Federer all class no matter what Djoko's father says...

I saw this girls pictures on twitter with Federer but here's the full story...


http://twitter.com/bktinoco


@federering well, I had cancer in 2011/2012, and there's this foundation called the Make A Wish Foundation. They grant wishes to kids, teens and yound adults who have life-threatening diseases. I made my wish in 2012, and my wish was to meet Roger Federer. I waited for more than a year, and I didn't really know if they were gonna be able to grant me this wish (you have second and third options) since Roger has such a busy schedule and it was taking such a long time. In June I was told that ESPN was doing a piece on high school tennis and they were gonna film a bit of my school tennis team. So I went there and we had practice and in the end they told us we had a culminating activity that would kinda test our knowledge of tennis. They gave us an iPad to watch something, and it was the Wimbledon 2012 match point (that already got me like really excited) but then after Roger falls to the ground they cut the video and Roger shows up in a kind of home made video or something, and he says "Hi Beatriz, I heard you're a big fan of mine, so I'm inviting you with your family to come watch me play at Wimbledon. Go pack your bags, have a safe trip, and I'll see you there!" (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I freaked out so so so badly. I couldn't believe it haha. All I could think was "OMG ROGER FEDERER KNOWS MY NAME!" Haha. So, yeah, this was on a Monday, and my flight to London was on that Thursday (I barely had any time to freak out) and I live in the US so... But yeah, then I found out ESPN was doing a piece on my wish and it's actually gonna air in August icon_smile.gif anyway, I got there and the very next day I met Roger! First I went to the nike house, where players get their gear and everything, and they actually gave me lots of stuff, all white since it was Wimbledon. Then we went to the All England Club where I was actually gonna meet him. We were waiting on the place where players eat and hang out. However, the guys from ESPN told me we might not see him that day because schedules change a lot. So I wasn't expecting anythint, just sitting watching some practices and someone calls my name. I turn and it's FREAKING ROGER FEDERER. He comes up, gives me a hug and a kiss and then sits down and starts talking to me very naturally. I was trying hard not to freak out haha. We talked for about 10-15 minutes (which I was told later he wasn't supposed to do. He was just supposed to come and say hi and then go to practice but he's a perfect human being and talked to me for a while!) oh my gosh this is getting very long haha I'm working so I have to stop now but I'll continue the story in about half an hour





@federering after that he went to practice, but he told me to go change, because I was gonna watch his practice from inside the court and maybe we could hit a little bit after he was done. He told me that he would send someone to take me to the court because like no one is allowed in the courts except the players and coaches. So I changed and went there, and I was waiting for someone to come take me to the actual court when I hear someone call my name and oh my god it's Paul Annacone. He sent PAUL ANNACONE to get me. So I go to the court and am introduced to Sev and Steph, and then sit there watching his practice with Hewitt (!!!!). After his practice he tells me we're gonna hit for a while and Sev says "but she doesn't have a racquet" and Roger is like "she can use one of mine" (!!!!!!!) so he reaches into his bag and gives me one of his racquets to hit with (!!!!!!). I was really scared because I'm not like amazing at tennis, I'm pretty good, but not out of the ordinary, and even if I was, it was freaking Roger Federer. But Paul and Roger told me not to be scared, it was so cute haha. So we hit for a bit, then he told me to come up and volley and he went up too. Paul told me not to be scared of Roger in the net 'cause it was all pressure, he wasn't even that good haha. Then he served and oh my gosh it's fast even though he wasn't even close to full speed. After that he went over the net, shook my hand and gave me a kiss on the cheek (!!!!!!). Then we walked (and talked) together to the other court where he was going to practice more with Hewitt. I watched this second practice and then after they were done Roger came up to me and said "well that's my day" and we talked for a bit more, and then he said "I'll see you on Sunday" (this was a Friday) and I freaked out because oh my gosh I was gonna see him again!!! So yeah that was it for this day. On Sunday the guys from ESPN told me I was gonna take a tour of the grounds, even though I had already taken one when I went to London for vacation. The more time at Wimbledon the better haha. But then when I'm waiting to take the tour I find out that the people who are giving me the tour are the Chairman of Wimbledon (!!!!!!) and Roger (!!!!!!!). Like, OH MY GOD. So yeah, they took me around, and to the walk the players take to get to Centre Court, and then to actual Centre Court, with everything being explained to me by Roger and the Chairman. After we got to Centre Court Roger had to leave earlier than us because he had his press conference (which I was going to), so he left us there to see a bit more of Centre Court. AND on his way out he talked to the main guy that gets Centre Court ready, to let me actually go there. Like, I stepped on the grass on Centre Court because of Roger. He's perfect oh my god. And then we took a while there so his manager called the girl from ESPN to ask her if we were going because Roger was waiting for me to start the press conference (!!!!!!!!!!). OMG HE IS PERFECT. So we went to the press conference and saw everything, and then on my wait out I passed Roger and he was like "So did you like it? Me getting grilled by the press?" He's always so dorky and funny haha. And then the people from ESPN took us to the players lounge because Roger was gonna sign some stuff for me after he had done all of his interviews (a lot of them) and gotten a award (you know, just usual stuff). I was sitting there waiting for him and it was amazing because I saw soooo many other players. Tsonga asked to get one of the chairs in our table actually haha. I saw Murray, Nadal, Haas, Ferrer, Benneteau, Tipsarevic, Serena, Wozniacki, Radwanska, Lisicki, like, so many of them from up close. It was like heaven for a tennis fan haha. But then Roger finished his interviews and sat at out table with us. I had so many things for him to sign but I knew he was busy so I just took 4 pictures (one for each one in my family) and then 4 blank papers and my tennis bag, and gave for him to sign. He actually addressed the blank papers to each one of us, it was so perfect. In mine he wrote a bit more, and even a happy birthday!! (Did I mention it was my 18th birthday??) And then he asked me "is that it?" and I said "yes" and he was like "are you sure? Don't be embarrassed about it." He's so amazing and kind. So I gave him the rest of the stuff to sign. And he was just sitting there signing and chatting with me, but his manager was telling the guys from ESPN that he needed to go eat lunch, and Roger probably knew he had to, but he would have stayed there the whole day, just talking to us. He stayed a lot more than he had to for sure. But then the people from ESPN tried kinda finishing things up so that he could leave before his manager freaked out. So he went around the table hugging my mom, my dad and my sister, and then it was my turn. He told me I had been through a lot and hugged me really hard and I just started crying so so so much in his shoulder (it was around that time that the picture from my avi was taken haha) He was like "awnn". Then when I let go of him I was still like sobbing and I turned to him and he was kinda tearing up :') I thanked him and then he went.

Relax Truff, you dont need to fight his corner. He fantastically brilliant and a great humanitarian, dont listen to what Djokos father says, remember they are on opposite sides in this, soo they have probably seen the worst of each other at times.

He is a good human being with all his charity and has been a huge benefit to the game, but he certainly is not immune to diva like behavior or arrogance although this never gets reported by the fawning media and his fans. I of course try to present a balanced view of Roger, and this gets some of his acolytes foaming at the mouth. I mean of course he isn't Connors or Nastase, but he isn't Edberg the gentle champion either.

What a great story. You don't win as much as he has without that bit of arrogance on the court of course, and there's nothing wrong with that by the way, but you can't dispute he's a good guy.

That girl must have felt a million dollars, all because of the effort he made. Touch of class.

socal1976 wrote:I of course try to present a balanced view of Roger...

...and his twirling panties

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I of course try to present a balanced view of Roger...

...and his twirling panties

Poetic license dear Julius, I never deny the man his due or claim he is a terrible guy. I just find it mind numbing that the diva has won 9 Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship, he really is not that good of a sport.

socal1976 wrote:Poetic license dear Julius, I never deny the man his due or claim he is a terrible guy. I just find it mind numbing that the diva has won 9 Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship, he really is not that good of a sport.

It is indeed one of life's great mysteries. For me he's as big a diva as Serena - but he just manages himself better

I love Serena and indeed Fed, but it makes me chuckle how people think that his 'charitee' work makes him some kind of God

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Poetic license dear Julius, I never deny the man his due or claim he is a terrible guy. I just find it mind numbing that the diva has won 9 Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship, he really is not that good of a sport.

It is indeed one of life's great mysteries. For me he's as big a diva as Serena - but he just manages himself better

I love Serena and indeed Fed, but it makes me chuckle how people think that his 'charitee' work makes him some kind of God

Yes banbro it is this inviolate status that federer has that I find grating. Could u imagine if the roles were reversed? If let's say after USO 2011 that roger hit a match changing high risk shot to turn the match when down and Novak had angrily denounced it as lucky? The entire global tennis media and the pages of v2 would be abuzz with ravenous mobs out for blood. I think of all the top 4 federer is probably the worst sport of the bunch.

If you are a multi slam winning all time great it's difficult to know how to act. One does it with a swagger and doesn't try and hide it and another is too reticent to say he is better than anyone. Both are criticized because some just dislike tall poppies and others just want to be as tall and the easiest way of doing so is to bring them down a peg or two.

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Poetic license dear Julius, I never deny the man his due or claim he is a terrible guy. I just find it mind numbing that the diva has won 9 Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship, he really is not that good of a sport.

It is indeed one of life's great mysteries. For me he's as big a diva as Serena - but he just manages himself better

I love Serena and indeed Fed, but it makes me chuckle how people think that his 'charitee' work makes him some kind of God

I am quite involved in a local WTA tournament in my hometown that Serena plays often and has won, and I can tell you right now--  there is no way you can compare the Diva of Serena to Federer..   I could tell you some stories of Serena's demands and behavior that would make your blood curdle...     both in her treatment of myself, staff, ball crew and fans.

socal1976 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Poetic license dear Julius, I never deny the man his due or claim he is a terrible guy. I just find it mind numbing that the diva has won 9 Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship, he really is not that good of a sport.

It is indeed one of life's great mysteries. For me he's as big a diva as Serena - but he just manages himself better

I love Serena and indeed Fed, but it makes me chuckle how people think that his 'charitee' work makes him some kind of God

Yes banbro it is this inviolate status that federer has that I find grating. Could u imagine if the roles were reversed? If let's say after USO 2011 that roger hit a match changing high risk shot to turn the match when down and Novak had angrily denounced it as lucky? The entire global tennis media and the pages of v2 would be abuzz with ravenous mobs out for blood. I think of all the top 4 federer is probably the worst sport of the bunch.

What I find grating is you guys don't see your just as bad as the Federer fawners- and I'll include myself as one if you like... You cry because Federer dare make a statement that it was a 1 in a million shot and call him worst sport of the bunch, but you don't think bumping into a player in a show of macho intimidation when your losing is worse than a statement like that, hitting a ball at a baby in the stands because your frustrated and the baby make a sound? Djokovic has has his share of moments too and certainly his family has.... None are particulary worse than the others.. they all have faults.

They are all human and they all make mistakes.. no one thinks Federer is a god, I certainly don't.... but I've been around and worked for some of the greatest athletes of the past 40 years and I can tell you--- Federer is at the top of the list in terms of behavior both in front of and behind the scenes...

I posted the story because I happened to just see it right after I read about Djoko's father on here.... I was joking with the title, but am not putting it out there as some defense of what the father said... It's just and interesting and nice story about an athlete clearly doing his best to make a sick kid happy...

Ruffin, come on man, do you really think that shot by Djokovic was a one in a million? It was not even a one in a hundred. He read Federer's serve and the greatest returner on tour picked it off cross court for a winner. It was actually a weak delivery by Federer right in Djokovic's wheelhouse. See this is the whole double standard, if Fed hit that shot nobody would be calling it one in a million. I don't even think that shot on that particular serve (ie a wide serve to the forehand that didn't break with enough slice) is a one in ten for djokovic. But you claim it is a one in a million, I hope you have played enough tennis to know that is bogus. One of the easiest balls as a returner to blast is a slice serve to your forehand that just doesn't break enough or is wide enough.

Federer did insinuate that it was a lucky swing, but I don't really have a problem with that as Novak is his rival and he's trying to get in his head. Fair enough. Don't think it worked though.

What still amazes me how fans have latched onto it and that shot is now widely known as a lucky slap. All these people that bemoan percentage tennis, and yet when Novak hits a return like that its lucky. How can he win?

It was a great shot! When he's down he goes for it. He backs himself. Brilliant stuff. If you call that lucky then every first serve return winner of the modern era is also lucky.

falzy21 wrote:He has had a few arrogance and classless moments but noones crucifying him for that, hes human...

Its really shame people like you hate somebody for he doing nothing wrong to you, Roger is a great human being like the poster mentioned, if you don't like him just stay away from his threads, but its really shameful to come and post comments like this on a wonderful life experience thread.

Do you even understand how much it means to person like this [i,.e author]?

Federer and Rafa are like 99.9% saints to 0.01 percent of criminals, try to increase your level to their heights before you can comment negativity on them.

@The Thread and the Author

I am sorry you had to fight this dreaded disease, I hope you win it, and I am delighted from people like ESPN, "Make a Wish" and stars like Roger Federer to keep you guys happy atleast for a day, GOD bless them all.

Danny_1982 wrote:Federer did insinuate that it was a lucky swing, but I don't really have a problem with that as Novak is his rival and he's trying to get in his head. Fair enough. Don't think it worked though.

What still amazes me how fans have latched onto it and that shot is now widely known as a lucky slap. All these people that bemoan percentage tennis, and yet when Novak hits a return like that its lucky. How can he win?

It was a great shot! When he's down he goes for it. He backs himself. Brilliant stuff. If you call that lucky then every first serve return winner of the modern era is also lucky.

Exactly, Danny an excellent post. Federer was actually mad at Djokovic because he played too aggressively and won the point with an outright winner. So novak's detractors leave the man no way to win. Either he is reckless and lucky when he goes for it, or a boring defensive minded grinder if he plays percentage tennis.

And if you have played tennis you know that this particular first serve by Federer is a particularly easy victim of a return winner. Basically Federer delivered a wide slice serve to the forehand that was not wide enough and did not break enough. Novak didn't even have to change direction on the ball.

socal1976 wrote:Ruffin, come on man, do you really think that shot by Djokovic was a one in a million? It was not even a one in a hundred. He read Federer's serve and the greatest returner on tour picked it off cross court for a winner. It was actually a weak delivery by Federer right in Djokovic's wheelhouse. See this is the whole double standard, if Fed hit that shot nobody would be calling it one in a million. I don't even think that shot on that particular serve (ie a wide serve to the forehand that didn't break with enough slice) is a one in ten for djokovic. But you claim it is a one in a million, I hope you have played enough tennis to know that is bogus. One of the easiest balls as a returner to blast is a slice serve to your forehand that just doesn't break enough or is wide enough.

you prove my point... it "grates" you that Federer fans dare to get huffy when people make negative remarks about him, but you are constantly in a huff if someone dares to categorize something Djoko does in a way you don't like... pure hypocrisy.  You take a clearly exaggerated description by me written in 10 seconds and obsess over it, ignoring my reasonable points.. that's all you see-- he dared to insinuate that Djoko didn't hit an amazing shot!    You guys are so blind to your own ways sometimes that you don't see you are not different than those you cry about.

For the record- I thing and thought it was a great shot.. Federer later said in several interviews that his serve was average at best.  Djokovic himself categorized it as lucky by saying he "closed my eyes and swung as hard as I could"  "I don't even remember it"   but oh my god-let's rise up and defend the infallible Djokovic because Truffin said it was one in a million!!    of course you hate when Fed fans do the same... smh.

I'll say it again-  when you obsess and continue to cry about meaningless comments that Federer dared to make about a GREAT (better?) Djoko shot 2/3 years ago or he said he didn't like Djoko calling out a trainer (not the only player who complained about this) 7 years ago and claim it shows he's the worst sport amongst the top guys, but ignore the far worse things that the others have done that shows you are either a blind hater, hypocrite, or just don't pay attention.  None of these guys are perfect, Djokovic certainly isn't, and they've all said or done stupid things (DJokovic has as well).  Everyone one of us would make the same or similar mistakes if we were put in front of cameras thousands of times after wins and defeats where millions of dollars, great glory, national pride, are at stake. Do you ever say anything that you wish you didn't when you are exhausted, frustrated, money is on the line, your wife aggravated you?  Try answering stupid questions from reporters for an hour while you feel that way and see if you never slip up.    Federer and the other guys have thousands of hours of footage recorded that the public can see, and the sum of their bad behavior, slip ups prob takes up 30 minutes of that.... Try doing better.

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ruffin, come on man, do you really think that shot by Djokovic was a one in a million? It was not even a one in a hundred. He read Federer's serve and the greatest returner on tour picked it off cross court for a winner. It was actually a weak delivery by Federer right in Djokovic's wheelhouse. See this is the whole double standard, if Fed hit that shot nobody would be calling it one in a million. I don't even think that shot on that particular serve (ie a wide serve to the forehand that didn't break with enough slice) is a one in ten for djokovic. But you claim it is a one in a million, I hope you have played enough tennis to know that is bogus. One of the easiest balls as a returner to blast is a slice serve to your forehand that just doesn't break enough or is wide enough.

you prove my point... it "grates" you that Federer fans dare to get huffy when people make negative remarks about him, but you are constantly in a huff if someone dares to categorize something Djoko does in a way you don't like... pure hypocrisy.  You take a clearly exaggerated description by me written in 10 seconds and obsess over it, ignoring my reasonable points.. that's all you see-- he dared to insinuate that Djoko didn't hit an amazing shot!    You guys are so blind to your own ways sometimes that you don't see you are not different than those you cry about.

For the record- I thing and thought it was a great shot.. Federer later said in several interviews that his serve was average at best.  Djokovic himself categorized it as lucky by saying he "closed my eyes and swung as hard as I could"  "I don't even remember it"   but oh my god-let's rise up and defend the infallible Djokovic because Truffin said it was one in a million!!    of course you hate when Fed fans do the same... smh.

I'll say it again-  when you obsess and continue to cry about meaningless comments that Federer dared to make about a GREAT (better?) Djoko shot 2/3 years ago or he said he didn't like Djoko calling out a trainer (not the only player who complained about this) 7 years ago and claim it shows he's the worst sport amongst the top guys, but ignore the far worse things that the others have done that shows you are either a blind hater, hypocrite, or just don't pay attention.  None of these guys are perfect, Djokovic certainly isn't, and they've all said or done stupid things (DJokovic has as well).  Everyone one of us would make the same or similar mistakes if we were put in front of cameras thousands of times after wins and defeats where millions of dollars, great glory, national pride, are at stake. Do you ever say anything that you wish you didn't when you are exhausted, frustrated, money is on the line, your wife aggravated you?  Try answering stupid questions from reporters for an hour while you feel that way and see if you never slip up.    Federer and the other guys have thousands of hours of footage recorded that the public can see, and the sum of their bad behavior, slip ups prob takes up 30 minutes of that.... Try doing better.

Ok now you are just going off on tangents that really in my opinion are not germane to the argument at hand. I fully admit Djokovic has made numerous mistakes and done a lot of stupid things, and never have I said he is infallible. If you want to build strawmen then there really no use in having a logical conversation. For example, I criticized Djokovic for tearing his shirt against Stan. I criticized Djokovic for choking and running into the net against Nadal. I find it intellectually a weak argument to simply try to spin it off as me thinking Djoko is infallible, I criticize his play and actions when it calls for it. Somehow only Federer is treated by some as being beyond serious critique, and it isn't just me on the site who sees this trend.

As for Roger, he is the least gracious and sportsmanlike of any of the big 4 frankly, that is why I find it amusing he keeps winning Nike/Edberg awards for sportsmanship. And it isn't one or two isolated incidents he was a real priick to Novak and Andy in his interviews and his on the court demeanor for years. I never say Roger is evil or a bad person, in fact I think he has been an exemplary champion for the game. But from watching him over the years he simply is not a good sport, not when he loses. No harm there nobody is perfect.

I actually agree with you that Djokovic's dad deserves heavy criticism for saying what he said, he should just shut up. But if I was Djokovic's dad or mom, judging by Fed's past conduct I wouldn't like the guy either, although I would think I would be smart enough to keep quiet about it.

I don't see anyone saying Fed is infallible, yet that strawman is also there, and came first, and can also be categorised as 'intellectually weak'

It is also easy, once you have an opinion of a player, to interpret actions in a way that supports that opinion (see hawkeye/Murray as a classic example), even when the players actions are not interpreted that way by most people (see cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias).

Given that the Edberg award is barely known outside the tennis world and barely mentioned in the tennis world, it seems unlikely that Nike would spend resources influencing it's outcome. Far more likely, given that all players show occasional bad behaviour on court, is that the rank and file players vote for who treats them with the most respect and sincerity off the court, and who works hardest for the benefit of them and of sport in general. Now, if you don't like Federer because he once said something less than pleasant about your player, or because he argued with the umpire in 0.5% of his matches, you may think you 'know' the 'real' Federer, but I suggest it's more likely that those who actually do know him, and who deal with him on a regular basis know him better.

Hang on, players on the tour know what Fed is like more than Djoko or Murray fans who watch him on TV - surely not??

Danny_1982 wrote:What still amazes me how fans have latched onto it and that shot is now widely known as a lucky slap. All these people that bemoan percentage tennis, and yet when Novak hits a return like that its lucky. How can he win?

Well said, Danny. This is the only aspect I don't really like about the whole thing. Yes, Fed was a bit ungracious afterwards. But I can understand that - he's facing questioning a short while after what must be one of the toughest losses of his career. He's had no time to reflect on or process what has happened so I don't expect his every comment to be totally rational.

It is unfair though that this interpretation of that shot being lucky has slipped into mainstream narrative.

It was a great return made by the world number 1 who is known for having a great return. He has hit loads of service return winners down the years. It doesn't require luck to be a huge factor.

I think that is why this particular instance of Federer being ungracious has stuck in people's minds. It was one of the great "moments" in tennis of the last few years and Roger's comments tainted it somewhat.

Roger's on court and post-match conduct sometimes falls short but there is no doubting he is basically a nice guy. I've heard a few players down the years say how Roger has gone out of his way to be nice to them. Laura Robson spoke about it recently and I seem to recall James Blake saying how Federer sent him a note when he (Blake) was in hospital.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't see anyone saying Fed is infallible, yet that strawman is also there, and came first, and can also be categorised as 'intellectually weak'

It is also easy, once you have an opinion of a player, to interpret actions in a way that supports that opinion (see hawkeye/Murray as a classic example), even when the players actions are not interpreted that way by most people (see cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias).

Given that the Edberg award is barely known outside the tennis world and barely mentioned in the tennis world, it seems unlikely that Nike would spend resources influencing it's outcome. Far more likely, given that all players show occasional bad behaviour on court, is that the rank and file players vote for who treats them with the most respect and sincerity off the court, and who works hardest for the benefit of them and of sport in general. Now, if you don't like Federer because he once said something less than pleasant about your player, or because he argued with the umpire in 0.5% of his matches, you may think you 'know' the 'real' Federer, but I suggest it's more likely that those who actually do know him, and who deal with him on a regular basis know him better.

Hang on, players on the tour know what Fed is like more than Djoko or Murray fans who watch him on TV - surely not??

 

Sometimes it can feel like we've all strayed into One Direction type fandom on here

Here is actually Roger's quote on that Djokovic winner:-

"I had it," Federer said after his 6-7 (7), 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5 loss. "There's no more I could do. Snaps one shot, and then the whole thing changes….I didn't hit the best serve. But it's just the way he returns that. 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… 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."

Ic i sincerely hope you are kidding... Nothing i said suggested I hated him, nor do i feel it is an unfair comment. I CERTAINLY dont feel it is unfair to discuss how Federer acts on a thread like this, without someone dictating to me what people are and are not allowed to say. Hes human hes had his moments, hes clearly a nice guy outside of the court, but in tennis he's certainly not averse to "playing the game" soo to speak.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It is also easy, once you have an opinion of a player, to interpret actions in a way that supports that opinion (see hawkeye/Murray as a classic example), even when the players actions are not interpreted that way by most people (see cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias).

Groups often act in certain ways that serve to perpetuate an opinion or view and stamp on anything that deviates from this. It makes little difference whether these views have a basis in truth or not. Some well known experiments have exposed this phenomenon

1.  'Lord of the Flies': Social Identity Theory

The Robbers Cave Experiment is a classic social psychology experiment conducted with two groups of 11-year old boys at a state park in Oklahoma, and demonstrates just how easily an exclusive group identity is adopted and how quickly the group can degenerate into prejudice and antagonism toward outsiders.

Researcher Muzafer Sherif actually conducted a series of 3 experiments. In the first, the groups banded together to gang up on a common enemy. In the second, the groups banded together to gang up on the researchers! By the third and final experiment, the researchers managed to turn the groups on each other.

4. Conformity: Not Believing Your Lying Eyes

From social identity theory psychologists got a handle on group dynamics and prejudices, how natural it is for groups to elicit conformity among their members. In 1951 Solomon Asch set out to identify just how much individual judgment is affected by the group.

In a test environment in which undergrads were asked to render a judgment after other subjects gave deliberately wrong answers, 50% of people gave the same wrong answer when their turn came. Only 25% of test subjects refused to be swayed by the false judgment of the others, while 5% always went with the crowd. The finding was that a third of people will ignore what they know to be true and go with a falsehood if they're in a group that insists on the falsehood being true. What else will people do under influence of the group?

http://brainz.org/ten-most-revealing-psych-experiments/

IMO these are more relevant here. Incidentally the term "cognitively dissident" is more appropriate for people who ignore their own senses when making judgements in order to fit in with a group rather than someone who has views that differ from the conforming majority.

I find this behavior quite interesting although not as interesting as talking about tennis. It's sad but maybe group conformity will always tend towards general tennis "chat" sites going the way of 606v2 and becoming back slapping consensuses. Especially ones with very few posters and little new input.

HE, there's a world of difference between becoming back slapping consensus and not liking WUMming and trolls.
Perhaps you would consider yet another Murray-bashing article to be '"new input" - the rest of us would consider it old, repetitive input and one of the things that prevents new users joining and drives old ones away.

hawkeye wrote:

Groups often act in certain ways that serve to perpetuate an opinion or view and stamp on anything that deviates from this. It makes little difference whether these views have a basis in truth or not.

...........

I find this behavior quite interesting although not as interesting as talking about tennis. It's sad but maybe group conformity will always tend towards general tennis "chat" sites going the way of 606v2 and becoming back slapping consensuses. Especially ones with very few posters and little new input.

 
So, if a group of people criticize one member of that group for certain instances of behaviour it might be because: (a) they are right; or, (b) they are not right but guilty of going along with the majority view.
 
Who'd have thunk it?
 
@HE, you stick to your obsessive, repetitive, and frequently sly digs at Murray and his family if you must, but if most people on here don't like it regardless of who their favourite player is that won't make them wrong or you right.

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, there's a world of difference between becoming back slapping consensus and not liking WUMming and trolls.
Perhaps you would consider yet another Murray-bashing article to be '"new input" - the rest of us would consider it old, repetitive input and one of the things that prevents new users joining and drives old ones away.

That looks very much like you are accusing me of being a "WUM" and a troll. I am neither and in this day and age these labels shouldn't be thrown around. I also resent you saying that the sum of my writing is Murray bashing and repetitive.

It's not the sum total, just easily the majority.
I've said in the past, and will re-iterate, that your non-Murray posts are very good IMHO and very welcome.
However, I resent it when you repeatedly hijack the forum for your personal anti-Murray agenda, so I guess we're even.

Back slapping consensus? On this site?!

I don't think there's ever a detail too insignificant for us to disagree on!

hawkeye wrote: I also resent you saying that the sum of my writing is Murray bashing and repetitive.

 
He didn't say that - he said that you do too much Murray-bashing (which is true) and which is not the same thing as saying that is the only thing you do on here.
 
Setting up a straw man argument is classic trolling/wummery.  It is unfortunate that you do just that in a post where you also say.
 

hawkeye wrote:That looks very much like you are accusing me of being a "WUM" and a troll. I am neither

Anyway, he also did not say you are a "WUM" and a troll - he was saying that you do too much wumming and trolling (which is also true).

He's obviously a parent because like all parents he knows that you don't tell off your child by saying "you are a bad little boy/girl", but you say, "you have done a bad thing".

Most children understand that distinction.......

HM Murdoch wrote:Back slapping consensus? On this site?!

I don't think there's ever a detail too insignificant for us to disagree on!

Oh yes there is  

Sorry, couldn't resist.

hawkeye, whilst it would be wrong to say (and I don't believe anyone has) that your writing is 100% Murray bashing and repetitive, something tells me that your contributions have, over time, created such a perception in the eyes of a majority of regular posters. Either way, I feel that your ongoing anti-Murray bias does you a disservice.

Perhaps you doubt that my view is widely held .....?  I'm tempted to suggest that a poll might offer clarification, although I also suspect that the results would not make pleasant reading for you ........

In addition, you need to realise that it is not just Murray fans who are saying this. JHM would have taken the same action against a poster with your posting history regardless of which player it was aimed at.

If you choose to believe what you write in your Murray posts then that is up to you but spamming the site with a constant negative diatribe against any player is unacceptable. As JHM said, when you are not posting about Murray you post some good thoughtful stuff. Lags is right, you are doing yourself a disservice.

I am going to go against the grain a little and stick up for hawkeye a bit - that's not to say that I don't personally find the anti Murray stuff a bit obsessive, but I do just want to make the following points:

1) I seriously doubt that HE has prevented anyone from joining the forum - I don't know about the rest of you but I think I first posted on 606 to disagree with an opinion.  
2) We all have a responsibility not to rise to posts (and we all do it at times) - quite frankly if Murray fans had treated HE's negative posts with the same indifference that Fed fans have treated the (much repeated) digs about well...Fed fans (who apparently foam at the mouth with twirling panties at the slightest bit of criticism of their idol)...from banbro and socal which are equally repetitive, blinkered and prejudiced, then there wouldn't be so much fun in writing articles to wind people up.  Trying to prevent a poster winding up other posters is like a hydra - you can cut off one head but others will appear.  However if you don't give it any oxygen it will soon begin to wilt, or hopefully grow in another direction.
3) There is a common misconception that HE is only anti Murray - in fact she is not very keen on Fed or Djokovic either, but she is very much more subtle in her digs about the former particularly - it is called damning with faint praise.  I think most Fed fans on here notice the barbed back handed compliment every time, but choose to ignore it - why? It's only her opinion and nobody died!  HE's biggest success has been with Murray fans, a very small contingent of which believe they can change her opinion by continually taking her up on negativity.

Blimey - doesn't actually sound like I have stuck up for you at all HE  I do want to say though that she is never rude to other posters and I think that counts for a lot.  In fact I used to think she just had a very wicked sense of humour, and that is why she was never tempted to respond in kind when things became a little more personal, she just enjoyed the baiting.  I do think that some on these boards find it hard not to constantly argue in a thread rather than letting individual views stand, and feel a need to 'win' an argument.  Quite frankly I think this forum is pretty grown up and in the main the majority of posters are happy to read a variety of opinions without having to deconstruct and pull to pieces every single one that isn't exactly in line with their own - perhaps the forum should also try to be adult enough to ignore anything that you find you are constantly having to argue against and learn to give up on a lost cause?

Or HE could just try and behave a bit better...........................

PS Meant to say earlier truffin that really enjoyed reading your OP - the time that Fed gave the girl was obviously very generous and precious.  He is a great ambassador for the sport, as always (be still my twirling panties!!! )

time please.

I am keen on Fed I wouldn't have regained an interest in men's tennis without him. I like Nadal too but probably wouldn't have noticed him if not for Federer. I like Djokovic too he's featured in some of my favorite matches. I think he plays his best against Federer and Nadal but because they are my favorites I admit then I prefer my favorites to win.

Whatever made you think I didn't like Federer? I thought I was always one of the first to jump in to defend him. Is it because I like Nadal too and jump in to defend him... probably more often than Federer but only because he comes in for more criticism.

Oh and thanks for almost defending me. I'm grateful for anything at the moment.

carrieg4 wrote:Or HE could just try and behave a bit better...........................

True, but sometimes it's better to ignore rather than giving something attention the whole time. Even negative attention is attention.

time please wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Or HE could just try and behave a bit better...........................

True, but sometimes it's better to ignore rather than giving something attention the whole time.  Even negative attention is attention.

True

Well hawkeye, I can also offer you some comfort (hopefully) in endorsing the assertion by time please that you are never rude to other posters, which does indeed count for a lot.

At the same time I wish to respectfully suggest that there is a lot to be said for following carrieg's friendly advice (4.44pm) -  not least where your contributions concern a certain player (clue : he's the only one who currently holds two Slam titles ......)

hawkeye wrote:time please.

I am keen on Fed I wouldn't have regained an interest in men's tennis without him. I like Nadal too but probably wouldn't have noticed him if not for Federer. I like Djokovic too he's featured in some of my favorite matches. I think he plays his best against Federer and Nadal but because they are my favorites I admit then I prefer my favorites to win.

Whatever made you think I didn't like Federer? I thought I was always one of the first to jump in to defend him. Is it because I like Nadal too and jump in to defend him... probably more often than Federer but only because he comes in for more criticism.

Oh and thanks for almost defending me. I'm grateful for anything at the moment.

oh HE  It may be my interpretation and I'm sorry I could only must an 'almost' defence  

For what it's worth, you have frequently made me laugh even when I have disagreed with you, and, as I said in earlier post, I think you are always courteous to other posters so I don't personally believe you should have your posts censored - censured maybe!! Better?  

HE,

I have no doubt that you have quite the knowledge of the game of tennis. Infact you have touched on playing it. However, like so many posters before and after your time you consistently waste good insight and knowledge on criticising the same player and his family over and over and don't be surprised that so many posters here view you as the Murray prophet of doom. There comes a time when the record needs changing. Stupid and lazy people waste their knowledge and insight if all they can focus on is the one negativity that is the cornerstone of your world. If you want your reputation to improve, change the record and with that people will change their minds.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't see anyone saying Fed is infallible, yet that strawman is also there, and came first, and can also be categorised as 'intellectually weak'

It is also easy, once you have an opinion of a player, to interpret actions in a way that supports that opinion (see hawkeye/Murray as a classic example), even when the players actions are not interpreted that way by most people (see cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias).

Given that the Edberg award is barely known outside the tennis world and barely mentioned in the tennis world, it seems unlikely that Nike would spend resources influencing it's outcome. Far more likely, given that all players show occasional bad behaviour on court, is that the rank and file players vote for who treats them with the most respect and sincerity off the court, and who works hardest for the benefit of them and of sport in general. Now, if you don't like Federer because he once said something less than pleasant about your player, or because he argued with the umpire in 0.5% of his matches, you may think you 'know' the 'real' Federer, but I suggest it's more likely that those who actually do know him, and who deal with him on a regular basis know him better.

Hang on, players on the tour know what Fed is like more than Djoko or Murray fans who watch him on TV - surely not??

Spot on Julius: It's comical how fans who take a few words or behavior out of thousands and thousands of words think they know an athlete better than those who actually do.. The players themselves know each and every one of them including Federer shows bad judgement, poor sportsmanship at some point, but they consistently applaud Federer for his overall sportsmanship. Roddick had some great thoughts on it-- the players know the immense pressure a legend like Federer is under from him sponsors, fans, etc, and yet he still day in and day out treats people well.. The fellow players "get it"

btw- I was at the MSG event Roddick speaks about, my grandson and I met Federer and spent some time in a private function with him. He was truly exceptional in the way he treated everyone. After the match- Roddick, Sharapova, and Wozniaki signed for a few minutes then headed out the tunnel. Federer stayed and walked around every side of the MSG court signing for fans for nearly an hour... That's what his fellow players see and why he gets the awards"

Andy Roddick after he beat Federer in their last match when asked what Federer had said to him
http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/News/Tennis/2012/Interview-Transcripts/Andy-Roddick-26-March.aspx


Q. Besides congratulations, did he say anything after the game?
ANDY RODDICK: Roger's great. He said, I'm happy for you. You deserved to win tonight. Good luck. Keep it going.
He said similar, something similar in the locker room before he left tonight. You know, he was really classy about it.
And side story, I you know, you're around guys a lot, but The Garden event that we did three weeks ago was the first time Roger and I spent an entire day together doing stuff.
I'm amazed at the way he does every picture, every autograph. You know, I know what I deal with on a small scale, and it's not what he does.
So, you know, you start to have an understanding why people are so fanatical about him. You know, I think the crowd anywhere cheers for him.
And probably in the USA it would have peed me off not too long ago, but I fully get it now after seeing the way he is and was three weeks ago. You know, I didn't think I could be more impressed with him, but I was really impressed with the way he went about his business for those couple days up there.

I think Roddick about summed it up.





Some nice words from Lindsay Vonn as well"


"You know, I’ve met a lot of athletes over the years, and plenty of arrogant athletes who either don’t care to meet you or have any interest in what you have to say. But of all the athletes I’ve ever met, Roger is the kindest and most genuine. He really cares about people and what he’s done with his foundation and his humanitarian efforts has been incredible. He’s hard-working and extremely humble, but the thing I respect most about him is he’s the same person every day whether he wins or loses. You just don’t find many people like that in sports. The truth is, the greatest athletes in the world are just not that nice. I really feel he’s in a league of his own there. He cares about being a role model and that kids can look up to him. I consider him a hero because I want to be like him. I want to be a good role model for kids, too.

I’m a Youth Olympics Games ambassador so I was at Wimbledon this summer when he beat Juan Martin del Potro in that incredible Olympic semifinal match. I talked to Roger after that match and I remember how he was just so tired. But he was the same as he always is. He asked me how my skiing was going and I was like, ‘Don’t talk about my skiing. Let’s talk about how awesome you are.’ He just smiled and laughed."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/magazine/sportsman/12/02/roger-federer-lindsey-vonn/index.html#ixzz2E7Hci3Wq

Yes, yes TRuffin, signing autographs and doing charity we are all aware of that about Federer other players do it as well. But nobody gets the pass for his interview comments and on court actions like Roger. I can look up online and give you lots of instances of Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal doing things for charity etc. Roger is even building schools in Africa. Nobody is indicting the man as a war criminal or anything like that but he is simply not a good sport, not if you beat him.

socal , you disagree with Vomm's statement "the thing I respect most about him is he’s the same person every day whether he wins or loses."?

Nice story.

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal , you disagree with Vomm's statement "the thing I respect most about him is he’s the same person every day whether he wins or loses."?

Yes absolutely I disagree, he is not the same guy, check out USO 2011 semi. Or his post Melzer interview where he claimed the reason he lost to Melzer at MC, or at least one of the reasons was quote "he shanked a lot of balls that went in." This is all old stuff that I don't really want to rehash, but the guy is a sore loser, not that big of a deal probably one of the reasons he is such a winner. But for the life of me I could think of a lot of people on tour who better in terms of sportsmanship than Federer.

So someone who knows Fed quite well says something about him, but you, who don't actually know him, only see him on TV, and have taken to disliking him, know Federer better.
You can understand my scepticism on that point, I'm sure.

Perhaps what Vomm means is that win or lose he tells it as he sees it i.e. gives an honest opinion, not the air-brushed stuff we get from most players who are perhaps scared to upset the ATP or their sponsors, and so say the politically correct thing - not because they are better losers, but because they would rather tow the corporate line and offer insincere platitudes.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal , you disagree with Vomm's statement "the thing I respect most about him is he’s the same person every day whether he wins or loses."?

Yes absolutely I disagree, he is not the same guy, check out USO 2011 semi. Or his post Melzer interview where he claimed the reason he lost to Melzer at MC, or at least one of the reasons was quote "he shanked a lot of balls that went in." This is all old stuff that I don't really want to rehash, but the guy is a sore loser, not that big of a deal probably one of the reasons he is such a winner. But for the life of me I could think of a lot of people on tour who better in terms of sportsmanship than Federer.

Look no one is going to change your mind and you have a right to your opinion, but any unbiased observer should understand that the opinions of people, fellow players, fellow athletes that actually know him carry more credibility than yours. No one is 100% liked, but far and away, Federer is well liked by his fellow athletes. It's incredibly arrogant or just shows bias to think that a fan knows more than those do. Roddick isn't talking about just signing autographs- he says Federer is pure class even after Fed loses to him. Brands said the same thing last week about how nice Federer was to him in the locker. Tomic said Federer is the only one of the top players who has taken the time to sit down with him and talk to him about what he needs to do to navigate the road to success on tour. That's the stuff that wins the awards. Feds' taken some pretty brutal losses lately and I've seen nothing but pure class from him.

You continue to bring up minor meaningless out of context statements that just show you slant everything towards negative... WE can do that with anyone. Melzer interview he gives full credit to Melzer, Melzer was the better player, but you take one statement and run with hit. Why don't you tell us about the Post Wimbledon defeat interview this year? That was a monumental loss for Federer- did he not show class? Did he not say that a guy ranked 100+ in the world was the "better player than me today" What more do you want from the guy? Did he not say after losing to Djokovic at WTF- a very important tournament to Federer: "you're the best" to Djokovic? What more can he say? smh...

I orginially posted a nice story about Federer doing some charity work for a sick girl. The story had nothing to do with Djokovic and my little quip about "despite what Djoko father says" is barely worth a rebuke. Yet, your the one that came on here and immediately started bringing up negative things about Federer and crying about how mean he is.. What does that have to do with the original post.. nothing. Instead of saying- - nice story, good guy-- you have to go negative.. which tells me your just a hater and clearly biased. fine- your opinion is yours...

invisiblecoolers wrote:

falzy21 wrote:He has had a few arrogance and classless moments but noones crucifying him for that, hes human...

Its really shame people like you hate somebody for he doing nothing wrong to you, Roger is a great human being like the poster mentioned, if you don't like him just stay away from his threads, but its really shameful to come and post comments like this on a wonderful life experience thread.

Do you even understand how much it means to person like this [i,.e author]?

Federer and Rafa are like 99.9% saints to 0.01 percent of criminals, try to increase your level to their heights before you can comment negativity on them.

@The Thread and the Author

I am sorry you had to fight this dreaded disease, I hope you win it, and I am delighted from people like ESPN, "Make a Wish" and stars like Roger Federer to keep you guys happy atleast for a day, GOD bless them all.

Wonderful dry humour. The makers of Alan Partridge would be proud

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ruffin, come on man, do you really think that shot by Djokovic was a one in a million? It was not even a one in a hundred. He read Federer's serve and the greatest returner on tour picked it off cross court for a winner. It was actually a weak delivery by Federer right in Djokovic's wheelhouse. See this is the whole double standard, if Fed hit that shot nobody would be calling it one in a million. I don't even think that shot on that particular serve (ie a wide serve to the forehand that didn't break with enough slice) is a one in ten for djokovic. But you claim it is a one in a million, I hope you have played enough tennis to know that is bogus. One of the easiest balls as a returner to blast is a slice serve to your forehand that just doesn't break enough or is wide enough.

you prove my point... it "grates" you that Federer fans dare to get huffy when people make negative remarks about him, but you are constantly in a huff if someone dares to categorize something Djoko does in a way you don't like... pure hypocrisy.  .

Truffin - Sorry but it's the likes of you who wallow in the sheer 'bubble' of hypocrisy, that surrounds Fed and his guardians. I mean why do you get 'huffy' when he is criticised - he's had plenty of ungracious moments? Why is this seen as a problem? As humans we're all flawed. My thre faves Mac, Connors and Agassi make Fed look like a Saint

It's the sheer protective postion that you and plenty of others take about Fed that, yes, does "grate". It's as though you believe that we've really found a new God and any form of criticism deserves a fatwa

I'm not a Novak fan, but he gets an incredible bad press, where anything he does 'wrong' is seen as normal and typical - but when Fed does it, well it can't be discussed

Oh and if you think that white jackets and suites named after him doesn't show someone who loves themselves a little bit too much, then it illustrates your narrow position. Yes. Serena is worse, but she actually gets slated for it.

My point was that they are both full of themselves as is any genius and there is nothing wrong with that

As I stated earlier I like Fed - but I'm sorry we need some balance to this hilarious "isn't he wonderful" gush we get. The other three do just as much good, in their own quiet way and quite right given their enourmous privledges