talent, experience and preparation it takes to play that well.

8PAQ
01-17-2011, 01:58 PM
What is the point in winning Slams against losers?

Like a 3.5 club player can be more successful than Federer by winning against more people. Does it count?

Tennis is a mano-amano fight. The winner achieves more. Nadal is the king. By his win in this AO, he will have all 4 Slams at once, joining the elite club of Laver and Budge of which Federer is not a member.

So that means Nadal's last three Slams don't count since he didn't play Federer. So that means he holds 0 slams right now and 6 in total. :)

I like your logic. You know, sometimes I think you are the dumbest poster here but then I remember veroniquem...

Bobby Jr
01-17-2011, 02:09 PM
Tennis is a mano-amano fight. The winner achieves more. Nadal is the king. By his win in this AO, he will have all 4 Slams at once, joining the elite club of Laver and Budge of which Federer is not a member.
As already pointed out: ****** logic here.

Take all those slams Federer won since Nadal became a slam contender.... Nadal wasn't even good enough to make it as far as the people who Federer beat in the finals.

In fact, until the FO year every single slam for over 5 years was won by Federer or the person who beat him. Nadal however was beaten out multiple times by people who were then beaten (sometimes thrashed) by Federer or someone else.

In the real H2H that matters, *player* vs *everyone else*, Federer is still by-far the more accomplished player in slams. It's not even a close call. That's why Federer has 16 slams and Nadal has 9.

ManFed
01-17-2011, 02:19 PM
What is the point in winning Slams against losers?

Like a 3.5 club player can be more successful than Federer by winning against more people. Does it count?

Tennis is a mano-amano fight. The winner achieves more. Nadal is the king. By his win in this AO, he will have all 4 Slams at once, joining the elite club of Laver and Budge of which Federer is not a member.

So. Federer victory in AO2010, FO2009 were against losers?
Murray trash Nadal in AO2010, and Soderling did the same in FO2009. That made Nadal a bigger loser than Murray and Soderling? I don't think so.
Your statement is pretty weak and lame though.

8PAQ
01-17-2011, 02:20 PM
As already pointed out: ****** logic here.

Take all those slams Federer won since Nadal became a slam contender.... Nadal wasn't even good enough to make it as far as the people who Federer beat in the finals.

In fact, until the FO year every single slam for over 5 years was won by Federer or the person who beat him. Nadal however was beaten out multiple times by people who were then beaten (sometimes thrashed) by Federer or someone else.

In the real H2H that matters, *player* vs *everyone else*, Federer is still by-far the more accomplished player in slams. It's not even a close call. That's why Federer has 16 slams and Nadal has 9.

He knows all this. He is just trolling. As I pointed out above, people in Nadal News thread are even dumber because they believe in what they write. Just look at all the face palms in there. They have almost as many OCDs as Nadal. Trying to jinx Fed and antijinx Nadal. It is truly a special ed class in there.

DownTheLine
01-17-2011, 02:22 PM
No. Nadal has achieved more (H2H and Olympics and soon Grand Slam) and doesn't have the ego.

Me no ego, ego bad

Sid_Vicious
01-17-2011, 02:47 PM
http://eatthiscity.com/wp-content/upload/1253748724-Cool_story_bro_inc.jpg

Azzurri
01-17-2011, 05:18 PM
Stop trolling !

LOL..are you talking to yourself again TMF?

cc0509
01-17-2011, 05:27 PM
How many saw the fed interview on espn? Fed + modesty have nothing in common. I played a great match, my forehand was great +on+on. Proving again how big his ego really is.

He is just telling it like it is. He did play a great match.
Is it arrogance or confidence? Maybe a little bit of both, but that is ok.

cc0509
01-17-2011, 05:34 PM
Fed. was like all I was thinking about was the borg's record at wimbledon and rafa must be the same now with the 4 in a row.

Dude still hasn't figured out people are different.

Oh, Federer has figured it out, but, his analysis is probably spot on about Nadal. Nadal comes off as very humble and never admits that he is thinking about history or the records but come on, anybody with a brain knows that can't be true. Nadal just does not admit it. That is ok that he chooses to play it that way, but, in reality he must be thinking about the records and he is just not telling "us" about it. Any competitive person, in this case a world class athlete, thinks about the records or they would not be a world class athlete to begin with. Who are we kidding. JMO.

bolo
01-17-2011, 07:29 PM
Oh, Federer has figured it out, but, his analysis is probably spot on about Nadal. Nadal comes off as very humble and never admits that he is thinking about history or the records but come on, anybody with a brain knows that can't be true. Nadal just does not admit it. That is ok that he chooses to play it that way, but, in reality he must be thinking about the records and he is just not telling "us" about it. Any competitive person, in this case a world class athlete, thinks about the records or they would not be a world class athlete to begin with. Who are we kidding. JMO.

The key is the word "probably". Your use of the word "probably" suggests that you are uncertain about whether nadal is really thinking about the 4 in a row all the time or not. Knowing this some people would put things differently. But that's not fed. and that's why fed. wears the michael jackson outfits onto wimbledon center court. ;)

cc0509
01-17-2011, 07:56 PM
The key is the word "probably". Your use of the word "probably" suggests that you are uncertain about whether nadal is really thinking about the 4 in a row all the time or not. Knowing this some people would put things differently. But that's not fed. and that's why fed. wears the michael jackson outfits onto wimbledon center court. ;)

Well obviously I say "probably" since I am not a mind reader!

LOL @ the Michael Jackson comment though!

tlm
01-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Just saw the Nadal interview after his easy match. Of course he
did not say he played great+that his forehand was great. Big difference one player very modest+humble while fed the egomaniac is coming on himself.

Sid_Vicious
01-17-2011, 09:25 PM
Just saw the Nadal interview after his easy match. Of course he
did not say he played great+that his forehand was great. Big difference one player very modest+humble while fed the egomaniac is coming on himself.

That is all he said? That his form and forehand were good?
Did he also mention the following arrogant facts?
- The sky was partially cloudy
- He drank water at the changeovers
- He got some serves over the net
- He played on 78 ft by 36 ft tennis court
- He broke Lacko's serve
- He played with his right hand
- He had a tennis racquet in his hand.

cc0509
01-17-2011, 09:59 PM
Just saw the Nadal interview after his easy match. Of course he
did not say he played great+that his forehand was great. Big difference one player very modest+humble while fed the egomaniac is coming on himself.



It is nice that Nadal is humble but he takes it too far. You just know he is going back to his hotel room saying to himself, "I own those other players!" :)

BreakPoint
01-17-2011, 11:21 PM
How many saw the fed interview on espn? Fed + modesty have nothing in common. I played a great match, my forehand was great +on+on. Proving again how big his ego really is.
Um...so what's he going to say? I played like crap and only got really lucky to squeak out the match 6-1, 6-1, 6-3? :roll:

I much prefer Federer's honesty and frankness to Nadal's phony modesty and humbleness.

Oh, and I'd bet if you had a forehand as good as Federer's, you'd be bragging about it 24/7 to anyone who would listen, even in your sleep. :???:

BreakPoint
01-17-2011, 11:25 PM
Just saw the Nadal interview after his easy match. Of course he
did not say he played great+that his forehand was great. Big difference one player very modest+humble while fed the egomaniac is coming on himself.
Um...Nadal's opponent was injured. That's why he didn't win a single game and retired in the 2nd set. Nadal didn't have to play great to win that match. All he had to do was get the ball over the net. So there was no reason for Nadal to say he played great. All he had to say was that he got the ball over the net. :???:

BreakPoint
01-17-2011, 11:28 PM
No. Nadal has achieved more (H2H and Olympics and soon Grand Slam) and doesn't have the ego.
How can someone who plays such ugly looking tennis possibly have a ego? Who brags about being ugly and looking bad? :shock:

BreakPoint
01-17-2011, 11:30 PM
It was proved Nadal was sick :roll:
Yes, that's why Nadal won the doubles tournament. :roll:

tlm
01-18-2011, 07:45 AM
It is nice that Nadal is humble but he takes it too far. You just know he is going back to his hotel room saying to himself, "I own those other players!" :)

Sometimes maybe he takes it to far, but that is much better than taking it to far the other way.

Eternally_damned
01-18-2011, 07:57 AM
Sometimes maybe he takes it to far, but that is much better than taking it to far the other way.

No, it's not. Honesty is always preferred to false modesty.