Is the love people have for Federer really all about the beauty of his game?
No. Some people like him because he has all those trophies. Others like him because he plays a beautiful, seemingly effortless style. Leaving aside other unimportant factors, for most people it is some weighted combination of these two.
That's a part of what I enjoy about watching Federer, but I don't think it's as simple as Federer plays beautiful tennis while Djokovic plays ugly tennis.
For me, it
is as simple as that. Federer plays beautiful, serene tennis. Aesthetically, almost all other players (men and women) look like they are hacking carcasses in a slaughterhouse.
Supposedly, Fed would have the monopoly on "aesthetically pleasing" tennis.
Not necessarily. Many players have had it in the past. Mecir was considered beautiful, so was Michael Stich. Mandlikova was considered graceful too. People who make the claim about Fed having the monopoly on beauty are either way up the Federer fanboy scale, or way too sensitive about Federer praise.
Fancy excuse to keep heaping praise on Fed when he loses and take away whatever credit possible from the others when they win. Fed nuts are relentlessly devoted to their cause, you have to give them that.
I am a self-professed Fed nut, and I don't see it in the above way. I can simultaneously hold the two thoughts in my mind (1) Federer plays beautifully (2) The other players beat him fair and square. So, you generalize, and like most generalizations, yours is an inaccurate one. It is more likely a reflection on your over-sensitive attitude towards Federer praise. Face it: He plays beautiful tennis, just like many of us face the fact that other players will deservedly take him to the woodshed from time to time. Ultimately, in terms of winning a trophy, aesthetic beauty isn't worth a hill of beans, and many of us understand that all too well.
