The greatest evil in Tennis

No it is not big fluffy balls, it is not doping, it is not slow courts, it is any particular long haired player. The greatest evil in tennis right now is a faction of extremist federer fans determined to ruin the game for everyone else and to denigrate every other great champion except Roger Federer. After the AO, we heard the chorus of a certain segment of fed fans who could not spout off enough about how bad the game was and how boring or doped up Roger's contemporaries are.

Federer is actually a likeable guy, a great champion who has done so much for the sport on and off the court. But not only on this site but on many others there is an extremist fed faction determined to ruin things for everyone else. If you are a contemporary champion you are either dull, doped up, cheating, or just plain crap. It is a sad state of affairs frankly because not only do they ruin debate on this site but they further an agenda of tearing down other people's favorite players. The funny thing is that Roger himself is a very gracious guy who routinely talks up many of his contemporaries. Instead of taking a page out of Roger's book the Fed extremist is determined in bringing down other people and raining on their parade.

I have been a fan of many teams and players involved in rivalries. In college I attended UCLA and enjoyed many big rivalry games with our rival the evil trojans of USC. Living in LA, i am determined and passionate fan of the Los Angeles Lakers and have gone to many rivalry games against the hated Boston Celtics. Despite these rivalries I have had great friends on both sides of the dividing line. By far the most annoying fans in all of sports and the most polarizing I have experienced are the fed extremists. And I am well aware that not all fed fans go to these extremes and are quite reasonable people. They have officially ruined my fed watching experience. In the past I could watch Roger and cheer for him, the guy has such a beautiful game. On this very site I have done very positive posts about FEd. But the fed extremist and their ludicrous contrafactual arguments have officially turned me on Roger.

Here is my new position:

Anyone, and I mean anyone (yes think of the best most evil possible person in history) v. Federer. I root for anyone. Regardless of how loathsome or awful that person is, if he is playing tennis against federer I want him to win. At this point I hope that someone can quickly get to 16 slams, preferrably a counterpuncher with loopy shots just to unseat fed as goat.

So go John Isner, please kick his a**. It probably won't happen. But my favorite player is Djokovic and whoever is playing Roger.

In away I myself am sad that my fed watching experience has been ruined by a group of negative haters who will do whatever possible to ruin it for you. But well I can't help it.

Socal r u turning funny , come on take a leaf out of Amrit's book, I am not a Fed fan either but like his game and do compliment his game and his sportiveness. Fed made a bunny out of my fav player DP, but I am still hopefull he will comeback stronger come FO.

Be it Fed or be it Isner the game gonna be interesting and tennis will survive whoever wins.

Invisible, Del Potro is a great player. Hypothetically, if Del portro started winning multiple slams and threatening any of Roger's credentials you would see the fed extremist pull out their knives. Del Po would become evil, boring, doped up, cheating or whatever. If Del PO all of sudden started to threaten any of fed's record. Watch how fast the fed extremists would go after him.

Socal, are you not giving the people you are complaining about too much credibility? If one or two people make basically the same point again and again then that presumably says more about them than it does about tennis. I and I expect others on here just skim read their posts because the content is always the same; I think you've made the mistake if taking it a bit to heart and now they're in your head like a catchy chorus.

If someone wants to devote so much energy to their cause then perhaps you can wonder what's at stake for them personally, maybe their life or maybe their tennis results don't tally with their expectations. But that doesn't mean you need to join them. Leave them to it. Engage with the points that interest you rather than wearing yourself down with the dead horse floggers!

Excellent post Jarvik, in an ideal world your post is dead on and correct. In fact, I myself feel dirtied by these extremists. I feel stupid for even trying to argue with them. Maybe you are right, and I have taken that attitude in the past of just ignoring their rubbish. But sometimes they just really get on your nerves and you just feel like giving some of their negativity back to them. But you are right it is silly really to even engage them because like you said it is giving them power and credibility.

I am not perfect, I have my own faults and maybe I am little too susceptible to their goading.


Excellent post, but it is hard for me to compartmentalize, we are a hotblooded people.

.

.

This is great stuff. I'd never allow someone else to determine my opinions and even less would I tell them! But, good for you, it's probably cathartic.

One thing I'd lie to clear up - am I a greater evil than Tenez, or are we a collective Great Evil? I'll be very upset if I am the second greatest evil in he game so I hope I can be part of Team Evil. I realise your opinion will probably be decided by my statement so you'll tell me I'm #2, but then maybe that's what I really want you to say. Tell me your opinion and I'll confirm whether I gave you it.

Poor guy. He is losing it.

As if I was desperate to have Fed win this evening. Yes I woudl like him to win, but would be very happy if Isner did.

You are making parallel with yourself whenclearly there isn't.

social1976

Don't let a few crazy posters here on 606v2 spoil your enjoyment and change your opinions. Most of their monotonous and repetative dislike is aimed at Nadal who as you know I like many think is great. It won't make me dislike Federer who I like many also think is great. That would just be silly...

Also there is a certain Djokovic fan that does their best to put me off Djokovic (thats how it feels to me anyway). They won't succeed either...

The thin I never liked about Federer was his unchecked arrogance. Shows up every time he plays well:

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16873&zoneid=25

That is exactly why I never liked the guy even though my own tennis game is more similar to his than Nadal's in terms of style (if not performance, lol). His inbuilt arrogance and aloofness seems at times transferred to some of his hardcore fans....but then birds of a feather flock together?

Bwhahahaha..taking Novaks loss out on Federer fans
You cant blame Federer fans for what happened yesterday..youre the one who's sour grapes not them
Geese never thought you were a sore loser Socal but you're right up there with the worst sore losers I have ever seen
Have some cool aide Im sure it will cut the sour taste the lemonades been leaving in your mouth

Can't open the link. Has he been telling truth again rather than adopting a facade of false humility?

To be honest, I don't think what Federer says in the link is arrogant at all, just a bit weird. He basically states that he enjoyed the argument between JMDP and the umpire, saying that you don't get that as often with the usage of Hawkeye nowadays. I can't see how that's arrogant, but I do think it's something he should have kept to himself.

A ridiculous article, although I assume it's a wind up.

There is nothing wrong with supporting Federer, the real issue is excessive hate of Nadal.

Henman Bill wrote:A ridiculous article, although I assume it's a wind up.

There is nothing wrong with supporting Federer, the real issue is excessive hate of Nadal.

If it is a wind up, it's one he put on every thread.

Henman Bill wrote:A ridiculous article, although I assume it's a wind up.

There is nothing wrong with supporting Federer, the real issue is excessive hate of Nadal.

I fully agree with you. btw I think Social is saying something similar too.

amritia3ee wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:A ridiculous article, although I assume it's a wind up.

There is nothing wrong with supporting Federer, the real issue is excessive hate of Nadal.

I fully agree with you. btw I think Social is saying something similar too.

I agree. The real issue is hatred of Nadal and the venomous 'articles' we see so often around here.

The mods should do something

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

Yes the standards should be the same. IF nadal bashing (taking his interviews out of context, veiled reference to PEDs, use of terms like Nadull and basic human courtesy when referring to a 10 time grandslam champion and one of all time tennis greats) is okay, then you cannot really dismiss/censor similar comments about other players including Federer.

Yes, we must not have people expressing their opinions in an appropriately worded manner.

bogbrush wrote:Can't open the link. Has he been telling truth again rather than adopting a facade of false humility?

"Roger Federer says he enjoyed watching Juan Martin del Potro argue with chair umpire Mohammed Lahyani in his quarterfinal victory over the Argentine. Federer, who is no fan of HawkEye, believes the line calling system takes personality out of the game.

"Back then with the bad calls sometimes you get these arguments," Federer said. "It was just different to see. There was a different momentum, something you kind of talk about sometimes. I don't know, it just has more flair to it, when you have these bad calls from time to time. Now it's just straightforward; you move on. There's a good call, bad call, the worst that can happen is you run out of challenges and the umpire then misses everything and the linespeople too. But the chances of that happening are virtually impossible. I liked it the way it was, and I'm fine with what it is today."

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

You mean censor opinion about tennis players? Everyone has different values/morals/judgements about what is acceptable - even Moderators. Personally I have no problems with any opinions about players, postive or negative. I don't like negative opinions or comments about other posters. Despite that I'm letting this thread ride for now.

I suggest that people report any posts that they consider breaking the house rules. Moderators don't always have time to read and evaluate every single post.

Or PM me. Or PM Gav if you think the tennis mods have got something wrong.

That's not nasty nitb. Nostalgic is about the closest description I can think of. It's not dissing JMDP, it's a general comment.

bogbrush wrote:That's not nasty nitb. Nostalgic is about the closest description I can think of. It's not dissing JMDP, it's a general comment.

I know but how you think Delpo would feel when he finds out Fed "enjoyed" watching him argue with Layani...I mean he can think what he likes, but if it's bound to wind a player up or hurt him (as if the 5 loss in 2012 against him hasn't done it already).

some things are obvious, they don't need to be rubbed in.

The thread is just ridiculous on so many levels I don't even know where to start,and has exposed what Socal is really all about
A two faced hypocrite who isn't even ashamed of it,pretending to be a fan of tennis but will root for even the most evil person in history over Federer who has not only been an incredible ambassador for our sport but has carried it to great highs never seen before
All this just to "get back" at Federer fans,for what? You cant blame Federer fans for Djokovic losing and why should Fed be penalised for what you deem unacceptable from his fans.Is that not really unfair?
Who is really looking ilk the greatest evil in tennis now?

10IS wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

Yes the standards should be the same. IF nadal bashing (taking his interviews out of context, veiled reference to PEDs, use of terms like Nadull and basic human courtesy when referring to a 10 time grandslam champion and one of all time tennis greats) is okay, then you cannot really dismiss/censor similar comments about other players including Federer.

Its not ok,why aren't we allow our freedom of speech when it comes to Nadal but Socal is allowed to voice his/her opinions about Fed and his fans?

Veejay wrote:

10IS wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

Yes the standards should be the same. IF nadal bashing (taking his interviews out of context, veiled reference to PEDs, use of terms like Nadull and basic human courtesy when referring to a 10 time grandslam champion and one of all time tennis greats) is okay, then you cannot really dismiss/censor similar comments about other players including Federer.

Its not ok,why aren't we allow our freedom of speech when it comes to Nadal but Socal is allowed to voice his/her opinions about Fed and his fans?

I am not for curtailing freedom of speech/opinion. The argument is about where to draw the line between excessive venom spewing against Nadal. If we are willing to accommodate that as part of free speech, I am okay with that as long as the same rule applies for every other player.

10IS wrote:

Veejay wrote:

10IS wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

Yes the standards should be the same. IF nadal bashing (taking his interviews out of context, veiled reference to PEDs, use of terms like Nadull and basic human courtesy when referring to a 10 time grandslam champion and one of all time tennis greats) is okay, then you cannot really dismiss/censor similar comments about other players including Federer.

Its not ok,why aren't we allow our freedom of speech when it comes to Nadal but Socal is allowed to voice his/her opinions about Fed and his fans?

I am not for curtailing freedom of speech/opinion. The argument is about where to draw the line between excessive venom spewing against Nadal. If we are willing to accommodate that as part of free speech, I am okay with that as long as the same rule applies for every other player.

Are you sure about the rules things. I don't see the same rules applies to every player.

1OIS, for my part feel free to speak as you wish. I would only censor abuse, bullying or libel.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

10IS wrote:

Veejay wrote:

10IS wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

Yes the standards should be the same. IF nadal bashing (taking his interviews out of context, veiled reference to PEDs, use of terms like Nadull and basic human courtesy when referring to a 10 time grandslam champion and one of all time tennis greats) is okay, then you cannot really dismiss/censor similar comments about other players including Federer.

Its not ok,why aren't we allow our freedom of speech when it comes to Nadal but Socal is allowed to voice his/her opinions about Fed and his fans?

I am not for curtailing freedom of speech/opinion. The argument is about where to draw the line between excessive venom spewing against Nadal. If we are willing to accommodate that as part of free speech, I am okay with that as long as the same rule applies for every other player.

Are you sure about the rules things. I don't see the same rules applies to every player.

Not sure if I follow you / or if you were trying to be sarcastic. Maybe I should rephrase the term "same rule". What I meant to say was we should also get used to seeing similarly venomous articles against Nadal's rivals.

bogbrush wrote:1OIS, for my part feel free to speak as you wish. I would only censor abuse, bullying or libel.

Fair enough BB. But it is probably not that simple as arguments are bound to arise as how/when to draw distinction between "abuse, bullying or libel" vs freedom of speech.

10IS wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

10IS wrote:

Veejay wrote:

10IS wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

Yes the standards should be the same. IF nadal bashing (taking his interviews out of context, veiled reference to PEDs, use of terms like Nadull and basic human courtesy when referring to a 10 time grandslam champion and one of all time tennis greats) is okay, then you cannot really dismiss/censor similar comments about other players including Federer.

Its not ok,why aren't we allow our freedom of speech when it comes to Nadal but Socal is allowed to voice his/her opinions about Fed and his fans?

I am not for curtailing freedom of speech/opinion. The argument is about where to draw the line between excessive venom spewing against Nadal. If we are willing to accommodate that as part of free speech, I am okay with that as long as the same rule applies for every other player.

Are you sure about the rules things. I don't see the same rules applies to every player.

Not sure if I follow you / or if you were trying to be sarcastic. Maybe I should rephrase the term "same rule". What I meant to say was we should also get used to seeing similarly venomous articles against Nadal's rivals.

I was just trying to be sarcastic about following the "rules", but maybe my attempt was bad .

Can you clearly say what do you mean by venomous articles? Can you also give some points here and also tell how do they qualify to be called "venomous"?

10IS wrote:

bogbrush wrote:1OIS, for my part feel free to speak as you wish. I would only censor abuse, bullying or libel.

Fair enough BB. But it is probably not that simple as arguments are bound to arise as how/when to draw distinction between "abuse, bullying or libel" vs freedom of speech.

Which is where the Mods come in. Just don't expect Mods to be in 100% agreement with you (I mean with any poster, not you 101S), or even each other, and certainly don't expect them to be 100% perfect.

bogbrush wrote:This is great stuff. I'd never allow someone else to determine my opinions and even less would I tell them! But, good for you, it's probably cathartic.

One thing I'd lie to clear up - am I a greater evil than Tenez, or are we a collective Great Evil? I'll be very upset if I am the second greatest evil in he game so I hope I can be part of Team Evil. I realise your opinion will probably be decided by my statement so you'll tell me I'm #2, but then maybe that's what I really want you to say. Tell me your opinion and I'll confirm whether I gave you it.

BB, glad you enjoyed the thread. Well even in Tennis forum extremism you come up lacking my friend. Tenez is definetly Dr. Evil and you are just evil lite. You lack the tireless energy takes to get the top sport. Kind of like a certain swiss who gets exhausted after one set of tennis, oh but wait he doesn't get tired when he wins.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

10IS wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

10IS wrote:

Veejay wrote:

10IS wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:The mods should do something

Yes the standards should be the same. IF nadal bashing (taking his interviews out of context, veiled reference to PEDs, use of terms like Nadull and basic human courtesy when referring to a 10 time grandslam champion and one of all time tennis greats) is okay, then you cannot really dismiss/censor similar comments about other players including Federer.

Its not ok,why aren't we allow our freedom of speech when it comes to Nadal but Socal is allowed to voice his/her opinions about Fed and his fans?

I am not for curtailing freedom of speech/opinion. The argument is about where to draw the line between excessive venom spewing against Nadal. If we are willing to accommodate that as part of free speech, I am okay with that as long as the same rule applies for every other player.

Are you sure about the rules things. I don't see the same rules applies to every player.

Not sure if I follow you / or if you were trying to be sarcastic. Maybe I should rephrase the term "same rule". What I meant to say was we should also get used to seeing similarly venomous articles against Nadal's rivals.

I was just trying to be sarcastic about following the "rules", but maybe my attempt was bad .

Can you clearly say what do you mean by venomous articles? Can you also give some points here and also tell how do they qualify to be called "venomous"?

The fact that you ask me to point out where you can find hatred against Nadal on 606v2 tells me that we stand on opposite ends of the spectrum. I would point them out to you but I already know you would not see them even though they are there. Peace.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

10IS wrote:

bogbrush wrote:1OIS, for my part feel free to speak as you wish. I would only censor abuse, bullying or libel.

Fair enough BB. But it is probably not that simple as arguments are bound to arise as how/when to draw distinction between "abuse, bullying or libel" vs freedom of speech.

Which is where the Mods come in. Just don't expect Mods to be in 100% agreement with you (I mean with any poster, not you 101S), or even each other, and certainly don't expect them to be 100% perfect.

I agree. After all Mods are also human with like/dislikes and prejudices of their own.

Nor do I expect everyone to agree with me.

Veejay wrote:Bwhahahaha..taking Novaks loss out on Federer fans
You cant blame Federer fans for what happened yesterday..youre the one who's sour grapes not them
Geese never thought you were a sore loser Socal but you're right up there with the worst sore losers I have ever seen
Have some cool aide Im sure it will cut the sour taste the lemonades been leaving in your mouth

Actually, Veejay wrong if I was a sore loser maybe i would accuse John Isner's family of giving him growth hormones so he could be a little taller and hit his serve 145. Which of course I have no evidence for, and would never make that accusation. Unlike certain sore losers that just can't get their mind around the 18 times Nadal has beaten Federer.

Or maybe I would claim that video evidence clearly shows Isner being coached during the match, or taking too long, or bouncing the ball too much or too little before his serve.

But in actuality, as I have said over and over again. Isner played great the better man on that day won. He is a tennis talent and deserving winner.

See Veejay not that hard to give credit where credit is due.

Henman Bill wrote:A ridiculous article, although I assume it's a wind up.

There is nothing wrong with supporting Federer, the real issue is excessive hate of Nadal.

No Henman Bill, there is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting Federer. In fact, as I have said the man is probably the greatest player of the modern game. And has done a lot on and off the court. And as I have pointed out the majority of fed fans are actually quite fair and reasonable. I think everyone here knows pretty much who the fed extremists are you and most other fed fans definitly do not fall in that odious category. They are only a certain vocale segment of his fans, who unfortunately push things so far with their unfair attacks that they poison the atmosphere and rain on everyone's parade. I have tolerated it, ignored it, pushed back at times and finally felt that it is time to clear the air and give those that have been bullied by their conduct support.

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's not nasty nitb. Nostalgic is about the closest description I can think of. It's not dissing JMDP, it's a general comment.

I know but how you think Delpo would feel when he finds out Fed "enjoyed" watching him argue with Layani...I mean he can think what he likes, but if it's bound to wind a player up or hurt him (as if the 5 loss in 2012 against him hasn't done it already).

some things are obvious, they don't need to be rubbed in.

I honestly don;t think he said it in a bad way. What he is saying, I think, is that in the past there could be a show on bad line calls. Now it's a bit neutered with HE.

I don't see arrogance on this occasion though I know he certainly can be.

socal1976 wrote:

Veejay wrote:Bwhahahaha..taking Novaks loss out on Federer fans
You cant blame Federer fans for what happened yesterday..youre the one who's sour grapes not them
Geese never thought you were a sore loser Socal but you're right up there with the worst sore losers I have ever seen
Have some cool aide Im sure it will cut the sour taste the lemonades been leaving in your mouth

Actually, Veejay wrong if I was a sore loser maybe i would accuse John Isner's family of giving him growth hormones so he could be a little taller and hit his serve 145. Which of course I have no evidence for, and would never make that accusation. Unlike certain sore losers that just can't get their mind around the 18 times Nadal has beaten Federer.

Or maybe I would claim that video evidence clearly shows Isner being coached during the match, or taking too long, or bouncing the ball too much or too little before his serve.

But in actuality, as I have said over and over again. Isner played great the better man on that day won. He is a tennis talent and deserving winner.

See Veejay not that hard to give credit where credit is due.

Once again attacking me for my opinion which is visually based when your opinion is visually based too
Here this should cheer you up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckVXdstUv2s&feature=related

Visually, John Isner is 6'9 way out of the standard deviation of height for a normal person, does that prove that he was given growth hormones? No it doesn't.

socal1976 wrote:Visually, John Isner is 6'9 way out of the standard deviation of height for a normal person, does that prove that he was given growth hormones? No it doesn't.

I don't think anyone ever said Isner was given growth hormones so whats the objection?
besides its not like Isner grows and then shrinks through the season,his height remains the same no?

This is actually quite amusing.

Socal buddy you need to relax, take a chill pill, have a break, have a kit-kat. You're starting to sound a little unhinged. For your own sanity and the good of humanity and all intergalactic beings of which, I, emancipator, am the Guardian, you need to calm down.

Oh children let us pray that No1e does nor lose anymore this season as I truly fear for the health of our esteemed contributor child So, son of Cal.

Fed fans are the most extreme sports fans?

I think you need to get out more. What about footy fans? Ever seen what goes on when Boca Juniors play River Plate? or Real take on Barca? or Liverpool against Man U?

How about the stuff that goes around in the Manny Pacquio vs Floyd Mayweather debate?

Or Jordan vs Kobe? Or golf fans and Tiger Woods? Or formula 1 and Lewis Hamilton? and on and on...

Tennis fans on the whole are a very mild bunch in comparison.

Anyway, the criticisms directed at Nadal are fair ones. He does have dubious injuries and dubious MTO's. He breaks the rules with excessive time between points. He does receive on court coaching (at just this year's AUS open the camera caught Uncle Toni signalling to Nadal to step in on break point to receive; he did and promptly broke Berdych - it was the turning point of the match). He makes dubious statements supporting a PED user (contador). He advocates changes to the ATP calendar that would only benefit the top players. He constantly moans about the schedule. He moans about being tested for PEDs. He constantly uses injury excuses to explain his defeats (remember the 'heat stroke' loss to Djokovic in Miami last year).

Nadal does all of these things. Why should we not criticise him? If you cannot see that these things are bad for the sport and therefore deserve to be called out then you are not behaving as a fan of the sport. If Roger Federer or Andy Murray routinely did the same things then I would criticise them too.

Your post is simply attempting to curb free speech.

I will not allow this. I have fought with BOOOOOOOOOO for many eons to safeguard the rights of all intergalactic entities. You are no adversary worthy of challenging me.



emancipator

Exactly, I have as much evidence as you have for Nadal's PEDs as for Isner being given growth hormones. Which means I have zero evidence for Isner being doped into pituitary overload, just like you.

Hey emancipator thanks for your post. I actually don't have any problem with substantive criticism of any player. I do not want to curb free speech. In fact, free speech is double edged sword. People are free to speak their opinion and then other people are just as free to tell them that their opinion is wrong, stupid, or annoying.

My biggest problem is not criticism if it is fair and substantiated. Which unfortunately, a lot of the things that are said about certain players is not.

As usual your lighthearted critique is well enjoyed. I will attempt to attain the high level of zen that you have garnered through your intergalactic travels.

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, I have as much evidence as you have for Nadal's PEDs as for Isner being given growth hormones. Which means I have zero evidence for Isner being doped into pituitary overload, just like you.

I thought you're a Djokovic fan but the way you carry on one would swear the opposite
I don't need evidence to back my opinion as its based on personal experience
Besides there is evidence that sealed,whether his name is listed or not that still evidence no?
If his name isn't listed then thats evidence that he is innocent no?
So clearly there is evidence

Hello Socal,

I do sympathise with you. After Nole won AUS it must of been disheartening to hear constant talk about the slow conditions and the physicality. It was a great victory which Nole won; he left everything and more out on the court that day. It was a titanic effort and deserves huge praise. I'll admit that it's not my brand of tennis but I think that is more down to the opponent. Nole has to play that way to best Nadal; it's a credit to him that he can do so. We also know that he can ruthlessly dismantle opponents with attacking shot making.



emancipator