I don’t agree with the OP’s premise. What I have noticed in real life and on this forum is that Federer fans exalt him so highly that they don’t seem to understand why any tennis fan doesn’t like his game and his personality above all others. They seem to be puzzled if they meet anyone who feels ‘meh’ about Federer’s game and doesn’t think it is so much more ‘beautiful’ than every other player.
I personally like the aesthetic beauty of Wawrinka’s BH and Thiem’s BH much better, like watching Djokovic‘s movement over Federer, find Federer’s BH slice to be an ugly chop shot and find the Sampras serve to be much more beautiful - but, I like watching Federer‘s FH the best. If I tell this to a Federer fan, they automatically assume I have to be a Federer hater because they don’t seem to understand that someone could have subjective preferences different from putting Federer on a pedestal after watching all these players play in person like I have at Indian Wells over the years.
You seem to make a point that Federer is not at the top of your list for every shot, but is that what makes a fan? That seems rather unrealistic, as I don't believe that there is something like that at all: that would be the perfect player, no?
Instead one delves into the style of the player (all court, aggressive baseline, counterpuncher, moonballer, pusher whatever), then looks for his preferences in shots (preference for FH/BH/Serve any or many of those), then maybe some technical things like stroke mechanics etc etc and somewhere it clicks whether one likes a player or he would rather look elsewhere, but there is always a net positive or a net negative. Without delving too much into the definition of the word "fan", let's just say that that is a tennis follower that views said player in overwhelmingly positive light. You chose to use the words "why any tennis fan
doesn't like his game". Now, it is hard to see it, if you like some aspects, and in others he is simply not your best pick, but still high. Unless the negatives are outweighing the positives that definition is indeed odd, regardless if it is applied to Federer or to any other player towards whom the spectator has such preferences. One doesn't say that he doesn't like someone's game, if it is off from the perfect scenario by a couple of points.
BTW, to be a "fan" is not about putting on a pedestal, but rather about appreciating what is in front of you. They are all humans, just like the rest of us. They do however awake an emotion, when they do things that we appreciate. Federer's fluidity is second to none. It really is like watching a perfect harmony, and that is especially difficult in a brutal sport like tennis.
