Will you ever like someone betterer than Federer?

[Fedfan34]

Never got to see Sampras play. He was before my time though I've obviously gone back and watched many of his matches.

Due to recency bias, my favorite American player was Andy Roddick. I loved the passion he put into tennis on and off the court that gave him a unique personality, and his never quit mentality even against Federer always made me root for him when they played (2009 Wimbledon ).

If you liked Roddick and felt he met your criterion of athleticism, fluidity and dominance, you'll love Sampras.

 

[nikdom]

I will admit, Roger has spoilt me. It'll be hard for a future player to live up to those standards.

That said, I have and will continue to enjoy from other players, any of the following or a combination thereof:

A. Individual performances where someone was GOATing for a match or two
B. A style of play that's exciting - aggressive/oppotunistic, variety + shot making
C. The drama of a well-fought match with swings of momentum

 

[Steve0904]

My only wish is that this thread addressed one's all-time favourite tennis player (or even sportsperson) rather than making it just a Fed Fred. But hey what's new.

Federer is my favourite sportsperson so there went that idea. Nice try. In all seriousness though I think it's harder in a team sport to attach to a player because he doesn't have as much impact on the game as a guy in a singular sport like tennis. That said, I'll put myself out there a bit and give a list of favourites by sport (again with a NA bias)

Hockey: Right now I'd say Crosby first, Jonathan Toews second. In an earlier era, Steve Yzerman and Joe Sakic in no particular order
Baseball: To be honest, I find baseball a pretty boring sport overall, but one guy in particular stood out and that was Derek Jeter (from a non Yankees fan).
Basketball: Don't care much tbh, but if I had to pick a guy it would probably be Curry
American Football: Peyton Manning (before his arm fell off and particularly in his Colts days). And if I had to pick a current favourite it would be Aaron Rodgers.

 

[Fedfan34]

Never got to see Sampras play. He was before my time though I've obviously gone back and watched many of his matches.

Due to recency bias, my favorite American player was Andy Roddick. I loved the passion he put into tennis on and off the court that gave him a unique personality, and his never quit mentality even against Federer always made me root for him when they played (2009 Wimbledon ).

Enjoy. You can see Pete hit a lot of the same improvisational shots (backhand flick passing shots, epic drop volleys etc.) which Fed would later popularize.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

If you liked Roddick and felt he met your criterion of athleticism, fluidity and dominance, you'll love Sampras.

Haha, I loved Roddick but he was obviously no where near Sampras on any level. From what I've gone back to watch I'm sure I would've been a huge Sampras fan if I had grown up in the 90s (though Agassi's flair and personality may have drawn me in to his fan base).

 

[Eggshen]

So if Federer was the same as he is now (same style/form) but has only 1 grandslam and like 15 lower tourneys won, would he still be your favorite?

 

[Tennisanity]

Federer has transcended the sport. Djokodal will be forgotten.

 

[Talker]

I like Del Potro more.

He won't be an ATG but his demeanor is great.

When his game is on there's no one like him, exciting tennis.

That's enough for me.

 

[Eggshen]

I like Del Potro more.

He won't be an ATG but his demeanor is great.

When his game is on there's no one like him, exciting tennis.

That's enough for me.

Nice. Someone with a current fav because of how they play and not their results. Hope Del Po can get it together for the Open. May be a tough draw for someone early.

 

[Steve0904]

Nice. Someone with a current fav because of how they play and not their results. Hope Del Po can get it together for the Open. May be a tough draw for someone early.

What if your current favourite has style and results? Both of which you like. Your premise is ok in theory, but how do you then explain the millions of Federer fans that have been fans since Wimbledon 2003, (and obviously had no idea he would go on to win 19 slams) or better yet since before Wimbledon 2003? Of course there will be bandwagoners and glory hunters, but I'd venture to say that a large majority of Federer fans have been fans for a significantly long time.

 

[smoledman]

No.

 

[macattack]

This is the apex of fanboyism. Seriously, a thread asking if anyone will ever like someone better than Fed? It's just strange. My all time favorite is Agassi and my current favorite is Nadal. And as much respect as I have for Roger, I like them both exponentially more than Fed.

 

[Fedfan34]

This is the apex of fanboyism. Seriously, a thread asking if anyone will ever like someone better than Fed? It's just strange. My all time favorite is Agassi and my current favorite is Nadal. And as much respect as I have for Roger, I like them both exponentially more than Fed.

So how is that different from Fed fanboys who won't like someone more than their current idol? You stuck with yours.

 

[ollinger]

Authenticity is an attribute of perfection. So you like Gulbis for the same reason I like Federer.

Is English your first language?? Authenticity is one of countless thousands of attributes one can have, none of which individually have anything to do with "perfection" -- as if perfection was a human quality anyway.

 

[macattack]

So how is that different from Fed fanboys who won't like someone more than their current idol? You stuck with yours.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with saying you'll never like someone more than Fed. Totally reasonable. I'm saying it just seemed odd to me to post a thread about it and there is a lot of Fedfanboyism happening on TT at the moment. (Though, I admit, we're not devoid of Nole and Rafa fanboys either).

 

[Fedfan34]

Is English your first language?? Authenticity is one of countless thousands of attributes one can have, none of which individually have anything to do with "perfection" -- as if perfection was a human quality anyway.

Authenticity is a quality of perfection. Perfection represents the Ideal. Authenticity is an ideal quality, which is why you value it. I value the beauty of Roger's tennis game, as I am not passing a comment on his personality. Beauty is another attribute of perfection. Therefore you and I like Gulbis and Federer for the same reason, each man has an Ideal quality, a hallmark of perfection.

 

[Fedfan34]

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with saying you'll never like someone more than Fed. Totally reasonable. I'm saying it just seemed odd to me to post a thread about it and there is a lot of Fedfanboyism happening on TT at the moment. (Though, I admit, we're not devoid of Nole and Rafa fanboys either).

I observed the same, which is why I started a thread as a thermometer of the fanboyism as well as engage the thought processes of reasonable Fed fans.

 

[shankster]

Well as a Rafa fan, I can certainly say that I would find it impossible for him to be surpassed in my heart, so I can empathize with what Fedfans are saying here. I'll definitely try and root for other players when Rafa calls it a day as I still would be following this sport that I love but they'd mostly be replacements for my original. The first love will always have a more special and enduring place in the heart.

 

[shankster]

And speaking of Roger, I may not be his biggest fan on this planet but I do like and respect his game and his game is the ultimate balm for a sore eye. I will definitely miss him too. Not a "fan" but he (and even Novak) have created their own place in the heart that will be hard to replace as well (though not impossible unlike Rafa's). I am a Rafa fan but the Big 3 as a whole have carved their own niche and their rivalry with one another has transcended the sport like no others. I feel extremely spoilt and at the same time, privileged and fortunate to have witnessed all 3 of them live at their peaks. They have given us moments to cherish and savour for life. Remember that our next generation won't have this opportunity and realize just how lucky we have been. We are going to bemoan the quality and decline in tennis soon when these 3 hang up their racquets. So cherish every moment of them while they are still around.

 

[Eggshen]

What if your current favourite has style and results? Both of which you like. Your premise is ok in theory, but how do you then explain the millions of Federer fans that have been fans since Wimbledon 2003, (and obviously had no idea he would go on to win 19 slams) or better yet since before Wimbledon 2003? Of course there will be bandwagoners and glory hunters, but I'd venture to say that a large majority of Federer fans have been fans for a significantly long time.

There weren't many federer fans in 2002 though he started to win that year. He'd been playing for a few years too. There were people who thought he was a spoiled brat for sure though and didn't like him. 2003 there were all of sudden a bunch and it's not hard to tell why.

 

[nikdom]

I like Del Potro more.

He won't be an ATG but his demeanor is great.

When his game is on there's no one like him, exciting tennis.

That's enough for me.

What's ATG?

 

[-NN-]

And speaking of Roger, I may not be his biggest fan on this planet but I do like and respect his game and his game is the ultimate balm for a sore eye. I will definitely miss him too. Not a "fan" but he (and even Novak) have created their own place in the heart that will be hard to replace as well (though not impossible unlike Rafa's). I am a Rafa fan but the Big 3 as a whole have carved their own niche and their rivalry with one another has transcended the sport like no others. I feel extremely spoilt and at the same time, privileged and fortunate to have witnessed all 3 of them live at their peaks. They have given us moments to cherish and savour for life. Remember that our next generation won't have this opportunity and realize just how lucky we have been. We are going to bemoan the quality and decline in tennis soon when these 3 hang up their racquets. So cherish every moment of them while they are still around.

been good to watch them play

 

[The Green Mile]

Simon is very close. Other than that, no, I don't think so. Slim chances, maybe if a NZ player made it big in singles and had a nice game.

 

[KINGROGER]

Another inhabitant of Cloud Cuckoo Land.

What? You completely missed the point of my post. Even the play first set Madrid 2011, most of first set RG 2011 counts as dominating, which I enjoyed very much.

Then there's Hamburg 07, Rome 07, RG 06 first set, Madrid 09, RG 09 etc.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

There weren't many federer fans in 2002 though he started to win that year. He'd been playing for a few years too. There were people who thought he was a spoiled brat for sure though and didn't like him. 2003 there were all of sudden a bunch and it's not hard to tell why.

I would wager that more attention is likely to be paid to the qualities of a player if they are exhibited en route to globally recognized success.

I for one wasn't the biggest tennis nut at the time and only watched Wimbledon on the BBC most years ('come on, Tim!'). I rooted against Federer as he nonchalantly disposed of the charismatic Roddick, but he eventually won me over with his water-like movement, stylish OHBH and deft improvisations. He wasn't much of a spoiled brat from 2003 onwards neither, which supplemented the eventual allure.

 

[Purplemonster]

I'm someone who strongly believes that sportspersons are more than just sports players. They're the ambassadors of the game, role models to young and old, motivation to millions around, are the ambassadors of humanity. The best of the best have a moral obligation to reflect and spread the goodness God and life and fate (or whatever you want to view that as) has blessed them with.

So if someone comes better than Federer, both on and off the court, I will be his fan.

Federer will always be first love. Something can always better it but the first one will still remain special.

Edit: Nice question btw. Thanks for asking.

What the **** are you on about ? Sportspeople do all that to make money. The nicer they are the more money they make. And what does God have to do with anything ??!! Really ?

Is Federer a role model when he says his opponent got lucky after he loses ? When he uses an injury as an excuse for a loss ? When he puts all his humility on display to say that he is talented ??

Role models should be your family or close friends, people you actually know not some guy who swings a racquet that you don't even know.

 

[Steve0904]

There weren't many federer fans in 2002 though he started to win that year. He'd been playing for a few years too. There were people who thought he was a spoiled brat for sure though and didn't like him. 2003 there were all of sudden a bunch and it's not hard to tell why.

This is true, but it's true of many fans in many different sports as well. In fact "many" could be replaced with "all" and it would likely be even more true. This is just my opinion, but I think that many people like watching professional athletes push the limits of the human body, and by extension the imagination of the viewer as to what's possible. They also like to associate with winners which is more to your point and something many (including myself) can fall victim to. But I don't see it as a bad thing. I want to watch someone who can perform under the biggest pressure. I want to see if they can overcome it. Something that won't happen for a middle of the road talent (compared to the very best of course).

I do like certain things about these "average" talents, don't get me wrong, but none of them will ever be my absolute favourite. I think it's a human condition tbh. Most of us want to be the very best in the world at something (and 99% of us will never get there) so when we're watching it play out in front of our eyes, it's naturally captivating. It all comes to down to the reason you watch sports, and I don't see anything wrong with either view (unless you're a bandwagoner or glory hunter).

Kudos to you for liking PHH and other players in that ranking range, but I watch sports to watch the best do what they do better than anyone else. I want to see how long Federer can play at a high level. I loved watching Manning fool defenses time and again, and I loved watching Jeter make the jump throw etc...

 

[Limpinhitter]

Haha, I loved Roddick but he was obviously no where near Sampras on any level. From what I've gone back to watch I'm sure I would've been a huge Sampras fan if I had grown up in the 90s (though Agassi's flair and personality may have drawn me in to his fan base).

How can one player beat another player and be no where near them on any level?

 

[West Coast Ace]

So Sampras?

He probably left out 'with a little more personality than a piece of plywood'. Or at least willing to give something back and help grow the game.

I'd never say never. But like others, probably about 1% chance.

And not too concerned about it. I'm a tennis fan first and foremost. I really enjoyed watching Kohlschreiber- Simon yesterday and Delbonis - Khachanov and Kohlschreiber - Kicker (another nice BH) today.

 

[augustobt]

Tough to know. I thought I wouldn't like anyone more than Guga and then Federer came. Maybe if Dimitrov had stepped up....

 

[ohiostate124]

Probably not. It would probably have to be an American shot maker with a 1h backhand who could win slams to even have a shot.

 

[Eggshen]

He probably left out 'with a little more personality than a piece of plywood'. Or at least willing to give something back and help grow the game.

I'd never say never. But like others, probably about 1% chance.

And not too concerned about it. I'm a tennis fan first and foremost. I really enjoyed watching Kohlschreiber- Simon yesterday and Delbonis - Khachanov and Kohlschreiber - Kicker (another nice BH) today.

I second that. Enjoying that tourney as well. Khachanov has some work to do on the practice courts and mentally but really lets it go out there and I like that. Delbonis starting to get it back too. His Ferrer match was quite impressive as was the Khachanov one today.

 

[forzamilan90]

Extremely, extremely unlikely for me. I was growing up watching Federer just start to win (2003) and from there on, it was a runaway train fandom. He made me get into tennis. Same thing with Milan when I was younger, Maldini and Shevchenko? Deal.

 

[Aneto]

In 20 years every member here will embrance another player.
Imagine, Usopen 2037 final. All here will prefer an specific player to win. Sorry my English

 

[Polaris]

I believe that Federer is a once-in-a-lifetime talent, so I am not confident that there will be another one like him for a long time. It is going to be hard not to look back and think, "In the days of Federer ..." in much the same way that older people think, "In the days of Laver and Rosewall ....".

 

[Incognito]

​

It's extreme fanaticism with these men and their male tennis idols. Be careful sir, they are capable of almost anything

 

[BeatlesFan]

If you liked Roddick and felt he met your criterion of athleticism, fluidity and dominance, you'll love Sampras.

I would agree except that Pete and Roddick played nothing alike and the only thing they had in common was the huge first serve. Pete was much more talented than Roddick, faster, vastly better volleyer, better BH and smarter, greater FH. I know I'm not telling you anything you already didn't know.

 

[Chadillac]

Probably not. I like feds shot selection and strokes. He is a completed version of sampras

 

[peRFection]

No. Never. I will never have the same feeling for tennis after Fed is gone. I will probably stop following tennis after that. For me, tennis is Federer and Federer is tennis.

 

[Mazz Retic]

Simon is very close. Other than that, no, I don't think so. Slim chances, maybe if a NZ player made it big in singles and had a nice game.

Hey Green Mile, What is it about Simon's game that you like so much? Just curious. I enjoyed his stint in the top 10 a lot.

 

[The Green Mile]

Hey Green Mile, What is it about Simon's game that you like so much? Just curious. I enjoyed his stint in the top 10 a lot.

There are many different attributes about Simon's game that I like. He's got so many layers to his game, and you'll see it against varying opponents, the way he goes about his business on the tennis court. Confidence is also a big contributing factor, and the surfaces all play a part obviously.

On one hand, I like watching him grind out and outmaneuver his opponents with superior movement, his defensive capabilities, anticipation and general understanding and awareness of court geometry. The discipline he can show in a match at times is astounding. It's almost hypnotizing. I've witnessed far too many meltdowns from players that have suffered at the hands of Simon, as they try to hit through him more, as they end up rushing points and spraying copious amounts of unforced errors. And to be frank, I love it. I love watching it, his opponents throwing temper tantrums, smashing racquets, because they can't break him down.

On the other hand, when he's playing particularly well, he has that ability to inject massive pace off both wings and take his opponents by surprise, better than majority of players on tour. Probably one of the best I've ever seen at wrong footing opponents, and/or putting them off balance. He'll even employ more net game, though that's an area where he has always struggled with. He's alright at dealing with weaker balls at the net, especially off the forehand volley, but when the ball is struck even at half pace, he usually fumbles the volley unfortunately.

He's a fighter, and he's had many epic matches where he's looking seemingly out of it, only to come back and win in ridiculous fashion. Not to mention, I find his game also very aesthetically pleasing.

It's depressing watching Simon this year, when you've followed him very closely since the AO way back in 2006 where I first saw him defeat Berdych in the 2nd round, though I hope to see him go deep in a few more tournaments when all is said and done.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Just think, in 20 years Federer will be to that generation as Laver is to this, so hopefully people will move past peak Federer.

 

[MathGeek]

I have several favs each in men's, women's, MxD, and men's doubles. Of course the Williams sisters in women's doubles.

I'll enjoy Fed while he lasts, but Zverev or someone will be there to enjoy when he's gone. But my affection is really based more on style than just winning. If Fed screws around, I'll hate him quick. So I guess I'm rooting for Mirka.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

this is the somewhat nauseating aspect of Federer fans. They remind me of guys who only want to date supermodels because of the perfection of their looks. Rooting for what you perceive as perfection seems to me somewhat of an empty gesture, something expressed about 40 years ago in the saying "rooting for General Motors" when GM dominated the car business. My wife loves Nadal precisely because of his vulnerabities, his OCD behaviors, his boyishness. I always root for Gulbis because of his authenticity, his willingness to be silly when he thinks an interviewers question is silly. Federer is athlete by committee, a guy who always has to say what he thinks people expect to hear from him, a talented guy but hardly a compelling one.

Oh, so suddenly Fed has gone from being an overrated ATG with a weak ass backhand to 'too perfect'? How typical!

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Is English your first language?? Authenticity is one of countless thousands of attributes one can have, none of which individually have anything to do with "perfection" -- as if perfection was a human quality anyway.

What you don't seem to understand is authenticity itself has more than one connotation, like many other words in this funny language called English. One is this artsy notion that something is only authentic when it is flawed and 'human' which you have expressed. But the other denotes aesthetic purity and is a more classical perspective. From that perspective, Fed is pretty authentic, at least more so than Nadal, Djokovic or Gulbis. He represents the way purists would like to see the game played. Like the epitome of tennis. If you stand in front of the Taj Mahal and criticise it for being perfect, you have missed the point, sorry. 'Being human' is nice but it's not the be all end all and some people are not so badly afflicted by tall poppy syndrome that they have lost the ability to admire aesthetic perfection and beauty.

 

[newpball]

I'm someone who strongly believes that sportspersons are more than just sports players. They're the ambassadors of the game, role models to young and old, motivation to millions around, are the ambassadors of humanity. The best of the best have a moral obligation to reflect and spread the goodness God and life and fate (or whatever you want to view that as) has blessed them with.

This is what F spreads apart from tennis.:

"Ambassadors of humanity", give me a break!

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I have several favs each in men's, women's, MxD, and men's doubles. Of course the Williams sisters in women's doubles.

I'll enjoy Fed while he lasts, but Zverev or someone will be there to enjoy when he's gone. But my affection is really based more on style than just winning. If Fed screws around, I'll hate him quick. So I guess I'm rooting for Mirka.

Do you mean Sascha or Mischa, which of the Zs?

 

[EdSWright]

Why can't Nadal dominate tennis like his fans dominate the world of art?

 

[Talker]

What's ATG?

All Time Great.

Del Potro has one slam and amazingly no WTF's or masters.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I sense for many Fed fans it'll be hard for them to move on to another player once he eventually retires, even one with a similar game, as it's not just his style of play they'll miss but also his whole personality, his demeanour on court, the snide comments every now and then etc. Nobody's irreplaceable but as far as most RF fans are concerned, Roger really is.