Federer: How the tennis ace became the world's pre-eminent athlete

[tennisaddict]

I love to watch Fed play when he's on. I still enjoy him. But I don't understand the fanatic love he gets from fans. I'll just never understand fanboys.

Most Fed fans like several aggressive/artistic players like Safin , Davydenko , Delpo , Stan , Tsonga, Soderling, Haas, Stepanek.

fanatics are those who follow only a single player all the time and have difficulty appreciating other players.

Hardly ever I have found a Fed fan who likes to watch Fed and only Fed.

 

[NatF]

I love to watch Fed play when he's on. I still enjoy him. But I don't understand the fanatic love he gets from fans. I'll just never understand fanboys.

Yeah, Federer is my favorite player by some distance nowadays but the worshiping talk grates on me. I think people like the idea of cheering for the GOAT and it causes them to act in strange ways - like if enough of them salivate over his shots and technique it will make it true.

Both fans and haters alike seem to leave objectivity at the door when discussing Federer and also Nadal at times.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yeah, Federer is my favorite player by some distance nowadays but the worshiping talk grates on me. I think people like the idea of cheering for the GOAT and it causes them to act in strange ways - like if enough of them salivate over his shots and technique it will make it true.

Both fans and haters alike seem to leave objectivity at the door when discussing Federer and also Nadal at times.

They are on their way out now so all chatter will be coincidentally objective for the next several years.

 

[AngieB]

^^^^ Still #2 in the world, making Major SFs and Fs, winning 1000's.

Nice try, Bitter Buddy.

#2 in the world wiithout holding a grand slam event, #majors in #minors.

#AngiesLyst​

 

[Inanimate_object]

I love to watch Fed play when he's on. I still enjoy him. But I don't understand the fanatic love he gets from fans. I'll just never understand fanboys.

I haven't an idea how old you are, but can you never remember a time in your youth when you were fanatically in support of something or someone? I enjoy all the players on tour and could find myself supporting any one of them on any day (though I usually find myself cheering for the underdog). In any case, I still understand the fanboy fevor that sweeps over Federer, particularly from young fans. I remember the level of passion and commitment I had when supporting McEnroe and Becker. It slowly fades away as you get older I find.

 

[spinovic]

Lost in all this ****-worship is the fact he hasn't won a slam in 3 years.

HASN'T
WON
A
SLAM
IN
3
YEARS.

Sucks to a **** fan these days, pining for Halle titles?

It never sucks to be a Federer fan.

 

[spinovic]

What are you talking about? #Rafael began winning #GS tournaments as a teenager and has won at least (1) GS a year for each of the past (10) years.

It's been a few years since #Roger has won a grand slam event and never had an annual grand slam streak (10) like #Rafael. I would say that is in large part because of #Rogers 10-23 record against #Rafael. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

So which is it AngieB? Is it all about ITF sanctioned grand slams? Or no? Can't be both darlin'.

 

[Andyk028]

Awesome article.

I completely agree with Evert, I'm sure not many people in the Middle East or deep parts of Africa are familiar with Lebron James, whereas Federer is an international brand.

 

[Andyk028]

Lost in all this ****-worship is the fact he hasn't won a slam in 3 years.

HASN'T
WON
A
SLAM
IN
3
YEARS.

Sucks to a **** fan these days, pining for Halle titles?

I am a Nadal fan, as I assume you are too taking into consideration your signature and avatar but first and foremost I'm a tennis fan, and you cannot deny the beauty of Fed's game/accomplishments.

You don't have to like Fed, but you gotta respect him.

 

[tennisaddict]

So which is it AngieB? Is it all about ITF sanctioned grand slams? Or no? Can't be both darlin'.

If comparison between Fed and Rafael, h2h is the only talking point.

If comparison is between Novak and Rafa, then it is based on ITF sanctioned events.

#ContextualComparisons

 

[Steve0904]

It never sucks to be a Federer fan.

That guy is a strange one. Half the time he's needling the Federer fans and the other half he says something ridiculous about Nadal. Best just to let him be I find.

 

[West Coast Ace]

I love to watch Fed play when he's on. I still enjoy him. But I don't understand the fanatic love he gets from fans.

You don't think he's by FAR the most elegant player in the last 20-25 years? (who wins a lot) His movement appears to be (obviously not) Effortless. While others hit the occasional 'wow' shot, Fed hits multiple in almost every match.

 

[Roddick85]

Nice article op!

I'm a bit surprised at how Fed has become the most marketable athlete in the world. Perhaps it's because tennis isn't that popular in North America, because american players aren't at the top of the game like they were in the past, but if you'd stick to North America only, I'm pretty sure Lebron or who ever is big in the NBA would be #1 because basketball is up there with football as the top sports and the average american is rather clueless about tennis. So it's nice to see how tennis/Federer is perceived internationally.

There's many reason why Federer is so loved, beyond his "pretty game". Obviously the records he set are a big reason, but he's also got a very good PR team, scandal free and he projects the family man with wife/kid image. He's also in a phase of his career where he's the "old/veteran" with a legacy, and we all know how people just love nostalgia. If you went back 10 years when Federer was winning everything, he wasn't exactly getting all the love & praise he's getting today.

He gets a lot of money from his sponsors for doing all those PR events/commercials, he actually seems comfortable and enjoys doing that which adds even more interest from sponsors. Even if Nadal was more fluent in English, personality wise, I don't think he'd ever be at ease doing that kind of stuff because he's rather shy. I think Djokovic could pull off the kind of events Federer does, but I think he'll never be as marketable just because he's Serbian, which is a shame because Djokovic speaks multiple languages fluently and he's a good guy. But then again, looking at the "love" he gets on these boards, he wouldn't be a good investment for a company.

I love to watch Fed play when he's on. I still enjoy him. But I don't understand the fanatic love he gets from fans. I'll just never understand fanboys.

I can see your point. I think deep down, we all have our favorite, but not everyone will react the same way. I think there's a difference between someone who follows tennis because he/she loves Federer or Nadal etc... vs someone who watches tennis because they like tennis, which is why so many people are worried about the state of tennis when Nadal/Federer retires. It will be a blow to the game, but other players will emerge. If I look at my favorite players since I started to watch tennis, Sampras was my guy, then Roddick, then Federer. Even today, if Federer is not there, I enjoy watching Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Haas. I mean there's a lot more to the game than a single player.

 

[AngieB]

So which is it AngieB? Is it all about ITF sanctioned grand slams? Or no? Can't be both darlin'.

#Yes it can.

No other generational champion in the sport of tennis has a worse H2H against their primary rival which bears mentioning because its such an anomaly historically.

#PeteSampras didn't have that problem.
#BjornBorg didn't have that problem.
#RodLaver didn't have that problem.
#BillTilden didn't have that problem.
etc., etc.

It's the difference between an "?" and an "!". Hence, there reason for a "?". #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Refer to my signature

Yeah, all of that is pretty ridiculous to say the least..

 

[AngieB]

You don't think he's by FAR the most elegant player in the last 20-25 years?.

#I agree.

#AngiesLyst​

 

[LETitBE]

Graham Chadwick looks exactly like Roger Federer.

 

[Sysyphus]

#Yes it can.

No other generational champion in the sport of tennis has a worse H2H against their primary rival which bears mentioning because its such an anomaly historically.

#PeteSampras didn't have that problem.
#BjornBorg didn't have that problem.
#RodLaver didn't have that problem.
#BillTilden didn't have that problem.
etc., etc.

It's the difference between an "?" and an "!". Hence, there reason for a "?". #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

The fact that you have found one variable that differs between Fed and other "generational champs" does not render it meaningful. This does in no way suffice as an argument. If you fail to provide logical grounds for such an argument within a reasonable span of time, you have lost.

The difference between an (sic) "?" and an "!" is a matter of journalistic effect and not a comment on silly contingencies such as h2h. It is mostly just nerds in the dark corners of TT that care about such trivialities.

#PraiseTheMuzziah!​

 

[spinovic]

#Yes it can.

No other generational champion in the sport of tennis has a worse H2H against their primary rival which bears mentioning because its such an anomaly historically.

#PeteSampras didn't have that problem.
#BjornBorg didn't have that problem.
#RodLaver didn't have that problem.
#BillTilden didn't have that problem.
etc., etc.

It's the difference between an "?" and an "!". Hence, there reason for a "?". #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

So, it's not all about ITF sanctioned grand slams. There are other factors to consider.

 

[Sysyphus]

So, it's not all about ITF sanctioned grand slams. There are other factors to consider.

Naturally. But only when it suits the good old wack agenda. That is the modus operandi of a crackpot.

 

[spinovic]

That guy is a strange one. Half the time he's needling the Federer fans and the other half he says something ridiculous about Nadal. Best just to let him be I find.

Oh, I'm not bothering to argue. Just pointing out the fact that it never sucks to be a Federer fan. As if Federer fans would have been happier had he retired after winning Wimbledon in 2012. I'm a Federer fan. My like of him does not hinge on him winning majors. He was my favorite player before his first Wimbledon, he'll remain my favorite whether he wins another tournament, much less another major. The fact that it just so happens that he has won more majors than any man in the Open Era, only makes it better to be of a fan of his. He's won so much, that anything from here on is just a bonus. In fact, that's exactly how I viewed his last Wimbledon title.

If it sucked to be a fan of someone, I'd find a new player to follow. But, that's just me.

 

[Steve0904]

Oh, I'm not bothering to argue. Just pointing out the fact that it never sucks to be a Federer fan. As if Federer fans would have been happier had he retired after winning Wimbledon in 2012. I'm a Federer fan. My like of him does not hinge on him winning majors. He was my favorite player before his first Wimbledon, he'll remain my favorite whether he wins another tournament, much less another major. The fact that it just so happens that he has won more majors than any man in the Open Era, only makes it better to be of a fan of his. He's won so much, that anything from here on is just a bonus. In fact, that's exactly how I viewed his last Wimbledon title.

If it sucked to be a fan of someone, I'd find a new player to follow. But, that's just me.

And a good point it was. I agree 100% btw. I often find a few Federer fans screaming for Federer to retire now that he doesn't win as much, but to me they just don't get it. They don't understand. Never have and never will.

 

[tennisaddict]

Oh, I'm not bothering to argue. Just pointing out the fact that it never sucks to be a Federer fan. As if Federer fans would have been happier had he retired after winning Wimbledon in 2012. I'm a Federer fan. My like of him does not hinge on him winning majors. He was my favorite player before his first Wimbledon, he'll remain my favorite whether he wins another tournament, much less another major. The fact that it just so happens that he has won more majors than any man in the Open Era, only makes it better to be of a fan of his. He's won so much, that anything from here on is just a bonus. In fact, that's exactly how I viewed his last Wimbledon title.

If it sucked to be a fan of someone, I'd find a new player to follow. But, that's just me.

It has been such a great ride being his fan.


Anything and everything after the 15th major at Wimb 09 has been a bonus. Everything from 2009-2015 has been an icing on the cake. The icing itself has become a splendid career by itself.

 

[spinovic]

Naturally. But only when it suits the good old wack agenda. That is the modus operandi of a crackpot.

I'm just asking for consistency. I thought AngieB and I were of the same mind, kindred spirits if you will, ITF sanctioned Grand Slams (as she likes to refer to them - I prefer the abbreviated slams or majors) trump everything. They are what it's all about in tennis.

I've fought this battle before. It was nice to see someone else who viewed it as I did. So, you can imagine my surprise (and disappointment) to learn that she doesn't believe that after all.

Last I checked, winning a match against your rival doesn't merit a trophy. When it does, I might consider it of more importance. And, too bad for Novak, right? It's funny how little that legendary win against Nadal on Chartrier meant in the end. You guys do remember that, don't you? Just making sure, because I'd almost forgotten it already. Doesn't seem like people care much about it, since HE DIDN'T WIN THE TOURNAMENT!

 

[TheMusicLover]

I am a Nadal fan, as I assume you are too taking into consideration your signature and avatar but first and foremost I'm a tennis fan, and you cannot deny the beauty of Fed's game/accomplishments.

You don't have to like Fed, but you gotta respect him.

Well said. Nice post.
Don't bother too much about smoledman - he blasts both Fed and Nad regularly. Rather a decent, I might even say, 'proper' troll, imho. :twisted:

If it sucked to be a fan of someone, I'd find a new player to follow. But, that's just me.

No, it isn't.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Anything and everything after the 15th major at Wimb 09 has been a bonus. Everything from 2009-2015 has been an icing on the cake. The icing itself has become a splendid career by itself.

Great post. I agree 100%.

Last I checked, winning a match against your rival doesn't merit a trophy. When it does, I might consider it of more importance. And, too bad for Novak, right? It's funny how little that legendary win against Nadal on Chartrier meant in the end. You guys do remember that, don't you? Just making sure, because I'd almost forgotten it already. Doesn't seem like people care much about it, since HE DIDN'T WIN THE TOURNAMENT!

Your facts getting in the way of their (bad) story...

 

[AngieB]

The fact that you have found one variable that differs between Fed and other "generational champs" does not render it meaningful. This does in no way suffice as an argument. If you fail to provide logical grounds for such an argument within a reasonable span of time, you have lost.

The difference between an (sic) "?" and an "!" is a matter of journalistic effect and not a comment on silly contingencies such as h2h. It is mostly just nerds in the dark corners of TT that care about such trivialities.

#PraiseTheMuzziah!​

#MrSyssy,

Just a note. Your underlining is very, very similar to that of participant #5555.
Shame.

If it weren't for #Rogers poor H2H with #Rafael, they wouldn't have said, "Greatest Ever?" with a #?. It could have read, "Greatest Ever!".

#Rogers 10-23 record against #Rafael sticks out like a sore thumb historically. Not just for fans, but sports journalists who began questioning #Roger's greatness as a direct result. Just because you would like turn your head and ignore it, doesn't make it insignificant. #GirlBye5555

#AngiesLyst​

 

[AngieB]

Naturally. But only when it suits the good old wack agenda. That is the modus operandi of a crackpot.

#MrSyssy,

Using #adhominem as a weapon during discussion is the result of not being able to rationally rebut what you don't agree with. #Roger doesn't use #adhominem and neither should you. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

 

[spinovic]

It has been such a great ride being his fan.


Anything and everything after the 15th major at Wimb 09 has been a bonus. Everything from 2009-2015 has been an icing on the cake. The icing itself has become a splendid career by itself.

Couldn't agree more. A couple of majors, a few other finals, a stint at #1, silver medal, numerous other titles, WTF, etc. Thats a pretty good career. That stretch of his career in itself is better than the entire careers of anyone currently playing outside of Djokovic and Nadal. It's better than all but a few who have played since Federer's career began in the late '90s. Just sayin'.

In any case, I think the point of the article was more to do with his worldwide popularity than his on-court achievements. But, that seems to have been lost in translation.

 

[Sysyphus]

#MrSyssy,

Just a note. Your underlining is very, very similar to that of participant #5555.
Shame.

What can I say, I aspire to learn from the masters.

Also interesting how you didn't claim my use of hashtags is similar to yours. :lol:

If it weren't for #Rogers poor H2H with #Rafael, they wouldn't have said, "Greatest Ever?" with a #?. It could have read, "Greatest Ever!".

This is a baseless assumption. Again, it's a journalistic ploy. No one wants to be told something packaged as a self-evident truth. Hence the "?".

#Rogers 10-23 record against #Rafael sticks out like a sore thumb historically. Not just for fans, but sports journalists who began questioning #Roger's greatness as a direct result. Just because you would like turn your head and ignore it, doesn't make it insignificant. #GirlBye5555

It sticks out for irrational fans with too much time on their hands. It is true, though, that some journalists have gone with this in an attempt of creating some juicy drama—as they tend to do—but it is hardly often taken seriously.

Oh. And you are yet to prove how and why it is significant, as was my request. And so I think #5555 would remark something like "you have lost the argument".

#PraiseTheMuzziah​

#MrSyssy,

Using #adhominem as a weapon during discussion is the result of not being able to rationally rebut what you don't agree with. #Roger doesn't use #adhominem and neither should you. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

You need to learn what an ad hominem is:lol:

Quick hint, it ain't an ad hominem if one doesn't use it as a premise for one's conclusions. And I haven't.

So, in this case, it is merely an insult. Learn the difference :mrgreen:

Sincerely

Syssy

#PraiseTheMuzziah​

 

[spinovic]

And a good point it was. I agree 100% btw. I often find a few Federer fans screaming for Federer to retire now that he doesn't win as much, but to me they just don't get it. They don't understand. Never have and never will.

I always figure they just jumped on the Fed bandwagon at some point and started cheering for him because he was winning, not because they actually liked him or his style.

 

[Steve0904]

I always figure they just jumped on the Fed bandwagon at some point and started cheering for him because he was winning, not because they actually liked him or his style.

That is probably true. There is a term for those people. I'm sure you know what it is. It ends with hunters and starts with glory.

 

[Chadillac]

Why are they using the K 6.1 on the cover?

Isnt fed 6-3 vs nadal after wimbledon? Probably why he has so many more weeks at number 1. Fed gets to their either way, rafa only gets there when he is at his peak (first half of year).

 

[AngieB]

What can I say, I aspire to learn from the masters.

Also interesting how you didn't claim my use of hashtags is similar to yours. :lol:

That's because you didn't suddenly begin using hashtags until your symbiotic relationship to #5555 was uncovered. Nice diversion, #Girl.

This is a baseless assumption. Again, it's a journalistic ploy. No one wants to be told something packaged as a self-evident truth. Hence the "?".

Well, in basketball, there isn't a "?" associated with #MichaelJordan. In swimming, there isn't a "?" associated with #MichaelPhelps. Yet, #Roger gets a "?". #Shocking.

It sticks out for irrational fans with too much time on their hands. It is true, though, that some journalists have gone with this in an attempt of creating some juicy drama—as they tend to do—but it is hardly often taken seriously.

Yet, had the story led "Roger Federer Greatest Ever!", his special fans would praise the journalistic publication as another example of his "GOATness". #Yes.

Oh. And you are yet to prove how and why it is significant, as was my request. And so I think #5555 would remark something like "you have lost the argument".

#MrSyssy, not that we are shocked you removed your mask in regards to #5555, but once again, Roger with a "?" is much different than Roger with an "!". That editorial decision was not my decision.

You need to learn what an ad hominem is:lol:

Quick hint, it ain't an ad hominem if one doesn't use it as a premise for one's conclusions. And I haven't.

So, in this case, it is merely an insult.[/B] Learn the difference :mrgreen:

I urge you to read about the term "insult" as it relates to violations of TOS.

Sincerely

Syssy

As I have always suspected. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

 

[Sysyphus]

That's because you didn't suddenly begin using hashtags until your symbiotic relationship to #5555 was uncovered. Nice diversion, #Girl.

Actually, I did in the same post you that you likened to #5555 (and I have many a time before as well).

Well, in basketball, there isn't a "?" associated with #MichaelJordan. In swimming, there isn't a "?" associated with #MichaelPhelps. Yet, #Roger gets a "?". #Shocking.

False analogy. They didn't compare Fred with other athletes in tennis, but all athletes period. In that case, they would have a "?" next to guys like Phelps as well. Or more symptomatic—they didn't write this article about such other guys, they wrote it about Fred.

#MrSyssy, not that we are shocked you removed your mask in regards to #5555, but once again, Roger with a "?" is much different than Roger with an "!". That editorial decision was not my decision.

Please tell me what this removal of my mask entails.

Yes, the "?" is different. It makes for a better story.

I urge you to read about the term "insult" as it relates to violations of TOS.

As I have always suspected.

I did not say whom I have insulted, or even that it was anyone in here. My lawyers helped me with the wording of that.



:mrgreen:

 

[merwy]

That's probably true. I find the fan bases of both to be extremely irritating.

But it is a chink in Fed's armor, so to speak. The H2H can be twisted in both directions, and frequently is, to a ridiculous extent.

No, it's not a chink in his armor. That's a terrible metaphore. To be the greatest, you don't have to be the greatest in EVERY compartment. You can't own every stat that there is. He already pretty much owns every record in the recordbooks. Now you people are making up records (h2h isn't a record) just to bring Fed down? Don't you see how stupid that is?

The 23-10 thing is always going to be brought up. It's just not going to go away.

And since Fed was prevented from getting a CYGS two years in a row, at the FO, by Nadal, where otherwise Fed might have had a double CYGS, no one is ever going to forget about Nadal and the H2H.

That's simply a fact.

No that's not a fact. Actually, I never think about the h2h until I see some idiot mention it again, like now for example. Yeah, Nadal was tough for Federer. So having a tough rival equals not being the greatest? I didn't know that to be the greatest out of a bunch, you had to dominate every match you play and never struggle once in your career. Then I guess the GOAT has to have at least 40 grand slam or something. But since such a person doesn't exist, lets just say the guy with the most grand slams (and countless other records) is the greatest, all right?:wink:

Yes I do particularly point out the hypocrisy with fed fans. Roddick Safin Blake hewitt etc greater than djokovic references on mostly daily basis. Undermining achievments. Yet enraged when questioned and pointing out weaknesses.

Nobody ever said something like that. Or maybe some troll one time. Why do Djokovic fans like to play the victim so often?

The fact that you have found one variable that differs between Fed and other "generational champs" does not render it meaningful. This does in no way suffice as an argument. If you fail to provide logical grounds for such an argument within a reasonable span of time, you have lost.

The difference between an (sic) "?" and an "!" is a matter of journalistic effect and not a comment on silly contingencies such as h2h. It is mostly just nerds in the dark corners of TT that care about such trivialities.

#PraiseTheMuzziah!​

I agree, Angie5555.

 

[spinovic]

The H2H between Federer and Nadal was most significant in 2010 and again in 2013, when Nadal was on top of the sport, and him getting to, possibly even surpassing, 17 majors was considered a matter of when, not if. Now that few believe he has 3 more majors in him, its significance wanes.

People, journalists and analysts especially, are prone to jump the gun and declare guys the greatest based on the present landscape of the sport, projecting that forward as if nothing changes in tennis, and penciling guys in for accomplishments they haven't achieved yet, but speaking of them as if they already have.

Consider this timeline...

End of 2007 - Federer is sitting on 12 majors (amassed in 4 1/2 years). McEnroe declares him the greatest, certain that he will surpass Sampras' 14 majors.

End of 2008 - Federer nearly goes major-less. Djokovic arrives in Australia. Nadal crushes Federer at RG and then dethroned him at Wimbledon, but Federer manages to win the U.S. Open. Doubts begin to surface.

Australia 2009 - Nadal backs up his Wimbledon triumph by beating Fed in another epic 5-setter. Federer is stuck at 13. McEnroe wonders if he will ever win another major. Sampras is once again the greatest.

Australia 2010 - Since losing to Nadal here in 2009, Federer makes the next 4 major finals, winning 3 of them. He finally wins the elusive RG title and then surpasses Sampras at Wimbledon. Only a close loss to del Potro prevents him from being the first man in 40 years to hold all 4 major titles at the same time. He is clearly the GOAT now, according to McEnroe. More majors than Pete and several more likely to come.

End of 2010 - Nadal sweeps the rest of the majors. Sits at 9 majors. Federer's results suddenly falter with previously unthinkable QF losses. Nadal is expected to dominate for the foreseeable future. Can he catch Federer? Is Federer done?

End of 2011 - Djokovic 2.0 crashes the party and has a first 9 months that was arguably better than any Federer or Nadal had ever produced, dominating Nadal, beating him in several successive finals.

Australia 2012 - Djokovic beats Nadal once more, giving him 4 of the last 5 majors. Dominance is predicted. Federer officially done.

End of 2012 - For the one, and only time, the Big 4 split the majors. Federer wins a record tying 7th Wimbledon and 17th major, briefly reclaiming #1 long enough to surpass another Sampras record and become the only man to spend 300 weeks on top of the sport. This, once again, prompts Johnny Mac to proclaim him the GOAT.

End of 2013 - Nadal misses Australia, but returns in February to steamroll the tour with some of the best tennis he's ever played, turning the tide against Djokovic. The only hiccup is an early exit at Wimbledon. He sits on 13 majors. Johnny Mac thinks you can already argue that he's the GOAT. Federer's record is destined to fall.

The present - Nadal won his 14th and last major to date at RG in 2014. Djokovic has yet to win more than one major in a year since 2011, yet was being touted as a potential CYGS winner after his QF win over Nadal at RG. Federer hasn't won another major since Wimbledon in 2012. Players not in the Big 4 group have won 3 of the last 6 majors.

What will happen next? Who is the GOAT? Only one piece of advice I can offer...don't ask John McEnroe!

 

[AngieB]

Actually, I did in the same post you that you likened to #5555 (and I have many a time before as well).

No need to begin backpedaling or being defensive. The truth will set you free!

False analogy. They didn't compare Fred with other athletes in tennis, but all athletes period. In that case, they would have a "?" next to guys like Phelps as well. Or more symptomatic—they didn't write this article about such other guys, they wrote it about Fred.

#No.

Of course #Roger is a "?" in all of sports. If you aren't an "!" in your own sport, now way could you even be considered and "!" when compared among the true greats of sports.

Please tell me what this removal of my mask entails.

The one I just #did.

Yes, the "?" is different. It makes for a better story.

The "?" made for an accurate, true story. #GirlBye

I did not say whom I have insulted, or even that it was anyone in here. My lawyers helped me with the wording of that.

You exhibit a malignant #coquettish relationship with half-truths, lowered-expectations and disinformation meant to minimize tennis history. Why on Earth would need an attorney for something only a psychiatrist could fix. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

 

[spinovic]

That is probably true. There is a term for those people. I'm sure you know what it is. It ends with hunters and starts with glory.

Kinda like the old SNL Superfans - "It starts with a C, ends with an O, and in the middle is hicag.

 

[AngieB]

No, it's not a chink in his armor. That's a terrible metaphore. To be the greatest, you don't have to be the greatest in EVERY compartment. You can't own every stat that there is. He already pretty much owns every record in the recordbooks. Now you people are making up records (h2h isn't a record) just to bring Fed down? Don't you see how stupid that is?

No that's not a fact. Actually, I never think about the h2h until I see some idiot mention it again, like now for example. Yeah, Nadal was tough for Federer. So having a tough rival equals not being the greatest? I didn't know that to be the greatest out of a bunch, you had to dominate every match you play and never struggle once in your career. Then I guess the GOAT has to have at least 40 grand slam or something. But since such a person doesn't exist, lets just say the guy with the most grand slams (and countless other records) is the greatest, all right?:wink:

You seem a little distressed. You need to calm down a little bit. We're only discussing tennis.

No one is saying that #Roger is unaccomplished. Clearly, he is. But you cannot ignore that generational champions are judged not only what they achieved but how they performed against their generation. #Roger is the only generational champion in tennis history to have a losing H2H against his chief rival. Do you really think that fact should be ignored when measuring the totality of his career in relationship to his historical peers?

#RogerFederer is the most accomplished of his generation but wasn't the best tennis player of his generation. His 10-23 against #RafaelNadal proved that. It is what it is. Everyone knows it. No biggie.

Nobody ever said something like that. Or maybe some troll one time. Why do Djokovic fans like to play the victim so often?

For the same reasons why #Rogers fans have a malignant inferiority complex related to #RafaelNadal. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst​

 

[merwy]

You seem a little distressed. You need to calm down a little bit. We're only discussing tennis.

No one is saying that #Roger is unaccomplished. Clearly, he is. But you cannot ignore that generational champions are judged not only what they achieved but how they performed against their generation. #Roger is the only generational champion in tennis history to have a losing H2H against his chief rival. Do you really think that fact should be ignored when measuring the totality of his career in relationship to his historical peers?

#RogerFederer is the most accomplished of his generation but wasn't the best tennis player of his generation. His 10-23 against #RafaelNadal proved that. It is what it is. Everyone knows it. No biggie.

#AngiesLyst​

Doesn't that prove that Federer is even better than other generational champs? That he still managed to get to 17 slams even with such a troublesome rival? Not denying that Nadal isn't a great player as well. I think that Nadal gets the 2nd place when it comes to GOATs, although many will disagree with me.

I'm 99% sure I'm calmer than you are.

 

[tistrapukcipeht]

Federer is the greatest tennis player ever, but He is not the greatest in all sports, what Evert says or doesn't, is useless.

Michael Schumacher was the greatest of the greats, He holds pretty much all records in F1, which is the hardest amd most difficult autosport .

 

[Gary Duane]

No, it's not a chink in his armor. That's a terrible metaphore.
To be the greatest, you don't have to be the greatest in EVERY compartment. You can't own every stat that there is. He already pretty much owns every record in the recordbooks. Now you people are making up records (h2h isn't a record) just to bring Fed down? Don't you see how stupid that is?

You're just the kind of fool I normally try to avoid to talking to, but here goes Einstein, since obviously you want to pick a fight.

I'm not trying to bring ANY ONE down, so get straight who you are talking to. In the more than 50 years I've been watching tennis there has never been a player I have enjoyed watching more.

I'm not a fanboy. You are.

Bring him DOWN? What freaking planet do you live on? Or the rest of the clowns on this site?

We're talking about a man who has been OWNED by Nadal, on CLAY, from the time Nadal showed up, as a player. Make up your own "metaphor". You can't get owned on a surface for a good ten years without people seeing it.

Why do you think Fed does not have TWO CYGSs now? Answer: Nadal at the FO.

If that isn't a "chink in someone's armor", I don't know what is.

But don't get upset, because the moment I bring up some facts about why the 23-10 thing isn't the ONLY thing that counts, the Nadal fanatical clowns will show up and scream at me for being unfair.

Hey, it's been that way since I showed up a year ago.

 

[Gary Duane]

I can see your point. I think deep down, we all have our favorite, but not everyone will react the same way. I think there's a difference between someone who follows tennis because he/she loves Federer or Nadal etc... vs someone who watches tennis because they like tennis, which is why so many people are worried about the state of tennis when Nadal/Federer retires. It will be a blow to the game, but other players will emerge. If I look at my favorite players since I started to watch tennis, Sampras was my guy, then Roddick, then Federer. Even today, if Federer is not there, I enjoy watching Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Haas. I mean there's a lot more to the game than a single player.

I have a bunch of favorites, over the years. I strongly identified with Borg, because I was young myself back then. But to me it feels self-destructive to want one player to win so much that I can't enjoy the tennis.

There have been so many great ones, and there will be more. The Lendl era was a hard time for me because I simply did not like his game. Nothing more than that. I don't even know why I liked watching Borg and Nadal, because neither has (had) the attacking game I prefer. I loved JMac's game, but didn't like him. Same with Connors. Then Edberg, Becker (don't much like him as person though), then Pete, then Fed. Agassi grew on me, and of course he was in epic matches with Pete.

But I'm pretty close to leaving this forum. The fanboys are just wearing me down. It's mostly the Fed and Nadal fanatics, lined up on opposite sides, ready to attack anyone who does not join their ranks. It's very tiring.

 

[Gary Duane]

I haven't an idea how old you are, but can you never remember a time in your youth when you were fanatically in support of something or someone? I enjoy all the players on tour and could find myself supporting any one of them on any day (though I usually find myself cheering for the underdog). In any case, I still understand the fanboy fevor that sweeps over Federer, particularly from young fans. I remember the level of passion and commitment I had when supporting McEnroe and Becker. It slowly fades away as you get older I find.

Probably Borg, but I was never a fanboy. I just wasn't. I remember that my mother absolutely hated or loved players, and I thought it was terribly immature. The only time I've been really seriously ticked off about losing was when I played myself. I was a terribly loser, really.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yeah, Federer is my favorite player by some distance nowadays but the worshiping talk grates on me. I think people like the idea of cheering for the GOAT and it causes them to act in strange ways - like if enough of them salivate over his shots and technique it will make it true.

Both fans and haters alike seem to leave objectivity at the door when discussing Federer and also Nadal at times.

That's putting it mildly. Some days it doesn't bother me. Today it got to me.

I've been taking heat from both camps since I joined the forum. The Nadal fanboys are incapable of admitting that Nadal had almost zero impact on Fed until 2008 EXCEPT on clay. To me that's terribly important, because we all know that through around age 27 is when we usually see peaks.

So the 23-10 H2H never seems as important as Nadal fans make it out to be. It needs to be examined for surface and timing.

But the Fed fans want to make the 23-10 thing irrelevant.

I guess I should be used to people deliberately ignoring whatever is uncomfortable to them.

I simply look at these two players as the best in the world for quite a long time, and I'm quite happy to leave to history exactly how they will be seen when they both finally retire.

 

[spinovic]

Most reasonable Federer fans see his record against Nadal as one of the few, maybe the only, real weak spots on his resume. It doesn't erase his other accomplishments.

A poor H2H against one player doesn't tip the scales that much in light of a player's entire body of work.

How would you prefer it be acknowledged? What's the middle ground you seek? Because what you are essentially saying is that Federer would be the undisputed GOAT if he'd simply lost to a handful of random opponents all those years at all those clay court events. Take away the clay results and you're saying that:

17 majors, 20 major finals, a couple less Masters titles and a handful less finals, probably less weeks at #1, plus an 8-11 H2H vs Nadal

is superior to

17 majors, 24 majors finals, his current Masters records, 302 weeks at #1, plus a 10-23 H2H vs Nadal.

All because of that one H2H against Nadal.

Do you realize how absurd that is?

That's like the idea that Wawrinka's had a better career than Murray because he's undefeated in major finals.

 

[Sentinel]

I have a bunch of favorites, over the years. I strongly identified with Borg, because I was young myself back then. But to me it feels self-destructive to want one player to win so much that I can't enjoy the tennis.

There have been so many great ones, and there will be more. The Lendl era was a hard time for me because I simply did not like his game. Nothing more than that. I don't even know why I liked watching Borg and Nadal, because neither has (had) the attacking game I prefer. I loved JMac's game, but didn't like him. Same with Connors. Then Edberg, Becker (don't much like him as person though), then Pete, then Fed. Agassi grew on me, and of course he was in epic matches with Pete.

But I'm pretty close to leaving this forum. The fanboys are just wearing me down. It's mostly the Fed and Nadal fanatics, lined up on opposite sides, ready to attack anyone who does not join their ranks. It's very tiring.

Your post #96 is very nicely put.

Regarding this one, you just need to ignore the fanboys. Surely by now you have figured them out. This forum still has some interesting posters and a few intelligent ones. They are worth coming here.

Actually, that's why i mostly stick to the Odds and Ends sections where the fanboys usually don't bother to come.

 

[merwy]

You're just the kind of fool I normally try to avoid to talking to, but here goes Einstein, since obviously you want to pick a fight.

I'm not trying to bring ANY ONE down, so get straight who you are talking to. In the more than 50 years I've been watching tennis there has never been a player I have enjoyed watching more.

I'm not a fanboy. You are.

Bring him DOWN? What freaking planet do you live on? Or the rest of the clowns on this site?

We're talking about a man who has been OWNED by Nadal, on CLAY, from the time Nadal showed up, as a player. Make up your own "metaphor". You can't get owned on a surface for a good ten years without people seeing it.

Why do you think Fed does not have TWO CYGSs now? Answer: Nadal at the FO.

If that isn't a "chink in someone's armor", I don't know what is.

But don't get upset, because the moment I bring up some facts about why the 23-10 thing isn't the ONLY thing that counts, the Nadal fanatical clowns will show up and scream at me for being unfair.

Hey, it's been that way since I showed up a year ago.

WHAT? How do I want to pick a fight? That's the last thing I want to do. Sorry but I'm not reading the rest. That's a bad way to start your post, man. I actually think you're a decent poster, no idea why you're lashing out at me like that.

 

[AngieB]

But I'm pretty close to leaving this forum

#MrGaryDuane,

Now is not the time to leave the forum. Some of the #star-gazing will begin to diminish as #Roger begins his farewell season soon and his generational fans will have their epiphany and realize that tennis is much larger than any individual as they choose their next favorite du jour. Same of the highly devout #Nadal folks.

Most interesting will be to witness what history #Serena is able to add to an already storied #American act of exceptionalism in tennis. She's this generations player to watch for the next two years, man or woman in my opinion.

In our day, tennis fans couldn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet and go on fanatical walk-abouts. This new digital generation including social media is a blessing and a curse in that regard. It's a new part of tennis that we have to adjust to as well. That's why its important to #shade every now and then to keep the #kids honest. Have fun with it.

#AngiesLyst​