Roger doesn't do himself justice in the press conference

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.

socal1976 wrote: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.

In the court he was ferocious.Out of the court he was and remains low key and very humble.

What about the French open this year? Didn't he say Nadal was the best on clay?

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.


-----------------------------------

Please don't make things up, or resort to presumption, as you've accused others of doing.

Have you read/listened to every Federer post-match interview?

Clearly you have not, because I recall federer stating on a number of occasions that he lost to the better player. Against Tsonga at W, where Roger clearly said that the match was out of his hands and that Tsonga played fantastic, against Seppi (2007?) when everyone kept looking for reasons as to why he lost, Roger said something to the effect of 'come on, I think it's disrespectful not to give some credit to the opponent, he played a fantastic match', etc.

No doubt, there have been many other occasions.

In fact the few occasions where he could have been deemed to have made some wayward remarks have been so few and far between that people have jumped on him and started whole threads about his comments.

luciusmann wrote: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.

Lucius,

I never said I dined with him alone, I never said anything about meeting him either till you wrote sarcastically "Faust has of course met Federer and personally dined with him".It is a small world Lucious.Make your point and leave all sarcasm aside.

It's Lucius, I don't intend to be sarcastic. I know you wouldn't have dined with him personally, I think his wife wouldn't have been too pleased about that!

I made my points above, I don't feel I need to add much else to it. All I'm saying is that it's easier to be negative than positive, this is a well known about the modern world we live in, even if it is a small one. No one want to hear about everything that's right and going well, they want to hear about all the negative stories, how the world is going to pot and that sort of claptrap.

"In all his games he repeats that he should have won."

Again, that's rarely true. He, along with many other top players, often says "I had chances to win", or "if I'd taken my opportunites I could have won", but that's not the same thing at all.

emancipator wrote: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.


-----------------------------------

Please don't make things up, or resort to presumption, as you've accused others of doing.

Have you read/listened to every Federer post-match interview?

Clearly you have not, because I recall federer stating on a number of occasions that he lost to the better player. Against Tsonga at W, where Roger clearly said that the match was out of his hands and that Tsonga played fantastic, against Seppi (2007?) when everyone kept looking for reasons as to why he lost, Roger said something to the effect of 'come on, I think it's disrespectful not to give some credit to the opponent, he played a fantastic match', etc.

No doubt, there have been many other occasions.

In fact the few occasions where he could have been deemed to have made some wayward remarks have been so few and far between that people have jumped on him and started whole threads about his comments.

Emancipator,

He did say indeed that Tsonga played fantastic.But only the fact that backleapfrog from 2011 to 2007? shows how rare is that he gives credit.

And what did Tsonga said after lsoing to federer?

its only leaping back a few weeks if you go from wimbledon to french open this year

OK, I just chose a tournament at random from 2009 - BNP Parisbas Open, where Fed lost to Murray (which I had no recollection of)

Fed's interview :-
"Q. What makes him difficult?
ROGER FEDERER: He's a great counter puncher and reads the game really well. He's got great feel, you know, so he's -- he's very confident at the moment.

Q. That was a turning point?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, he played unbelievable in the end. I made many mistakes

"It was one of those matches where it was very up and down from both ends, and today the better player won."

That's just one random interview.

Sorry disagree that Fed never gives opponents credit after a loss.

He does and if you sift through the interviews you will see this. He will not go on and on about how brilliant his opponent was. No player does that in a PC as that is just ridiculous.

He will say something like the opponent played better in the end or played the crucial point very well or something similar. Here is a question after he lost to Tsonga in Montreal-


Q. Is it a special combination here in Montréal against him? You've lost twice.
ROGER FEDERER: No. Two years ago he didn't really deserve the victory. I believe he played a lot better today, and he deserved it today. Two years ago I think he was lucky to pull out the win. Tonight he played well and he played extraordinary shots as we know he can do. I was not able to do that.

I think this debate is much ado about nothing to be honest. Federer should feel flattered in a way that everything he does causes such debate be it a win or loss.

Looks like we've managed to find at least four examples just off the top of our heads.

Faust, do you still stand by the following statement?:

"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!"

emancipator wrote:Looks like we've managed to find at least four examples just off the top of our heads.

Faust, do you still stand by the following statement?:

"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!"

There are some half assed statements emancipator.That is why in the end of my first post I corrected myself saying he does not give "appropriate" credit.In the french open this year he spoke of him being a bit unlucky and Nadal being a bit lucky etc.He was semi-gracious.If your interpretation is that he said that Nadal was better than him that is fine with me.As Nietzsche said after all'There are not facts only interpreations".

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/video/2011-09-08/01324c4949c000000587.html

Tsonga's post match interview.
Tsonga: maybe he was better maybe he was not. I did not play well. I didnt serve well, I did not use my forehand, my enery was down, I didnt move well.

That's being really disrespectful isn't it?

Faust wrote:As Nietzsche said after all'There are not facts only interpreations".

Ah, but Faust said "IT IS A FACT that he NEVER GIVES CREDIT."

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Faust wrote:As Nietzsche said after all'There are not facts only interpreations".

Ah, but Faust said "IT IS A FACT that he NEVER GIVES CREDIT."

JH you have got a good sense of humour. I remember your post ' Djoko is finished'

Where is laverfan these days? She is being sorely missed during the slam.

Djokovic was the better player on the day because he got the win. Some Djokovic fans want Federer to come out in a post match presser after a match were he had match points and say without any qualification "Djokovic is a better player than me". Anything less would be disrespectful?

He won't say that for lots of reasons.

wow wrote:JH you have got a good sense of humour.

Thanks wow, by choosing 'JuliusHMarx' as my moniker, I've given myself far too much to live up to, but I try.

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic was the better player on the day because he got the win. Some Djokovic fans want Federer to come out in a post match presser after a match were he had match points and say without any qualification "Djokovic is a better player than me". Anything less would be disrespectful?

He won't say that for lots of reasons.

No one is saying Roger has to come out and say Djokovic is better than him. But he doesn't have to come out say that he won because of a lucky shot and act like Novak needs to apologize for playing the shot that he did on match point.

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic was the better player on the day because he got the win. Some Djokovic fans want Federer to come out in a post match presser after a match were he had match points and say without any qualification "Djokovic is a better player than me". Anything less would be disrespectful?

He won't say that for lots of reasons.

No one is saying Roger has to come out and say Djokovic is better than him. But he doesn't have to come out say that he won because of a lucky shot and act like Novak needs to apologize for playing the shot that he did on match point.

Soc: what are you blurting about? Instead of celebrating the win of your player, you decide to scan Fed's press conference in search of proves of alleged "sense offence". That's rather mean of yours!

The guy hasn't said anything other than plain and demostrable truth. The match, like it often happens in tennis, was won thanks to a couple of lucky shots, and Djokovic himself confirmed candidly that he took a big gamble hitting that return.

Surely this wasn't a dominant performance of Djokovic, was it?

Debate is over.

No jeremy it isn't over, and it seems that the NY times and the Guardian which I quoted also see a little bit of controversy in Fed's response:

Federer, if I’m reading this right, was not merely surprised by Djokovic’s risky return. He was offended: “I never played that way.” What does that mean? He’s never hit a risky shot to try to save a match? “I believe in hard work’s gonna pay off”? Did he really mean to swipe at Djokovic’s worth ethic, when he is probably the best-conditioned player of the moment and radically changed his diet this year to improve his speed and fitness?

To Federer, it appeared, Djokovic’s haymaker had violated the higher laws of the sport. Never mind that he had dominated Federer in the preceding two sets—in one of them hardly losing a point on his own serve.

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/after-the-match-federer-vs-djokovic-continues/

And the writer goes on to say:"The truth is, all-time greats like Federer are defined not only by their gifts but by their arrogance. Had a lesser player said what he did, the words would have been received as sour grapes, the complaint of a sore loser..

This is exactly what I have been saying, its like this NY times writer took the words out of my mouth.

Federer's denigrated and disrespected Djoko for even trying that shot and called it lucky. And even hinted at how his work ethic is superior. That somehow Djoko did something wrong or reckless.

There are literaly dozens of reporters and if your read the fan comments in this article above that I quoted many people that felt fed's comment was not gracious and a case of clear sour grapes. I happen to agree with those people, haven't found a single writer online that said fed was gracious in defeat or exhibited exemplary sportsmanship. The plain english is there for anyone to see.

Federer is not perfect; to me he does come across as a bit smug on occasions and he seems to take himself pretty seriously too. Beyond his conduct in the public eye we don't know a great deal about him (I personally prefer it that way). The basic picture I think we get is of a very focussed man who likes to win and hates to lose but by and large (not always) makes a pretty decent fist of treating the twin imposters of triumph and disaster the same whilst quite frequently saying it how it appeared to him when others might be more 'diplomatic'. We know he was not always like that and has had to work hard to keep some fairly strong emotions below the surface - he does not always succeed. He is clearly popular with his peers as well as with the tennis watching public and that counts for quite a lot I'd suggest - we know that he had time for Blake and Mahut at low points for them which he did not broadcast to the rest of us. He does not seem to be a 'dictator' like Tiger Woods was before being 'outed' where the smiles and banality hid quite a lot of real dislike.

To my mind the tone of the OP was more informed by animus against Federer than an objective analysis of what occurred.

Do you really excpect Federer not to be bitter Socal after such a defeat? he thought he had won this match as much as Djokovic thought he had lost it!

Fed was the stronger mentally in all important moments of this match until they both thought the match was virtually over.

Of course Djoko can't believe his luck, like Fed can't believe his bad one. Anybody would feel similar under such circumstance. He still found the words to congratualte Djoko and say he played great, but he knows teh match was his.

What else do you want?

Soc: I am sorry but I can't get it. If I understand well you are criticizing somebody for telling the truth, plainly and without hypocrisy. I must admit I struggle to get all this "no gracious" in defeat nonsense. Were Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl gracious in defeat? Weren't you the guy who exalted the bold rivalries in tennis?

Intersting that the first person who questions whether Djoko's shot was luck, and who uses the word luck (and confidence), was the journo who asked the question. Clearly the though has occured to at least one journalist.

There are plenty of Fed-bashers around who will pick on every little thing he says that doesn't live up to what they regard as perfection and who will say that anyone who defends Fed is a die-hard fan who thinks the sun shines out of his @rse.

To say he "denigrated and disrespected Djoko" (which I disagree with) sounds to me like the over-reaction of a Djoko fan who somehow feels Djoko's win by itself isn't good enough, it also needs Fed's validation to be a worthy victory.
Frankly, Djoko won and I don't see why you should give two hoots what Fed says or feels, unless you a) value Fed's opinion that highly b) want to have a bash at him

hawkeye wrote:Djokovics shot at match point down was a gamble. He got lucky.

I'd guess/estimate the chances of that shot going in were something like 20% (I think thats a very generous estimate). So 4 times out of 5 Djokovic would have missed and the match would have had a very different ending. Everyone would have been talking about the end of Djokovics run and how great Federer is. They would also perhaps be calling Djokovic crazy (or stupid) to play such a shot!

Tactically Federer (and Nadal) just don't play like that. Its great watching them play important points. They handle them with such care. Its not that they don't play aggresive because they do. Its just that they work a point so that they take minimum risk when doing so. "Slapping shots" may win a few important points but it will never accumulate as many as a more structured approach.

Like him or not Federer understands tennis. He would make a great coach or commentator. Djokovic is a great player but he played that match point like a much lower ranked player with nothing to lose. Federer could be "gracious" and bland but I much prefere some honest, intellegent insight into the game.

This.

We seem to want our sportsmen to always say the "right" thing; I prefer that they say what they think, then we can be stimulated to agree, disagree or whatever. The fact is that it was a swipe - Djokovic is good enough to admit it - and he got it. Possibly Federer was guilty of feeling hard done by on that, particularly as he probably was worried about the match slipping away and felt that as he'd (in his mind) "earned" the match, losing it was grating, but that's his hard luck and he has to live with it.

I still think it's better to tell the truth as you see it in pressers, who on Earth could want to listen to politically careful lies? I mean, don't we get enough of that already from our "leaders"?

Sorry but I don't see Novak's shot as lucky as such. I mean he DID say he read Fed's serve which he evidently did to get his racquet on the ball and did direct it across the net with a degree of skill - the only luck in it was that it dropped in but you could go throughout every single tennis match in history and find similar instances.

He said it was a gamble - doesn't gambling always involve luck, to various degrees?
Djoko can swing the odds in his favour by reading the serve, being a fantastic returner etc, but there's still going to be some luck involved.

Yes, you could find loads of similar examples, but also I reckon 'luck' is one of the most-used words in tennis post-match interviews.

Yes and gambles are taken in every tennis match ever played in one shot or another. I'd prefer to credit him for managing to pull it off when everything was against him. I mean imagine if Fed played that shot in the same circumstances - I don't think it would be accepted that it was lucky.

Was Novaks shot lucky? I agree with Murray! We have even agreed on a probabilty estimate...

This from Murrays post match interview

Q. Have you ever seen at crunch time in your experience on a big stage a shot quite like that where he unleashed and handed out that incredible winner?

ANDY MURRAY: I have seen Roger and Rafa hit some unbelievable shots over the last four or five years. I mean, I don't know what Novak said about his shot, but it's one of those where he just went for it. You know, out of ten you'll probably make two or three. Yeah, I was watching the end of the match. He looked like he started shaking his head. It was more out of frustration than anything.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2011-09-10/201109111315754407676.html

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Soc: I am sorry but I can't get it. If I understand well you are criticizing somebody for telling the truth, plainly and without hypocrisy. I must admit I struggle to get all this "no gracious" in defeat nonsense. Were Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl gracious in defeat? Weren't you the guy who exalted the bold rivalries in tennis?

for me Fed wasn't telling the truth as he played a high risky winner (SHBH winner crosscourt return from 1st serve out wide, hi from outside the tramlines) against Nadal facing his 3rd Match point at Wimbers 2008. It too was a gamble that paid off (in that moment).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXw_rWx1BQ
4min

Personally it appears Federer is less able to accept that other tops players are capable of awesome shots in the hardest moment, as he does play 'that way' himself. I don't really have great issue with him saying that shot was a little lucky, although i think its up to Djoko to say it really, but i do think he has heavily contradicted his own game play with this comment. Also that return won Djokovic more than 1 point due to Federers weakness of mind - thats Federers fault and essentially that return was only 1 point out of about 300. Several of those points added up to the Djoko win and maybe Federer should have reflected more on the match as a whole and particularly other places where he could have done better.

Tom________ I see where you are coming from on the comparison with Fed's passing shot, but would it not be fair to say that for Fed's passing shot it was not a gamble in the same way as he was far more forced to take that option both because of where he was when he hit the ball and because of where Nadal was at the net. A return of service to someone on the baseline means that the returner has much more choice as to where to put the ball.

Bits of press thinking Federers comment was poor indeed:

""Some players grow up and play like that. I remember losing junior matches and being down 5-2 in the third and they start slapping shots and they all go in for some reason. That's the way they grew up playing when they were down. I never play that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off. [...] So for me this is very hard for me to understand how you can play a shot like that on match point. But maybe he's been doing it for 20 years. Maybe for him it's very normal. You'll have to ask him.""

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Federer-takes-a-jab-at-Djokovic-s-desperate-matc?urn=ten-wp3237

Tom_____ wrote:maybe Federer should have reflected more on the match as a whole and particularly other places where he could have done better.

I think he did, but at one point he was asked a specific question about that one shot and his reply got blown up out of all proportion.
As for it being 'Federer's fault' - he agreed "I have only myself to blame".

Tom_____ wrote:
That's the way they grew up playing when they were down. I never play that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off. So for me this is very hard for me to understand how you can play a shot like that on match point. But maybe he's been doing it for 20 years. Maybe for him it's very normal. You'll have to ask him.""

That's not the most gracious statement, I agree. It's not as if this year has established Djoko as a flashy chancer who wins one moment and crashes out early in a blaze of vainglorious nonsense the next.

barrystar wrote:Tom________ I see where you are coming from on the comparison with Fed's passing shot, but would it not be fair to say that for Fed's passing shot it was not a gamble in the same way as he was far more forced to take that option both because of where he was when he hit the ball and because of where Nadal was at the net. A return of service to someone on the baseline means that the returner has much more choice as to where to put the ball.

It was nethertheless still a gamble and i only show it to indicate that similarities can certainly be drawn - he could have blocked it up the line for example, but chose to take a swing at it and intentend it from the outset to be a winner. I just found the whole comment about taking risks at match point highly contradictive by Federer.

Djoko did himself indicate that because of the reading of the serve and position he put himself in that he had to hit the shot hard, so it wasn't total choice in the shot for Djoko either
"“I read his serve and I was on the ball and I had to hit it hard, and it got in, luckily for me.”"

Once Djoko had made that comment i don't really see why Federer needed to emphasise the luck element so heavily, unless he couldn't cope with it mentally

By now I'd have thought we'd know that if he's asked a question he'll answer it directly.

Funny thing is that nobody is saying he was particularly wrong in fact, they just don't think he should say it. Then is becomes a matter of whether you prefer decorum over honesty.

Remember the fuss over his comments about Murray a few years back that suddenly become mainstream about a year later?

bogbrush wrote:By now I'd have thought we'd know that if he's asked a question he'll answer it directly.

Funny thing is that nobody is saying he was particularly wrong in fact, they just don't think he should say it. Then is becomes a matter of whether you prefer decorum over honesty.

Remember the fuss over his comments about Murray a few years back that suddenly become mainstream about a year later?

not saying hes wrong about the gamble/luck thing, but i am saying hes wrong in that he doesn't play that way himself - clearly he does

Tom, you're assuming Fed heard Djoko's comment. Also, players use 'good luck', 'bad luck' etc all the time in pressers.
When Fed says "So for me this is very hard for me to understand how you can play a shot like that on match point" perhaps he just doesn't get the idea of going for broke on match point when there are safer options available.

Was it a bit ungracious? Probably, but players are ungracious all the time in pressers and its usually no big deal. Storm in a tea-cup, unless we hold Fed up to higher standards than other players. He's no saint, he's no sinner.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Tom, you're assuming Fed heard Djoko's comment. Also, players use 'good luck', 'bad luck' etc all the time in pressers.
When Fed says "So for me this is very hard for me to understand how you can play a shot like that on match point" perhaps he just doesn't get the idea of going for broke on match point when there are safer options available.

Was it a bit ungracious? Probably, but players are ungracious all the time in pressers and its usually no big deal. Storm in a tea-cup, unless we hold Fed up to higher standards than other players. He's no saint, he's no sinner.

clearly he does go for broke on Match point though, as shown in the Wimbledon 2008 clip above. That shot was risky as could have netted or gone wide and could have been play more into court as Nadal would have been able to push down the line with Fed out of position. The 'safe option' would have been to block back down the line, but he took a swing at it - it was winner or bust.

I think it was an ungracious comment, but that not my personal gripe, my gripe is that he is incorrect in saying he plays differently (maybe in his head, but not reality)

""Some players grow up and play like that. I remember losing junior matches and being down 5-2 in the third and they start slapping shots and they all go in for some reason. That's the way they grew up playing when they were down. I never play that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off. [...] So for me this is very hard for me to understand how you can play a shot like that on match point. But maybe he's been doing it for 20 years. Maybe for him it's very normal. You'll have to ask him.""


So Federer is implying Djokovic grew up playing Do-or-die tennis at desperate or rather important moments? That's insulting and downn right embarrassing. He ignores the though mental strength (which Federer himself lacks) as well as the talent and skill involved in excecuting a shot like that at such a time. Doesn't come across as someone trying to give an opponent credit for his win.

The fact is he has himself to blame for losing the match. This wasn't the first and this might not be the last he loses a match after MPs. He is playing against better oppositions than he ever played in his like during his dominate years where the likes of Roddick will have his belly tickled on court and be a spectator in slam finals or semi against him. These guys will apply the pressure and make you feel to win the match, you have to play to the last point and it is something Federer doesn't like. He prefers his opponents easy.

Like i said before, whether it was by luck or not, it wasn't in Federer's place to make that statement. It was left with others to pass such a judgement. It comes across as a sour loser makign such a comment. I particularly don't have a problem with what ever a player says in his press conference even though i can argue it. Not something i pay much attention to but for his fans to jump on any one disecting what he said makes it slightly amusing.

Simple_Analyst wrote:The fact is he has himself to blame for losing the match

Which would explain why he said "I only have myself to blame".

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and gambles are taken in every tennis match ever played in one shot or another. I'd prefer to credit him for managing to pull it off when everything was against him. I mean imagine if Fed played that shot in the same circumstances - I don't think it would be accepted that it was lucky.

Exactly, if Federer hit that shot everyone would be talking about how he is the maestro and legendary shot maker and that is why all other players pale in comparison. Novak to his credit admitted it was a gamble and at some level there is an element of luck. But imagine if the roles were reversed and Novak came out and said "I can't believe Roger would play that way", "it was a lucky shot" the fed fans would be all over him and the criticism we are seeing in the media would be ten times what we are witnessing.

To say he "denigrated and disrespected Djoko" (which I disagree with) sounds to me like the over-reaction of a Djoko fan who somehow feels Djoko's win by itself isn't good enough, it also needs Fed's validation to be a worthy victory.
Frankly, Djoko won and I don't see why you should give two hoots what Fed says or feels, unless you a) value Fed's opinion that highly b) want to have a bash at him. Julius

Actually, Julius as a Djoko fan I feel even better about the win knowing how much Roger was ticked off by it. That is what a rivalry is all about. I don't need fed's validation to enjoy the win, in fact fed getting all cranky and incredulous makes the win that much sweeter. I just like talking about it because I think it makes an interesting discussion. It certainly doesn't make my blood pressure rise, in fact it brings a smile to my face.

socal1976 wrote:,,,the fed fans would be all over him and the criticism we are seeing in the media would be ten times what we are witnessing.

So you're doing someting you would criticise fed fans for doing?
And why would the media criticise Djoko ten times more than Fed? Djoko has blamed losses on bad luck before, and I don't think anyone made a big deal out of it. Why should they?

Blaming losses on bad luck is different to blaming loses on good luck and claiming it was poor play

This is turning into another Fognini story. In short, Socal wants us to see it the way he sees it at all cost and won't let it go until we give in.

The good thing is that Socal thinks he is openminded and can change his views over time. Though we have yet to experience such occurence, we keep faith.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes and gambles are taken in every tennis match ever played in one shot or another. I'd prefer to credit him for managing to pull it off when everything was against him. I mean imagine if Fed played that shot in the same circumstances - I don't think it would be accepted that it was lucky.

Exactly, if Federer hit that shot everyone would be talking about how he is the maestro and legendary shot maker and that is why all other players pale in comparison. Novak to his credit admitted it was a gamble and at some level there is an element of luck. But imagine if the roles were reversed and Novak came out and said "I can't believe Roger would play that way", "it was a lucky shot" the fed fans would be all over him and the criticism we are seeing in the media would be ten times what we are witnessing.

A lot of speculation there socal I'm sure that there are plenty of fed fans that thought he was lucky to come away with SW19 2007 and if he'd some how come through the match in 2008 would have felt rafa was hard done by. If the same thing had happened to Djokovic and federer saved match point with a semi reckless shot and went on to win then I'm sure you'd still find your fair share people saying that Djokovic had the match and could have won and fed got lucky again etc

socal1976 wrote:To say he "denigrated and disrespected Djoko" (which I disagree with) sounds to me like the over-reaction of a Djoko fan who somehow feels Djoko's win by itself isn't good enough, it also needs Fed's validation to be a worthy victory.
Frankly, Djoko won and I don't see why you should give two hoots what Fed says or feels, unless you a) value Fed's opinion that highly b) want to have a bash at him. Julius

Actually, Julius as a Djoko fan I feel even better about the win knowing how much Roger was ticked off by it. That is what a rivalry is all about. I don't need fed's validation to enjoy the win, in fact fed getting all cranky and incredulous makes the win that much sweeter. I just like talking about it because I think it makes an interesting discussion. It certainly doesn't make my blood pressure rise, in fact it brings a smile to my face.

But.... you don't have a rivalry with Roger.