Join TSR now and chat about whatever you’re intoSign up now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    1) I haven't been on TSR for the 4 years of being at university, due to having better things to do with my life than sit on an internet forum dominated by pubescent teenagers. Over the last few months I have found my way back on, somehow through yes, boredom.

    2) I regularly read and don't comment. Such to the degree that I have been a member of my football team's forum for coming up to 8 years and have about 25 posts.

    3) Only when I find something of particular interest on a matter will I comment. i.e. Federer's loss, on which I thought I would back up people who said they thought he was false by supplying my 10+ years expanse of knowledge on the matter to the debate.
    Okay who is your Favorite tennis player?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It was in the 40's.
    It was 43 Win streak.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubi1)
    Okay who is your Favorite tennis player?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    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.
    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.

    Plus, notice how the award pretty much always goes to the player near the top of the rankings?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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.
    Okay I know you don't like Federer as much as Murray what about Nadal?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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?

    Plus, notice how the award pretty much always goes to the player near the top of the rankings?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    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.
    Note I didn't say top. I said near the top.

    Note, in 2004-2008 he didn't generally have any competition apart from at the French.

    Thus as I said, it is extremely easy to show great sportsmanship when you are winning.

    I would also say that people often exhibit rationality under uncertainty. This, combined with players rarely beating Federer and thus putting him under the pressure to exhibit his behaviour under the facade, justifies why he maintains the votes for the award from 2008 onwards. People will vote for what they are used to, what they almost expect, and most importantly from what they know from the past.

    They expect things to remain constant, even if they haven't...which they haven't. It is simple psychology. Federer's unsportsmanlike behaviour has clearly become more apparent over the last 4 years. Someone like Tsonga should be winning instead.


    (Original post by ubi1)
    Okay I know you don't like Federer as much as Murray what about Nadal?
    I used to really not like Nadal, I didn't really like his style of play, and the fact he was dominant on clay but couldn't really put it together to the same extent and get over the line on other surfaces. But I have warmed to him, and do now like him as a player and really hope he can start putting the big performances in on the hard and grass courts again. But he not a favourite, the others mentioned I prefer following to him
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scapepower)
    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.
    Can you seriously not spell Federer? :facepalm2:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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?


    They expect things to remain constant, even if they haven't...which they haven't. It is simple psychology. Federer's unsportsmanlike behaviour has clearly become more apparent over the last 4 years. Someone like Tsonga should be winning instead.
    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 they 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" (as you claim), 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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    In terms of style of play i appear to be a rarity in that i actually like Nadal's style of play. Right now in that regard i'd say that Fed, Nadal, Del Potro and Hewitt have the variety and mix that i like to see, at their best all their styles are what i call fluid. While i don't dislike Djokovic or Murray i find their style of play other than being very similar to be a bit rigid.

    Interesting how a lot of people have a soft spot for Hewitt and Del Potro.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    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.

    Firstly, I think you are being too simplistic and saying that players thinking someone is an "arrogant knob" means they definitely cannot think they can exhibit sportsmanship on the court.

    Secondly, people like Murray, Djokovic and Nadal won't win it because they have worked so hard, and put in so much emotional effort on court to win...after the point that Federer had already built up his reputation as being sporting whilst playing against no-hopers in GS Finals. Thus yes, they have been more agressive and less sporting. Particularly Murray and Djokovic.

    Plus you also have to remember that the award also includes off court contribution to tennis. Federer is of course the king of this, due to the huge reputation he has built up on court. Thus giving him a huge advantage on this aspect.

    Also you have to remember that, I think, the players only get to vote for a number of players who are nominated in the category. Such that Federer was against Marin Cilic, Juan Martin del Potro and David Ferrer last year. I don't know who chooses the nominees, but this may not be players, but instead the opinion of an outside observer.

    And finally, many players simply won't know Federer off court, aren't invited to the same events as him, won't play him for months or years at a time and won't be a direct competitor of the guy. Thus maybe don't get to experience the real Roger like Djokovic and Murray do. This could skew the voting. Players could vote for how they remember playing Roger in some back alley tournament with no pressure on Roger, or the first round of the US Open back in 2010.

    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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.
    But if Federer had expressed dislike, everyone would just have accused him of being arrogant and disrespectful. And yet when another player criticises Fed, it's automatically seen as being justified?

    To be honest, I'm not really sure there's been much public dislike expressed between Nole/Murray and Federer, has there? I think there was a bit of tension between Djokovic and Federer in the past, but I don't really recall Djokovic or Murray making overly critical comments about Fed?

    With respect to my posts being simplistic, I don't think it's overly simplistic to say that if Federer is generally disliked by players, they won't be voting him as the winner of sportsmanship awards on a regular basis.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't realise how much time had passed. Is it that time already? It's time for yet another tired argument about Federer?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    What have Djokovic, Murray and Stakhovsky said about him?
    Stakhovsky said he had a big ego in his post match conference today, and insinuated that he didn't really like the guy.

    Djokovic has had repeated arguments with Federer, including in the Davis Cup after Federer accused him of feigning injury and Federer getting annoyed about Djokovic's family and his impersonations...including other stuff.

    As far as I recall Murray has said nothing outright, but it is always pretty obvious if you listen to interviews when he gets asked about Federer. Federer was also very dismissive of Murray after the 2012 Wimbledon final.


    And actually, here is an interesting quote from Janowicz, I knew I remembered him saying something...pretty much backs up everything I have been trying to say.

    (Original post by Jerzy Janowicz)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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.

    Djokovic has had repeated arguments with Federer, including in the Davis Cup after Federer accused him of feigning injury and Federer getting annoyed about Djokovic's family and his impersonations...including other stuff.
    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?

    As far as I recall Murray has said nothing outright, but it is always pretty obvious if you listen to interviews when he gets asked about Federer. Federer was also very dismissive of Murray after the 2012 Wimbledon final.
    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.

    And actually, here is an interesting quote from Janowicz, I knew I remembered him saying something...pretty much backs up everything I have been trying to say.
    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/ten...cent-hike.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    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/ten...cent-hike.html

    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.

    What Federer said after Wimbledon absolutely reeked of him thinking of himself as better than Andy. Something along the lines of "I'm sure Andy will win at least one grand slam", with a sly grin cause he has so many more. Again, enforcing what Janowicz said about thinking of himself too highly.

    (Original post by Federer on Djokovic's Impersonations - ABC News)
    I know some guys weren’t happy. Some guys might think it’s funny – he’s walking a tightrope, for sure.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by one2three_abc)
    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: as I say, there is a plethora of positive quotes about Federer from others.

    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.

    What Federer said after Wimbledon absolutely reeked of him thinking of himself as better than Andy. Something along the lines of "I'm sure Andy will win at least one grand slam", with a sly grin cause he has so many more. Again, enforcing what Janowicz said about thinking of himself too highly.
    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 for the quote/source, I'd never heard Federer commenting on Djokovic's impersonations before.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2014
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.