Rooting against a player

I did not initially want to post this so close after Rafa's loss, but with Federer also gone in a similar manner, I feel it is ok to go ahead now.

After Rafa lost, a number of posters expressed the sentiment that rooting against a player was not right.  If not outright inappropriate, then at least inferior to rooting for a player.  I wholeheartedly disagree.

In all kinds of sports, I often root against players or teams, and see no reason why not.  It is usually nothing personal, of course, it may just be that I do not like the style of their play, or maybe I cannot even pinpoint the reason myself.  But why should it be a bad thing to do?

In some mechanical respects, I even find rooting against a player preferable; everything else being equal, I prefer rooting for the underdog.  Now, there are four options:

a. I root for a very good player - in this case, he will typically not be the underdog, so it is suboptimal
b. I root for a not so good player - in this case, he will often lose early and I will not get to see him play that much - again suboptimal
c. I root against a not so good player - suboptimal for reasons similar to b
d. I root against a very good player - in this case, he will typically be the favorite, and will go deep in the tournaments, so I will have ample opportunity to root against him (and thus implicitly for his underdog opponents) - so this actually works best in a way

Of course, if the player I root against loses, I am not going to come here and start posting about "what a loser he really is".  I may even avoid some of the rational arguments with his fans for a while, to give them time to digest the loss of their favorite player.  But I do object to the notion that we should not be rooting against players, or that we should not show excitement at their losses.  I see it as no worse than posters showing excitement at the win of their favorite - after all, that win would have been accompanied by a loss of another player anyway.

I suspect that people who object to rooting against players tend to like players on a somewhat personal level.  I expect that if someone is looking at it from that perspective, then rooting against a player may appear to them to be similar to disliking the player on a personal level, which can then look odd.  My view on that is two-fold.  First, not everyone chooses their favorite players based on their like or dislike of the player as a person, and rooting for or against a player may not mean much more than liking or disliking certain style of play.  Second, if it is odd to dislike a player you do not really know, then why should it not be similarly odd to like a player you do not really know.  In other words, why is rooting for a player not viewed as similarly bizarre?

Anyway, really glad that Rafa lost early

SB, you hit the nail on the head my friend. The fact that Federer for years usually won and was always on TV for me to root against was one of the many reasons I developed my special warm feelings for him. Another reason of course is some (not all) of his charming fans, some of whom act like they have won 17 grandslams. I don't know Federer, I don't know Djokovic; both seem like good people. Federer is a credit to the game but frankly if Roger played a tennis match against Ghengis or Ted Bundy I would still have difficulty rooting for him. Obviously, I am not equating him on a moral level with mass murders just giving a bit of hyperbole to demonstrate how loathe I am to see him win a tennis a match. I am going to miss him when he is gone because then I will have to find another player I root against all the time that is good enough to deserve my attention. At this point, the field is really disappointing. I am thinking of rooting against Maria's boy toy, because a lot of Federer fans like him, but he just is not successful enough for me to really care.

As a Connors fan I felt he same way about Mac, although later in his career after he went away and came back as a shell of himself I really warmed to him.

That's a very good article, and I agree completely.

The only thing for me is that I base my preferences on my self interest in the value I get from watching. Personality or behaviour is a bonus and/or cuts out any conflicts. Hence, the recent stories about Federers selfless behaviour towards low ranked players just helped me be comfortable that I rooted for the right guy; if he was an arrogant git it wouldn't change things.

Therefore, I root against Djokovic because he plays a brand of hyped up drill tennis that makes me feel fascinated about how that recently painted wall is coming on. It reduces my benefit in watching so I want it off my screen for big matches. The fact that he's generally an ok guy just gives me the odd twinge, but doesn't alter my self-interested desire to see him lose.

Trouble is, unless Sergei Stakovsky can make a career turnaround there won't be much soon I do want to watch.

summerblues. There is nothing wrong with rooting for or against a player. Behaving like a braying idiot is another thing...

there is a big difference between rooting for the underdog and rooting against the favourite. I find the latter quite difficult unless that favourite player indulges in unsportsmanship and other annoying bad practices. it ultimately means that you dont value the efforts that such player had to go through to get there and settle for mediocrity rather than excellence. Even if I dont like Murray "come-on" / clunched fist etc I still respect the guy for what he has done. Same for Nadal which I used to love to hate in the past.

I find myself rooting for the brand of tennis. Thats why, even now, Im still on the space for one Verdasco Bandwagon.

Novak plays against anyone other than Rafa, I tend to root for him. Same with the rest of the big four. Unless they are playing Verdasco, of course.

I can't think of the last time I genuinely rooted against a player unless they were playing someone I wanted to win (Henman or Agassi, say, or to a lesser extent Murray).
Some of them seem like less than nice guys - Coria or Lendl, for example - so I probably wanted them to lose, although even then they were probably OK guys outside of tennis.

The idea that I could dislike a player because I find some of his fans unpleasant on an internet forum (when I'm sure the vast majority of his fans are perfectly nice) seems very weird to me.
I think some people feel a need to 'hate' someone, but to me that's just wasted and negative energy.

Good subject.

Even though I do root for and against players, I find the whole thing hard to rationalise.

I think BB's reasoning above is a significant factor but I can't pretend my responses to players are entirely that logical. It tends to be more instinctive. I'd say it's a mix of what style of play I like, the player's personality and what narrative a win or loss would create in a tournament.

In general, I'd say there are only two players I always root for (Djokovic and Del Potro) and only one I always root against (Nadal).

The rest of the time it's all down to circumstance and match up.

Spot on JHM - and its not even football where you can find 50, 000 people who agree with you every Saturday. For the most part, this is a albatross people carry alone. Of course, when Novak was on that streak against Nadal, I hoped against hope that someone, anyone stops him from getting to the final. But I dont think I ever seriously hoped for a defeat, to the point where I engrossed myself in a match just because he was a break down in the first set, or anything like that.

The furthest I go is hoping my favourite players have a cake walk draw.

Totally agree with the article.
Especially like the part suggesting that you sometimes can’t put your finger on why you root for the other fella; it’s quite true. I mean, why do I root for whomever Federer is playing? Couldn’t be the arrogance could it?

We all have rooted for or against a player in our time for various reasons. It may be because a defeat for a certain player opens up the route to the final for your player, it may be that you have a dislike of a certain player or a soft spot for his opponent. I don't think anybody should have a problem with that at all. However, I do think it all becomes a bit sad and OTT bringing those sentiments onto a forum as it is more than likely down to wind fans of players up. It is not so bad if you leave it as one or two comments about the defeat and move on but when posters use it as a stick to beat other posters then I think that is taking it too far. Don't get me wrong - a bit of level-headed and constructive analysis of matches then fine but anything else and the discussions becomes a bit silly. That is my take on it.

Lol...I know whole forums that vigorously "root" against a player
There have been people on here expressing they cannot wait until a player retires, etc.

Nice article BTW to echo others. Some of why we follow a player, or root against another in a certain matchup is probably irrational. We get emotionally invested in our "gladiators"...after all doesn't our interest in the competitors hark back to when "sport" truly was survival of the fittest/meanest/most adept in combat, followed by a thumbs up or down judgement by the crowd....that's the ultimate like/root against.

"Rootings" also work in triangles. If Rafa plays Fed I root against Fed, if Fed plays Djokovic I root against Djokovic and so on. I'm even ambivalent towards "The Tractor" ... Granollers. Can't stand to watch him on clay and root against him, but like watching him on a fast court as he's adept at volleying. My "rooting" just isn't consistent, lol.

Lydian I think that 'inconsistent rooting' is a great way to be emotionally involved in a match, which can make it more enjoyable.
Sometimes I switch on a match between to guys I don't really care about and choose one to root for just to make it more interesting.
I don't root against the other guy though

I think I said to HM not long ago that emotional involvement in a tennis match is good, emotional commitment no so good.

We've certainly seen some emotions on 606 and V2 that warrant commitment - to a sanitarium!

I agree with the OP - I go on what I see on court not on personalities.

I'd root that Ana Ivanovic

Really good and not before time article SB  

Of course we all root against players, that doesn't mean we wish them great ill.  I have frequently rooted against Rafa after AO 2009 because I stopped wanting to see a contest that seemed to have become very one sided and because it was the player that I wanted to see win the contest above all that was increasingly likely to emerge the loser.  Therefore if someone could take out Rafa before meeting Fed, he was my man!   That certainly doesn't mean I take any pleasure from Nadal being away from the game with injury.

I always root for Djokovic, except when he is playing Fed and I always have even before he stepped up to the plate with Rafa. I would, however, never root for Djokovic to lose before meeting Fed because I enjoy watching them play each other. I am making a rare exception to my Novak support this tournament, and I do find myself half heartedly rooting for the guy playing him simply because I would love to see Murray win one Wimbledon, and I perceive Djokovic to be the biggest obstacle to him doing this in 2013 so I wouldn't mind seeing Novak knocked out before the final.  The other exception was at the USO because I was so pleased to see AM get a slam.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think I said to HM not long ago that emotional involvement in a tennis match is good, emotional commitment (to a player) no so good.

   The latter is a bit 'adolescent' imo and leads to some of the more immoderate 'tantrums' on forums.

I find wanting a player to lose somewhat distasteful as a general rule. I think a few exceptions are when the player has cheated or shown poor sportsmanship (e.g. Odesnik, drugs or Tomic when he pretended not to have challenged mid point at the AO when he really did, players that screech excessively) or done something really bad (told a lineswoman to stuff a ball down their throat, or just generally seem to be a nasty character) then it's OK.

I don't get these Federer lovers whose Nadal hating outweights their Federer loving. It's better to have more love than hate in your heart. Wanting a player to lose is analogous to a more warlike and less friendly attitude than wanting a player to win.

Summerblues, would you find it equally acceptable for someone to stand up and shout "Come on, knock Rafa out!" rather than "Come on Darcis?" Would it be as equally fine to stand up at centre court at the change of ends and yell loudly "I hope Rafa loses!" as to yell "I hope Rafa wins!". If what you say is true, should it not be equally acceptable to do either?

I hear what you are saying HB but I think it is possible to have a halfway house and as barrystar points out, you can dislike a player's on court presence and root against him - that is a very different thing to 'hating' and those that accuse others of being 'hatahs' are generally forum users that have an attachment to a player that is like an adolescent crush - it's a million miles away from the average sports fans preferences and dislikes.

As for your last paragraph - no it would not be acceptable at Wimbledon (though on the football terraces it is another culture entirely  ) to shout out 'I hope X loses' because that would be extremely rude to X.  However, in a bar, on a forum or in your own home, of course it is acceptable to say that - you may not like it but freedom of speech means that we are going to hear things we disagree with.

Apart from when someone is playing Murray, I rarely root for a certain player to lose... Unless it directly affects Murray of course. For example if he somehow reached a French Open final and Rafa was in the other semi, I'd want Rafa to lose as Murray would never beat him on clay.

But in general I think it's fine to root for whoever you want, whatever the reason. I think it's quite amusing when someone takes a pantomime-esq dislike of someone and think they represent all evil, especially as none of us know these people apart from their game style and whatever persona they decide to exhibit to the media.

Some of the reasons people don't like players is the reason I like them. Rafa barging into Rosol for example I thought was great. Roger swearing at Andy in Australia, Novak in a strop with the New York crowd v Roddick... Great stuff!

I like my sportsmen to be aggressive and competetive and have a "win at all costs" attitude. If it was outright cheating that's different, but a bit of attitude is great. I don't want gentlemen always being nice to each other, I like a bit of edge.

Anyway, I digress.... Rooting for whoever you want for whatever reason is absolutely fine. Hating someone you don't know though is a bit weird.

as long as it is done within the bounds of taste it is fine to root against a player (or team). Everybody loves an underdog anyway, and sometimes a strong or dominant competitor losing is good for a sport and the public's interest in it. As long as it doesn't get offensive it's fine

Well I guess rooting against a player, as opposed to for the other is a negative frame of mind, hence why it isnt liked as much. Some of it stems from the underdog mentality, you see guy always winning and you wanna see the upset, soo you end up rooting against him.
The pther main issue is of course a "dislike" or hatred of a guys personality, even though weve no idea what theyre really like.

Thing is its a feeling that can really send you down in the dumps, constantly wanting someone to lose and being dissapointed when they dont, remember someone like Fed or Nadal will win a lot more than they lose, and soo you start to get a bit bitter and emotionally attached... too much for my liking , its absolutely lovely to just sit back as a neutral and watch a great game.

Its like the lions on tour (rugby) I have no particular affiliation to either, a little pro lions of course, but because all the Bigoted nationalistic cr!p is out the window here, its a joy to watch in the pub, all the home nations cheering together.

Wanting someone to lose is probably more a tennagers kind of mindset, hence why you see soo many rants and tantrums on internet forums, here and indeed otherwise. As you get older you realise its better to just see the better man on the day win, to see a good match, hopefully youre favourite one.

Though "wanting" someone to lose to open up a draw for your player is not the same as hoping theyll lose of course.

It's better than rooting for someone because they have chocolate eyes and caramel skin.

bogbrush wrote:It's better than rooting for someone because they have chocolate eyes and caramel skin.

But... but... bogbrush. I always thought that was why you rooted for Roger? If it's not that is it because he's got lots of money?

  To be fair bb rooting for someone like that is a sweet deal BOOM BOOM!!

Nothing wrong in rooting against players, I respect people more who do so than those who pretend they are impartial. It makes watching tennis more interesting

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's better than rooting for someone because they have chocolate eyes and caramel skin.

But... but... bogbrush. I always thought that was why you rooted for Roger? If it's not that is it because he's got lots of money?

 

bogbrush wrote:It's better than rooting for someone because they have chocolate eyes and caramel skin.

If someone really did have chocolate eyes and caramel skin I wouldn't root for them, I'd eat them.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's better than rooting for someone because they have chocolate eyes and caramel skin.

If someone really did have chocolate eyes and caramel skin I wouldn't root for them, I'd eat them.

I think that's her plan...........  

Henman Bill wrote:Summerblues, would you find it equally acceptable for someone to stand up and shout "Come on, knock Rafa out!" rather than "Come on Darcis?" Would it be as equally fine to stand up at centre court at the change of ends and yell loudly "I hope Rafa loses!" as to yell "I hope Rafa wins!". If what you say is true, should it not be equally acceptable to do either?

TP answered this very nicely, so I will just say I see it much the same as she does.

I will take the last couple of days at Wimbledon without any rootin-tootin...

Darcis v Nadal... I wanted Nadal to play a five-setter and a close match with Darcis, rather than get knocked out, because I wanted to see a Fedal match. Do I hate Darcis? No.

Darcis v Kubot... I wanted Darcis to win, because I would have hoped he would build on it. Walkover. Do I hate Darcis? No.

Stakhovsky v Federer... I wanted Federer to win, but the writing was on the wall in the second set with the TB. Do I hate Stakh? No. But, I do make fun of his complaints about not making enough money, and his accounting skills, or lack thereof.

Stakhovsky v Melzer... I wanted Stakh to win (similar to Darcis) because he showed the ability to play good Tennis. Today Melzer was making him look like the #116 he is with a 7-10 2013 W/L. Do I hate Stakh? Absolutely no (that too despite knocking Federer out).

A good competitive match is what I prefer to see these days.

Rooting requires, and pre-supposes, an emotional involvement, negative or positive, which I have neither of.

I abhor any player being denigrated, #1 or #1000, but being the object of humour, irony, sarcasm (anything but hate) is fine with me.  

I am willing to cry watching Hotel Rawanda, but not when a Tennis match is on.

The world is boring place and shallow experience without emotional involvement...

The world would be a peacefull place with a bit less emotional involvment.

Good luck in overriding the human condition then. Control of response, not involvement, is what matters.
For example, I hate to see Nadal lose but I don't throw my TV against the wall afterwards. We need less TV throwing.

laverfan wrote:I will take the last couple of days at Wimbledon without any rootin-tootin...

Darcis v Nadal... I wanted Nadal to play a five-setter and a close match with Darcis, rather than get knocked out, because I wanted to see a Fedal match. Do I hate Darcis? No.

Darcis v Kubot... I wanted Darcis to win, because I would have hoped he would build on it. Walkover. Do I hate Darcis? No.

Stakhovsky v Federer... I wanted Federer to win, but the writing was on the wall in the second set with the TB. Do I hate Stakh? No. But, I do make fun of his complaints about not making enough money, and his accounting skills, or lack thereof.

Stakhovsky v Melzer... I wanted Stakh to win (similar to Darcis) because he showed the ability to play good Tennis. Today Melzer was making him look like the #116 he is with a 7-10 2013 W/L. Do I hate Stakh? Absolutely no (that too despite knocking Federer out).

A good competitive match is what I prefer to see these days.

Rooting requires, and pre-supposes, an emotional involvement, negative or positive, which I have neither of.

Ha Ha! I think you have shown that your last sentence is clearly a lie. Good thing too otherwise you would be some sort of autistic robot...

It's great to have some sort of emotional involvement. It's what makes watching exciting. I feel a sorry for anyone with such dulled empathy that they don't experience such things. It must be a bit like being blind or deaf. What you don't have you don't miss but they all form a vital part of human experience.

Of course like lydian said it's important to be able to control your emotions otherwise there would be a lot of smashed televisions... or worse.

I never root against players or teams.. Thats a celt thing to do. I am English..


   

I agree with the necessity to reduce TV throwing, for one thing it's costing me a fortune.

whocares wrote:The world would be a peacefull place with a bit less emotional involvment.

Humans are still animals, emotions are part of our DNA

whocares wrote:The world would be a peacefull place with a bit less emotional involvment everyone lobotomised

This makes more practical sense.

bogbrush wrote:

whocares wrote:The world would be a peacefull place with a bit less emotional involvment everyone lobotomised

This makes more practical sense.

Not possible in a practical sense - who would lobotomise the final person?

Your hair-splitting friend,
Julius H Marx

A machine..

We have the technology

lydian wrote:The world is boring place and shallow experience without emotional involvement...

whocares wrote:The world would be a peacefull place with a bit less emotional involvment.

The world would be a peaceful and boring place without emotional involvement

Seriously, I am with Lydian on this one.  Certainly, I enjoy watching sports far more when I get emotionally involved.  Sadly, with my advancing age, I find it harder and harder to do.  That is one more reason why I am thankful for Federer.  I never thought I would still be able to get as emotionally invested in tennis as I did with him.

That does not mean I am advocating throwing TVs against the walls

I certainly hate to see Federer lose and I have had vicarious pleasure watching him scoop titles and I feel really disappointed when he doesn't - sport gets your adrenaline pumping, whether you're playing or cheering from the sidelines.  For me as well, because my mother's family are still in Switzerland, there is a little bit of national pride as I align myself with my Swiss family.

I wouldn't say I've invested emotionally in him as a person off the court though - I think he is a nice guy from what I hear but it doesn't make me want to rip peoples' heads off (metaphorically) if they can't stand him and want to express that, or if they want to express that they're pleased he lost.

I think they're misguided of course  

time please wrote:I wouldn't say I've invested emotionally in him as a person off the court though

Just for avoidance of any doubt:  I do NOT have a Roger's poster in our bedroom.

hawkeye wrote:
Ha Ha! I think you have shown that your last sentence is clearly a lie. Good thing too otherwise you would be some sort of autistic robot...

How do you know I am not in the Autism Spectrum?

hawkeye wrote:It's great to have some sort of emotional involvement. It's what makes watching exciting. I feel a sorry for anyone with such dulled empathy that they don't experience such things.

Emotional involvement != Hatred, is it?

hawkeye wrote:It must be a bit like being blind or deaf. What you don't have you don't miss but they all form a vital part of human experience.

Have you heard Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder?

hawkeye wrote:Of course like lydian said it's important to be able to control your emotions otherwise there would be a lot of smashed televisions... or worse.

Vulcans are very good at it. Logical decisions my dear.

@Lydian...

My statement...

Rooting requires, and pre-supposes, an emotional involvement, negative or positive, which I have neither of.

was generalised from the context of a Tennis match to the entire world experience, despite this....

I am willing to cry watching Hotel Rawanda, but not when a Tennis match is on.

whocares wrote:The world would be a peacefull place with a bit less emotional involvement.

Absolutely. Just ask the hordes of Genghis Khan what they bought/brought back on their return trip.

summerblues wrote:The world would be a peaceful and boring place without emotional involvement

Seriously, I am with Lydian on this one.  Certainly, I enjoy watching sports far more
when I get emotionally involved.  Sadly, with my advancing age, I find it harder and harder to do.  That is one more reason why I am thankful for Federer.  I never thought I would still be able to get as emotionally invested in tennis as I did with him.

Too much of an emotional involvement led to Tonya Harding v Nancy Kerrigan.

In Sanskrit.... Ati Sarvatra Varjayet == Extremes should be avoided.

Being Neutral is also an emotional response, and does not imply a lack of emotion(s). It means a set of positive and negative emotions are in balance and have been reconciled. Just ask a certain Mr. IceBorg.

laverfan wrote:Too much of an emotional involvement led to Tonya Harding v Nancy Kerrigan.

I am more of the Lydian's "control of response, not involvement, is what matters" school of thought on this.  But do not want to get too deep into this discussion as it would lead us far beyond natural confines of a tennis forum.

laverfan wrote:Being Neutral is also an emotional response, and does not imply a lack of emotion(s). It means a set of positive and negative emotions are in balance and have been reconciled. Just ask a certain Mr. IceBorg.

Is Mr. Borg given here as a positive example (kept cool in his matches) or as a negative example (cracked at 25 years old)?

I don't know why I like to take a run at Fed and his fans it is very much an addiction at this point. But I don't want to see him leave in fact I want to have a second spring. There won't be anyone worth rooting against once then alleged nike/Edberg award winner leaves tennis.

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
Ha Ha! I think you have shown that your last sentence is clearly a lie. Good thing too otherwise you would be some sort of autistic robot...

How do you know I am not in the Autism Spectrum?

hawkeye wrote:It's great to have some sort of emotional involvement. It's what makes watching exciting. I feel a sorry for anyone with such dulled empathy that they don't experience such things.

Emotional involvement != Hatred, is it?

hawkeye wrote:It must be a bit like being blind or deaf. What you don't have you don't miss but they all form a vital part of human experience.

Have you heard Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder?

hawkeye wrote:Of course like lydian said it's important to be able to control your emotions otherwise there would be a lot of smashed televisions... or worse.

Vulcans are very good at it. Logical decisions my dear.

laverfan. I have to admit I find you puzzling but from your responses I would bet that you are not on the autistic spectrum. You listed a whole lot of emotional responses to matches before claiming to have none.

Good grief! You think emotional involvement = hatred? Well of course it can but it can mean the opposite and a whole spectrum in between.

Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder were/are brilliant musicians and like I said were unaware of what they were missing. But they were missing out on an amazing human experience. In just the same way as a brilliant but deaf artist would be.

Ha ha! I think the whole point about vulcans was that they didn't have the emotions not that they controlled them (That's what made humans so "facinating"). Emotional control is a useful skill.

Later you also link having emotions with the Tonya Harding / Nancy Kerrigan affair however a lack of emotions can also be the cause of cold hearted crime.

This is veering off tennis but I don't agree with LFs general thrust of assertion one iota.

Emotional involvement does not have to be viewed so negatively, nor is it the only route to hatred. Thats almost the old Victorian approach, maintain the stiff upper lip, etc. What a wonderful period of detachment that was. For every crime of passion there is much more insidious, pre-meditated psychopathic/sociopathic crime where hatred responses are exhibited with zero emotional involvement, infact psychopaths have complete detachment from their victims. One can argue that an upbringing of cold detachment from emotional involvement is far worse than the reverse.

At our very core we are engineered to feel and exhibit emotions, they are linked to nervous arousal and as such are important to survival/propagation. Indeed, Darwin himself observed in his book "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals" that emotions have meaning and serve a necessary purpose in environmental response and survival. It seems to me that to deny emotions is to switch off a key part of ourselves. The way we react to watching "sporting gladiators" or teams or musicians or artists is merely an extension of the way we have become engineered to respond to things around us over millions of years. We are intrinsically built to "feel" but have higher functioning to control our behavioural responses.

Staying neutral, i.e. avoiding emotional involvement, is denying oneself the highs and lows of human experience. I'm still a firm believer that its better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. I would far rather get emotionally involved with a tennis player I liked to watch even if their demise in an event, set of results/statistics or career affects my inward (and sometimes outward) mood for an amount of time.

For this reason, to avoid the negatives of their demise I will tend to root against the players they face - and feel no guilt about it whatsoever.