Federer News

Federer has often been asked for his view of Australia’s enigmatic talent Nick Kyrgios and his reply this time reflected that he was sick of fielding questions about the 23-year-old and that the ball was entirely in Kyrgios’ court.

‘‘I get asked every time and I’m tired of answering the question. I like Nick, look at the end of the day and I think he’s a wonderful player and he’s got incredible shots and he knows that, we all know that. It’s just a question of how much he wants it. It’s up to him to decide how he wants to go about it.’’
Fed tired of being asked questions about other players (Kyrgios)

He can always ask Stan how that feels!!
 
Fed tired of being asked questions about other players (Kyrgios)

He can always ask Stan how that feels!!
i dont think being asked about other players, he's never had a problem being asked about next gen and other players in general, i think it is more specifically about kygrios because it is framed in a very specific way and to be honest I'd be annoyed as much. there is only so much one can say repeatedly about kygrios. I'm glad fed is not taking the bait anymore,
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Roger Federer has been ‘‘hit hard’’ by the imminent retirement of his rival Andy Murray, but disputed the view that Murray had been unlucky to play in the same era as Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.

Federer said Murray had much to be proud of, pointing to his (three) major titles, reaching world No. 1 (2016) and Olympic golds, while expressing some ‘‘shock’’ that the Scot would be finishing up this year, as Murray said in an emotional media conference on Friday.

‘‘It hit me hard,’’ Federer told the Sunday Age in an exclusive interview. ‘‘Of course, I’ve seen Andy struggling you know with his hip and with his fitness for quite some time now.

‘‘You want somebody to go there and feel like he’s happy to retire. The problem is it’s not his decision, it’s the body’s decision and that naturally hurts.’’

Federer did not concur with the widespread view – voiced since Murray’s surprise announcement that he aimed to retire after Wimbledon, if not much sooner, due to his chronic hip problem – that the Scot had been unlucky in the timing of his career.

‘‘I mean, he won Wimbledon, he won the Oympics, became world No. 1. Is that unlucky? I don’t know. I always said you can have great careers, you can have great careers side by side. Maybe from Aussie stand point, yes he’s been unlucky because he made five finals here [in Melbourne] and never won one. But that’s why I think he will also be even more loved you know because he maybe didn’t make it here.

‘‘But I don’t think he will say or that we should say that he’s been unlucky, I think he’s worked extremely hard and when he got to world No. 1 or he won all those big event that he did, totally deserved them ... he put in the workload and he’s an extremely talented player as well.’’
Federer said Murray had given his all and ‘‘made Scotland proud’’. ‘‘I feel like he left everything out there. There was never any doubts there. And I think he should be very proud even though he was extremely sad in the press conference and you know, you don’t want to see that.’’

Federer told the Sunday Age he was well-placed for this campaign, with no fitness issues, but he declared that this Open was “totally up for grabs’’ and he did not think he was entitled to favouritism.
‘‘Last year I also came in not expecting to defend again. In a way I also feel again, you know, it’s totally up for grabs again. I don’t think you can put me massive favourite. If you can put anybody as a big favourite, I think it would be Novak – or Rafa if he’s, you know, fully fully fit. You know, but only the first couple of matches will show where his level’s at. To my side, I just hope to be in the mix when it comes down the stretch.’’
Federer has often been asked for his view of Australia’s enigmatic talent Nick Kyrgios and his reply this time reflected that he was sick of fielding questions about the 23-year-old and that the ball was entirely in Kyrgios’ court.

‘‘I get asked every time and I’m tired of answering the question. I like Nick, look at the end of the day and I think he’s a wonderful player and he’s got incredible shots and he knows that, we all know that. It’s just a question of how much he wants it. It’s up to him to decide how he wants to go about it.’’

Federer has never lost to his first round opponent Denis Istomin in six meetings and could not recall that he had played Istomin here in the first round of 2006 – ‘‘I can’t even remember that one’’ – but said he was wary of the fact that Istomin had upset Djokovic ‘‘a couple of years ago’’.
‘‘Of course, I know all about his big upset a couple of years ago against Novak. So naturally, I will not underestimate anybody and just because I’ve been playing well in the Hopman Cup doesn’t mean this is going to happen again here as well. So I’ve just got to fight for that good level from the get go here in the beginning.’’

Source:https://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis...urray-s-early-retirement-20190112-p50r0z.html
Classy from Fed.
 
Maybe from Aussie stand point, yes he’s been unlucky because he made five finals here [in Melbourne] and never won one. But that’s why I think he will also be even more loved you know because he maybe didn’t make it here.
I definitely agree with that, unfortunately. It's unlucky for him personally, but I think it's endearing and has made him more loved.

Same thing happened with Andy Roddick. I think that after his 2003-2005 history at Wimbledon, that 2009 loss made him more fans than if he'd won.
 
Roger Federer has been ‘‘hit hard’’ by the imminent retirement of his rival Andy Murray, but disputed the view that Murray had been unlucky to play in the same era as Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.

Federer said Murray had much to be proud of, pointing to his (three) major titles, reaching world No. 1 (2016) and Olympic golds, while expressing some ‘‘shock’’ that the Scot would be finishing up this year, as Murray said in an emotional media conference on Friday.

‘‘It hit me hard,’’ Federer told the Sunday Age in an exclusive interview. ‘‘Of course, I’ve seen Andy struggling you know with his hip and with his fitness for quite some time now.

‘‘You want somebody to go there and feel like he’s happy to retire. The problem is it’s not his decision, it’s the body’s decision and that naturally hurts.’’

Federer did not concur with the widespread view – voiced since Murray’s surprise announcement that he aimed to retire after Wimbledon, if not much sooner, due to his chronic hip problem – that the Scot had been unlucky in the timing of his career.

‘‘I mean, he won Wimbledon, he won the Oympics, became world No. 1. Is that unlucky? I don’t know. I always said you can have great careers, you can have great careers side by side. Maybe from Aussie stand point, yes he’s been unlucky because he made five finals here [in Melbourne] and never won one. But that’s why I think he will also be even more loved you know because he maybe didn’t make it here.

‘‘But I don’t think he will say or that we should say that he’s been unlucky, I think he’s worked extremely hard and when he got to world No. 1 or he won all those big event that he did, totally deserved them ... he put in the workload and he’s an extremely talented player as well.’’
Federer said Murray had given his all and ‘‘made Scotland proud’’. ‘‘I feel like he left everything out there. There was never any doubts there. And I think he should be very proud even though he was extremely sad in the press conference and you know, you don’t want to see that.’’

Federer told the Sunday Age he was well-placed for this campaign, with no fitness issues, but he declared that this Open was “totally up for grabs’’ and he did not think he was entitled to favouritism.
‘‘Last year I also came in not expecting to defend again. In a way I also feel again, you know, it’s totally up for grabs again. I don’t think you can put me massive favourite. If you can put anybody as a big favourite, I think it would be Novak – or Rafa if he’s, you know, fully fully fit. You know, but only the first couple of matches will show where his level’s at. To my side, I just hope to be in the mix when it comes down the stretch.’’
Federer has often been asked for his view of Australia’s enigmatic talent Nick Kyrgios and his reply this time reflected that he was sick of fielding questions about the 23-year-old and that the ball was entirely in Kyrgios’ court.

‘‘I get asked every time and I’m tired of answering the question. I like Nick, look at the end of the day and I think he’s a wonderful player and he’s got incredible shots and he knows that, we all know that. It’s just a question of how much he wants it. It’s up to him to decide how he wants to go about it.’’

Federer has never lost to his first round opponent Denis Istomin in six meetings and could not recall that he had played Istomin here in the first round of 2006 – ‘‘I can’t even remember that one’’ – but said he was wary of the fact that Istomin had upset Djokovic ‘‘a couple of years ago’’.
‘‘Of course, I know all about his big upset a couple of years ago against Novak. So naturally, I will not underestimate anybody and just because I’ve been playing well in the Hopman Cup doesn’t mean this is going to happen again here as well. So I’ve just got to fight for that good level from the get go here in the beginning.’’

Source:https://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis...urray-s-early-retirement-20190112-p50r0z.html
Make a thread
 
Please refer to this when 'conspiracies' about 'overwhelming' Fedr favoritism pops up:


RLA matches since 2008 (before Djokovic became truly established):
Fedr: 27/53 (50.9%)
Nadl: 22/46 (47.8%)
Djokr: 20/51 (39.2%)

RLA matches since 2011 (when ALL Big3 were truly established, so a more accurate depiction):
Fedr: 18/38 (47.4%)
Nadl: 14/31 (45.2%)
Djokr: 17/36 (47.2%)

;)8-B

edit: corrected da numbers
 
Last edited:
Please refer to this when 'conspiracies' about 'overwhelming' Fedr favoritism pops up:

Tennis is first and foremost a business. Fed is the most universally beloved and popular tennis player who's ever lived, that's not even debatable. Nobody fills stadiums as he does. Nadal is in second place in popularity and fan support, Novak is a distant third. Why shouldn't their drawing power be reflected in when they are scheduled to play?

And people seem to forget that last year during that really hot Djoker-Monfils match, Novak requested a day session. Agassi suggested it because they knew Monfils would wilt.
 
Tennis is first and foremost a business. Fed is the most universally beloved and popular tennis player who's ever lived, that's not even debatable. Nobody fills stadiums as he does. Nadal is in second place in popularity and fan support, Novak is a distant third. Why shouldn't their drawing power be reflected in when they are scheduled to play?

And people seem to forget that last year during that really hot Djoker-Monfils match, Novak requested a day session. Agassi suggested it because they knew Monfils would wilt.
Agreed.

(2008-2010)-Djokovic's status is similar to current Zverev in the the sense that Z's the guy below the popular/dominant ones (Big3), so that tweet is disingenuous to begin with. I mean, who would compare the scheduling between Federer and current Zverev (like pre-2011-Djoko)? So the funny thing is, since 2011, the stats for RLA matches are practically the same for the Big3, yet so many are crying foul. I mean, Fed being the most popular/loved and yet gets no scheduling edge over Djokodal at RLA can be argued that Nadal/Djokovic were favored MORE than Fed :eek::eek:.
 
Please refer to this when 'conspiracies' about 'overwhelming' Fedr favoritism pops up:


RLA matches since 2008 (before Djokovic became truly established):
Fedr: 25/53 (50.9%)
Nadl: 22/46 (47.8%)
Djokr: 20/51 (39.2%)

RLA matches since 2011 (when ALL Big3 were truly established, so a more accurate depiction):
Fedr: 18/38 (47.4%)
Nadl: 14/31 (45.2%)
Djokr: 17/36 (45.2%)

;)8-B
Unfortunately no amount of actual facts will convince those determined to hate. I (unwisely) got into an argument with some idiot on Twitter who thought the crying on the CNN interview was fake. Even though she couldn't explain how this non-actor could have cried on demand she "just felt it was fake and was entitled to her opinion". When people aren't embarrassed at looking stupid they'll believe anything.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Unfortunately no amount of actual facts will convince those determined to hate. I (unwisely) got into an argument with some idiot on Twitter who thought the crying on the CNN interview was fake. Even though she couldn't explain how this non-actor could have cried on demand she "just felt it was fake and was entitled to her opinion". When people aren't embarrassed at looking stupid they'll believe anything.
Nothing more needs to be said after this...

It's like those eye rolling comments you hear about individuals saying Federer should retire so the game can get better and children cannot relate to him and find him inspirational...yet everywhere I go, and all the arenas I see are filled up just to catch a glimpse of him and kids going crazy to watch him play or talk to him....But irrational hate doesn't understand logic, because if it did, irrational hate would cease to exist.
 
Unfortunately no amount of actual facts will convince those determined to hate. I (unwisely) got into an argument with some idiot on Twitter who thought the crying on the CNN interview was fake. Even though she couldn't explain how this non-actor could have cried on demand she "just felt it was fake and was entitled to her opinion". When people aren't embarrassed at looking stupid they'll believe anything.
Some people on twitter are now complaining that Federer got the night schedule for the first match instead of Nadal.There is no point trying to debate these people -no matter how many times you explain them why Federer gets prime time they wont listen.It is like talking to a wall.
 
Fed being the most popular/loved and yet gets no scheduling edge over Djokodal at RLA can be argued that Nadal/Djokovic were favored MORE than Fed :eek::eek:.
At last year's Wimbledon, Nole requested and received a match on Centre Court and Fed as an 8-time champion was put on Court One. He then lost to Anderson, which probably wouldn't have happened had they played on Centre Court. I am not disputing that Novak didn't "deserve" to play many of his matches on Centre Court as a (multiple) past champion there. But it works both ways.
 
Some people on twitter are now complaining that Federer got the night schedule for the first match instead of Nadal.There is no point trying to debate these people -no matter how many times you explain them why Federer gets prime time they wont listen.It is like talking to a wall.
Right?

The choice was:

2-time defending champion or 2018-QF-retirement player?

Most popular player ever or less popular player?

Tournament's most successful champ or 1-time champ?

None of those answers is Nadal.
 
Some people on twitter are now complaining that Federer got the night schedule for the first match instead of Nadal..
I have almost never seen anyone on Twitter (aside from past pros like Cahill or Gilbert) who are serious fans or who know the game. It's just teenagers who vaguely know Fed, Rafa, Novak and nobody else. You could put a photo of Rod Laver out there and none would have the slightest clue who he was.

The big scheduling discussion point at the AO is who plays the first semi and Fed has that nailed down, as does Rafa if he makes it that far. Djokovic is at the disadvantage playing the second semi with one day less rest.
 
Some people on twitter are now complaining that Federer got the night schedule for the first match instead of Nadal.There is no point trying to debate these people -no matter how many times you explain them why Federer gets prime time they wont listen.It is like talking to a wall.
Nothing more needs to be said after this...

It's like those eye rolling comments you hear about individuals saying Federer should retire so the game can get better and children cannot relate to him and find him inspirational...yet everywhere I go, and all the arenas I see are filled up just to catch a glimpse of him and kids going crazy to watch him play or talk to him....But irrational hate doesn't understand logic, because if it did, irrational hate would cease to exist.
I really have no issue with people who just say they don't like Federer, they think he's too full of himself or whatever. I haven't always liked some aspects of his marketing myself.

But believing stuff that's totally irrational because of that dislike? I just find it disturbing - people who defy their own rational minds like this will also believe blatant lies that politicians tell them.
 
I have almost never seen anyone on Twitter (aside from past pros like Cahill or Gilbert) who are serious fans or who know the game. It's just teenagers who vaguely know Fed, Rafa, Novak and nobody else. You could put a photo of Rod Laver out there and none would have the slightest clue who he was.

The big scheduling discussion point at the AO is who plays the first semi and Fed has that nailed down, as does Rafa if he makes it that far. Djokovic is at the disadvantage playing the second semi with one day less rest.
I am talking about Nolefam on twitter - rabid Djokovic fans.They are obsessed with Federer for some reason.They should focus on their favorite but no they keep moaning because Federer gets prime time and a lot of other stuff.
 
At last year's Wimbledon, Nole requested and received a match on Centre Court and Fed as an 8-time champion was put on Court One. He then lost to Anderson, which probably wouldn't have happened had they played on Centre Court. I am not disputing that Novak didn't "deserve" to play many of his matches on Centre Court as a (multiple) past champion there. But it works both ways.
The hilarity of that choice was that the AELTC thought they'd get the cake and eat it too, assured that Fed would win AND pleasing Djokovic. The blunder was that by scheduling Fed for Court1 while having played his last 4 matches on CC, Fed was put at a disadvantage having no familiarity to Court1 AND Anderson having played his previous match on Court1.

The AELTC should've staggered Fed for at least one Court1 assignment before Djokovic even need to voice his opinion. Or did they think they can get away with having Fed play all matches on CC 7x straight if he makes the finals?
 
Right?

The choice was:

2-time defending champion or 2018-QF-retirement player?

Most popular player ever or less popular player?

Tournament's most successful champ or 1-time champ?

None of those answers is Nadal.
Of course.The most popular player should be scheduled in prime time when most people watch tennis.It is simple but some people either cant see it or are blinded by hatred.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
I really have no issue with people who just say they don't like Federer, they think he's too full of himself or whatever. I haven't always liked some aspects of his marketing myself.

But believing stuff that's totally irrational because of that dislike? I just find it disturbing - people who defy their own rational minds like this will also believe blatant lies that politicians tell them.
It's one thing to not like someone, that is perfectly fine. We all cannot like the same things or the same people. We are individuals and I respect peoples individuality when it comes to what they like and don't. But there is a fine line between not liking someone and having overwhelming irrational hatred and then pushing it onto others in a matter-of-fact kind of way, trying to justify their hatred. It's kind of sad and disappointing to see.

I see it not only with tennis players, but with many other things. The ideal way to deal with it is simply not giving them your time and emotional energy if you feel they are beyond having a rational discussion over the topic.
 
Why do you say that?
I'll chime in on this.

It's not certain Fed would 100% win had that match been on CC, but it's most likely. That match on CC would be:
1.) Advantage Fed (same court, plus Fed is very (most?) comfortable on CC)
2.) Disadvantage Anderson (new conditions for him, plus larger partisan crowd)

Fed was one point away from winning that match yet hasn't played on Court1 previously while Anderson's previous (4R) match was on that same court. So -1 for Fed and +1 for Anderson, with a net of +2 for Anderson.

Fed lost, and it was what it was. But the AELTC screwed up by not having Fed play on Court1 at least one time from 1R-4R before Djokovic having to voice his objection.
 
I really have no issue with people who just say they don't like Federer, they think he's too full of himself or whatever. I haven't always liked some aspects of his marketing myself.

But believing stuff that's totally irrational because of that dislike? I just find it disturbing - people who defy their own rational minds like this will also believe blatant lies that politicians tell them.
People use so many excuses for their dislike of Federer.My favorite one is "I dislike Federer because his fanbase is toxic" which I just cant understand.Disliking some player because of his fans is stupid thing to do imo.And sometimes disliking turns into hatred and this is where line needs do be drawn.No problem not liking somebody but dont go too far.
 
I really have no issue with people who just say they don't like Federer, they think he's too full of himself or whatever. I haven't always liked some aspects of his marketing myself.

But believing stuff that's totally irrational because of that dislike? I just find it disturbing - people who defy their own rational minds like this will also believe blatant lies that politicians tell them.
yep, i will be the first to admit fed is the king of humble brag, whether he means to or not is one thing and well he can be shady as hell, and a sore loser. however the one thing that has almost been consistent with fed is that he is a cry baby. he cries when he wins, he has cried when he lost, he cries while watching movies on a plane, he freaking cried during the finding neverland musical where his girls had to ask him if he was alright. imo i think sometimes people forget how emotional he can be because of how he has been marketing like post 2004 or w/e. so how people think he was faking after being asked about the death of a coach that he has said time and time again had huge influence on him is beyond me.

also im sorry fed is a horrendous actor.
 
Unfortunately no amount of actual facts will convince those determined to hate. I (unwisely) got into an argument with some idiot on Twitter who thought the crying on the CNN interview was fake. Even though she couldn't explain how this non-actor could have cried on demand she "just felt it was fake and was entitled to her opinion". When people aren't embarrassed at looking stupid they'll believe anything.
This. There’s data available that destroys a good chunk of sports’ narratives, but haters won’t care.

Someone should mak this dats his/her signature here.
 
—1st serve % wasn’t good but still he faced no break points and that’s a departure from second half of last year which is good.

—1st serve had plenty of power

—FH wasn’t taken as early but had plenty of easy power and “heft” behind it. He FH CC not even taken as early has the usual Fed FH was giving Istomin fits.

—Too many slice BHs, no real Neo ones. He looked to run around whenever possible.
Not sure what to think there.

—Too many slice BH returns.

—He’s got a game plan and I don’t think it involves the aggressive returning and Neo backhand becuse in 2017, we saw those from match #1 in Hopman.
 
He’s got a game plan and I don’t think it involves the aggressive returning and Neo backhand becuse in 2017
Whatever game plan he has that doesn’t involve the new BH and wicked ROS won’t be enough to win the AO. I saw one DTL backhand in the Istomin match and that was it. However, his movement looks stellar and I loved the drop shots. Serve is solid too.

The weak slice ROS is what bothers me the most. That’s not cutting it in the later rounds if he meets Rafa and/or Djoker.
 
Last edited:
Top