PDA

View Full Version : Federer should have lost


David L
06-27-2006, 09:16 PM
This is old news now, but reading a Federer interview conducted before the start of Wimbledon, I was struck by his candour, and in this instance, his liberal use of the word 'should'.

A poster here called HollerOne5, started a thread, a little while ago, complaining about how Federer had said he should have won the Rome final against Nadal this year. They felt his assertion was not justified, despite the fact he had two consecutive matchpoints in that match, which were lost on unforced errors.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=908295#post908295

In one of this year's pre-Wimbledon interviews, Federer uses the word 'should' again, this time to assert he should have lost his French semi-final match against Nalbandian.

Q. After what happened in Roland Garros, do you think David Nalbandian won't upset you any more? Do you think there could be a final between you and him?

ROGER FEDERER: I don't even know where he is in the draw. Is he in my section?

Q. Yes.

ROGER FEDERER: I don't know how he's doing, first of all, because of his abdominal. Is he okay or no.

Q. I think it's okay.

ROGER FEDERER: I hope it's okay for him. He can play very well on all surfaces. I think we'll play more often. He should have beaten me at the French. I got lucky to get out of that match. I fought hard, it paid off. A little lucky, of course. No, I think we'll play more often. Still very hard fought matches. I don't feel like I'm dominating him.

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2006-06-25/200606251151232728484.html

We all know that Federer demonstrates great consistency in his tennis results. It would appear that he also exhibits uncommon consistency when interpreting events on court, whether they favour him or not. I think this also demonstrates a relaxed application of the english language, on his part. It is not reasonable to expect him to pedantically qualify everything he says, and given english is not his first language, it seems reasonable that people should not over emphasize the literalness of what he says, as often happens on this board. So, cut him some slack, people.

bethbrasil
06-27-2006, 09:32 PM
My Dear David L,:D
I agree totally with you. I know ROGI personally and know that he treats the opponents, fans and the finally in a way very pleasing people. My first language is Portuguese and know how is difficult people understand my English.
Millions of kisses, much fondness and love. Beth:D

FedererUberAlles
06-27-2006, 09:54 PM
I think he's just trying to be modest... for once in a while. ;)

Beth, your English is fine.

KBalla08
06-27-2006, 10:05 PM
i bet nalbandian wouldve beaten him if he was at full health... then imagine nalbandian beating nadal... that wouldve been sweet

Shabazza
06-28-2006, 03:11 AM
i bet nalbandian wouldve beaten him if he was at full health... then imagine nalbandian beating nadal... that wouldve been sweet
Somehow I doubt Nalby and Nadal will play against each other ever.....

HyperHorse
06-28-2006, 04:03 AM
cant u just quit it? Nalbandian retired... he wasnt fit to continue the match, thats HIS problem, not Roger's....

Grimjack
06-28-2006, 06:04 AM
I think this also demonstrates a relaxed application of the english language, on his part. It is not reasonable to expect him to pedantically qualify everything he says, and given english is not his first language, it seems reasonable that people should not over emphasize the literalness of what he says, as often happens on this board. So, cut him some slack, people.

The problem isn't with Fed's English, which is both fine and accurate -- especially in the above case. He uses "should have" perfectly well in both cases, as an unmet conditional.

Yes he "should have" beaten Nadal in Rome. He outplayed him for most of the match, earned two match points, and as the #1 player in the world, when you have match points, you should win. It's an unmet conditional because he didn't win. He choked. He admits this. Nothing to see here.

Yes, he "should have" lost to Nalbandian in Paris. Nalbandian was outplaying him, and he (Fed) clearly believes that he would have been unable to solve the puzzle of how to get back into the match on that particular day. It's an unmet conditional because fairly improbable circumstance allowed him to get the win. He got lucky. He admits this. Nothing to see here.

No, the problem is with the reader. Frankly, we should all stop giving excuses to the quasi-educated reader whose grasp of English isn't up to the standard Federer uses. It's a slap in Fed's face and the face of educated persons everywhere to suggest the problem is with his exemplary usage, owing to some imagined deficiency springing from its not being his first language. Why must we pretend HE screwed up to cover our own shortcomings?

I suspect the guilty here are primarly Americans, whose education has come primarily at the hands of the mass media. They've been trained to hear slights to opponents (rather than literal meanings) in words like "should," when they're heard in sports interviews. It's all part of the dumbing down of Western Civilization. Luckily, we've still got renaissance guys like Federer who are above all that.

I appreciate his candor, and his education.

malakas
06-28-2006, 06:14 AM
My Dear David L,:D
I agree totally with you. I know ROGI personally and know that he treats the opponents, fans and the finally in a way very pleasing people. My first language is Portuguese and know how is difficult people understand my English.
Millions of kisses, much fondness and love. Beth:D

You are the sweetest poster in this forum!!!!:D

ATXtennisaddict
06-28-2006, 06:23 AM
let's not overanalyze again shall we... *cries*

David L
06-28-2006, 06:57 AM
The problem isn't with Fed's English, which is both fine and accurate -- especially in the above case. He uses "should have" perfectly well in both cases, as an unmet conditional.

Yes he "should have" beaten Nadal in Rome. He outplayed him for most of the match, earned two match points, and as the #1 player in the world, when you have match points, you should win. It's an unmet conditional because he didn't win. He choked. He admits this. Nothing to see here.

Yes, he "should have" lost to Nalbandian in Paris. Nalbandian was outplaying him, and he (Fed) clearly believes that he would have been unable to solve the puzzle of how to get back into the match on that particular day. It's an unmet conditional because fairly improbable circumstance allowed him to get the win. He got lucky. He admits this. Nothing to see here.

No, the problem is with the reader. Frankly, we should all stop giving excuses to the quasi-educated reader whose grasp of English isn't up to the standard Federer uses. It's a slap in Fed's face and the face of educated persons everywhere to suggest the problem is with his exemplary usage, owing to some imagined deficiency springing from its not being his first language. Why must we pretend HE screwed up to cover our own shortcomings?

I suspect the guilty here are primarly Americans, whose education has come primarily at the hands of the mass media. They've been trained to hear slights to opponents (rather than literal meanings) in words like "should," when they're heard in sports interviews. It's all part of the dumbing down of Western Civilization. Luckily, we've still got renaissance guys like Federer who are above all that.

I appreciate his candor, and his education.

Grimjack

What you say is correct. In this instance, I opted for diplomacy and exemplification, because the people I was really addressing, sometimes struggle with argument, and can even miss or dismiss it, however logical, if reacting to antagonism. You used argument, which is fine, but argument is lost on some people. I tried to judge my audience, and address them accordingly. Federer's use of 'should', in its adverse application to himself, clearly demonsrtates that his critics had no case, in a way that is hard to refute, even by them. This was my intention.

Everyone that speaks a language, uses it in a relaxed way, otherwise they would never finish a sentence or be able to convey the essence of what they meant, without losing the thread. As you say, some people want to see slights in 'everything'. Yes, Federer's english is good. I have no criticism of his application whatsoever.

KBalla08
06-28-2006, 09:06 AM
Somehow I doubt Nalby and Nadal will play against each other ever.....
well they couldve if nalbandian had won...

dh003i
06-28-2006, 09:13 AM
I highly doubt Nalbandian would have beaten Federer. Despite what he says, in actual outcomes, Federer has been dominating Nalbandian for the last 7 matches (basically, since he became dominant). Federer was ahead when Nalbandian retired, so why do people act like Federer was done in that match?

Sure, it's fine for Federer to say that, and it probably would have been a tough match.

rafael
06-28-2006, 11:30 AM
I take it you missed the 2005 masters final which Nalbandian won? Nalbandian is a threat to Federer on any surface.

dh003i
06-28-2006, 12:09 PM
rafael,

Oh please. Federer has won won 6 of their last 7 matches, including the last 2. The match he lost to Nalbandian in the 2005 Masters Final? Note: Federer beat Nalbandian earlier in that same tournament, he wasn't even expected to play in it, and he was playing on an injured ankle. Despite that, he made a charge at winning the match, before he was simply worn down.

Yes, dealing with injury -- and avoiding it -- is a part of the sport. That's why Nalbandian's win over Federer at the Masters Final counts, and that's why Federer's win over Nalbandian at the FO counts. No excuses.

6 of the last 7 went to Federer. Nalbandian is certainly a tough opponent, but he hasn't demonstrated he can actually consistently beat Federer. What's next, are we going to say Roddick is a "threat" to Federer on any surface?

VolklVenom
06-28-2006, 03:25 PM
this thread is interesting, as i really cannot see (as stated by Grimjack) where Fed has stepped out of line here??

prostaff18
06-28-2006, 03:41 PM
Nalbandian is by far the most dangerous player in any draw. I mean he can give anyone trouble. After Fed and Nadal Nalbandian is the best player. By the way has Nadal and Nalbandian ever played?

malakas
06-28-2006, 03:47 PM
I think,no.

shawn1122
06-28-2006, 04:29 PM
ROGER FEDERER: I hope it's okay for him. He can play very well on all surfaces. I think we'll play more often. He should have beaten me at the French. I got lucky to get out of that match. I fought hard, it paid off. A little lucky, of course. No, I think we'll play more often. Still very hard fought matches. I don't feel like I'm dominating him.


Federer is right, he is not dominating Nalbandian. I don't think he can beat Federer but, he should have been in more finals this year. Unluckily, he's always in Federer's half of the draw.

If he made it to the French final this year, I don't think Nadal would have successfully defended his crown.

FEDEXP
06-28-2006, 04:41 PM
woulda,shoulda,coulda....