Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by (FEDERER)vs(NADAL), Apr 30, 2008.
its really crazy that he is more articulate with the english language than most of our american players. If you compare the way he speaks and his vocab with robby ginepri you would think that ginepris second language was english.
I posted this yesterday and its an interview not speaking out. And its not just the English language thats interesting, its what he says. For one thing, he is very reverential to Federer and sympathetic to Murray and, contrary to those who think he is a clay specialist, he says he like grass best and his goal in life is Wimbledon.
Looking forward to his next few years in tennis. As an individual, he has real charisma, unlike Federer and Nadal who just play tennis. They are good at it, and its interesting to watch them play, but I think I would fall asleep if I spent more than 15 in their company.
But that's just it...they play tennis. That's what Nadal and Federer DO. Anything beyond that-like being "media saavy"-is obviously icing on the cake, but it's generally not part of a pro's job description. This was the criticism that Sampras endured throughout his career-that he was "boring". So be it. I turn on the TV to watch tennis; I want to see these guys playing their hearts out. I don't need to hear them speak. If I feel like watching a scintillating interview, I'll tune into Charlie Rose or David, or Jay or Hollywood Minute.
Aah, so you've been fortunate to spend time with Nadal and Fed off court so you know there are two big drones who put their non-existent friends to sleep. I heard Nadal cooks great food when he has parties, so he obviously is quite popular and i can scarcely imagine Nadal putting visitors to sleep.
Federer too has his friend circle and does a lot of charity work, has a lot of high profile sportsmen friends. That again would suggest an interesting person. A bore would have no friends.
Anyway, I think most posters here build their entire arguments and "logic" based on preconceived notions/dislikes. First we like or dislike someone, then we build our argument and select facts to support it.
As if they would spend 15 minutes with you. haha :lol:
The Nadal and Federer we see through the media isn't their actually personality when they are relaxing with their friends and family, its a completely different dynamic called public relations, but yeah don't flatter yourself by thinking their dying to spend fifteen minutes with you
Seriously, I think if leublu asked Roger, Roger might actually agree. He has said he cares about fans and spectators a lot. However, its just possible that the only thing leublu would be able to talk would be tennis :-D j/k -- no offense to you, leublu - I don't know you or Roger well enough to really answer that!
Umm, yeah, that's called PR buddy. This is all damage control as far as I'm concerned. Also, he's talking to the BBC; OF COURSE he says Wimbledon is his primary goal and gives props to Murray. And I've never heard anyone refer to him as a clay specialist.
He's very obviously been preped for this interview. Players are very conscious about their image these days so he probably hired a PR firm to help him out, why wouldn't he?? For all we know he payed for his charisma. That's generally why I let the tennis do the talking.
The bottom line is that in this day and age it's very difficult to get a sense of a player's personality in their interviews, be it Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.
There are exceptions, one of them being Roddick; sure, he tries to hard to come across as a sarcastic a@#hole in interviews. But you do get the sense that he really is a sarcastic a@#hole, albeit not a very smart one. I also don't think he's prepped or handled.
Oh and Spadea, ridicule him all you want, but he's by no means a phony.
Andre.......you are sorely missed!
Separate names with a comma.