Federer, Nadal criticized by Roddick - ANDY ENVIOUS?

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
He didn't exactly say that Nadal and Federer weren't great entertainers. He said that there is entertainment value in the guys below them that don't have to worry more about the PR side of things. And he's right. That's why we have our Janowicz's, Gulbis's and Fognini's. And in the top 10, Wawrinka could be thrown in here I think.

He's also correct in saying that hawk eye has taken away the confrontation aspect for the most part, but I don't agree that they should change the rules or scrap hawk eye because I'd rather the call was right than to have someone shout at an umpire just for entertainment purposes.

This kind of reminds me of the whole debate about fighting in hockey. Some people will say that it's not needed and probably call it barbaric or something like that and those people are usually not fans of hockey in the first place, but as someone who has watched hockey for a good 15 years I believe that fighting needs to stay, and be honest, when was the last time anybody turned over a good fight? The fans in the stadium all stand when a fight happens as well.

That's basically what Roddick is saying about nobody changing the channel when somebody goes off on an umpire.

All that said, Federer and Nadal are plenty entertaining, but Roddick never really said otherwise. Closer reading is needed here.
 
Last edited:

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Odd. He was comparing them with McEnroe, hence that form of entertainment. Rafa and Roger are definitely still entertainers. Thread title's a bit much, you think?
 

oneness

Professional
I undertand that Mac was great entertainre, butsaying that Federer and Nadal are not entertainers, I do not agree.

I am sure he would have swapped his attitude with a couple of slams

http://news.tennistonic.com/tennis-news/?nid=5471&/Federer,-Nadal-criticized-by-Roddick

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/29/sport/tennis/roddick-tennis-hawk-eye-change/

Any opinion?
He is just saying we need all types, guys who carry themselves well as well as some guys who do not, then we have a good entertaining package. I have no input, just clarifying what he is saying.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Tennis has evolved. Hawk Eye was a positive addition as it brought closure to the players and the fans.

The only downsides are:

1) It's not 100% accurate

2) It's made the umpires and linesman hesitant to make calls. They now leave all the close ones up to the player to challenge it.

As for changing channel stuff, I'm sure people don't change the channel when a Hawk Eye decision is being called for, if anything it gets the whole crowd involved. Especially in big matches when the call is crucial, whether watching live or on TV you're there anxiously anticipating the call.
 

Mick

Legend
I disagree with his idea about changing the Hawk-Eye challenge system. If he was still playing, he would not have proposed that idea.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I undertand that Mac was great entertainre, butsaying that Federer and Nadal are not entertainers, I do not agree.

I am sure he would have swapped his attitude with a couple of slams

http://news.tennistonic.com/tennis-news/?nid=5471&/Federer,-Nadal-criticized-by-Roddick

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/29/sport/tennis/roddick-tennis-hawk-eye-change/

Any opinion?
I lived through the JMac era and I actually flipped the TV off at least once when he got into one of his brat-fits.

If you like that kind of "entertainment", just imagine watching Fognini again and again if he were good enough to get in the top 3.

And I hate seeing people get screwed by bad calls. Even now bad calls still are not reversed when the players are out of challenges.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I disagree with his idea about changing the Hawk-Eye challenge system. If he was still playing, he would not have proposed that idea.
Agreed. I totally get his point though about not changing the channel during a dispute. There's not many things to grab a non-tennis fan to get into tennis or stay on the channel if they aren't already into the sport. Hawkeye is definitely something that is a good thing though and should stay.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Agreed. I totally get his point though about not changing the channel during a dispute. There's not many things to grab a non-tennis fan to get into tennis or stay on the channel if they aren't already into the sport. Hawkeye is definitely something that is a good thing though and should stay.
If the sport doesn't attract fans, then having umpire disputes isn't going to help.

Imagine someone getting into tennis because "Sometimes they really go off at the umpire" :lol:
 
Federer and Nadal are both PR machines. He's totally right. Even though Nadal is a villain to many, he sure doesn't embrace it and tries to create a positive "warrior" narrative for himself. Federer seems to pride himself on his lack of expression, though he's been more straightforward in the last couple years he's still awful robotic most of the time.
 

Mick

Legend
Federer and Nadal are both PR machines. He's totally right. Even though Nadal is a villain to many, he sure doesn't embrace it and tries to create a positive "warrior" narrative for himself. Federer seems to pride himself on his lack of expression, though he's been more straightforward in the last couple years he's still awful robotic most of the time.
a few weeks ago, I wore a Federer hat, a Djokovic shirt, and a Nadal pant and my opponent only recognized the Federer hat. In term of PR machine, Federer beats them all :shock:
 

encylopedia

Professional
Ridiculous.

A silly headline to grab attention. Andy didn't criticize them at all. He complemented them, then correctly pointed out that bad boys like Mcenroe bring another dimension of entertainment as well though....and he's absolutely correct...history has proven that: Nastase, Connors, Mcenroe.....to a lesser extent even people like Ivansevic, Leconte, etc.

Take a special kind of bad boy though......some important things help:
1.likable when not going ballistic eg.Mcenroe, Nastase.....or at least able to manipulate the fans to think he was eg. Connors
2.must bring top-level, great-level tennis with it as well

Otherwise, you just end up with what seem like whiney, petulant, unlikeable players that really don't draw all that well eg. Hewitt, Tarango, Soderling, Muster, Rios, etc.
 

rossi46

Professional
Federer and Nadal are beyond boring. Boring personalities in particular Federer and his fake humility garbage, very arrogant person.

Nadal seems much more genuine. That stuff he pulls on the court is just part of the game. Boring character though.

Guys like Safin and Rios are definitely a thing of the past, Fognini is probably the closest there is these days, sad.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick has a point. They have knocked personality out of the players by enforcing 20-25 seconds between points, they have no space to express themselves. They are expected to walk onto the courts like robots, play continuously without time to even towel off then walk off. McEnroe would not have been able to be himself under the new rules.

When NcEnroe was playing they didn't see it as entertainment they were always calling for him to be banned. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I don't agree with Roddick on hawkeye, in fact I think challenges should be allowed throughout the match like on clay where they can ask the umpire to check the mark as many times as they like.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
I really don't agree with Roddick on hawkeye. If anything it adds to the entertainment value of the match. When a call is challenged and the match is tight, it definitely creates tension as everyone is awaiting the video replay to see if it's good or not.

I can somewhat understand what Andy means, McEnroe going nuts in his prime provided some entertaining moments, and he still does that on the senior tour to entertain the crowds, but let's not forget that the senior tour is +/- a glorified exhibition circuit. In today's easily offended world, if Federer/Nadal were to act the same way on the ATP, most people would feel personally offended. Let's face it, how many of you are disgusted by the commentaries/attitude of Fognini, Gulbis or even Roddick in his last year? There's a reason why everything is PR filtered today. Fact of the matter is, you can't commit a "faux pas" when your building a brand like Federer/Nadal, because if people are against you, no one will endorse you.

As much as people say Federer is robotic and calm, I tend to disagree. You can sense how he's boiling up inside when things aren't going his way. The disgusted look at the umpire/lines people, the SHUT UP to the crowd, his disapproval of HawkEye (Wimby 07), etc...Over the years, he's provided many entertaining moments just with his on-court attitude lol.
 

vernonbc

Legend
If Andy thinks he was entertaining when he was arguing for ten minutes with a linesperson over a foot fault he's delusional. Most people were really embarrassed for him that he was making such an idiot of himself.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Though I don't completely agree with Roddick, I can see where he's coming from. I don't see how the OP came to his conclusion based on this article however. I advise some reading comprehension.
 

dh003i

Legend
I actually think HawkEye should be running and automatically correcting calls on every play. It is instantaneous from what I understand. The downside is it isn't available on all of the courts, that isn't financially feasible. Should work on a more affordable version.

But yes, the McEnroe clip linked to in one of the articles is quite entertaining..."You cannot be serious! That ball is on the line! The chalk flew up!"
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Odd. He was comparing them with McEnroe, hence that form of entertainment. Rafa and Roger are definitely still entertainers. Thread title's a bit much, you think?
Perhaps, but I wouldn't blame the OP. One of the articles linked have the exact same title as this thread. Basically to create posts.
 
Last edited:

ark_28

Legend
What annoys me about Roddick is he admitted on a radio interview that as a player he likes it but only because he is talking as a fan he wants hawk eye scrapped, this to me is a pretty fickle approach and I am a Roddick fan.
 

Chico

Banned
If the sport doesn't attract fans, then having umpire disputes isn't going to help.

Imagine someone getting into tennis because "Sometimes they really go off at the umpire" :lol:
Agree. This is not the way to attract fans. The reason I do not watch NHL too much is because of all the stupid staged fights. They think they need that to attract fans? No thanks.

Tennis is fine as is. Flourishing. Prize money and attendances are constantly increasing. No need to ridiculous changes like this. Roddick was never really smart and it shows here. He is not the person to propose changes to the sport now when he is retired. His hawk eye argument is just stupid.

Anyway back on the topic. It is funny how everyone like him when he bullies or criticizes Djokovic, but now when he says something bad about precious Fedal he is the devil all off a sudden.

Roddick is out of the sport and that is a good thing IMO, so all he needs to do now is leave the sport alone and keep his mouth shut.
 

Blitzball

Professional
Agree. This is not the way to attract fans. The reason I do not watch NHL too much is because of all the stupid staged fights. They think they need that to attract fans? No thanks.

Tennis is fine as is. Flourishing. Prize money and attendances are constantly increasing. No need to ridiculous changes like this. Roddick was never really smart and it shows here. He is not the person to propose changes to the sport now when he is retired. His hawk eye argument is just stupid.

Anyway back on the topic. It is funny how everyone like him when he bullies or criticizes Djokovic, but now when he says something bad about precious Fedal he is the devil all off a sudden.

Roddick is out of the sport and that is a good thing IMO, so all he needs to do now is leave the sport alone and keep his mouth shut.
I liked having him around though. He'd beat mostly anyone outside the top 10, then get decimated by anyone in the top 10. Funny in his predictability.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Decent read, click-bait headline. Par for the course in sports journalism, truth be told.
 

ultradr

Legend
I think Federer and Nadal are the most popular tennis players I've seen
in about 25+ years or so.

Before them, tennis had very narrow spectrum of fans (mostly tennis players).

Especially Federer. Even the non-tennis playing casual fans instantly love him
and his game.

I think current brand of baseline tennis with long points, farmiliar top players
on weekends all year long, successfully attracted much wider spectrum of
audiences.
 

spirit95

Professional
What criteria is Roddick using? If Roger and Nadal aren't as entertaining a him then why do they have probably ten times the number of fans he ever did outside the US?

I don't know about anyone else but I find the tennis itself entertaining, not a bunch of guys waving their hands at the crowd to make them cheer louder.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Roddick's idea that if players are having a go at the umpire then tennis will be more appealing is a pretty low-level viewer idea. It wouldn't attract more viewers since it'd happen too infrequently to have much value for the sort of short attention span viewer Roddick is talking about, and it probably wouldn't retain any existing viewers either.

Roddick has probably been watching too much American Football and Ice Hockey.
 
Further proof the average idiot doesn't actually read articles, he only reads headlines.

Roddick didn't say anything about Federer/Nadal not being entertaining. He said there's entertainment value in "the guys who don't carry themselves so well, too."
 

snvplayer

Hall of Fame
I undertand that Mac was great entertainre, butsaying that Federer and Nadal are not entertainers, I do not agree.

I am sure he would have swapped his attitude with a couple of slams

http://news.tennistonic.com/tennis-news/?nid=5471&/Federer,-Nadal-criticized-by-Roddick

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/29/sport/tennis/roddick-tennis-hawk-eye-change/

Any opinion?
I don't really see any part where Roddick is criticizing Federer and Nadal, or any hint of envy.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
He didn't exactly say that Nadal and Federer weren't great entertainers. He said that there is entertainment value in the guys below them that don't have to worry more about the PR side of things. And he's right. That's why we have our Janowicz's, Gulbis's and Fognini's. And in the top 10, Wawrinka could be thrown in here I think.

He's also correct in saying that hawk eye has taken away the confrontation aspect for the most part, but I don't agree that they should change the rules or scrap hawk eye because I'd rather the call was right than to have someone shout at an umpire just for entertainment purposes.

This kind of reminds me of the whole debate about fighting in hockey. Some people will say that it's not needed and probably call it barbaric or something like that and those people are usually not fans of hockey in the first place, but as someone who has watched hockey for a good 15 years I believe that fighting needs to stay, and be honest, when was the last time anybody turned over a good fight? The fans in the stadium all stand when a fight happens as well.

That's basically what Roddick is saying about nobody changing the channel when somebody goes off on an umpire.

All that said, Federer and Nadal are plenty entertaining, but Roddick never really said otherwise. Closer reading is needed here.
I haven't read the article yet but I agree with you. I am sure an Umpire or Line Judge doesn't feel "entertained" when a player is having an absolute go at them.
 

HRB

Hall of Fame
He didn't exactly say that Nadal and Federer weren't great entertainers. He said that there is entertainment value in the guys below them that don't have to worry more about the PR side of things. And he's right. That's why we have our Janowicz's, Gulbis's and Fognini's. And in the top 10, Wawrinka could be thrown in here I think.

He's also correct in saying that hawk eye has taken away the confrontation aspect for the most part, but I don't agree that they should change the rules or scrap hawk eye because I'd rather the call was right than to have someone shout at an umpire just for entertainment purposes.

This kind of reminds me of the whole debate about fighting in hockey. Some people will say that it's not needed and probably call it barbaric or something like that and those people are usually not fans of hockey in the first place, but as someone who has watched hockey for a good 15 years I believe that fighting needs to stay, and be honest, when was the last time anybody turned over a good fight? The fans in the stadium all stand when a fight happens as well.

That's basically what Roddick is saying about nobody changing the channel when somebody goes off on an umpire.

All that said, Federer and Nadal are plenty entertaining, but Roddick never really said otherwise. Closer reading is needed here.
Great points, and yes, lack of reading comprehension is a disease that effects many a thread around these parts, so nice clarifications.

Personally I find arguments with line judges and umpires loathsome and tedious, however I love when a player works the crowd!
 
Last edited:
L

Laurie

Guest
Read the article and I don't agree with Roddick. He is mistaking acting like a lout as entertainment. Then he has the nerve to tell people if they don't concentrate on their schoolwork they will end up as an Umpire. Maybe other people here thought Roddick's actions as fun but I didn't.

By the way, that first website, Tennis Tonic - interesting.......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top