Your choice of player to support says something about you.

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
What of the faux-neutrals? :unsure:

Or those who are more concerned with playing it safe than taking a risk? :sneaky:

How are we to interpret them?! :eek:
You have to define neutrality. There are plenty of posters here who are neutral in the sense that they try to be objective and not let their biases cloud their reasoning in serious discussion.

Then you have people who just equally like or dislike certain players, who are much rarer to find.
 

Sport

Legend
I am a big fan of the classic tradition started in the 1970s with Borg and Villas of fighting for each point with long rallies, creativity and variety. I like to observe fighters, players with great creativity in the shot-making who can construct each point with patience from the baseline.

I am bored to death of fast court servebots who finish their points with an ace or 1-2 shots. My likes and dislikes follow logically from that.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
I am bored to death of fast court servebots who finish their points with an ace or 1-2 shots. My likes and dislikes follow logically from that.
I liked your response. But how can you be "bored to death" over a style of tennis which hasn't existed in 15 years: fast court servebots? Sure, there are a few servebots like Isner or Dr. Ivo, but there are no fast courts to go in tandem with those types of players.

If you're bored of fast court servebots, you're watching clips of old matches on Youtube. The fastest non-clay court now is the slowest court that was playable on the pro level in the 80's and 90's.
 

tonylg

Professional
I am a big fan of the classic tradition started in the 1970s with Borg and Villas of fighting for each point with long rallies, creativity and variety. I like to observe fighters, players with great creativity in the shot-making who can construct each point with patience from the baseline.

I am bored to death of fast court servebots who finish their points with an ace or 1-2 shots. My likes and dislikes follow logically from that.
I'm genuinely happy for you and wouldn't want every single tournament to be fast and rob you of that enjoyment.

Here's a present for you. Let me know who wins the point, because I couldn't be bothered watching this creativity and variety



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
I'm genuinely happy for you and wouldn't want every single tournament to be fast and rob you of that enjoyment.

Here's a present for you. Let me know who wins the point, because I couldn't be bothered watching this creativity and variety



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I guess that's one thing the new equipment standards have changed for the better. Clay tennis. Seems like on clay they had almost no way to end the point. Now if the rally gets too long they can just whack the ball harder.
 

TennisManiac

Professional
I'm genuinely happy for you and wouldn't want every single tournament to be fast and rob you of that enjoyment.

Here's a present for you. Let me know who wins the point, because I couldn't be bothered watching this creativity and variety



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Looks like a couple of 4.0 grinders out there.
 
I am a big fan of the classic tradition started in the 1970s with Borg and Villas of fighting for each point with long rallies, creativity and variety. I like to observe fighters, players with great creativity in the shot-making who can construct each point with patience from the baseline.

I am bored to death of fast court servebots who finish their points with an ace or 1-2 shots. My likes and dislikes follow logically from that.
Nothing wrong with that. We all view things a little different. I would say the best is a variety of all of it. For me, it is a little bit of both, whether that is in the micro (aggressive points with some long rallies and short points) or the macro (varying court speeds that have different styles of play).
 
I may also add that your choice of player to oppose says the exact same.
I would argue it says less than who you root for though. If it was not for Fed, I would be strictly a Rafa fan. Without Fed, I would still dislike Djoker.

What does it say about me that I dislike Djoker, Thiem, Raonic, Nishikori, and Matteddy Berr?
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
I would argue it says less than who you root for though. If it was not for Fed, I would be strictly a Rafa fan. Without Fed, I would still dislike Djoker.

What does it say about me that I dislike Djoker, Thiem, Raonic, Nishikori, and Matteddy Berr?
Well, it says that you don't like the more defensive players like Djokovic, Thiem, and Nishikori and thus prefer offensive players. You also don't like players who either don't have a personality or are very serve-dominant like Raonic and possibly Berrettini.

I wish you liked Thiem tho
 
Well, it says that you don't like the more defensive players like Djokovic, Thiem, and Nishikori and thus prefer offensive players. You also don't like players who either don't have a personality or are very serve-dominant like Raonic and possibly Berrettini.

I wish you liked Thiem tho
Thiem is very aggressive, to aggressive at times as he will just bash away. But you are right in your theory, I don't like serve-bots and don't like defensive tennis.
 

tonylg

Professional
I like Big Berr's personality. Seems like a really nice guy. As does Thiem, who I've never thought was simply a baseliner (even if he doesn't realise it).

At least we can agree on poor old Raonic. I almost walked out of the Nishikori v Medvedev final in Brisbane last year. After a great doubles final, the singles was terribly boring. Women's final was much more exciting.
 
I like Big Berr's personality. Seems like a really nice guy. As does Thiem, who I've never thought was simply a baseliner (even if he doesn't realise it).

At least we can agree on poor old Raonic. I almost walked out of the Nishikori v Medvedev final in Brisbane last year. After a great doubles final, the singles was terribly boring. Women's final was much more exciting.
I don't have a problem with either personality, but I just can't stand Big guys that can't move and are one dimensional. Matteddy Berr is essentially Cilic but not as good yet.

Thiem I want to like, but the way he plays seems so... dumb. Like he just bashes away with no logic.
 

Azure

Legend
Sometimes aren't we attracted to personalities we wish we could be? Think of all the powerful ceo's for instance - Steve Jobs wasn't really a very nice person but people were attracted to him nevertheless because he displayed things like power, dominance etc that most people could only dream of.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Sometimes aren't we attracted to personalities we wish we could be? Think of all the powerful ceo's for instance - Steve Jobs wasn't really a very nice person but people were attracted to him nevertheless because he displayed things like power, dominance etc that most people could only dream of.
And the best part about rooting for Fed is that he's not a dick like Jobs, but he's just as much of a giant in his field.

After watching flinty, self-absorbed pros like Sampras and Agassi and McEnroe, seeing the tour dominated by a goofy, emotional, relatable dude was just amazing.
 

Azure

Legend
And the best part about rooting for Fed is that he's not a dick like Jobs, but he's just as much of a giant in his field.

After watching flinty, self-absorbed pros like Sampras and Agassi and McEnroe, seeing the tour dominated by a goofy, emotional, relatable dude was just amazing.
Oh I wasn't talking about tennis players but the psychology of how one ends up liking someone. Fed is one of the nicest role models one can have. No doubt about that. Dunno about Sampras. My brother was a huge fan for example. He liked how he kind of internalized a lot of his emotions - a very manly thing if I may say so. It depends on how you are brought up too I suppose!
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Oh I wasn't talking about tennis players but the psychology of how one ends up liking someone. Fed is one of the nicest role models one can have. No doubt about that. Dunno about Sampras. My brother was a huge fan for example. He liked how he kind of internalized a lot of his emotions - a very manly thing if I may say so. It depends on how you are brought up too I suppose!
I view internalizing a la Sampras more as a personality type than a gender thing, I know a lot of women like that too.

He was great to watch, but Fed did everything he did, just better...and with a smile on his face the vast majority of the time.

If not for Fed I would not be watching tennis much. I would have just been like all my HS friends who stopped watching basketball when Jordan retired. I did stop for years after Sampras retired, but once Fed started to pile them up in 2004 I had to start watching again.

I'm a bit weird I suppose, the opposite of your point--I like people who remind me of myself. If I wanted to be a different sort of person, I would. But I don't see the value in being a talented jerk, and it's great when someone comes along who is great and relatable. LeBron is like this as well. Even Djok is a bit more accessible than tennis stars of the past. I'm not the guy to glorify Borg's icy calm, cause obviously he was a freakin' weirdo who couldn't bear adversity when it finally came.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
I don't have a problem with either personality, but I just can't stand Big guys that can't move and are one dimensional. Matteddy Berr is essentially Cilic but not as good yet.

Thiem I want to like, but the way he plays seems so... dumb. Like he just bashes away with no logic.
Thiem is frighteningly aware of his major weakness, which is the explosive movement that has defined our top players for decades. His whole game is built around compensating for that, which is why it appears one-dimensional. He can never move like Fed or Rafa or Novak so he has to win another way.
 

Azure

Legend
I view internalizing a la Sampras more as a personality type than a gender thing, I know a lot of women like that too.

He was great to watch, but Fed did everything he did, just better...and with a smile on his face the vast majority of the time.

If not for Fed I would not be watching tennis much. I would have just been like all my HS friends who stopped watching basketball when Jordan retired. I did stop for years after Sampras retired, but once Fed started to pile them up in 2004 I had to start watching again.

I'm a bit weird I suppose, the opposite of your point--I like people who remind me of myself. If I wanted to be a different sort of person, I would. But I don't see the value in being a talented jerk, and it's great when someone comes along who is great and relatable. LeBron is like this as well. Even Djok is a bit more accessible than tennis stars of the past. I'm not the guy to glorify Borg's icy calm, cause obviously he was a freakin' weirdo who couldn't bear adversity when it finally came.
Yeah different personalities, different tastes I suppose. It's always nice to be around people who have a smile on their face (y) No comment on Borg either but I understand that he was just as popular (probably more among womenfolk) and was not really a chatty kind of a person so who knows?
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Yeah different personalities, different tastes I suppose. It's always nice to be around people who have a smile on their face (y) No comment on Borg either but I understand that he was just as popular (probably more among womenfolk) and was not really a chatty kind of a person so who knows?
We like detached, cool personalities--not understanding that they usually hide a dark or weird side.

I strive to be open rather than aloof/detached in my own life so watching a player wear his emotions on his sleeve has been great.

What I admire most about Fed is that he didn't quit when things got tough. His stretch after the humbling defeat to Rafa at Wimbledon 2008, reaching six consecutive Slam Finals and winning 4 (which were themselves a career Grand Slam) could the greatest comeback act in sports history, IMO.
 

Azure

Legend
We like detached, cool personalities--not understanding that they usually hide a dark or weird side.

I strive to be open rather than aloof/detached in my own life so watching a player wear his emotions on his sleeve has been great.

What I admire most about Fed is that he didn't quit when things got tough. His stretch after the humbling defeat to Rafa at Wimbledon 2008, reaching six consecutive Slam Finals and winning 4 (which were themselves a career Grand Slam) could the greatest comeback act in sports history, IMO.
I disagree with that first sentence. A lot of scientists, researchers, artists etc come across as very detached or cool. Nothing evil about them. It is how they are wired. That said, they are not looking for fans of themselves but rather an understanding of their works which brings them more joy.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
I think the OP has a point:

The majority of Federer fans are glory chasers who jumped on his bandwagon because he was sweeping up majors during the weak era. They will tend to support conservative, Establishment figures and ideology. They fear losing their perceived status.

The majority of Nadal fans are people who support the underdog and those fighting against a powerful establishment. They admire the willingness to fight with every sinew -for tennis points or for justice in the world. They are revolutionaries, in thought and deed.

The majority of Djokovic fans are outsiders, free-thinkers. They admire Djokovic for his unconventional approach to life. They are more likely to support alternative approaches to society and politics.

The majority of Murray fans are British.
 
I think the OP has a point:

The majority of Federer fans are glory chasers who jumped on his bandwagon because he was sweeping up majors during the weak era. They will tend to support conservative, Establishment figures and ideology. They fear losing their perceived status.

The majority of Nadal fans are people who support the underdog and those fighting against a powerful establishment. They admire the willingness to fight with every sinew -for tennis points or for justice in the world. They are revolutionaries, in thought and deed.

The majority of Djokovic fans are outsiders, free-thinkers. They admire Djokovic for his unconventional approach to life. They are more likely to support alternative approaches to society and politics.

The majority of Murray fans are British.
OP does have a point, and you just proved it... :rolleyes:
 

nov

New User
Im Djokovic fan, but my playing style is like Federer :) I want to play like Djokovic style with controlled agression, because i would win more matches, but i cant its just my nature :)))
 

tonylg

Professional
Im Djokovic fan, but my playing style is like Federer :) I want to play like Djokovic style with controlled agression, because i would win more matches, but i cant its just my nature :)))
It's okay, everyone (including most of the top 100) likes to think they play liked Federer.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

nov

New User
It's okay, everyone (including most of the top 100) likes to think they play liked Federer.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I dont say i play like Federer... I play same style, but that style doesnt bring more wins especially in rec players level and im losing vs people who had worse shots because i make more UE's.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I guess that's one thing the new equipment standards have changed for the better. Clay tennis. Seems like on clay they had almost no way to end the point. Now if the rally gets too long they can just whack the ball harder.
Aaaand, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the difference between physicality and skill.

 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I dont say i play like Federer... I play same style, but that style doesnt bring more wins especially in rec players level and im losing vs people who had worse shots because i make more UE's.
I play like Fed-error, so I get where you're coming from
Aaaand, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the difference between physicality and skill.

There is a huge skill element involved in hitting harder, otherwise pushing at the amateur levels wouldn't exist. Can't hit hard and keep the ball in if your technique won't allow it. And even if you had the skills if your physicality is lacking then you'd still be handicapped, but technique > raw strength when it comes to hitting hard, which is why a 14 year old junior will out-hit most of us off the court despite being a fraction of our size.

Pretty sure Federer didn't develop his technical skills just so he could bunt balls over the net.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I play like Fed-error, so I get where you're coming from

There is a huge skill element involved in hitting harder, otherwise pushing at the amateur levels wouldn't exist. Can't hit hard and keep the ball in if your technique won't allow it. And even if you had the skills if your physicality is lacking then you'd still be handicapped, but technique > raw strength when it comes to hitting hard, which is why a 14 year old junior will out-hit most of us off the court despite being a fraction of our size.

Pretty sure Federer didn't develop his technical skills just so he could bunt balls over the net.
The skill of hitting harder is to keep the ball in court while retaining its other qualities and then some, and for professionals on that level it becomes who is going to hit harder, hence my comment. There is a skill involved in every aspect of the game. We are talking about relative importance. That is why Nadal's FH to Federer's BH was such a problem before Federer switched racquets: if the tactic didn't work when Nadal hit his FH hard, it worked when he hit it harder, because eventually the redundant technology would reach its limits and Federer would produce a short ball (or an UE).

Again, we are not talking about players with vastly differing skills as in your example.

 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
I think the OP has a point:

The majority of Federer fans are glory chasers who jumped on his bandwagon because he was sweeping up majors during the weak era. They will tend to support conservative, Establishment figures and ideology. They fear losing their perceived status.

The majority of Nadal fans are people who support the underdog and those fighting against a powerful establishment. They admire the willingness to fight with every sinew -for tennis points or for justice in the world. They are revolutionaries, in thought and deed.

The majority of Djokovic fans are outsiders, free-thinkers. They admire Djokovic for his unconventional approach to life. They are more likely to support alternative approaches to society and politics.

The majority of Murray fans are British.
Perfect summary!
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Perfect summary!
It is a perfect summary that contains a glaring contradiction in its very first sentences: if the Federer fans are supporting classical/established tennis style they by definition cannot be "bandwagonners" as they have established views on what they like and what they like is what they support.

It looks that the real bandwaggoners cannot understand that simple fact hence the statements like the above from Spencer Gore, who doesn't seem to see a problem of people having established views and choosing something else because of "glory hunting".

Hehe

 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
It is a perfect summary that contains a glaring contradiction in its very first sentences: if the Federer fans are supporting classical/established tennis style they by definition cannot be "bandwagonners"as they have established views on what they like and what they like is what they support.

It looks that the real bandwaggoners cannot understand that simple fact hence the statements like the above from Spencer Gore, who doesn't seem to see a problem of people having established views and choosing something else because of "glory hunting".

Hehe

"if the Federer fans are supporting classical/established tennis style they by definition cannot be "bandwagonners"

At no point did I say they were supporting "classical/established tennis style".

I'm happy to read your barely coherent replies to my posts, but don't start posting lies to support your nonsense.
 
Top