Is Fed mentally not the strongest?

First topic message reminder :

As a Fed fan, I think it's correct to give the man his due, but also to criticize him if there is an objectve weakness in his game.

Now the two big finals made me wonder a lot on this issue. Wimbledon; Fed played unreal tennis against Murray and before that match, in all tournament serve was on fire, on par with the very best years. In the final: serve misfiring, few aces and easy winner. Overall Fed looked somewhat tight, fh and bh didn't flow as freely.

US final: again the serve let him down causing the loss of the first set. Many many opportunities wasted in the third and never able to capitalize when Djokovic dropped his level to get that important lead 2 sets to one. Overall Fed looked uncomfortably tight during these two finals, naver able to relax enough to let the fh flow and dictate.

Obviously , this is not the prime Federer of 2004-2007, whose edge was so vast during those years that he was able to possibly hide such weakness. On the other hand this is a player that at 34 can compete at the very top. Nadal and Djokovic certainly seems to have shown more mental fortitude on the most important matches, even when there was seemingly no edge between them.

Depends how you view it really.

Rafa is a good looking guy, but I don't seem him trying to maximise his popularity on the back of that say as compared to football counterparts.

I actually think Nadal does well to keep himself off the radar of the celebrity game.

Why did I write the word 'though'? No idea, it's just a word, you're reading far, far too much into it.
I'm sure Fed does have fans like that, but let's face it, Rafa is about 20 times better looking. I just don't see what the big deal is, or why anyone should be offended by anything I've written.
Fed must have loads of fans who like him just 'cos he wins and who probably only ever watch his Slam finals - how shallow is that? - but I'm sure it's true.
Really, it's just an internet forum - people shouldn't be taking offence over nothing at the drop of a hat. Honestly, I despair of this place at times.

Julius, get over your crush on Nadal

There was a post on the old 606, that likened being a fan of Federer to "liking pride and prejudice" and Nadal as liking the sun, something along those lines.

I mean does a good looking young sportsman have a lot of fans who were drawn to him by his looks? Yeah of course, they also use facebook a lot. However a young guy in the early 00's called Federer had a lot as well, but they stayed because of the quality.

Ive always felt that that old posts thinking was something I should always avoid. Feds got more purists, you hear those guys more but I dont like viewing them on any different level to others and this conversation is getting too close to that for me not to make a point.

Yeah Im sure Fed has many shallow fans who just follow the groove, still fans though, I wouldnt disinclude them.

No-one disincluded anyone - just saying that those sorts of Fed fans, Borg fans (dare I say Rafa fans, not sure if I'm allowed to) aren't really that interested in the tennis skills per se.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Depends how you view it really.

Rafa is a good looking guy, but I don't seem him trying to maximise his popularity on the back of that say as compared to football counterparts.

I actually think Nadal does well to keep himself off the radar of the celebrity game.

It just works out that way. Rogers fans are probably a little older, more traditionalist remembering the old styles of play. Nadal came through as social media took off a bit so his fans are probably younger and got into tennis when the modern more physical style came through. Whilst nadal posing for underwear feels like fan service roger is everywhere posing for watches and sharp suits too, neither really pander, they just play to their strengths and it creates its own niche

JuliusHMarx wrote:No-one disincluded anyone - just saying that those sorts of Fed fans, Borg fans (dare I say Rafa fans, not sure if I'm allowed to) aren't really that interested in the tennis skills per se.

There lies the disagreement. Why aren't they allowed to be interested in his tennis? How many raving fan girls did the Beatles have? They just so happened to love the music too. People fall into stuff for all sorts of reasons, but they are allowed to then appreciate what's on offer. Plus what does the interest or not in skills have to do with anything? Should we ignite the Facebook fans because of it?

You might think you're being misinterpreted but you brought this up during a debate on who had the bigger fanbase, and you didn't mention these other fed fans. It's naive to think that somehow that wouldn't look like a way to poo poo nadals fanbase

Then The Beatles were kind of the first of their kind in that regard.

A more comparable comparison would be say fans of Take That. Shockingly bad records (IMO), but a fanbase driven by appearance. The substance wasn't part of the appeal. 

I think Fed fans would argue they are fans of his tennis than say his appearance. Now where Nadal fits in, who knows. For me yes Nadal attracts a dynamic set of fans, but why is the said opinion so demeaning? 

I see the point yes it puts eyes on the sport, but is there an understanding behind those eyes? That's the concern.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
I see the point yes it puts eyes on the sport, but is there an understanding behind those eyes? That's the concern.

Never know LK, maybe some of them understand the sport even better than you do

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
I see the point yes it puts eyes on the sport, but is there an understanding behind those eyes? That's the concern.

Never know LK, maybe some of them understand the sport even better than you do

Is that because they'll point me to social media to prove popularity superiority?

Sorry when were facebook people scum to be disregarded?

What makes someone a "Facebook" person?

I would have to disagree with take that. Yeah it was pop, but the fans liked the music too. Same for their comeback, their now older fangirls also like their new stuff, okay maybe they didnt come at first for the new stuff, but their concert numbers are hard to argue.

Did Take That perform the music or create it?

Dunno really, most people use it. To that end I suppose whats the issue with quoting facebook fan pages? A lot of them are on it

Both, to be specific Gary Barlow did I guess. Boy band stuffs quite generic usually but theres some nice gems in there.

Social media creates a lot of superficiality temp. 

I am old fashioned in the sense that I think of support or popularity coming from people watching the event. I thought of of Facebook as a tool to keep in touch with long distance family and friends and since its inception it's shot off in different directions.

True, but then Fedal sell out places almost everywhere they go. Theyre mentioned all the time in the same sentence, in fact most people are probably fans of both, given their records. Theyre, maybe rightfully, pretty hard to separate.

temporary21 wrote:Both, to be specific Gary Barlow did I guess. Boy band stuffs quite generic usually but theres some nice gems in there.

Open those ears to a wider range young man!

If you were around school in those days temp and remember the break up. I had a childhood friend who just obsessed over them. 

I use the Take That analogy because the talent is manufactured.

As you said about purest fans who prefer the rawness behind talents and the not so purest who indulge the lesser product. It's not a bad thing. Cultures are built on diversities.

temporary21 wrote:True, but then Fedal sell out places almost everywhere they go. Theyre mentioned all the time in the same sentence, in fact most people are probably fans of both, given their records. Theyre, maybe rightfully, pretty hard to separate.

Of course they do. 

End of the day they are an individual brand. It's powerful.

One direction might be a better analogy, I think Barlow deserves a pass. Novak does a good job, but in reality the meteoric rise of tennis is all about them as a rivalry... probably...

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
I see the point yes it puts eyes on the sport, but is there an understanding behind those eyes? That's the concern.

Never know LK, maybe some of them understand the sport even better than you do

Is that because they'll point me to social media to prove popularity superiority?

Well social media does show a large sample size for the younger demographic does it not ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
I see the point yes it puts eyes on the sport, but is there an understanding behind those eyes? That's the concern.

Never know LK, maybe some of them understand the sport even better than you do

Is that because they'll point me to social media to prove popularity superiority?

Well social media does show a large sample size for the younger demographic does it not ?

I'm 'younger demographic' again! Thank you IMBL!
PS never 'liked' any sportspersons on there though.

wow slow day

I think it is an insult, and to me in particular, to think I support Rafa for his looks, physique or anything remotely similar.. my support for Rafa is, and always will be, because of his tennis. And there are thousands like me. And contrary to most of the male posters here they are not just female either.. believe it or not there are thousands who like Rafa's brand of tennis.
606v2 has become nothing more  than a Federer fawning forum.. to dare not to be one of his supporters you can have no real interest in tennis.. Reading back through this thread its
God what with LK, BB and now Tenez is back.... what are you if not fanboyss...? :

I have never suggested and never will, that Haddie or any of the Rafa fans on this forum like Rafa for his looks. There has been absolutely no suggestion of that in any of my posts - I think that's obvious, thus no-one should feel insulted. I really don't understand why people read thing into posts that aren't there.

I stand by the following statements which most likely true and not in any way controversial or insulting. They're not even that important, just part of a casual debate:-

1. Borg had more female fans, who only really liked him for his looks, than Connors.
2. The Beatles had lots of female fans, who only really liked them for their looks/image, than their music (which they drowned out with screaming, rather than listen to, at concerts.)
3. Rafa has more female fans, who only really like him for his looks, than Fed
4. Manchester United have more fans, who only really like to bask in reflected glory, rather than really caring about the club, than Arsenal.
5. Fed has more fans, who only really like to bask in reflected glory, rather than caring about the tennis, than Rafa.
6. People who listen to and study Mozart and Beethoven have more understanding of music than most of the young, screaming One Direction fans.

Now, if bogbrush comes on later and is insulted by item 5, claiming that I've personally insulted him by stating that he doesn't care about tennis, then I guess I may need to post further clarification. Until then, can anyone else tell me why any of the above statements are an issue or likely not to be true?

Well I think the sensitivity has been ramped up beyond belief.

I agree with the premise of your post JHM. I don't see what the issue is tbh. As this forum is geared to people who follow tennis, I think it's a safe assumption that it is the tennis that determines the following.

Outside of the forum, it's anyone's guess and open to speculation. Anyone can have an opinion on it though.

Exactly lk. There's a world of difference between the people on this forum who watch and support their preferred player, know the strengths and weaknesses of his game, how it relates to tennis in general, and who have been watching tennis for years or decades, and someone who presses 'like' on facebook for some superficial reason.

JHM, that is outrageous slander! There is no way that pictures like this make Rafa more appealing to a certain demograhic.


Same way that Anna Kournikova's popularity was presumably based purely on her ground strokes.

That's a fake!

That's his head on my body!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well I think the sensitivity has been ramped up beyond belief.

I agree with the premise of your post JHM. I don't see what the issue is tbh. As this forum is geared to people who follow tennis, I think it's a safe assumption that it is the tennis that determines the following.

Outside of the forum, it's anyone's guess and open to speculation. Anyone can have an opinion on it though.

It has nothing to do with sensitivity LK it is to do with facts when, and for all those posters who have not bothered to scroll back a page you make comments such as

People talk about Federer and Nadal being in a league of their own for popularity but Federer is way more popular than Nadal.

You must excuse those of us who will challenge it. The figures I quoted from Facebook were merely an indication that this may not, and probably is not, the case. The resulting debate went from there. There are many fans of Rafa and I daresay Federer who follow his comings and goings by facebook (I am not one of them) but they are still very much fans of tennis but interested in the person behind the racquet

What metric though are we using though to measure 'popularity'?

I think as days gone by I have always felt popularity in 'sport' was measured by say viewing figures, fans paying to watch, endorsements, sponsorships, crowd reactions during events. Those kind of things.

Now we have social media, which for me is a very complex tool.

I will state that the tennis posters on here and many other forums don't fit the bill of a superficial fan. The Rafa fans here or other forums discuss in great length the man's tennis. I can't see that from a Facebook page say dedicated to Federer or Nadal or any other athlete serves as a platform for such discussions.

As I am not a Swiss or Spanish national or lived in those respective countries I don't know the kind of attention or column inches they command. As a global fan I would say Federer is just ever so more slightly popular than Nadal. I say that as a transferable popularity across other platforms. It doesn't add to any GOAT status or anything, just I think Federer's name is more widely recognisable. I know many won't share that opinion, but that's how I feel and see it.

Haddie-nuff wrote:You must excuse those of us who will challenge it. The figures I quoted from Facebook were merely an indication that this may not, and probably is not, the case. The resulting debate went from there. There are many fans of Rafa and I daresay Federer who follow his comings and goings by facebook (I am not one of them) but they are still very much fans of tennis but interested in the person behind the racquet

My strong suspicion is that a greater proportion of Rafa's followers are on Facebook.

But I think Federer is more popular for two main reasons:

1) Outside of Spain, I've never seen Rafa get the level of support in a stadium that Federer gets.

2) I know loads of people who are not avid followers of tennis but who claim to like Federer. I've never met a casual observer who claims to like Nadal.

1) Outside of Spain, I've never seen Rafa get the level of support in a stadium that Federer gets.

2) I know loads of people who are not avid followers of tennis but who claim to like Federer. I've never met a casual observer who claims to like Nadal.

Im sorry but I just have to raise a grin at the first comment.. You know the nationalities of these people who support in these tournaments do you ..people travel around the world in support of Rafa ...what a baseless comment which is Federer biased yet again.

Your second point.. is that YOU have not met a casual observer.. I spent 15mths in Canada and those with whom I discussed tennis well well aware and had enormous respect for Rafa...

As I said this has fast become a Federer fawning forum..
There appears to be no other players worth discussing

If this is a Federer fawning forum, why have so many posters questioned his mental strength and stated it to be less than that of his rivals?

Plenty of recent discussions about Rafa's current issues, Murray's ups and downs - although the last two slam finals have been between Djoko & Fed, and they are currently No.1 and No. 2so they have naturally had a lot written about them recently.

Helpful answer.

There are many logical fallacies.  One is "appeal to authority".  Another is "appeal to democracy" or "appeal to popularity".  Of course if the debate is over who is most popular then "appeal to popularity" would be appropriate.  Anyway let's not muddy the waters.  

Either you like the way one person plays tennis or you don't.  Opinion has little to do with logic or "truth".  There is no need to mock others for who they support or don't support.  Federer fans like the way Federer plays.  Nadal fans like the way Nadal plays.  Both have seen better days.  Some Nadal fans like the appearance of Nadal.  Some Federer fans like the dress sense of Federer.  Some people are good facebook persons others are not. Life is a box of chocolates.  For some life is a box of chocolates without the chocolates.  Others try to be the chocolate.  Who can say. All the above is irrefutable apart from those parts that are refutable.

Agree with Hn. I doubt Rafa fans are that much fewer than Fed fans except maybe in places like France and at Wimbledon. Fedal have not met at the USO and Rafa is well loved there. I doubt Rafa would be treated the same way they treated Novak when he plays against Fed there.

When they played at Melbourne and Wimbledon, the fans were fair to both and both had their own supporters. Even at the FO when they played each other, the fans still didnt treat Rafa badly.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Im sorry but I just have to raise a grin at the first comment.. You know the nationalities of these people who support in these tournaments do you ..people travel around the world in support of Rafa ...what a baseless comment which is Federer biased yet again.

Well, I doubt the reason he gets most of crowd in North America, London, Paris, Melbourne and Asia is because it's the same group of people attending every tournament!

What a bizarre comment.

you all!

I travel and see Fed anytime i can, sadly its not very often.

Fed is good, you know

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:My point is that for me it was a badge of honour that I did this without resorting to the grubby business of studying, and anyone who got very good grades (or, shock, better than me) was immediately dismissed as a "hard worker". Similarly, us Federer fans can point to a 10-Slam winner like Djokovic and shake our heads regretfully, muttering "runs a lot" while celebrating the one pure way to win Slams.

I've discussed before my theory of how people's favourite tennis players are often emblems of a world view or philosophy, and I think that comes out again here.

I think fans of Federer tend to admire the talent rather than the results. That he is the most successful player ever is a very nice bonus but I suspect people would still love him even if his slam tally were much smaller. As long as he still gave the same sense of doing things really well with seemingly little effort, he'd still have a big fan base. He just appeals to that kind of person.

I tend to get frustrated with that kind of person. I love the talent but part of me always wonders how good they could be if they combined it with hard graft too.

When I see Usain Bolt producing incredible times but spending the last 5 strides with his arms in the air celebrating, I want to scream at him. Think how amazing his times would be if he pushed himself in a more disciplined way!

BB got a B in his economics with little effort. If he'd done some studying, he might have got an A!

I'm more inclined toward talent combined with hard work. The sublime, effortless talents are kind of of like a circus act for me. But talent (even a smaller talent) backed up with with a lot of effort is what I tend to get more invested in.

That's probably why, although I consider Usain Bolt and Roger Federer to be the most incredible sporting talents I've seen, it was Michael Johnson and Novak Djokovic whose careers I really got into.

Totally agree on Bolt, it drives me mad that he didn't thrash the record below 9.5.

If it's any consolation regarding me, I learned my lesson - though it took being ejected from University for basically doing nothing at all - to really help me get it. After that I woke up, started working hard, realised the upper reaches of my potential and have consigned all that nonsense to experience. I often say that I learned a great deal at University, though it wasn't on the syllabus (at least so they tell me, it's not that I formed much of an acquaintance with that anyway).

If we look at tennis we know that not every model of professionalism started out that way! Some of us have to learn the hard way that whilst a certain standard might come easily, really coming top in the biggest stage never comes easy to anyone, even if they make it look like it does.

HM Murdock wrote:JHM, that is outrageous slander! There is no way that pictures like this make Rafa more appealing to a certain demograhic.


Same way that Anna Kournikova's popularity was presumably based purely on her ground strokes.

Caramel eyes, if you know what I mean....

The mantra of education, education, education is one of the most uneducated and dangerous soundbites of modern times.  So much education is wasted and irrelevant and there is truth in another soundbite "a little education is a dangerous thing" but it equally applies to "a lot of education is a dangerous thing".  Too much education is spoon fed to shovel fed irrelevance.  Prior to the modern era there wasn't something called "childhood" and children and young adults (post puberty) had to contribute to their parents work ...

I dunno about this. Noise level of crowds, something easy to measure apparently is somehow a big tell, but facebook fans are somehow not relevant?
More than that I think people have forgotten what a fed/nadal match was like, they got very even support, and have very even support. Each one of us here is biased by our own experiences of one players fanbase over another.

Haddie clearly feels the exception made to female fans is directed at her, being one of the very few female fans (and fans at all) of Rafa on the forum, I hope that isnt the case, maybe that can be cleared up.

The sensitivity isnt laid squarely at her door either to be quite honest. Everyone, including A lot of fed fans here get very defensive about little things, such as suggesting his opponent threw a set away.

Best all put this to a learning experience and lets all be more open next time.

The way I see it, Federer gets the crowd everywhere. I think he even got >50% in the Wimbledon final 2012 (though not at the Olympics, which is as you'd expect).

As he gets older and the whole elder statesman thing becomes massive, I see this only becoming more extreme. Djokovic must have felt like he was playing Agassi the other day; in another two years it'll be like Jimbo is back on the Court.

Fed fans tend to be highly aggressive and in your face but Nadal fans tend to be highly defensive and go on and on.  Murray fans are also fairly defensive and moan a lot.