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.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

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

Exactly right.

I think Djokovic got very lucky and that's a fact. If socal wants to dream that it was some genius thing then good luck to him.

But I don't think Roger has a complaint in the long run; I have always said that he was extremely lucky to win Wimbledon 2009 - the tie break, the 15-40 at 8-8 and generally winning a massive match with one break. And i know if you offered him a USO semi - even two of them as it happens - versus that he'd be happier with what he got.

Doesn't mean that Djokovic wasn't lucky. He was. Naughty Roger for saying it as it is.

If anything if Roger would have won it would have been more lucky. Novak won more total points, and more games. BB, like i said Roger is free to speak his mind just like people who listen to him can draw their own conclusions and speak out about it. I frankly enjoyed this win more than even wimbeldon, because it is very special to come back two sets and two match points on Roger. There is a rivalry with a bit of edge to it between Novak and Roger that isn't the same with the other big 4. Credit to federer for adding fuel to the fire, but it is clearly a case of sour grapes.

Djokovic's shot was a thing of genius, no question. As was his clinical ball striking blasting winners with few errors from start to finish. In the end Roger didn't do himself any favors by being harsh and negative in his presser. Its fine that he said it, it doesn't diminish him as a person or his legacy very much if at all. But it is pretty good evidence of his diva behavior and shatters the myth of Federer the good sport.

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

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

Exactly right.

I think Djokovic got very lucky and that's a fact. If socal wants to dream that it was some genius thing then good luck to him.

But I don't think Roger has a complaint in the long run; I have always said that he was extremely lucky to win Wimbledon 2009 - the tie break, the 15-40 at 8-8 and generally winning a massive match with one break. And i know if you offered him a USO semi - even two of them as it happens - versus that he'd be happier with what he got.

Doesn't mean that Djokovic wasn't lucky. He was. Naughty Roger for saying it as it is.

The reaction of the fed fans is as Barry Flatman of the Sunday Times once said "To question the judgment of somebody so normally phenomenal at his craft as Roger Federer is tantamount to heresy.However the disssapointment of a loss often is clouding Federer's judgment.
He could have been easily considerably more magnanimous to a victor who merited nothing but praise."

This is what Djokovic said yesterday."The CONFIDENCE level that is very high at this moment for me helps me … go for the shots that I maybe in some situations wouldn’t; that I wasn’t going for … in the past couple years,” Djokovic said.
“But it’s all, I think, a process of learning and getting experience and maturing as a player, as a person,”
This is what he said Saturday "He was serving. He was 40-15 up. Yeah, I mean, I managed to hit that amazing(amazing he said not lucky) forehand return which got me back.I read his serve and I was on the ball and I had to hit it hard, and it got in, luckily for me.

This is what Federer said Saturday.
Q. When a guy hits a shot like that forehand on match point, is that a function of luck, of risk, or is it a function of confidence that someone would make kind of

ROGER FEDERER: 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, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. So for me, this is very hard to understand how can you play a shot like that on match point. But, look, maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him.

That sounds sour-graping to me.

Faust wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

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

Exactly right.

I think Djokovic got very lucky and that's a fact. If socal wants to dream that it was some genius thing then good luck to him.

But I don't think Roger has a complaint in the long run; I have always said that he was extremely lucky to win Wimbledon 2009 - the tie break, the 15-40 at 8-8 and generally winning a massive match with one break. And i know if you offered him a USO semi - even two of them as it happens - versus that he'd be happier with what he got.

Doesn't mean that Djokovic wasn't lucky. He was. Naughty Roger for saying it as it is.

The reaction of the fed fans is as Barry Flatman of the Sunday Times once said "To question the judgment of somebody so normally phenomenal at his craft as Roger Federer is tantamount to heresy.However the disssapointment of a loss often is clouding Federer's judgment.
He could have been easily considerably more magnanimous to a victor who merited nothing but praise."

This is what Djokovic said yesterday."The CONFIDENCE level that is very high at this moment for me helps me … go for the shots that I maybe in some situations wouldn’t; that I wasn’t going for … in the past couple years,” Djokovic said.
“But it’s all, I think, a process of learning and getting experience and maturing as a player, as a person,”
This is what he said Saturday "He was serving. He was 40-15 up. Yeah, I mean, I managed to hit that amazing(amazing he said not lucky) forehand return which got me back.I read his serve and I was on the ball and I had to hit it hard, and it got in, luckily for me.

This is what Federer said Saturday.
Q. When a guy hits a shot like that forehand on match point, is that a function of luck, of risk, or is it a function of confidence that someone would make kind of

ROGER FEDERER: 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, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. So for me, this is very hard to understand how can you play a shot like that on match point. But, look, maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him.

That sounds sour-graping to me.

Yes.. we got your point the first time you posted that quote.

Writing the same thing over and over again doesn't make an arguement stronger

socal1976 wrote:shatters the myth of Federer the good sport.

Socal, you really do gp over-the-top at times. It would shatter the myth of him being a saint, if that myth existed, but no-one really thought that anyway. He's highly regarded as a good sport by most fans, players and officials. But no-one ever said he was perfect or didn't make mistakes.

If a player, after losing, said "he (my opponent) was getting a lot of balls back, but he didn't do anything special. I mean, he was just playing, and he didn't even play any deep balls." is that being a good sport or giving the proper respect?

BB, lets say that ball doesn't go in. If Roger won the match by eeking out a close tiebreaker, after losing more games and more points than he won wouldn't you think he got even luckier than Djokovic? If Roger won I think it would be a bigger case of luck. But I don't think that you or tenez or the other fed fans would see it that way. You would be talking about the genius of federer and how overrated Novak is.

Tennis doesn't work on who won more points. The only reason Novak had more points is because the 3rd and 4th sets weren't as close because for some recurring yet inexplicable reason Roger eased up. By the fifth set it was anyones match maybe more Djokovic's as the momentum was with him.

Not that I think Federer is ungracious off court but surely being a good sport is more about what you do on court where the sport is actually played? Federer is one of the players in this respect that just gets on with it and rarely engages in gamesmanship. Djokovic also has his good points in that he applauds opponents shots.

In the end if you look at it overall he wasn't harsh or negative in his presser he just happened to disagree with one shot which he explained well. Its not like he discredited Novak for coming back and getting to that position to hit that shot.

break in the fifth, he was ungracious in the presser. There is not a lot of wiggle room around his comments. A lot of his press conferences now he gets rather surly with media, something that he didn't do when he was winning everything and everyone was fawning all over him. At one point in the match last night a guy fainted in the crowd between Novak's first and second serve, and there was a delay. The umpire gave Novak a first serve as would be customary and Roger looked really peed, he didn't argue it much because it is pretty much tennis etiquette, Novak even said to roger that if he objected he didn't mind taking the second if Roger objected.

Roger is a good guy overral, but I think he gets way too much credit for his sportsmanship and I just don't see it.

Ok so we put this debate to bed by agreeing on;

1. Federer choked the match and has himself to blame.

2. Saying Djokovic was lucky is out of place for the one who lost.

3. We will have to see Djokovic's reaction should he lose a close match but to say, it has been exemplary so far.

socal1976 wrote:
Roger is a good guy overral, but I think he gets way too much credit for his sportsmanship and I just don't see it.

Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. Federer is one of the most sporting and courteous players out there (to be fair I have often said I think Djoko behaves well on court too - but I don't give Nadal so much credit for his on-court demeanour and conduct). Fed doesn't make opponents wait, he plays quietly and efficiently, his outbursts attract such attention because they are so rare and the person who pays for them is usually Federer himself. This he has managed whilst during the last 9 years he has been amongst the most watched and followed sportsmen on the planet, a player who everyone has wanted to beat. It's almost impossible, off or on the record, to get one of his fellow pro's to say something bad about him. Compared to a tendency towards smugness and the odd expression of his frustration after a painful defeat in pressers (and he has created a bit of a monster where every defeat involves a huge post mortem as to whether he's finished and journalists know full well which buttons to press to get a quotable answer) I find that record close to overwhelming.

You've said your piece (and given Fed credit in the above quote) - some agree, some don't, let's end this tedious argument.

Wow so many faults with federer I don't know where to start. You're focussing on one part of his conference where he could be deemed to be ungracious and then using that to form an opinion of how he was the whole time.

I recall that incident but didn't remember Roger's reaction. Good on Novak for his reaction.

I still think he is a good sportsman, it doesn't seem like he gets much credit nowadays anyway. The general view seems to be that he's smug and arrogant. I would say that Novak has in general a better demeanour about him on court, aside from his time wasting, and off court where he manages to be honest and interesting in a similar way to Roger but without coming across as brash.

Didn't Djokovic lose Madrid in 2009 after being the better player for most of the match and having match points. Maybe someone could dig up that post match conference and see how happy and diplomatic he was then.

emancipator wrote:

Faust wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

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

Exactly right.

I think Djokovic got very lucky and that's a fact. If socal wants to dream that it was some genius thing then good luck to him.

But I don't think Roger has a complaint in the long run; I have always said that he was extremely lucky to win Wimbledon 2009 - the tie break, the 15-40 at 8-8 and generally winning a massive match with one break. And i know if you offered him a USO semi - even two of them as it happens - versus that he'd be happier with what he got.

Doesn't mean that Djokovic wasn't lucky. He was. Naughty Roger for saying it as it is.

The reaction of the fed fans is as Barry Flatman of the Sunday Times once said "To question the judgment of somebody so normally phenomenal at his craft as Roger Federer is tantamount to heresy.However the disssapointment of a loss often is clouding Federer's judgment.
He could have been easily considerably more magnanimous to a victor who merited nothing but praise."

This is what Djokovic said yesterday."The CONFIDENCE level that is very high at this moment for me helps me … go for the shots that I maybe in some situations wouldn’t; that I wasn’t going for … in the past couple years,” Djokovic said.
“But it’s all, I think, a process of learning and getting experience and maturing as a player, as a person,”
This is what he said Saturday "He was serving. He was 40-15 up. Yeah, I mean, I managed to hit that amazing(amazing he said not lucky) forehand return which got me back.I read his serve and I was on the ball and I had to hit it hard, and it got in, luckily for me.

This is what Federer said Saturday.
Q. When a guy hits a shot like that forehand on match point, is that a function of luck, of risk, or is it a function of confidence that someone would make kind of

ROGER FEDERER: 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, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. So for me, this is very hard to understand how can you play a shot like that on match point. But, look, maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him.

That sounds sour-graping to me.

Yes.. we got your point the first time you posted that quote.

Writing the same thing over and over again doesn't make an arguement stronger

Emancipator "please don't make things up,as you've accused others of doing."

IF you look carefully you can see that I posted a different question and a different quote yesterday.
If you think is the same post it.
Maybe you should emancipate yourself of blinding ProFed sentiments?
Ask yourself logically.
Who has better acces to Djokovic brain? Djokovic or Federer ?
Of course you can always weasel yourself out by claiming that Djokovic is lying.

Unfortunately as Hume said "We humans are more creatures of sentiment than of reason."
You a normaly poised and composed person clearly confirm that here.

Faust,

I think you missed the point..

Regardless of whether or not you actually posted the same quote again (and I apologise for mistakenly thinking that you did), that quote has already been posted as well as links to the original interview.

Anyway, as pointed out in my article 'Djokovic is a graceless winner' all of these actions and words are interpreted according to personal biases, hence I agree that we are creatures of sentiment, myself no less than yourself.

Barry, if you are tired of the conversation by all means don't participate I don't want you to get worked up over it if it bothers you. But other people still seem to want to discuss it, I think it is an interesting window into his mind where he let his guard down.

Break in the fifth, it isn't that big of a deal to me whether fed shows grace in defeat or doesn't. And as I said, it doesn't make him a bad person, I have commended him for his work in charity and he has been very kind to some of the players on tour. He is a complicated individual like most. But I just don't buy the fed as gracious sportsman image that has been painted for us. I think in fact that if any other player had come out and said some of the things that fed has said in the media about other players the reaction would have been much much worse.

Well I guess that's the medias issue for painting such a picture. To me he is gracious enough though not as much as some. Perhaps his popluarity does allow him to get off more lightly with saying some of the things he does (I'm assuming you're referring to other cases as well here). I for one am glad that he has taken this chance to provide his insights uninhibited by the potential consequences to peoples perception of him. But that's what it comes down to as has been mentioned earlier, the two types of answer that can be given. Maybe what makes this more interesting is that this phenomenon is not only confined to tennis and there are probably many other walks of life where people are divided by these two types of response.

Don't get me wrong, Break in, I am glad fed said it to. It makes it so much more spicey than if he hadn't. I like my rivalries with a little bad blood, not this kissy face that Roger and Rafa have had over the years. And I like the fact that under that cool exterior he really doesn't like to lose and really doesn't like to lose to Novak. I say let the games begin.

Tom_____ wrote:
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

Good call!

That was the riskiest tennis shot in the entire history of tennis considering the fact that by then it was so dark that Federer could barely see the ball, the match should have been stopped and Nadal only won the match because he was younger and eats more carrots.

At least it was broad daylight and Djokovic could see the ball before obliterating it, substantially lessening the risk of error .......

icecold wrote:That was the riskiest tennis shot in the entire history of tennis considering the fact that by then it was so dark that Federer could barely see the ball, the match should have been stopped and Nadal only won the match because he was younger and eats more carrots.

No. It was not dark by that time. They played 16 games after that shot!!!

Federer has played many sublime BH like that in important moments of his career. Just 3 more I have in mind....

1 - Wimby 06 Final Set point v Nadal...BH cross court winner.
2 - USO 07 Final Second set set point v ...Djoko ...BH along the line.
3 - and no more recently that at this very USO 11 SF, first set, set point!

He doesn't wack the ball, he times it perfectly.

Tenez wrote:

icecold wrote:That was the riskiest tennis shot in the entire history of tennis considering the fact that by then it was so dark that Federer could barely see the ball, the match should have been stopped and Nadal only won the match because he was younger and eats more carrots.

No. It was not dark by that time. They played 16 games after that shot!!!

Er ... no. They played two points after that shot. Watch the Youtube link that Tom____ supplied.

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

4 mins in.

ok I just saw it know. I thought it meant the BH that that gave him the 4th set.

That BH Tom is referring to is actually not that risky. Loopy cross court. Can't get safer than that. It's a contained shot.

Tenez wrote:ok I just saw it know. I thought it meant the BH that that gave him the 4th set.

That BH Tom is referring to is actually not that risky. Loopy cross court. Can't get safer than that. It's a contained shot.

In the pitch black of night? Having to use sonar to detect the ball? Not that risky?!!!

FOr the first time I saw the Djoko/ Fed semi on a extra large 3D high def screen.


That was really impressive!