Federer News

He accepts because he's being paid 30 million dollars a year to shill Uniqlo garb. They're paying him for as much exposure as possible.
Uniqlo is more quality than Nike, so if you are hellbent on talking about "garb" maybe next time think whether you did it when Federer was with Nike. Or better yet, keep that sort of "garb" out of the thread.

:cool:
 
Nike has gotten pretty terrible
Nike has gotten pretty terrible and others have gotten too good in the game where Nike were good once upon a time. The shoe market is swamped with shoes that are as good or better than those of Nike, with more modern tech and better looking.

In other segments like active sports clothing they were never THE company, except for those that didn't have access to the real good stuff like Sergio Tacchini, Ellesse, Le Coq, Lacoste etc or simply the cheapskates that buy everything in outlets. Nothing wrong with doing that, but the hype around that brand is ridiculous.

:cool:
 
Sometimes I wonder why Roger even accepts extra media requests like this anymore.

It's literally the same questions over and over and over and over.
He accepts because he's being paid 30 million dollars a year to shill Uniqlo garb. They're paying him for as much exposure as possible.
Maybe.
I think it also has to do with promoting the game too, and he's not the only one interviewed like this on Tennis TV's Youtube channel. He's been doing media since before his meteoric rise around WB2003. He's just more sought after now. Furthermore, it's true that more fans turn up to watch him 'hit balls' in practice than many other players' live matches. He puts butts in seats and eyes on screens.

Regardless, I just prefer to listen to his insights. :)
He just named most of the biggest young stars on the spot, including their recent results/histories. He truly loves the sport, not just his place in it.
 
Maybe.
I think it also has to do with promoting the game too, and he's not the only one interviewed like this on Tennis TV's Youtube channel. He's been doing media since before his meteoric rise around WB2003. He's just more sought after now. Furthermore, it's true that more fans turn up to watch him 'hit balls' in practice than many other players' live matches. He puts butts in seats and eyes on screens.

Regardless, I just prefer to listen to his insights. :)
He just named most of the biggest young stars on the spot, including their recent results/histories. He truly loves the sport, not just his place in it.
It makes more sense for young players to do it. They need to promote themselves and they probably get a kick out of doing it. But Fed's given thousands of interviews by now. So even if it doesn't bother him, the novelty has certainly worn off.

My point was more that even if these things are tied to sponsorships, I would've gladly abandoned them long ago if I had Federer money.
 
It makes more sense for young players to do it. They need to promote themselves and they probably get a kick out of doing it. But Fed's given thousands of interviews by now. So even if it doesn't bother him, the novelty has certainly worn off.

My point was more that even if these things are tied to sponsorships, I would've gladly abandoned them long ago if I had Federer money.
What can we say? The Fedr is a strange beast.
GOAT.
;)
 
Nike has gotten pretty terrible and others have gotten too good in the game where Nike were good once upon a time. The shoe market is swamped with shoes that are as good or better than those of Nike, with more modern tech and better looking.

In other segments like active sports clothing they were never THE company, except for those that didn't have access to the real good stuff like Sergio Tacchini, Ellesse, Le Coq, Lacoste etc or simply the cheapskates that buy everything in outlets. Nothing wrong with doing that, but the hype around that brand is ridiculous.

:cool:
Regarding quality, I always wonder why Roger wears Nike shoes to be honest. Do they make special shoes for him? Coz if you compare what's available in the market, theirs don't come close to for example Asics or Adidas IMO
 
Regarding quality, I always wonder why Roger wears Nike shoes to be honest. Do they make special shoes for him? Coz if you compare what's available in the market, theirs don't come close to for example Asics or Adidas IMO
He's used to it?

Also I'm sure he still gets the athlete quality stuff.
 
Nike has gotten pretty terrible and others have gotten too good in the game where Nike were good once upon a time. The shoe market is swamped with shoes that are as good or better than those of Nike, with more modern tech and better looking.

In other segments like active sports clothing they were never THE company, except for those that didn't have access to the real good stuff like Sergio Tacchini, Ellesse, Le Coq, Lacoste etc or simply the cheapskates that buy everything in outlets. Nothing wrong with doing that, but the hype around that brand is ridiculous.

:cool:
You're basically paying for the name and the fashion. Although I don't know why you'd pay for their current fashions. :D
 
Regarding quality, I always wonder why Roger wears Nike shoes to be honest. Do they make special shoes for him? Coz if you compare what's available in the market, theirs don't come close to for example Asics or Adidas IMO
He wears their shoes because he is paid to do so.

Every current shoe manufacturer is able to and will make him shoes that are custom specifically for his feet, so in that regard he will always get what he wants. Yonex makes this for Stan, Asics for Novak, even Under Armour that don't sell tennis shoes did it for Murray. Adidas shoes are so good that their pros use only custom orthotics. Same for many pros that use Asics (at the moment Fognini uses blacked out Asics Gel Resolution 7s, because he doesn't have a shoe sponsor and is free to choose whatever he feels is the best for him), the other day Henman posted pictures with some active player sponsored by Nike, and both of Henman's shoes. (he was changing from his running shoes into his tennis shoes) were not Nike, because he isn't sponsored and pays out of his own pocket. Basically it is a sponsors game out there and Nike spends as much as 4 times as their next closest competitor to market themselves. Others deliver quality, but have less exposure, so the casual fan thinks that Nike is the best, because the pros "choose" them.

:cool:
 
I think you are confusing the issues:

Tsitsipas went through one of his shoelaces, which is pretty normal with the extreme sliding on HC these days (Sock and someone else had he same issue very recently). The people in the tweet you linked to mention it there:

[B]Biola Omowanle[/B]‏ @Beeorlicious Jan 24
Lol. Tsitsipas and his shoe laces.

:cool:

EDIT: Same reason for what is on that picture. Has nothing to do with the quality of the shoe.
 
Last edited:
Medvedev today, if he wins that, Anderson, then Shapo or Tiafoe to reach the final v Isner/BA/Coric/AA. Doable on paper, but he is 37 now and playing 4 out of 5 days to win Miami is still a tall order. I have a feeling Coric will come through and win it.
 
Medvedev today, if he wins that, Anderson, then Shapo or Tiafoe to reach the final v Isner/BA/Coric/AA. Doable on paper, but he is 37 now and playing 4 out of 5 days to win Miami is still a tall order. I have a feeling Coric will come through and win it.
True, the matches ahead will be very tough, more so here.I suppose he still has enough in the tank, but I am not sure the required level of play is there.
 
He named him in that tall order 'P
Medvedev today, if he wins that, Anderson, then Shapo or Tiafoe to reach the final v Isner/BA/Coric/AA. Doable on paper, but he is 37 now and playing 4 out of 5 days to win Miami is still a tall order. I have a feeling Coric will come through and win it.
He clearly meant playing 4 out of 5 days is a tall order
 
1. Nope, he said "playing 4 out of 5 days to win Miami is still a tall order"

2. I would still say that Tiafoe is a tough cookie - one of the best 21 year olds, quirky game, top 30 player.

3. Honest question, why are you in this thread? If you're trying to troll, it's really poor taste. This is a fan thread.
Let's hope Tiafoe can live up to the expectation
 
When you are on the court nothing matters .
So when commenting on the possibility of Ivo Karlovic winning or losing a 5-set long match should I not consider the fact that he is 40 years old and can't perform consistently for 5 sets?
No one is using age as an excuse but we have to consider it when predicting matches otherwise we will end up with wrong predictions.
 
So when commenting on the possibility of Ivo Karlovic winning or losing a 5-set long match should I not consider the fact that he is 40 years old and can't perform consistently for 5 sets?
No one is using age as an excuse but we have to consider it when predi
Using it as an excuse depends on the context.
Lets say some a-hole is giving **** to Fed on losing Thiem or Tsits and going ahead to conclude that the game has left Fed behind then you can definitely bring age into the discussion and kick that guy's ass.
But if a Fed fan praises Fed at winning matches and uses the age card to justify Fed losing even when Fed played bad and didn't really lose because of age then it becomes an excuse.
Frankly there are both kinds of people and arguments. We just have to be sane enough to know when is using the age card, right and when it's wrong.
I think it's bad to give **** to any player for losing but at the same time I believe once you walk on the court and compete , full credit should be given to the opponent if you lose .
 
True but that's not what I said, I said that if a player is on the court t


I think it's bad to give **** to any player for losing but it the same time I believe once you walk on the court and compete , full credit should be given to the opponent if you lose .
Definitely. Credit should always be given to the winner.
But then again some stupid people are quick to say that Thiem and Coric are better than Fed and **** like that, so for them you have to bring age in the discussion.
How would you feel when guys like FAA beat Novak when he is 37 and then people claim that FAA is better than Peak Nole?
 
Definitely. Credit should always be given to the winner.
But then again some stupid people are quick to say that Thiem and Coric are better than Fed and **** like that, so for them you have to bring age in the discussion.
How would you feel when guys like FAA beat Novak when he is 37 and then people claim that FAA is better than Peak Nole?
I would just laugh off and thank Nole for playing till 38 and giving tennis fans memorable times. I would thank not just Nole but also Nadal and Fed if they all happen to play tennis till 38. We don't know how lucky we are to see all 3 greats for more than decade.
 
Top