What of the faux-neutrals?
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.What of the faux-neutrals?
Or those who are more concerned with playing it safe than taking a risk?
How are we to interpret them?!
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.
I'm genuinely happy for you and wouldn't want every single tournament to be fast and rob you of that enjoyment.
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.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'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
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 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.
Answer will be interesting, given that I'm not a great lover of Jockovitch, Raonic or Nishi .. but like Big Berr and Thiem is a favourite.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Agreed, hence my "even if he doesn't realise it" qualification.
I view internalizing a la Sampras more as a personality type than a gender thing, I know a lot of women like that too.
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.
Yeah different personalities, different tastes I suppose. It's always nice to be around people who have a smile on their face
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.Yeah different personalities, different tastes I suppose. It's always nice to be around people who have a smile on their face
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.
OP does have a point, and you just proved it...
It's okay, everyone (including most of the top 100) likes to think they play liked Federer.Im Djokovic fan, but my playing style is like Federer
Who the heck's Matteddy Berr?
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.
That would fall under the weird/unrelatable category.
Medvedev.Who the heck's Matteddy Berr?
For whom? If society is determined by majority influence and perception alone, what kind of a society are we living in? How about giving some leeway to cultural, geographic and intellectual differences?
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.Aaaand, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the difference between physicality and skill.
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).
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.
"if the Federer fans are supporting classical/established tennis style they by definition cannot be "bandwagonners"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
ummm i don't think it's true... we may live in a sad world, but all those fans of the rusty peak injured golden bull can't be as remotely evilissime as he is
