Why do Federer fans hate Nadal and Murray so much

Thriller

Hall of Fame
Thanks, Guys. (Thundervolley, TennisandMusic)

Funny how the two people that have had anything negative to say about my post, chose to attack the poster rather than the message.

Inadvertently, they have confirmed everything I said.
 
C

chandu612

Guest
Good question.

For most tennis fans, Roger Federer is a sublime tennis player, compelling to watch and they are happy to see him do well but not personally affected when he doesn’t.

For a minority of extremists for whom Roger Federer is “a religious experience”, they worship him like a God and behave like zealots towards anyone who refuses to worship at the altar.

They have told themselves and been told by people who really should know better that Roger has the complete game, has no weaknesses ... blah, blah, blah ... and they really believe this utter nonsense. No player is perfect and Federer obviously has weaknesses in his game that Rafa Nadal has been able to exploit, pretty much from their first match together in 2004.

Rather than face the reality that Federer is human and flawed like everyone else, these extremists looked for excuses. Rafa is a lefty ... has muscles ... is super-fit .... just an awkward match-up ..... blah, blah, blah .... but they really believed that Nadal was a blip and as soon as Federer figured him out, normal service would be resumed.

Federer has a lot to answer for with some of the statements he made about Nadal in the early days which reinforced the extremists total lack of respect for Nadal's abilities. For example, Federer said this about Nadal in 2006:

The more I play him, I think the better it is for me. That's just the way I see it when I play against him. Because he's quite one-dimensional with his game. I said after Dubai I actually felt pretty good playing against him. I thought I actually saw, you know, the way I should play against him.​

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=35901

Well it didn't turn out like that at all did it. Instead of figuring out Nadal, it was Nadal who figured out how to beat Federer on grass, then on hardcourts to dominate in slams on all surfaces against his rival.

By 2007, a more respectful Federer was saying:
People forget it's not enough just to be able to run and be focused. You've got to be able to hit a tennis ball, and he (Nadal) does that pretty good.​

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=44165

By 2011, at last, glowing praise from Roger:

Rafael and myself must have played so many times and so many times it has come down to a few shots here and there. He is an amazing shot-maker. Me as well, but today he got the better of me.​

http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/t...i-saturday-nadal-beats-federer-in-final.aspx

The problem is that the extremists are still stuck in the past and faced with the choice of either changing their opinion of Nadal (as Federer has done, to his credit) or demonizing him, they invariably choose the latter.

Can they accept that Federer, for all his beauty and style is not and never was the perfect player, he has flaws in his game just like everyone else?

No. They have invested too heavily in the myth. When God wins, they win. When God loses, he must have been cheated by the Devil and they feel cheated too. They will cling to any “explanation” (PEDS, Negative play, Time wasting, Shorts adjusting, the weather, court speed, blah, blah, blah), no matter how ludicrous, than accept the obvious one: Nadal beats Federer a lot more often than Federer beats Nadal because Nadal is a better, more complete tennis player than Roger Federer. He isn't as stylish or as elegant but he is more effective i.e. better.

Nadal’s and Murray’s games are quite different but what they have in common (apart from the superior H2Hs) is that from the outset, neither player made the mistake of giving Federer too much respect when they stepped on court. Off court they have tremendous respect for Roger’s abilities and achievements but on court, he is just another guy. They have no fear and they walk on court expecting to win and when they are playing very well, they can also force a lot of errors and make Roger Federer look ordinary.

The extremists despise these two players for not only humbling Federer but showing the other players how it should be done. Get a good game plan, stick to it, don't panic and try to play better than you need to when you get your opportunities.

Now more and more players are following their example and are not playing as if they are already beaten before they step onto court. It could be argued that these two players more than any others have played a pivotal role in destroying the myth of Roger Federer by proving time and again that if you choose and execute the right gameplan, Roger Federer is far from unbeatable.

To the extremists, it is not supposed to be like that and what they have done is overthrow God, which is completely unforgiveable.

Right on the money...
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Good question.

For most tennis fans, Roger Federer is a sublime tennis player, compelling to watch and they are happy to see him do well but not personally affected when he doesn’t.

For a minority of extremists for whom Roger Federer is “a religious experience”, they worship him like a God and behave like zealots towards anyone who refuses to worship at the altar.

They have told themselves and been told by people who really should know better that Roger has the complete game, has no weaknesses ... blah, blah, blah ... and they really believe this utter nonsense. No player is perfect and Federer obviously has weaknesses in his game that Rafa Nadal has been able to exploit, pretty much from their first match together in 2004.

Rather than face the reality that Federer is human and flawed like everyone else, these extremists looked for excuses. Rafa is a lefty ... has muscles ... is super-fit .... just an awkward match-up ..... blah, blah, blah .... but they really believed that Nadal was a blip and as soon as Federer figured him out, normal service would be resumed.

Federer has a lot to answer for with some of the statements he made about Nadal in the early days which reinforced the extremists total lack of respect for Nadal's abilities. For example, Federer said this about Nadal in 2006:

The more I play him, I think the better it is for me. That's just the way I see it when I play against him. Because he's quite one-dimensional with his game. I said after Dubai I actually felt pretty good playing against him. I thought I actually saw, you know, the way I should play against him.​

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=35901

Well it didn't turn out like that at all did it. Instead of figuring out Nadal, it was Nadal who figured out how to beat Federer on grass, then on hardcourts to dominate in slams on all surfaces against his rival.

By 2007, a more respectful Federer was saying:
People forget it's not enough just to be able to run and be focused. You've got to be able to hit a tennis ball, and he (Nadal) does that pretty good.​

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=44165

By 2011, at last, glowing praise from Roger:

Rafael and myself must have played so many times and so many times it has come down to a few shots here and there. He is an amazing shot-maker. Me as well, but today he got the better of me.​

http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/t...i-saturday-nadal-beats-federer-in-final.aspx

The problem is that the extremists are still stuck in the past and faced with the choice of either changing their opinion of Nadal (as Federer has done, to his credit) or demonizing him, they invariably choose the latter.

Can they accept that Federer, for all his beauty and style is not and never was the perfect player, he has flaws in his game just like everyone else?

No. They have invested too heavily in the myth. When God wins, they win. When God loses, he must have been cheated by the Devil and they feel cheated too. They will cling to any “explanation” (PEDS, Negative play, Time wasting, Shorts adjusting, the weather, court speed, blah, blah, blah), no matter how ludicrous, than accept the obvious one: Nadal beats Federer a lot more often than Federer beats Nadal because Nadal is a better, more complete tennis player than Roger Federer. He isn't as stylish or as elegant but he is more effective i.e. better.

Nadal’s and Murray’s games are quite different but what they have in common (apart from the superior H2Hs) is that from the outset, neither player made the mistake of giving Federer too much respect when they stepped on court. Off court they have tremendous respect for Roger’s abilities and achievements but on court, he is just another guy. They have no fear and they walk on court expecting to win and when they are playing very well, they can also force a lot of errors and make Roger Federer look ordinary.

The extremists despise these two players for not only humbling Federer but showing the other players how it should be done. Get a good game plan, stick to it, don't panic and try to play better than you need to when you get your opportunities.

Now more and more players are following their example and are not playing as if they are already beaten before they step onto court. It could be argued that these two players more than any others have played a pivotal role in destroying the myth of Roger Federer by proving time and again that if you choose and execute the right gameplan, Roger Federer is far from unbeatable.

To the extremists, it is not supposed to be like that and what they have done is overthrow God, which is completely unforgiveable.

All true.

10goodpoints.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Delusion is correct, as no one living in reality will say Nadal winning doubles, and/or trying to "bundle" what are essentially 2nd place results as the equal of singles in Gold.

The Federer Fringe Tears and Desperation tour continues. Meanwhile, history stands, and Nadal moves forward.

Hilarious post!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Regarding Murray, he became a pain back in 2008/2009 when Federer was already suffering so many disappointing losses.

Since losing in straight sets in the US Open final Murray proceeded to beat Federer 4 times in a row, all in deciding sets, and all but once he did it by coming back from a set down to do so.


It was an infuriating time to be a Federer fan, to see him losing matches from winnable positions so often, and by being drawn in the same half as often as they were Andy was able to capitalise more than most.

Since then Murray has been able to inflict damage on the others a bit more in big matches, so he pretty much gets it in the neck from everyone now.


I didn't know that.
 
I don't hate Nadal, I love watching him play and enjoy his character. Without Nadal, Fed's career wouldn't seem nearly as interesting. They are the yin and yang of tennis-tho not in a good/bad way, more like polar opposites, who doesn't love watching them play?
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
How do you hate someone you don't even know personally??

You can dislike their style and persona but you can't HATE them.
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
No. Olympic Silver is Olympic Silver. There is no difference.

So, winning Gold in the 100m relay holds as much prestige as winning gold in the 100m does it?

Can you name the 8 sprinters who won the last 2 100m relay OGs? Can you name the guy who won the last 2 100m OGs? Do you see yet why prizes won as part of a team are in no way equivalent to prizes won as a singleton?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
So, winning Gold in the 100m relay holds as much prestige as winning gold in the 100m does it?

Can you name the 8 sprinters who won the last 2 100m relay OGs? Can you name the guy who won the last 2 100m OGs? Do you see yet why prizes won as part of a team are in no way equivalent to prizes won as a singleton?

If we go by prize money then what does that say about team sport like basketball with a roster of 12 players? Surely you wouldn't say basketball gold medals has little value to a nation in compare to an individual event such as archery. I don't quite understand why one would assign which gold medal has more value than the others when the Olympics awards the same.
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
If we go by prize money then what does that say about team sport like basketball with a roster of 12 players? Surely you wouldn't say basketball gold medals has little value to a nation in compare to an individual event such as archery. I don't quite understand why one would assign which gold medal has more value than the others when the Olympics awards the same.

Where did I mention prize money?:confused: I'm talking about events that are primarily individual but can include team versions e.g. tennis, sprinting.

You would laugh at someone who suggested that Bob Bryan, with his 22 doubles titles, was > Roger, and why? Because doubles titles in tennis are not equivalent to singles titles. They just aren't - it is frankly pathetic for Fed fans to suggest that this is not true when it comes to the Olympics. Roger doesn't need an Olympic singles gold to be the singles GOAT - so let's not pretend his doubles gold is somehow equivalent to a singles gold.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Where did I mention prize money?:confused:

But you understood the point I'm trying to make. Individual Gold doesn't mean better than team Gold. Certain individual events take minutes, or one day of effort to win a Gold, but for a basketball/volleyball team, it takes at least a week and a lot more efforts(multiple games).
 
Top