Bionic Poster
As a cricket fan, I am not going to make that distinction. Have seen a number of 'nice guys' in cricket who would also break the rules when it suited them. If anything, I would say competitive spirit usually pushes sportspersons to test the limits of the rules and see what they can get away with. So the fault of that lies more with the authorities for not simply handing out time violations as they used to back in the day. I have seen Graf get a time violation at Lipton 93 and Sampras in the Wimbledon 99 final. Both used to play fast. But that's how strict umpires were. It must be the sponsors who forced umpires to bend and crawl for Nadal's sake. I don't blame him for getting away with murder since he was allowed to. But that does not make him arrogant imo, just ruthless and cunning. In other words, you can be 'not nice' and still not be arrogant. Arrogance in sport would have to involve some measure of underestimation of the opponent and I have never seen that from Nadal except during his Wimbledon slump when he was quite pathetic at acknowledging (or not acknowledging) his victorious opponents.

Oh but I absolutely do blame him, there has to be some degree of personal responsibility here. Just because you can get away with breaking the rules (and with such ridiculous consistency) doesn't mean you should, it still reflects poorly on your character. He's not a toddler whose actions can be excused by lax parenting.


Oh but I absolutely do blame him, there has to be some degree of personal responsibility here. Just because you can get away with breaking the rules (and with such ridiculous consistency) doesn't mean you should, it still reflects poorly on your character. He's not a toddler whose actions can be excused by lax parenting.
Even if that is so, it doesn't make him arrogant,imo, just a cheat. I have no compunctions in calling him out for it. I was just making the point that the same tournaments used to be much stricter with enforcing time violations. So when Nadal-ites act like time violation is some unicorn, it's either ignorance or just disingenuousness.
Last edited:
he said this about Djokovic game after Montreal 2007

In the post match press conference, Federer was asked if he saw and respected the similarities between his game and Djokovic's, as compared to the differences between his and Nadal's and his response was:

"No, not really. I mean, he plays like many other players on tour. You know, I mean, he's steady off the baseline, he's got a pretty good serve. But...nothing outrageous in his game. Always pretty predictable, which is a good thing. Yeah, you get some good rallies against him because he scrambles well, moves to the ball well, moves the ball around very nicely. Yeah, I enjoy playing against him."

Although there's nothing directly insulting in that statement, it's hardly laudatory. And notable is a lack of appreciation for 1) any comparison to his own game, 2) Djokovic having beaten the top 3 players in the same tournament (Roddick, Nadal and Federer), or 3) winning his second Masters 1000 of the year (he had already won Miami). So one could hardly argue that he played like "many other players on tour" - after all, had many others on tour won two Masters 1000's that year? And if you didn't know any better, you'd almost interpret his throw away statement, that he enjoys playing him, because he's predictable and there's nothing outrageous in his game, as a euphemism for the guy being easy pickings!

He went on to say, in assessing his game that day that:

"I could never really breathe. Maybe that was a bit my problem today. It's such a pity, you know, when I start a match against a player like him serving so bad in the opening game."

Now, if I were Djokovic, I wouldn't take too kindly to being referred to as, "a player like him" - if it were meant as a compliment, it would be prefaced or modified with, "a tough player like him", or "a player who returns as well as him" - but in the absence thereof, it just seemed he was lamenting that conditions and an unusually bad serving day was the cause of the result, and not anything Djokovic did!

Yea that's funny how the "predictable" Djokovic managed to win 3 grand slam matches against Federer where Federer had 2 match points in each of them and still could not convert...so much for being predictable. Djokovic really made him eat some humble pie. Looking back at his comments back in the day I'm sure he has to now begrudgingly acknowledge Djokovic's GOATness over him despite having a very predictable game lol.


This is not a rocket science. Medvedev has both IQ and a mind sufficient to win against Djokovic. Tsitsipas simply complains publicly about his own DNA draw instead of improving both his game and mind and using his DNA to it's maximum potential.

Tsitsipas has hit his (current) ceiling but he will keep doing the same ('my father is the best coach') expecting different outcome. The cause for all the nonsense he does is his own stupidity. It is his stupidity which complains about objective reality proving to him how stupid he is instead of using his life to improve his skills. It is beyond simple.

Djokovic was inferior to both Nadal and Federer but he improved and prevailed. Medvedev understands that, while Tsistsipas cannot understand it.
Last edited:


"Player like him" and "matches like these" were favorite backhand slaps of Fed's. I still can't decipher whether he was so genuinely arrogant, or it was a psychological self-defense, and whether he has really evolved into the current, self-aware funny old uncle, or it's just a PR. What I know is that about 75% of his current fans don't remember the peak Fed all too well.

In Federer's case, I think it was both arrogance (let's call it overweening confidence :) ) as well as a kind of reflexive psychological self-defence. It manifested after the 2008 Wimbledon final ("lost because of a bit of bad light"), 2009 AO final ("sometimes the better player loses"), and perhaps most notoriously of all, that cringingly sour-grapes display after the 2011 USO semi ("Confidence? Are you kidding me? I mean, please. Look, some players grow up and play like that. Just being down 5-2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots......that's the kind of way they grew up playing when they were down." )

But I do think he has mellowed and evolved a lot in terms of this particular attitude. Credit to him, he's been pretty upfront about this change as well. Jon Wertheim (SI.com executive editor, who has quite an obvious pro-Fed bias, despite his scrupulous attempts to stay balanced) had interviewed him ahead of the video release of "Strokes of Genius". Fed had said " I had to embrace the idea of a rival. In the beginning I didn’t want to have one. And then eventually I realized, there’s something good to take out of these situations. So I maybe have to adjust my game a little bit. I don’t like to do that, per se. But why not? Let’s go.

Wertheim had also stated previously, that in his opinion, it was much easier For fed to swallow a loss to a sidewinding, sui generis, supernaturally intense lefty like Nadal, than it was for him to accept losing to a player who was more "conventional" like Novak. As per him, some of this was a function of Fed's textured relationship with Nadal and their mutually beneficial rivalry. Some of this was owing to the continuing deference Nadal gives Federer.

I Am Finnish

Bionic Poster
Tsitsipas dimensions.



Bionic Poster
”Medvedev is very consistent, a very tough opponent," Tsitsipas said in an interview with Greek broadcaster Ant1.
"I would not say Medvedev's game is boring; I would say it is one-dimensional. It surprises me that, with that kind of tennis, he manages to achieve what he has achieved."

But Tsitsipas was also complimentary of the Russian, who he referred to as the "best player at the moment; he proved it with his results."

"I consider myself as one of the best, but I also have to prove it on court," he said.
"They [the players he lost out to at the Grand Slams] are not better, but during that time they played better."
When asked if he was sure that his father, Apostolos, was the right person to continue to coach him to bring about further improvement in 2022, the Greek star was absolutely unequivocal.
"I'm 100 per cent sure," Tsitsipas said of his father still being the right fit for him.
"There is no better coach than my father."
'Daniil Medvedev's game's one-dimensional' - Stefanos Tsitsipas 'surprised' at what US Open champion achieved - Eurosport

So true,, med is one dimentional and funky. ONe thing i do find interesting is how he hits the ball so Flat and keep the ball in for so long. that is amazing to me. but overall, Stepanoes is right