Fugazi
Professional
I'd add that Nadal has less consistently beaten the competition than Federer, at least on hard courts. And lastly... I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal was doped.
Why is everyone in the establishment so respectful to Federer?
- Thread starter sureshs
- Start date
N
nikdom
Guest
Once we form an opinion or make a choice, its inherent human nature to embrace a viewpoint that ignores other possibilities and choices - even the ones we seriously considered before making a decision a certain way.
This helps us not ruminate the "what could have been" scenarios which leads to unhappiness. It takes a strong and secure human to even tolerate the thought that anything other than his or her choice has some merit.
People like sureshs have formed a strong affinity to Nadal (his game, personality, what he represents etc). Others prefer Federer. So far so good.
Now, the critical difference between sureshs (also CMM, TennisandMusic, veronique etc) and a normal fan is like the difference between a person who is a religious extremist vs someone who is merely religious.
In sureshs' world, his fandom is not secure and complete until all other possibilities, however real and valid, don't exist (sort of like the jihadists). Normal people vent and groan about something they don't believe in from time to time, but also acknowledge good when they see it. Extremists cannot stand that. Their whole existence relies on their belief and that no one else can be right. Therefore his idiotic threads like this.
However good Federer may be and whatever he may have achieved, sureshs has to put it down to feel good about Nadal. I may have problems with Nadal, but I won't hesitate to acknowledge what he has achieved. Someone as petty as sureshs doesn't quite get that. This forum is littered with 13000 posts of idiocy over many years as a testament to his uncompromising pigheadedness.
This helps us not ruminate the "what could have been" scenarios which leads to unhappiness. It takes a strong and secure human to even tolerate the thought that anything other than his or her choice has some merit.
People like sureshs have formed a strong affinity to Nadal (his game, personality, what he represents etc). Others prefer Federer. So far so good.
Now, the critical difference between sureshs (also CMM, TennisandMusic, veronique etc) and a normal fan is like the difference between a person who is a religious extremist vs someone who is merely religious.
In sureshs' world, his fandom is not secure and complete until all other possibilities, however real and valid, don't exist (sort of like the jihadists). Normal people vent and groan about something they don't believe in from time to time, but also acknowledge good when they see it. Extremists cannot stand that. Their whole existence relies on their belief and that no one else can be right. Therefore his idiotic threads like this.
However good Federer may be and whatever he may have achieved, sureshs has to put it down to feel good about Nadal. I may have problems with Nadal, but I won't hesitate to acknowledge what he has achieved. Someone as petty as sureshs doesn't quite get that. This forum is littered with 13000 posts of idiocy over many years as a testament to his uncompromising pigheadedness.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
They beat an old, out of prime Sampras. Do they want a cookie? When Federer actually plays someone decent, he loses. He lost 6 out of 8 times to Nadal in a grand slam. Sampras owned his rivals.
Federer took advantage of the weakest era in tennis history. Good for him.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
Nadal is the hero of the middle class who tells you u can have what you want if you work hard enough and persist enough.
Rodge is the sob who gets what he wants because his genes are programmed for it
( he works hard off the courts tho, dont get me wrong) But look at those small arms that are almost frail and then the power he's able to generate.
Rodge is the sob who gets what he wants because his genes are programmed for it
( he works hard off the courts tho, dont get me wrong) But look at those small arms that are almost frail and then the power he's able to generate.
namelessone
Legend
TBH I think suresh is addicted to trolling, I don't think he has any affiliation, he likes to stir people up and get a reaction. That's my take on it anyway.
N
nikdom
Guest
... and that.
P_Agony
Banned
Actually most commentators are *******s more than *******s. This USO its been really apparent. However, they will always be respectful to Fed since he's the only player on tour who managed to win the real slam 4 times.
forzamilan90
Legend
because he's the standard bearer for the sport, he's what Michael Jordan was to basketball in the 90's, the ultimate and most dominating figure in his particular sport
aceX
Hall of Fame
+1 the trashing gets boring
Mustard
Bionic Poster
No way. Has Woods ever had rivals like Palmer, Player, Trevino and Watson, like Nicklaus did? :roll:
forzamilan90
Legend
both paragraphs are highly subjective dude, nicklaus is still quite ahead of tiger in their respective sport, and sampras' competition appears stronger cause they won more titles largely due to the fact that the central all dominating figure (like a Federer, or Michael Jordan) wasn't present, if Sampras was a bit more dominating, his peers wouldn't be nearly as successful as they were; the opposite can be said about Federer, if he wasn't so good, Hewitt and Roddick would quite possibly have several more slams, a few other players with slams too
blue steel
Rookie
yeah, pete was so old in 96 when a 20 year old philippousis beat him in straights at the australian. sampras wasnt even done winning slams when hewitt beat him.
federer lost to the best clay courter ever mostly in french open finals. he has a winning record on grass. the difference between federer and nadal is federer can make finals on his worst surface, whereas nadal isnt even good enough to meet fed in the finals on his worst surface. prime federer was winning 5 staight at the usopen while nadal was losing to average players. nadals just lucky he was on the opposite side of the draw all those years or the h2h would be even.
djokovicgonzalez2010
G.O.A.T.
Because Nadal isn't outright the better of the two.
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
Would you say that it's like Spanish/South American soccer (elegant) vs English (physical)?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I suppose you could make that comparison.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
The commentators over here ... Vijay Amritraj is a huge Nadal fan, always picks Nadal to win over Federer even before his first WO win.
However, i guess these guys don't want to come across as biased or c0cky.
Saying something nice about everyone. Praise those who are popular. Basic common sense.
You would never catch them making jokes about Federer's outfit in some slams, although i bet they were laughing behind the mike. (Or Nadal's habit, sorry to add that.) Would not come across as respectable for them.
However, i guess these guys don't want to come across as biased or c0cky.
Saying something nice about everyone. Praise those who are popular. Basic common sense.
You would never catch them making jokes about Federer's outfit in some slams, although i bet they were laughing behind the mike. (Or Nadal's habit, sorry to add that.) Would not come across as respectable for them.
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
Actually, it's very disputable. Just as it's disputable that Rafa could handle LAver or Borg if he were forced to play in their era with wood rackets. It's why there is no such thing as a GOAT. It's all hype and personal opinion.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Sure, and you know more about what Federer and Nadal think than they do?
Just say "No" to drugs. :???:
Similar threads
