TSR Tennis Society III

The difference is...Murray, Nadal and Djokovic, and many of the other players obviously including Stakhovsky from his post match interview, spend most the year around him and think he's a knob with an ego. That is well known.

You and your mates meet him for 30 seconds and got a quick moment of his PR smile and autograph.

I wonder which bunch of people is more likely to know the real Roger.

Okay who is your Favorite tennis player?

Federer has won the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award (voted for by ATP players) a record 8 times.

If they think he's "a knob with an ego", why do they keep voting for him to win this award?

You are completely clueless.

Murray, who I have followed closely since I heard about his 2004 US Open win on GMTV before school one day...and also cause I am Scottish. I do feel the nationalistic connection, even though many say tennis is an individual sport hence nationalities shouldn't matter.

However, apart from Murray, I love watching Monfils and Tsonga, and always liked Djokovic's antics. I also currently look out for Janowicz as I think he has some potential. Del Potro has always had a small place in my heart, but less so in recent years, probably due to his injuries.

Before then I always liked watching of course Henman, but also Nalbandian, and Hewitt...but everyone loves Hewitt...and always wished Safin had done more with himself.

And years back, before 2000, when I just had a fleeting interest and had just started playing for the first time Sampras was my man because he was an absolute boss, with a bit of Rafter on the side, and Henman was beginning to do something useful.

As you can see, in general I don't support people who win all the time. I don't see any fun in that. Much like glory supporting in football. It is much more interesting following and rooting for an underdog, and thus much more pleasing when they win.

Well no...that kind of links in with much of what I have been trying to say. It is extremely easy to be a good sportsman when you are winning all the time. It is not when you are losing.

Federer has won the award in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012.

He didn't win a single slam in 2011, and still won the award. So it is completely fallacious to claim that he only wins the award when he's winning all the time.

Again, you stated that it was common knowledge that Federer was widely considered to be an "arrogant knob" by his fellow players. I ask you again: if this is the case, why do they continually vote him as the most sporting player on the ATP tour?



It doesn't. You have completely fabricated that. Check the list of winners. Pete Sampras (with 6 year-end number ones) never won it, for example.

Okay I know you don't like Federer as much as Murray what about Nadal?

Federrerr is not on bad terms with andy - not that you say he is(my post is more geared at the topic than the poster).

He was on andy murray's documentary putting praise on him.

Note I didn't say top. I said near the top.

OK, so why aren't Murray/Djokovic/Berdych etc winning the award? They've been "near the top" (and indeed AT the absolute top in Djokovic's case) a lot.

If everyone thinks Federer is an "arrogant knob", why wouldn't these other top players be getting voted the winner of the Sportsmanship Award? Nadal has won it once, Federer 8 times, and no other "near the top players" have won it at all currently.

So if you are saying that ATP players consider Federer an "arrogant knob", and that you have to be "near the top" to win the Sportsmanship Award, why on earth would they vote for Federer rather than other players near the top?



So, you are saying that the ATP players consider Federer an "arrogant knob", and yet also routinely vote for him as the most sporting player on tour? That makes very little sense.

If they "expect things to remain constant" (your words), and you said they used to consider him sporting when winning everything, the fact that you now say the consider him to be an arrogant knob evidently means they HAVE changed their opinion of him (in your view). So if they have changed their view from "sporting" to "arrogant knob", they should be equally willing to stop voting for him to win the Stefan Edberg Award. And yet... they are continuing to vote for him the win the award.

I just think you're viewing everything too straight lined and simplistically. Obviously the people who are challenging Roger are going to be more likely to irritate him. Thus we see why Djokovic, Murray and today, Stakhovsky do express dislike. There must have been something which got Stakhovsky to say what he did.

I just think you're viewing everything too straight lined and simplistically. Obviously the people who are challenging Roger are going to be more likely to irritate him. Thus we see why Djokovic, Murray and today, Stakhovsky do express dislike. There must have been something which got Stakhovsky to say what he did.

What have Djokovic, Murray and Stakhovsky said about him?

Federer is a guy who wants to be above everything. In this context there might be something unnatural of him, hard to feel he is one of us.

When lower ranked players were protesting because Slam organizers were paying us only 14% of their income, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were on our side, though they are millionaires, Federer said that according to him is OK.

Stakhovsky said he had a big ego in his post match conference today, and insinuated that he didn't really like the guy.

He didn't directly say Federer has a big ego.

I remember Federer making a negative comment about Djokovic retiring in a match once (it's on youtube), and Federer getting annoyed at Djokovic's family for talking once (again, also on youtube). Do you have any sources for Federer being annoyed about the impersonations and other stuff?

I don't think it's obvious at all. Federer was nice to Murray after the 2012 Wimbledon final, said he would win a slam in the future. It was a pretty normal post-match interview to be honest, nothing unusual in a positive or negative way.

I thought there were recent news articles claiming that Federer as President of the Players' Council had played a key role in negotiating higher pay for early round losers in slams?

source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2313685/Wimbledon-prize-money-increase-Roger-Federer-plays-key-role-40-cent-hike.html

I know some guys weren’t happy. Some guys might think it’s funny – he’s walking a tightrope, for sure.

Federer had to change his tune and accept what the majority wanted. He was head of the council. That is the reason why he did it, and thus of course, because he is head of the council, the press pick up him as being the key player when he wasn't...as I tried to explain earlier when someone else mentioned the same pont. Do you not believe what Janowicz says about Federer and the prize money? He surely knows what he's talking about. It pretty much verifies everything I have been trying to say about many players' opinions of him versus Murray, Nadal and Djokovic.

No it doesn't, it proves one player's opinion of Federer, not many players' opinions. I could post lots of quotes from players being incredibly positive about Federer, but that would be pointless, since the Sportsmanship Awards illustrate the "majority feeling" towards him is positive anyway.

Obviously not every player is going to like him, and Janowicz seems to have a negative view of him based on the quote you posted. But I don't think one person speaking out against him proves most players don't like him.

And again, if Federer had criticised another player, people would be claiming that that reflected badly on Federer's personality and that he was just bitter etc (eg, like you are doing when he criticises Djokovic). But when another player criticises Federer, then people seem happy to just accept the comment.

So if Federer say Murray will win at least one grand slam, that is somehow a negative comment? What should he have said "Actually, I don't think Murray will win a slam"?! If he'd said that, he'd obviously have been criticised very widely. Your bias is clearly making your logic completely unreasonable, if you are seriously suggesting that Federer claiming Murray will win a slam is a negative comment. I've heard Nadal say Murray will win a slam before - it's a perfectly innocent comment, which you are only viewing as negative when it comes from Federer due to your pre-existing opinions on his character.

Thanks, I'd never heard Federer commenting on Djokovic's impersonations before.

For him it's good to say nothing. Everything positive. 'It's all well and good for me, I look like a gentleman,' and the rest can burn themselves. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions.

The tour is fine, but there are some things that are bad. That's all we're saying. And the vast majority of players have this same opinion. [Federer's] got a different opinion. The vast majority have one opinion, and a small minority think differently. Maybe it's them who are wrong.

Federer is too neutral. He doesn't want to be involved in any bad story. He is too passive cause changes may harm his image. Nadal in this context, I respect more because he openly supports the interests of the players. Federer says the same thing, but not in the presence of all players. He does not want to publicly talk about some things.

He said this; he said that; he said this with this look on his face. What the **** is going on? Why does every word these guys say, and the way they say it, have to be dissected? What is this? Prime Minister's Questions?