Roger doesn't do himself justice in the press conference

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:43 am

First topic message reminder :

Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat, some of his post match press conferences often sound like things Connors might have said at his most snide. When Roger was winning everything and fans, players, and adversaries were fawning all over him he was a great sport. But since he started losing more often he hasn't won too many sportsmanship awards. Often he disrespects the victor in his post match press conference. Here is another example:

Asked about the quite remarkable forehand winner Djokovic hit to save match point, Federer reckoned the Serb did not look at that point like someone "who believes much anymore in winning. To lose against someone like that, it's very disappointing, because you feel like he was mentally out of it already. Just gets the lucky shot at the end, and off you go."

Djokovic was honest enough to admit the shot was a gamble – but Federer was reluctant to give him credit even for that courage in a crisis, preferring to regard it as desperate.

"Confidence? Are you kidding me?" he said when it was put to him the cross-court forehand off his first serve – described by John McEnroe as "one of the all-time great shots" – was either a function of luck or confidence.

"I mean, please. Some players grow up and play like that – being down 5-2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. I never played that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. For me, this is very hard to understand. How can you play a shot like that on match point? Maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/11/us-open-2011-federer-djokovic

No one is perfect and Roger has a lot of good qualities, being a gracious loser is not one of them. It is a shame he has to cheapen such a great match and a classic with such commentary but it isn't the first time. His quote about Melzer after his loss in Madrid was really mind boggling. He explained that one of the reasons he lost was because his opponent shanked so many balls that went in.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:33 pm

Break in the fifth, first off welcome to the site. Federer didn't give Novak the credit he is due and basically said the shot was lucky. He has done this on several occassions disrespecting his opponents after losses, if he didn't have a track record of this behavior maybe I would cut him some slack. The world's number one returner making minced meat of your first serve on match point isn't lucky, it is risky and aggressive.

Julius for the record, I have never said that Roger is "never" gracious in defeat sometimes he is. But sometimes he isn't. As for Novak's mothers comments in 2008, Novak distanced himself from the comment, and as a person with a mother who is a bit emotional myself, you don't have control over what your mom says but you have control over what you say. Since those comments Novak has kept a tight reign on his parents for the most part, his mom went overboard and Novak completely distanced himself from minute one from those comments.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:34 pm

luciusmann wrote:I have plenty of common sense and Federer is not Jimmy Connors

I have no common sense and even I don't think Federer is Jimmy Connors. Their haircuts are totally different for a start.

by legendkillar Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:34 pm

socal,

Like I said, the intent of the shot. I am sure as Novak is proably too is that he couldn't have imagined that when the ball left his racquet that it would've resulted in the winner it was.

Roger is gracious. He is not putting the victory from Novak down to that shot. Novak went for it. It could've flown out by 10 ft or landed 10ft infront of the net, but it didn't.

Like I said Novak showed great courage to go for such a shot given the position of the match.

In regards to the Melzer comments he made. There were some shots that Melzer made which came off better than the intent they were hit with.

Posters have said that as a Novak fan you should be embracing what was an amazing comeback and not look into the negativity of a comment made by Roger.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:36 pm

JM thanks for your comments, I don't have any gripe with your post. I just disagree with you on this one. And also let me be clear, I don't dislike Roger. I can point to about a dozen different times on this site alone where I have stood up for the guy and said really complimentary things about him. But I do think Roger is a bit of a diva and a bit nasty with some of his rivals in the post match commentaries. Its not like he killed anyone but it bears mentioning and some light critique.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:37 pm

1. "Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat"
2. "I have never said that Roger is "never" gracious in defeat"

I took the first "never" to mean "never", without realising that that "never" did not mean "never".
Perhaps an indication of why post-match press conferences can have different interpretations.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:39 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
luciusmann wrote:I have plenty of common sense and Federer is not Jimmy Connors

I have no common sense and even I don't think Federer is Jimmy Connors. Their haircuts are totally different for a start.

Julius, i didn't say Fed was connors. You made the analogy of fans loving Roger so obviously they don't think he is a sore loser. My comparison to connors has nothing to do with equating the two. Fed is obviously no where near the beautiful A whole connors was. It was to point out that fans don't always cheer against someone who displays a bad attitude in some respects.

Actually, julius you do have common sense, you are just wrong on this point.

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:53 pm

Thanks Socal.

I think the gist of my points have already been covered, nevertheless... He may not have given Novak the credit you feel he is due for that particular shot but he more than explained his position even relating to his junior experience. He did however mention numerous times that Novak played well including at the beginning of the interview. He obviously has respect for Novak as well as is shown when he's asked to compare this to the french open match where he says Novak could have won that and it was just one of those matches.

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:54 pm

socal1976 wrote:Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat,

I showed with my quote from the Press Association that this is not the case.

I dont want to get too involved in this debate, but Socal, can you not see why people are leaping to Fed's defence and saying you are wrong when you make incorrect statements like that?

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:02 pm

The only problem Roger has is that he is brutally honest in his assessment of the game and his opponents.

Unfortunately some people just don't like that. They would prefer him to be a fake, fawning yes-man.

Also, did anyone consider that this interview was taken less than an hour after a bitterly dissapointing loss. Cut the guy some slack.

It's not like he's the only player to make such statements after a defeat. Does anyone remember Rafa's interviews after his losses to Tsonga and Soderling?

by Faust Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:35 pm

Josiah,

Since 2007 and the Wimbledon No 15 Jacket Federer has been called
TOO CONCEITED, ARROGANT AND TOO COCKY FOR HIS OWN GOOD by some very moderate voices.IT IS A FACT that he NEVER GIVES CREDIT.
to others.
Yesterday he won 143 points and he lost 161!He made 59?! unforced errors to Djokovic only 35.Could he won it?Yes! Should have won it? No!
As for the "lucky shot" it was the cumulative effect of experience, instinct
temperament etc.Very difficult to pinpoint, psychoanalyze the roots of Djokovic reaction.But disingenuous,oversimplified and not classy of Federer to call it a desperate shot.And Djokovic that called it a lucky shot in the stadium gave a much better answer in the interview.

Q. On court you said that the return of the shot was lucky. Could you talk about that?

NOVAK DJOKOVIC: I mean, match points down and I read his serve. I read his serve. I anticipated well, and I hit it, so I don't know if it was lucky or not. It was just maybe it was lucky because it was in the right moment, but I took my chances. I took my chances, and I hit it very clean.
He states twice "I read his serve".

To Federer's credit and given the devastating loss he gave the interview as he always does.It is normal under the circumstances to say some things that are not accurate.The problem is that his tune is always the same.He never gives appropriate credit to his opponents..

by luciusmann Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:51 pm

Just typical, another person who's got nothing better but to bash someone because he's down in the dumps and lost an incredibly close match. Of course according Faust, Djokovic lied just to please the crowd and tell them it was just lucky instead of what is apparently acquired through experience and instinct. Sure Faust, when did you know Djokovic's mind better than himself?

Some people have nothing better to do but to be wholly negative and run down Federer. No wonder there's such a market for tabloid newspapers with such negative people to sell negative stories to. Faust has of course met Federer and personally dined with him to know he's conceited, arrogant and cocky? Yes, sure Faust. Stick to the armchair critisms, they arn't even worthy of publication in any respectable newspaper let alone Wikipedia.

by hawkeye Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:02 pm

This is from Nadals post match interview. He appears to agree with Federer about Djokovics shot on match point. He also feels that Federer was perhaps a bit unlucky.

"Was a little bit of mistake for Roger in beginning of the third, in my opinion. But after, he was very unlucky in the fifth, no?
Matches like this, you lose one every lot of, lot of matches, and he lost one two in a row in this tournament, last year and this year....

The return from Novak with the 40 15 was I don't have words to describe, because, you know, you hit a shot probably without thinking because you see the match total lost with 40 15 and serving for Roger.
Is not a normal serve. Is one of the best serves of the world. He returned the ball with eyes closed. The ball went to the line. "

http://www.ubitennis.com/sport/tennis/2011/09/11/578893-rafael_nadal_2011.shtml

by icecold Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:12 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:why are great shots lucky for Novak and not lucky for Roger?

Well, see my post above - according to Novak, Roger's great shots are lucky.

Julius, Novak says Roger gets the luck because he is talented, plays aggressively and goes for difficult shots.

Federer on Novak yesterday: "Confidence? Are you kidding me? I mean, please. Look, some players grow up and play like that. I remember losing junior matches. Just being down 5 2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. It all goes in for some reason, because that's the kind of way they grew up playing when they were down. I never played that way. I believe in hard work's gonna pay off kinda thing"

Jeez! Roger Federer has been relatively mentally weak in deciding sets for much longer than I had previously imagined. laughing

If you regularly lose from a double break in the third ONLY because your opponent starts playing hit and hope and they all go in "for some reason" .... you are probably deluding yourself and not made of very stern stuff either.

Reading the transcript of the interview is one thing but watching it, as I did last night, is another. Not RFs finest hour.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/interactive/video/index.html?promo=topnav

by FedsFan Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:23 pm

socal1976 wrote:Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat, some of his post match press conferences often sound like things Connors might have said at his most snide. When Roger was winning everything and fans, players, and adversaries were fawning all over him he was a great sport. But since he started losing more often he hasn't won too many sportsmanship awards. Often he disrespects the victor in his post match press conference. Here is another example:

No one is perfect and Roger has a lot of good qualities, being a gracious loser is not one of them. It is a shame he has to cheapen such a great match and a classic with such commentary but it isn't the first time. His quote about Melzer after his loss in Madrid was really mind boggling. He explained that one of the reasons he lost was because his opponent shanked so many balls that went in.

Immediately after a tough loss press conferences are not the best thing but it was more a case of disappointment than disrespect. Djokovic was totally out of that match and Fed should have won it. Last year it was anyone's match unlike this year.

If Federer was such a bad loser and disrespected his opponents he would not have won the Edberg Sportsmanship Award 6 consecutive times as the winner is selected by the players. If he disrespected them he wouldn't have won it so many times.

Secondly, he is the president of the ATP Players Council, again voted in twice by the players since its inception with Nadal as VP.

If you, like so many people up here and around the world hate Federer, you will have something to say. May I remind you that Nadal has not exactly been gracious in his last few defeats to Djokovic. After he was routed at the FO 2009 by Soderling, all he had to say was he played a bad match which is why he lost not that he was outplayed by an opponent who hit top form shocking the world #1 and the world.

As for Federer, he is asked a question and gives an honest reply. He was once asked about the state of womens tennis i.e a #1 not even being a winner of slams and he gave his opinion. I recall Jankovic taking offence and being very vocal on Fed's comments. For every Fed hater there are probably a few hundreds who like him so you are outnumbered there.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:36 pm

Lets look at Roger's track record to see if his intent is oh so pure and respectful like the driven snow. After his loss to Melzer, we have the infamous my opponent shanked a lot of balls that went in quote to explain his loss. Although I watched that match and Melzer beat him fair and square and really out hit him and out fought him. I didn't remember any shanked balls that kept going in. After two straight defeats to murray in the masters series when asked are you impressed by the way murray played he said, "not really". And now he chalks up Novak's win and that shot to luck, with the added kicker of "to lose to someone like that".

Roger has a track record of these diva like comments. He isn't charles manson, he isn't a terrible guy, but he isn't faultless like the blindly devoted claim. Lot of positive characteristics grace in defeat isn't always one of them.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:41 pm

Fedsfan, I am not a roger hater. Last night, i stated how impressive it was that at 30 years old he is still the toughest matchup for Novak while the rest of the tour seems to have capitulated at this point. I have defended Roger at times, commended him, and at times like tonight criticized him.

Julius, novak in his on court interview didn't say it was a lucky shot, he said it was a gamble big difference.

By the way considering Djokovic won more points, more games, and after said "lucky" shot went on to win the next 4 games Roger's analysis of the match was a bit detached from reality.

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:56 pm

Does anyone have a link to the full post-match interview?

This is a clip from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/14871411.stm

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:12 pm

This appears to be the full post match interview. So everyone can make up their own minds by seeing what Federer has to say in his own words and within context. There are also links to the post-match interviews for all the other players:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/2011/09/36/US-Open-2011-Saturday-Interview-Federer.aspx

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:14 pm

Socal, who exactly is the blindly devoted here? I don't think anyone thinks he's faultless just that most don't think he's at fault on this occasion. His interview was fine, not at all disrespectful without being overly respectful. The only thing that could be construed that way is what he made of the shot and seeing as Djokovic doesn't seem to know what to make of it either it's not a big deal. He naturally came across as despondent but could have been a lot less gracious. What then in your opinion should he have said and aside from that shot what credit is due that he didn't already give?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:24 pm

Historical tennis interview transcripts can be found here
http://www.asapsports.com/showcat.php?id=7
It is a useful reference site.

Faust wrote:.IT IS A FACT that he NEVER GIVES CREDIT to others

The above site actually shows that your statement is completely wrong. However, if you say 'IT IS A FACT' in capitals, then clearly it must be right.

In fact (lower case), after last year's semi he said of Novak - "Credit to him".

by wow Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:25 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Historical tennis interview transcripts can be found here
http://www.asapsports.com/showcat.php?id=7
It is a useful reference site.

Faust wrote:.IT IS A FACT that he NEVER GIVES CREDIT to others
The above site actually shows that your statement is completely wrong. However, if you say 'IT IS A FACT' in capitals, then clearly it must be right.

In fact (lower case), after last year's semi he said of Novak - "Credit to him".

hahahahaha

by Tom_____ Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:40 pm

Personally, i have never thought Fed was in anyway graceful in defeat. I do think it was poor, not only to say it was luck, as its for Djokovic to state whether it was lucky. (i would also take any lucky comment from the guy who hit it with a pinch of salt). -However in this instance i was more put off by Fed saying that he would never do that or play in that 'do or die manner' etc etc.

I appreciate the following is not quite the same, but i do think parallels can be drawn. Look at this lip around the 4min mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXw_rWx1BQ

Its the 9-7 Nadal 2008 Wimbledon win. I think it was Nadals 3rd match point overall, but it was the first of this game. He hits a kicking first serve out wide and Fed swats away a SHBH crosscourt winner at pace. It might not have been the blast of a shot that Djoko hit, but on grass it was very pacey and its a risky shot with high chance of netting or going wide - Also if it was played safely more towards the centre of the court Nadal would have a great chance to crunch down the line with Fed out of position. So Federer had to make the shot once he chose to hit it that way, hence the similarity with Djoko's shot. so to me it was a balls out winner hit from Championship point down. To me thats says the Federer DOES play those type of ballsy shots from precarious match positions and he was simply on the receiving end of it this time and he dealt with it terribly. The shot he made in 2008 could have shocked Nadals confidence, but 2 points later, Nadal was on his way to climb the stands. Federer should accept that with backs up against the wall, every top player is capable and prepared to pull a handful of awesome out of the flaming hat, including himself.

For me Fed showed again that there is a slight arrogance above the normal that you could accept from a sporting great, especially in a losing position. He regresses to his pre-champion/fame petulant young days in my memory.

by wow Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:47 pm

I saw that shot and it is a routine shot and noway near what Nole did.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:58 pm

break in the fifth, Roger could have said a lot of things. He could have said he hit a great shot and just moved on. But his incredulous attitude was a bit over the top. When asked about his confidence his response of "are you kidding me" also is pretty arrogant and dismissive. Not to mention his comment of surprise to quote lose "to someone like that". Instead he equates his defeat with one shot that he deems lucky.

Tom, agree with your commentary. Federer has delivered that type of shot on numerous occassions to other opponents including the shot in 08 that you mentioned. His disbelief that Djoko would play that way followed by the insinuation that somehow Djokovic did something reckless and wrong for the occassion. All his talk about how I work hard, and I would never play that way. It is all very condescending and disrespectful.

by Tenez Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:02 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Davydenko, after losing to Fed in the USO 2007 semi :-
Q. What's the one thing that makes Roger Federer so tough?
NIKOLAY DAVYDENKO: Lucky. He's lucky sometimes.

Q. Is luck something just happens or is luck something that you make?
NIKOLAY DAVYDENKO: I don't know. I think Federer's always lucky.

That was humour...if I remember correctly.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:02 pm

wow wrote:I saw that shot and it is a routine shot and noway near what Nole did.

So Novak should have played a routine shot, maybe lost the match? Novak hit a breathtaking shot, and its federer's arrogance that acts like Novak should apologize for even going for that shot. How dare he show up peacock Roger like that? What right does novak have of crushing my first serve for an outright winner. That is basically how Roger acts, "I don't know how you can play a shot like that". Get over yourself Roger, it proved to be the right shot at the right time, perfectly executed.

by Tom_____ Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:06 pm

wow wrote:I saw that shot and it is a routine shot and noway near what Nole did.

Poppycock reactionary statement.

Show me where he has routinely hit this type of shot from matchpoint down.

In fact, its almost certain that from the crowd and commentary reaction that this shot is not routine for Federer - clearly its something he is good at, but then Djoko is also seen to hit Forehand return winners, but that doesn't mean its routine and certainly not when facing MP. Separately, the point is that both these type shots have to hit their mark with very little room to spare and they are intended from the outset to be winners and hence the element of 'gambling' is there - thus Federer DOES do these dangerous type of shots form MP down, contrary to what he said in the interview. My view is there is an element of arrogance present that doesn't allow him to accept this type of thing and move forward in the same way as others.

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:09 pm

Tom_____ wrote:
wow wrote:I saw that shot and it is a routine shot and noway near what Nole did.

Poppycock reactionary statement.

Show me where he has routinely hit this type of shot from matchpoint down.

In fact, its almost certain that from the crowd and commentary reaction that this shot is not routine for Federer - clearly its something he is good at, but then Djoko is also seen to hit Forehand return winners, but that doesn't mean its routine and certainly not when facing MP. Separately, the point is that both these type shots have to hit their mark with very little room to spare and they are intended from the outset to be winners and hence the element of 'gambling' is there - thus Federer DOES do these dangerous type of shots form MP down, contrary to what he said in the interview. My view is there is an element of arrogance present that doesn't allow him to accept this type of thing and move forward in the same way as others.

Personal experience is a wonderful thing. Whistle

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:11 pm

Exactly, Tom; fed acts almost offended that Novak would hit that shot. You didn't lose the point on a net chord that dribbled over, you didn't lose the point because the guy hit the frame of his racquet, or the ball took a bad bounce on the court. The best returner in the game read your first serve and hit it so hard that you could hear the damn thing scream in agony.

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:14 pm

As far as I can tell your only issue is with his opinion about that shot, an opinion that is shared not only by many people here but appeared to be Djokovic's as well. He could have said "great shot" but then he wouldn't have been giving his actual opinion. The "to someone like that" remark could be put down to English not being his first language as the offence that may be inferred from such a remark is probably a subtle nuance of the language. I don't think he equated his defeat to that shot, far from it as he said other things about Novak's play and having himself to blame that are contrary to this.

by luciusmann Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:14 pm

Indeed it is Emancipator: takes one to know one.

by wow Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:15 pm

Well it is your interpretation against mine if that shot has been in the same vain as Djoko's shot then the commentators must have said something about it.
At djoko's return Mcnroe said that that particular shot will be watched million times and that's what has been happening.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Fed's reaction to the shot is what is mind boggling, "I don't know how he could play that kind of shot". How dare he do that to The Rog's first serve. I mean he talks like Novak should explain himself as to why he chose that shot.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:24 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:As far as I can tell your only issue is with his opinion about that shot, an opinion that is shared not only by many people here but appeared to be Djokovic's as well. He could have said "great shot" but then he wouldn't have been giving his actual opinion. The "to someone like that" remark could be put down to English not being his first language as the offence that may be inferred from such a remark is probably a subtle nuance of the language. I don't think he equated his defeat to that shot, far from it as he said other things about Novak's play and having himself to blame that are contrary to this.

Yes if you take the most innocent interpretation of all of his comments and ignore his track record with Djokovic and with a few other players of disrespecting them in post match commentary then you could reach the conclusions you have drawn. We all understand english and many other commentators have also been critical of these comments because the meaning really is quite clear and the intent is disrespect.

by wow Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:28 pm

socal1976 wrote:Fed's reaction to the shot is what is mind boggling, "I don't know how he could play that kind of shot". How dare he do that to The Rog's first serve. I mean he talks like Novak should explain himself as to why he chose that shot.

Now that's how you see it. We do not and so do many others.
On the other hand Nole is not an epitome of sportsmanship and so is Nadal. So why to make mole out of a mountain?

by hawkeye Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:30 pm

social

Djokovic hit a high risk shot. Not a calculated winning shot but an eyes shut, fingers crossed, I've probably lost already, this is my one chance sort of shot. Because it came off you can describe it as breathtaking if it had missed it would have looked as if Djokovic had thrown the point.

Djokovic is the number one player in the world. He has the skills to beat anyone. He didn't need to resort to such tactics. I can understand what Federer was saying and he certainly wasn't showing lack of respect for Djokovic. Djokovic got lucky and won the point but I doubt that many tennis coaches would advise playing that sort of shot on match point down.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:39 pm

No guts no glory, hawkeye. Lets even say for arguments sake that shot is lucky. Fed's attitude is still not appropriate. "I don't know how he can play a shot like that", he acts like Djokovic bounced the ball of his frame or something. He hit the sweet spot, read fed's first serve like all great returners can do when they are on, and made minced meat of it. Maybe it was a desperation shot, but when pushed up against the wall he came up with the goods. It still isn't incumbent on federer to whine about it and act like Novak needs to explain himself for it. What happened after that shot? Novak won the next four games in a row, and I don't think in the last 3 games fed even got to deuce. So obviously that shot turned the tide. Sometimes a high risk play with high reward works. It ended up being the perfect shot, at the right time, executed with a great deal of skill. Risky yes, fortunate that it came off yes. But its fed's attitude in reaction to it that is pretty telling in my mind.

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:44 pm

Well if your interpretations of his previous press conferences are anything like this one then you're version of his track record is going to be a lot different to someone who's been looking at them with more leniency. In my opinion he's been gracious enough in defeat over the years though not as gracious as say Djokovic or Murray.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:50 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Well if your interpretations of his previous press conferences are anything like this one then you're version of his track record is going to be a lot different to someone who's been looking at them with more leniency. In my opinion he's been gracious enough in defeat over the years though not as gracious as say Djokovic or Murray.

Break in the fifth you tell me how we are to "interpret" his comments about Melzer's win in Madrid. What is the innocent St. Roger reading of:"he shanked a lot of balls that went in", when asked about the reasons for his loss in that match? How do you just explain away that one?

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:57 pm

One final thought on this non-topic.

It is one thing to be gracious in defeat when defeat is the norm for you, however, when you've been The Man for so long, as Roger has, it obviously becomes harder to deal with, simply because you're not used to it.

We can see the same with Rafa. A year ago Rafa and Novak seemed like best of buddies, mutually praising each other to the sky. Then Novak started winning; suddenly the hugs at the net became lukewarm handshakes and now they barely make eye contact at the net. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Great champions don't like to lose. The more you've won, the harder it is to accept defeat. If Roger appears despondent and makes some wayward comments 30 mins after a gutting loss, so what? He'd have to be pretty inhuman to do anything else.

Let's see how 'gracious' Novak is in defeat when his star starts to wane. He may have been very gracious in his early years when the expectations where less than they are today, but the psychology of a champion is different to that of a challenger.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:03 pm

I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say emancipator. Look this is tennis chat, we wouldn't have a lot to talk about if everyone just came in and congratulated the winner and talked about upcoming matches. I want to reiterate this doesn't make federer evil. It doesn't mean he isn't a very good role model or discount all the good that he has done on and off the court. This is a side issue no question, but I find these side issues interesting sometimes. Especially, when it adds some spice to one of the best rivalries in the sport. Human beings are human, and I actually find that this side of Fed makes him more interesting. As a novak fan, I like that Roger takes his little shots at Novak here and there, it makes it all the more fun for me when Novak can beat Roger. Hell my favorite player of all time Jimmy connors is one of the biggest A wholes in the history of tennis.

by hawkeye Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:05 pm

hawkeye wrote:This is from Nadals post match interview. He appears to agree with Federer about Djokovics shot on match point. He also feels that Federer was perhaps a bit unlucky.

"Was a little bit of mistake for Roger in beginning of the third, in my opinion. But after, he was very unlucky in the fifth, no?
Matches like this, you lose one every lot of, lot of matches, and he lost one two in a row in this tournament, last year and this year....

The return from Novak with the 40 15 was I don't have words to describe, because, you know, you hit a shot probably without thinking because you see the match total lost with 40 15 and serving for Roger.
Is not a normal serve. Is one of the best serves of the world. He returned the ball with eyes closed. The ball went to the line. "

http://www.ubitennis.com/sport/tennis/2011/09/11/578893-rafael_nadal_2011.shtml

social. Did you see this from Nadal? It wasn't just Federer who saw it that way. In fact anyone who has played (or watched) much tennis would have a similar take on that shot. Djokovic included. In one way it was brave but in another it could be seen as the opposite. Did he not trust himself to do anything else. Of course it was a turning point in the match. The match would have been over if he had missed and the whole point is it was quite likely that he would have missed. Djokovic went onto win the match. He wouldn't have done so if he'd attempted many shots like that crazy one.

Looking forward to the final. Both players will have a day off. Both players playing well. I havn't a clue who will win...

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:07 pm

From the same interview (after the Melzer match) :-
"He (Melzer) did well. I think he played aggressive, was able to mix it up. "
"Look, I thought he did well. He played aggressive, played the right way he was supposed to."

And yes, he said "Either he shanks them and they stay in play (or - my word), he hits the line".

Socal, you choose to focus on the latter, without mentioning the former

Melzer seemed to agree with Federer's assessment -
"Well, I felt like, without sounding cocky, especially when we played at the US Open, the luck was not on my side. There were a lot of key points where I felt I was unlucky. I thought, Okay, luck is going to turn. It did today. I had a few shots on the line, a few bad bounces that were going my way."

Melzer also indicates Fed got lucky at the USO match - is Melzer a sore loser who is disrespectful of Federer?

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:12 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:From the same interview (after the Melzer match) :-
"He (Melzer) did well. I think he played aggressive, was able to mix it up. "
"Look, I thought he did well. He played aggressive, played the right way he was supposed to."

And yes, he said "Either he shanks them and they stay in play (or - my word), he hits the line".

Socal, you choose to focus on the latter, without mentioning the former

Melzer seemed to agree with Federer's assessment -
"Well, I felt like, without sounding cocky, especially when we played at the US Open, the luck was not on my side. There were a lot of key points where I felt I was unlucky. I thought, Okay, luck is going to turn. It did today. I had a few shots on the line, a few bad bounces that were going my way."

Melzer also indicates Fed got lucky at the USO match - is Melzer a sore loser who is disrespectful of Federer?

As demonstrated by countless posters; much ado about nothing.

Players make these kinds of statements routinely; it seems only RF has the microscope hanging over his every word.

The idea that Roger is not gracious in defeat has been pretty decisively debunked.

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:12 pm

Sorry new to this lol had a reply that I thought I'd posted but didn't go through.

Socal, as Julius has provided some of the other parts of the interview he said some complimentary stuff as well. Didn't see the match so can't verify in any way the truth of the shanking balls statement but maybe Melzer did shank one or two balls in at inconvenient times and this was on Federer's mind during the conference. It must get tedious having to explain every loss and on this occasion he didn't do the best job. Its not like it was even a big match.

by Faust Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:13 pm

luciusmann wrote:Just typical, another person who's got nothing better but to bash someone because he's down in the dumps and lost an incredibly close match. Of course according Faust, Djokovic lied just to please the crowd and tell them it was just lucky instead of what is apparently acquired through experience and instinct. Sure Faust, when did you know Djokovic's mind better than himself?

Some people have nothing better to do but to be wholly negative and run down Federer. No wonder there's such a market for tabloid newspapers with such negative people to sell negative stories to. Faust has of course met Federer and personally dined with him to know he's conceited, arrogant and cocky? Yes, sure Faust. Stick to the armchair critisms, they arn't even worthy of publication in any respectable newspaper let alone Wikipedia.

Luciusmann,
a) We are all expressing our opinions at this forum,including you.
If you want to call that arm chair criticism that is fine with me but that includes you.So the notion that I cannot have an opinion about Federer and you can have an opinion about me is schizofrenic.It is a Tennis forum it is not a forum about me.
b) there are champions Michael Jordan,Nadal Michelson that won everything and have always remained humble.And there are champions
like Tiger Woods,Lebron James and Federer that have always been arrogant albeit Federer less than the other two.
c) Not only I met and talked to Federer but he dined in my place.More than once.So do not be so presumptuous.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:15 pm

Hawkeye, it was risky play, there was an element of desperation in it. But that isn't the point. Lets even say it was lucky. Roger's reaction is still way over the top, and doesn't acknowledge the skill involved. Look its like this lets say you are a football manager and your team is down a goal late in the game you bring on a bunch of attackers and throw the kitchen sink at the goal, you get a late desperation goal that ties the game and then you win. There is some good luck involved, but you still got to execute, you still got to got to put the old onion in the basket. It is like a last second deep three point shot in basketball, it happens in sports, that is what allows for great comebacks. It still doesn't take away from the fact that he hit the living p*ss out of fed's first serve, people act like any club duffer could have gotten lucky. And Nadal is wrong as well, maybe a little envy creeping in, he didn't close his eyes and swing. He guessed right, got what he was looking for and unloaded.

by socal1976 Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:22 pm

Faust, Jordan isn't exactly a good example of a humble guy. Great player but I don't know if I buy him as the example of humility, the guy was an egomaniac who punched one of his teammates in the face during practice.

by Faust Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:23 pm

emancipator wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:From the same interview (after the Melzer match) :-
"He (Melzer) did well. I think he played aggressive, was able to mix it up. "
"Look, I thought he did well. He played aggressive, played the right way he was supposed to."

And yes, he said "Either he shanks them and they stay in play (or - my word), he hits the line".

Socal, you choose to focus on the latter, without mentioning the former

Melzer seemed to agree with Federer's assessment -
"Well, I felt like, without sounding cocky, especially when we played at the US Open, the luck was not on my side. There were a lot of key points where I felt I was unlucky. I thought, Okay, luck is going to turn. It did today. I had a few shots on the line, a few bad bounces that were going my way."

Melzer also indicates Fed got lucky at the USO match - is Melzer a sore loser who is disrespectful of Federer?

Emancipator,

There is not one single interview not one statement besides the 2008 french open where he lost 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 to Nadal when he said that his opponent was better than him.None!In all his games he repeats that he should have won.On of the greatest? Yes!The greatest?Perhaps.But also
a bit conceited if not outright disrespectful.

As demonstrated by countless posters; much ado about nothing.

Players make these kinds of statements routinely; it seems only RF has the microscope hanging over his every word.

The idea that Roger is not gracious in defeat has been pretty decisively debunked.

by luciusmann Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:26 pm

Faust, a few comments:

a) You're entitled to your opinion but as I say, and as is true of much of the media and tabloid press and many individuals, it's far easier to be negative than positive and you were most certainly, being negative. I never said you were not entitled to your opinion but it is a fact it's much easier to critise than to praise that's what I was pointing out. I actually don't come on the day after on a forum and have a kick at a player who's lost.

b) Dined at your place? Really, with you alone? You had an in depth conversation with Fed and what he's like? Such a remark reminds of when I read Alan Sugar's biography and he sued a journalist for libel and the journalist said he had personally 'advised' the Queen on the Hillsborough disaster, Sugar laughed and asked him when this was and was this an event where 100s of other people attended and when this indispensable 'advice' was given. I'm not presumptuous at all, just questioning, which is perfectly sensible.

c) That's your opinion, I never found Federer to be arrogant, cool/not someone you can imagine is warm but that doesn't constitute arrogant @ all in my book. Maybe you have a different definition of it, in which case, fair enough. I think 90% of people would disagree with you, as is self evident from most posters who've defended Fed.

by Sponsored content