2019 US Open QF: Federer vs. Dimitrov

[monfed]

That was a dramatic switch. So you were hardly a Fed fan if you changed in 2007. It’s hard to imagine someone liking Fed then switching to Nadal. The probability of that happening is 1 in 500 million.

I always find it hilarious when some "Fedal" fans proclaim that they're fans of both players to come off as objective sounding when it's always that they're more fans of Nadal and only fans of Fed when it suits their agenda. Just LOL.

Let's be real here, no Federer fan can ever be a fan of Nadal. The latter is the ugliest player ever who disgraced tennis and does the exact opposite of everything that Fed stands for. His fans are a bunch of Fed hating loonies. I've met some in real life and they're utter plonkers.(including the perennially butthurt Pete tards).

 

[atttomole]

I always find it hilarious when some "Fedal" fans proclaim that they're fans of both players to come off as objective sounding when it's always that they're more fans of Nadal and only fans of Fed when it suits their agenda. Just LOL.

Let's be real here, no Federer fan can ever be a fan of Nadal. The latter is the ugliest player ever who disgraced tennis and does the exact opposite of everything that Fed stands for. His fans are a bunch of Fed hating loonies. I've met some in real life and they're utter plonkers.(including the perennially butthurt Pete tards).

I agree. It’s impossible to like Nadal’s game when someone is a Fed fan. The difference in the quality of their tennis is like day and night.

 

[tented]

I agree. It’s impossible to like Nadal’s game when someone is a Fed fan. The difference in the quality of their tennis is like day and night.

What a simplistic world view. Does this mean you can’t like winter if you like summer? Or you can’t like chocolate if you like vanilla? It’s perfectly realistic for some people to like two things which are different from each other.

Listen to Paul Annacone some time. It’s obvious he loves both Roger and Rafa. There’s no faking it. To be adamantly for one and adamantly against the other is fanboyism.

 

[atttomole]

What a simplistic world view. Does this mean you can’t like winter if you like summer? Or you can’t like chocolate if you like vanilla? It’s perfectly realistic for some people to like two things which are different from each other.

Listen to Paul Annacone some time. It’s obvious he loves both Roger and Rafa. There’s no faking it. To be adamantly for one and adamantly against the other is fanboyism.

Why are you so sure that Annacone likes them both? Annacone is a TV commentator and a tennis coach, so it is self serving for him to say that. Some people say that they like both Fed and Nadal because it is very likely that one of them will end up with the slam record (Djokovic permitting), so in the end they can always choose the one with the slam record.

Another one is John Mac who sounds like he likes all the big three, but his favorite doesn’t seem to be a secret.

 

[tented]

Why are you so sure that Annacone likes them both? Annacone is a TV commentator and a tennis coach, so it is self serving for him to say that. Some people say that they like both Fed and Nadal because it is very likely that one of them will end up with the slam record (Djokovic permitting), so in the end they can always choose the one with the slam record.

Another one is John Mac who sounds like he likes all the big three, but his favorite doesn’t seem to be a secret.

McEnroe has never made a genuine effort to disguise who he likes and dislikes. He’s almost unique in this. Annacone, if you listen to him carefully, obviously likes and respects them both. And not just him — listen to several former players. It’s clear they are capable of liking both, because they’re not emotionally invested as fanboys/girls. Hell, even Roger and Rafa like and respect each other more than so many of their fans — the ultimate irony.

Also, I’m not a fan of them because I think or want them to “win” the GS count. That’s silly. And, again, fanboy/girl-ism. If I were only interested in rooting for the GS-count winner, I would have already shifted my focus to Djokovic, because, yes, I think there’s a strong chance he’ll eventually win that contest.

Fanaticism is binary and simplistic. I guess you could say I’m not a fan of fanatics.

 

[britbox]

I agree. It’s impossible to like Nadal’s game when someone is a Fed fan. The difference in the quality of their tennis is like day and night.

Clearly it isn't because you've just had somebody telling you they like both.

You only have to check in with @herios who has a stable of favourites so large that it makes the Great Stables of Domaine de Chantilly seem as insignificant as a hamster's cage.

If you're under 27 and don't have the surnames of Kyrgios or Zverev then you immediately qualify.

 

[mrzz]

I agree. It’s impossible to like Nadal’s game when someone is a Fed fan. The difference in the quality of their tennis is like day and night.

The difference in styles is day and night. I always root against Nadal -- I agree that it is very hard to root for both, but if some (rational) poster here tells that, than I believe him, even if I cannot do the same -- but that does not stop me from enjoying the quality of his game. Again, I agree that the (aestethical at least) quality of his game is variable, it depends heavily on his approach to the given match (and on the surface), but... Federer's quality depends on his "days" as well. When he is on a "Special Ed Fed" day [FED, Darth, tennis.com/forum, tennisdigital, discuss.tennis, tennis.frontier, tennisprose, inumerous posts from 2008 onwards], is that specially good? No, it is not.

So, as Tented put above, yes, you can appreciate different things and what I would add is that you can do that even if they are contrasting in nature. You can like black (the color) and white (the color), and you don't get as much contrast as that.

 

[britbox]

The difference in styles is day and night. I always root against Nadal -- I agree that it is very hard to root for both, but if some (rational) poster here tells that, than I believe him, even if I cannot do the same -- but that does not stop me from enjoying the quality of his game. Again, I agree that the (aestethical at least) quality of his game is variable, it depends heavily on his approach to the given match (and on the surface), but... Federer's quality depends on his "days" as well. When he is on a "Special Ed Fed" day [FED, Darth, tennis.com/forum, tennisdigital, discuss.tennis, tennis.frontier, tennisprose, inumerous posts from 2008 onwards], is that specially good? No, it is not.

So, as Tented put above, yes, you can appreciate different things and what I would add is that you can do that even if they are contrasting in nature. You can like black (the color) and white (the color), and you don't get as much contrast as that.

I agree on some levels... but it comes down why you root for a player. It's not all about styles. I prefer aggressive attacking players in general... but the difference in liking a player like Safin and Federer (style-wise) is night and day... (and I was a fan of both, but for different reasons)

Likewise, my first favourite player as a kid was Borg. The prototype Baseliner. I was more excited by McEnroe's tennis when you take styles into account. Yet, when they played, I rooted for Borg.

Ultimately, it's down to personal preference. Yeah, I can't personally square having Fed and Nadal as favourite players because I don't like Nadal, but I could do it with Borg and Mac and realise it's just personal preference.

I'm way more binary when it comes to some other sports, so understand both sides of the argument... but at the end of the day, you can't define somebody else's opinion.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree. It’s impossible to like Nadal’s game when someone is a Fed fan. The difference in the quality of their tennis is like day and night.

The difference in the quality of their tennis is currently 2 majors only. The difference is aesthetic appeal might be big, but quality wise, I hate to break it to you, they're pretty close.

 

[monfed]

Yea it's so awesome to watch Nadull pick his butt and smell his fingers and then take another 30 seconds between two serves and grunt like a pig playing the fugliest FH ever seen. Yea a real eye candy this dull.

 

[monfed]

Why are you so sure that Annacone likes them both? Annacone is a TV commentator and a tennis coach, so it is self serving for him to say that. Some people say that they like both Fed and Nadal because it is very likely that one of them will end up with the slam record (Djokovic permitting), so in the end they can always choose the one with the slam record.

Another one is John Mac who sounds like he likes all the big three, but his favorite doesn’t seem to be a secret.

Attomole, don't bother with "fedal" fans. They're worse than even the staunchest dulltards because they pretend that they like Fed as much as they like Nadull. They provide good comedy.

 

[atttomole]

McEnroe has never made a genuine effort to disguise who he likes and dislikes. He’s almost unique in this. Annacone, if you listen to him carefully, obviously likes and respects them both. And not just him — listen to several former players. It’s clear they are capable of liking both, because they’re not emotionally invested as fanboys/girls. Hell, even Roger and Rafa like and respect each other more than so many of their fans — the ultimate irony.

Also, I’m not a fan of them because I think or want them to “win” the GS count. That’s silly. And, again, fanboy/girl-ism. If I were only interested in rooting for the GS-count winner, I would have already shifted my focus to Djokovic, because, yes, I think there’s a strong chance he’ll eventually win that contest.

Fanaticism is binary and simplistic. I guess you could say I’m not a fan of fanatics.

One more very important thing I forgot to say about Nadal. His behavior on court. I don’t have to explain that. I guess Nadal likes Federer so much that he would try to needle him during a match by taking changing his bandage before Feeder serves for the match. and other similar acts. That is how you like someone.

Who knows, maybe they line each other, but I think it’s just a myth that has been peddled for years. It is possible that one likes the other, but not the reverse.

I can tell you that I like Federer because he plays amazing tennis and I think he deserves the slam record because of that. However, the slam record depends on other factors that have less to do with tennis ability. And I can still live with that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yea it's so awesome to watch Nadull pick his butt and smell his fingers and then take another 30 seconds between two serves and grunt like a pig playing the fugliest FH ever seen. Yea a real eye candy this dull.

I said close in quality, not in aesthetic appeal. Learn to read.

 

[Jelenafan]

“Aesthetic appeal” is of course the ultimate subjective barometer, so how people reconcile fandom for players ( fanaticism) as tied to this is a self fulfilling rationale. Federer is a “ winner”, as is Rafa, Serena, etc.i doubt any of them would have the same number of fans if they didn’t win as much as they have.

Which is Ok, but it underscores how other factors contribute more than people may care to admit.

There are many tennis players I’ve liked through the years, and they’ve run a wide varied gamut as far as their styles and form. Stefan Edberg AND Henri Leconte to name just two.

So yes, I can see how some could be fans of both Rafa and Federer.

Not me, mind you, but some.

 

[Front242]

Personally I can't see how one could be a fan of a player who has to use every trick in the book to try and win matches that DOESN'T involve actual tennis because he's not able to otherwise. Still though, everyone is different and the world would be a boring place if everyone liked the same things. I'm a fan of actual tennis though more than any of that unsporting crap and happy to belong the fairer side of things, ie actual tennis to win matches.

 

[Jelenafan]

Personally I can't see how one could be a fan of a player who has to use every trick in the book to try and win matches that DOESN'T involve actual tennis because he's not able to otherwise. Still though, everyone is different and the world would be a boring place if everyone liked the same things. I'm a fan of actual tennis though more than of that unsporting crap and happy to belong the fairer side of things, ie actual tennis to win matches.

Example 1A of someone who rationalizes his fandom as the best, the “ actual tennis” is a nice BS touch.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Personally I can't see how one could be a fan of a player who has to use every trick in the book to try and win matches that DOESN'T involve actual tennis because he's not able to otherwise. Still though, everyone is different and the world would be a boring place if everyone liked the same things. I'm a fan of actual tennis though more than any of that unsporting crap and happy to belong the fairer side of things, ie actual tennis to win matches.

Again, how fucking often has Nadal done that? Tell me, in his 18 slam triumphs, how many have come as a result of Nadal doing every trick in the book, and how many are because he's a fucking great tennis players. Stop it with these salty ridiculous statements. Every time I challenge you guys on that shit, you bring up a few very select incidents. You actually think Nadal "isn't able to win otherwise?" He's won a record amount of masters + 18 slams due to tricks? Get the fuck out of here.

 

[Fiero425]

Again, how fucking often has Nadal done that? Tell me, in his 18 slam triumphs, how many have come as a result of Nadal doing every trick in the book, and how many are because he's a fucking great tennis players. Stop it with these salty ridiculous statements. Every time I challenge you guys on that shit, you bring up a few very select incidents. You actually think Nadal "isn't able to win otherwise?" He's won a record amount of masters + 18 slams due to tricks? Get the fuck out of here.

...and you totally overlook those incidents as if they're insignificant or didn't happen! That's what must frustrate you, not us reminding you!

 

[tented]

...and you totally overlook those incidents as if they're insignificant or didn't happen! That's what must frustrate you, not us reminding you!

How could he have overlooked them, when he’s the one who mentioned them?

 

[Fiero425]

How could he have overlooked them, when he’s the one who mentioned them?

They c/b overlooked by minimizing the incidents where Rafa has literally "stolen" a match here & there! His gamesmanship's legend! :whistle: