Why you like so-and-so...

[Kieran]

Is it ethos-based, as in, "He plays the game the way I like to see it played?"

Or, partly this, but more because your favourite player's personality appeals to you?

 

[Riotbeard]

Is it ethos-based, as in, "He plays the game the way I like to see it played?"

Or, partly this, but more because your favourite player's personality appeals to you?

I like Novak for both. He is my favorite player to watch, and I also tend to think he has the most perspective about tennis as a sport. Seems to understand it is not the be all and end all. I also like that he is willing to have pictures of him looking like an idiot (like the bachelor party photos with the inflatable woman). I also like that he meditates, does yoga, bike rides (shared hobbies with myself)!

To me it fits, and is a combo of the two. I love this game, his elastic movement, and I like the guy. He doesn't seem as pretentious as Roger or stoic as Rafa. Both of those guys seem to be a little stiff to me.

I love Andy's personality personally, even enjoy his on court screaming, but I can't stand his game, although it has gotten a little more appealing, but I would rather watch Rafa or Roger from a tennis perspective.

I liked Agassi for his aggressive style and punk attitude (even though in hindsight it was a bit ham-handed).

 

[brokenshoelace]

I honestly don't know. I think "like" comes before rationalization. In other words, you like something/someone before you really think about it, and then you explain why. So I have no idea why Nadal is my favorite player. He just is.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I have always been drawn to more classic, traditional players. Attack oriented, variety of shots etc. I was not thrilled with Roger when I watched him beat Sampras, but I knew he was going to be my next guy right there. He had everything.

Also, all my favorites from JMac to Edberg to Muster to Pete to Roger have single handed backhands. It will be tough going for me to find a new favorite these days. Thiem probably...since I am about to give up on Grigor.

 

[shawnbm]

I am like Murat--I love the classic attacking game as well. I am a single-backhand guy and I like to watch a good single hander. I also love to watch quality volleys and variety of spins on shots. Federer's game is appealing in that way, and Rafa's has become more appealing over the years because of shots he added to his game. I didn't like him personally too much, but oh how I loved watching McEnroe play the game during his prime. Sublime stuff. I used to love to watch the Magician and found him entertaining, but the brutal power of Safin was mighty impressive in its own way as well (never liked Lendl's game or demeanor, even though he ushered in power tennis).

 

[El Dude]

I think Broken said it well. I am also a huge baseball fan (thus the interest in stats) and for a time there in the 90s I tried to "dis-enfranchise" myself from my favorite team, the Angels, because they were so bad. But I just couldn't do it - I was imprinted on them from an early age, and at one point I said, "fuck it, I'm going down with the ship." Thankfully it paid off in 2002, and they've been overall pretty good since.

But as for Federer, it was just a gut preference. Understand, though, that I didn't get seriously into tennis until around 2008 or 2009, when Roger's reign was slipping. Before that I was a fan of tennis, but a casual one - I just followed the Grand Slams, and sometimes only Wimbledon and the US Open. I knew about Roger when he came up, and immediately liked him, but didn't follow tennis closely during his best years. Too bad for me, I guess.

So it wasn't as if I simply picked the best player. In a way, I was attracted to the story of Federer - the greatest player in the world who was being supplanted by a young upstart, from his epic loss at Wimbledon in 2008 that was the changing of the guard, to his resurgence in 2009, to his fall again in 2010 as it became clear that his reign had ended. Then 2012 was a dream - rising back to #1 in a game dominated by players 5-6 years younger. And now we have a player almost 34 years old, holding his own, still in the mix. What a remarkable story.

But I can also look at specific reasons why I like Roger, and while it doesn't fully explain why I initially imprinted on him in the first place, it is a way of understanding my appreciation for him. The main thing is that I just love the way he plays tennis - he's an artist, a dancer, and makes shots like no one else. In a way it is similar to why Cali loves Nalbandian, although with the added benefit that Roger has been able to turn his artistry into incredible success. I also like Roger's composed demeanor, his humility. Of late I've enjoyed how he readily admits that he's been surpassed but continues to play for love of the game.

As for other great players, I can admire what they do but also can find logical reasons why I don't like them as much as I like Roger. But in the end, it is a gut response thing - it goes deep.

 

[El Dude]

A related topic, Kieran, is how we all seem to have a favorite elite player, and then secondary players that we like but don't love, and then another category of young up-and-comers that we have our eye on, that will either enter the secondary group or, if they are good enough, become our new favorite. For Fedal fans like you and I, this could be in he back of our mind...once they're gone, who will we follow? Who will become our new favorite? At this point it is too soon to tell, and I may not know until Roger is actually gone. For instance, Grigor Dimitrov is probably my second favorite player - but there's only so much I can invest in him because he's simply not good enough. Maybe if and when he becomes a legit candidate to win Slams, but for a player to really become one's favorite, they have to have a real chance, I think.

After Dimitrov, I'm watching the young guys like Borna Coric and some others. I can already tell that Nick Kyrgios won't be a favorite. He's got potential, and as I've said before he reminds me a bit of del Potro, but he doesn't inspire me in he way that Roger or even Grigor does.

Anyway, maybe it is worth its own thread or maybe it can be part of this conversation, because I think it is related. How do we move on from a favorite as they decline and retire, and choose a new favorite?

 

[Great Hands]

Is it ethos-based, as in, "He plays the game the way I like to see it played?"

Or, partly this, but more because your favourite player's personality appeals to you?

I like Novak for both. He is my favorite player to watch, and I also tend to think he has the most perspective about tennis as a sport. Seems to understand it is not the be all and end all. I also like that he is willing to have pictures of him looking like an idiot (like the bachelor party photos with the inflatable woman). I also like that he meditates, does yoga, bike rides (shared hobbies with myself)!

To me it fits, and is a combo of the two. I love this game, his elastic movement, and I like the guy. He doesn't seem as pretentious as Roger or stoic as Rafa. Both of those guys seem to be a little stiff to me.

I love Andy's personality personally, even enjoy his on court screaming, but I can't stand his game, although it has gotten a little more appealing, but I would rather watch Rafa or Roger from a tennis perspective.

I liked Agassi for his aggressive style and punk attitude (even though in hindsight it was a bit ham-handed).

Interesting posts guys!

Why I like Andy Murray:

I always find it funny (as in surprising) how many people don't like Andy's game. To me, it is one of the more interesting games on the tour. He has a wonderfully diverse skill set, great hands, great variety of shot, and it's very interesting to watch him from a tacitcal perspective - e.g. how he alters his game depending on conditions, wind, opponent etc. He's not a mindless ball basher.

It seems the main reason people don't like his game is that he is deemed to be too defensive. I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked him to be more proactive at times, but I'd much prefer to watch even a more passive Andy to say, an Isner or a Raonic. I liked his game even in his earlier days when he was more defensive - he'd run rings around opponents, bamboozle them with his variety, his variations of pace and spin, and then sometimes he'd inject pace too and hit winners, just to keep them guessing. His style was always unique and quirky, to me.

I'm always supportive of Andy because for me - in terms of the 'eye test', as Broken Shoelace was talking about in another thread - he is a lower-tier all-time great who has, so far, the career of a great, but not an all-time great, because he has been in the era of arguably the 2 greatest players ever, and another all-time top 10. His weaknesses only become apparent in comparison to 3 of the greatest players who've ever lived. So for me, any success he has is truly deserved because I think he would have won at least a bit more than he has if he'd been around in other eras.

He had so many setbacks and losses earlier in his career, and was criticised basically for not being as good as these legends or soon-to-be legends, but he kept working hard, never gave up, and eventually succeeded. I find that inspiring.

I like the fact that the guy gives his all to the sport too. He is totally committed.

I also like the fact that there is nothing fake about him at all. He is a very honest person. He is also, by all accounts, a really nice guy. Andre Agassi, Novak, Rafa, Darren Cahill etc have all talked about how off court, he is one of the nicest guys they know.

I really love all of the big 4, though. I am so happy to be around in the era of these guys.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

first off: what Broken said.

I have always been drawn to more classic, traditional players. Attack oriented, variety of shots etc. I was not thrilled with Roger when I watched him beat Sampras, but I knew he was going to be my next guy right there. He had everything.

Also, all my favorites from JMac to Edberg to Muster to Pete to Roger have single handed backhands. It will be tough going for me to find a new favorite these days. Thiem probably...since I am about to give up on Grigor.

what the hell is Muster doing in your line-up? attack oriented? variety of shots? classic, traditional - well, a classic grinder, he was

as for my rationalization: i do tend to appreciate style, the effortlessness, talent (probably because i'm clumsy as f*** myself) and claim that this is why i like Fed best. love the single back-hand as well. but then again, back in the 90ies, i actually liked Agassi over Sampras at first (mainly because my aunt and my tennis-loving best friend got me into Andre; and as a kid, baseline rallies seemed more appealing than aces and s&v, because with the shorter points, i didn't know what the hell was going on). then kind of got into Sampras' style... the quiet determination played a role, plus less of a mentally ill-vibe than Agassi was giving off at times; and for all his quiet attitude, Pete hugging his father after the 2000 win was one of the most emotional moments in my sports-watching life.

as to what sparked my love for Fed: after losing interest in tennis for a couple of years when Sampras quit, some article pointed at Fed for the 2005 RG, as him having a shot at the Grand Slam. so i watched him in the SF, kinda hoping to see history in the making, only to see him beat by Rafa... with two losses in a row, he was kind of the big guy (for the tour) and the underdog (in the match-up) at the same time, that was also interesting. and then of course, just a couple of weeks later, re-match in the next Wimbledon final. and that was that.

 

[nehmeth]

Is it ethos-based, as in, "He plays the game the way I like to see it played?"

Or, partly this, but more because your favourite player's personality appeals to you?

Novak's personality - not the bluster, nor the screams, nor the tearing shirts.

I like the way he laughs, his imitations, his music videos. I see his way with his friends and the consistency of his friendships over the years. That says a lot about a person. I like the way he applauds a great point, the way he's gracious even in defeat. I like to listen to him when he speaks about his family, about his grandfather, about his coach Jelena Gencic. The respect, the admiration, the affection you can feel is genuine.

As a father now - watching him speak of his son, seeing them playing together, or jostling the little fella while he's getting a rubdown - makes me smile.

I like the way he sets his jaw in a match, and I know that even though it's been a rollercoaster ride, things are about to quickly turn. I also appreciate when I can see his face during a match and know that it just isn't there that day. He is who he is.

His game is dissimilar to the way I learned and play. If that were the measure, then I would have liked Federer.

Novak is an incredible mover, has beautifully clean strokes which he has somehow managed to improve over the years. The way he is able to keep even the best players on a string is amazing. I love the way he can work himself back into a point after absorbing his opponents best shots and then put them on their heels. And his kill shots... well. I'll stop there.

 

[Fiero425]

Going back to the beginning when I first started watching tennis in '74, I had to like the person's style of play! Way back when, "double-handed" backhands were something new with Connors, Evert, and Bjorn Borg, but I instantly took a dislike of Connors and his antics! With Borg the anti-thesis of the "Belleville Basher," he became my favorite! Borg was also easy on eye and kept his mouth shut unlike many others who thought it was cool to "have personality" out there on court! For the ladies it was pretty much the same with Evonne Goolagong who was the most graceful ballerina on court and delighted crowds giving Chris Evert a lot of heartburn!

After she left I picked Martina as the next great thing on court and in '82 she broke out and took over for a good 5 years, beating Evert 14 times in a row at one time; a couple of those matches on Evert's beloved clay in Paris! I latched onto Lendl around then due to his animus towards McEnroe and Connors! I graduated to Sampras and Hingis, then Federer and Henin, settling on Nole and Radwanska now! I need to like a top player to get me to watch the tour, so I fell down on the job keeping up with the ladies when Hingis and Henin retired! It was boring watching Nadal and Federer while winning most everything in sight year in and year out, so I'm loving that Nole's broken up the exclusive party! Fed is still considered The GOAT IMO, but I lived for Nole and him taking everything these days! I'm still holding all hope that Navratilova will be considered The GOAT for the ladies with her "Box Set" of titles unmatched by anyone in the OPEN era! :

 

[El Dude]

One thing I just remembered is that my first favorite tennis player was Bjorn Borg. I was just a little dude, but I vaguely remember him and McEnroe playing and disliking McEnroe. What is interesting to me is that it was a similar situation to Roger and Rafa - the older great being surpassed by the younger great. I'm wondering if that has something do with my love of Federer. I did like Roger before that happened, but I didn't get hardcore about tennis until Roger was already slipping.

 

[Great Hands]

Is it ethos-based, as in, "He plays the game the way I like to see it played?"

Or, partly this, but more because your favourite player's personality appeals to you?

I like Novak for both. He is my favorite player to watch, and I also tend to think he has the most perspective about tennis as a sport. Seems to understand it is not the be all and end all. I also like that he is willing to have pictures of him looking like an idiot (like the bachelor party photos with the inflatable woman). I also like that he meditates, does yoga, bike rides (shared hobbies with myself)!

To me it fits, and is a combo of the two. I love this game, his elastic movement, and I like the guy. He doesn't seem as pretentious as Roger or stoic as Rafa. Both of those guys seem to be a little stiff to me.

I love Andy's personality personally, even enjoy his on court screaming, but I can't stand his game, although it has gotten a little more appealing, but I would rather watch Rafa or Roger from a tennis perspective.

I liked Agassi for his aggressive style and punk attitude (even though in hindsight it was a bit ham-handed).

Great thread, and really interesting to read everyone's responses.

I love a lot of the players that people have already mentioned, and for many of the same reasons. Because he hasn't been done yet, and because I know he's not that popular, I'll try to articulate why I like Andy Murray:

I always find it funny (as in surprising) how many people don't like Andy's game. To me, it is one of the more interesting games on the tour. He has a wonderfully diverse skill set, great hands, great variety of shot, and it's very interesting to watch him from a tacitcal perspective - e.g. how he alters his game depending on conditions, wind, opponent etc. He's not a mindless ball basher.

It seems the main reason people don't like his game is that he is deemed to be too defensive. I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked him to be more proactive at times, but I'd much prefer to watch even a more passive Andy to say, an Isner or a Raonic. I liked his game even in his earlier days when he was more defensive - he'd run rings around opponents, bamboozle them with his variety, his variations of pace and spin, and then sometimes he'd inject pace too and hit winners, just to keep them guessing. His style was always unique and quirky, to me. He constructed points differently.

I'm always supportive of Andy because for me - in terms of the 'eye test', as Broken Shoelace was talking about in another thread - he is a lower-tier all-time great who has, so far, the career of a great, but not an all-time great, because he has been in the era of arguably the 2 greatest players ever, and another all-time top 10. His weaknesses only become apparent in comparison to 3 of the greatest players who've ever lived. So for me, any success he has is truly deserved because I think he would have won at least a bit more than he has if he'd been around in other eras.

He had so many setbacks and losses earlier in his career, and was criticised basically for not being as good as these legends or soon-to-be legends, but he kept working hard, never gave up, and eventually succeeded. I find that inspiring.

I like the fact that the guy gives his all to the sport too. He is totally committed.

I also like the fact that there is nothing fake about him at all. He is a very honest person. He is also, by all accounts, a really nice guy. Andre Agassi, Novak, Rafa, Darren Cahill etc have all talked about how off court, he is one of the nicest guys they know.

I really love all of the big 4, though. I am so happy to be around in the era of these guys.

 

[atttomole]

I like Federer because I saw him for the first time in a big tournament at Wimby 2001, having seen a few highlights of him earlier. I liked the way he hit his forehand. I still remember the commentator describing his forehand as powerful, but I thought it was more accurate than powerful. I also remember thinking that his shots were kind of 'strange'. And then in 2003 he won Wimbly playing exotic tennis. However, I never thought he would have dominated the way he eventually did.

 

[atttomole]

Going back to the beginning when I first started watching tennis in '74, I had to like the person's style of play! Way back when, "double-handed" backhands were something new with Connors, Evert, and Bjorn Borg, but I instantly took a dislike of Connors and his antics! With Borg the anti-thesis of the "Belleville Basher," he became my favorite! Borg was also easy on eye and kept his mouth shut unlike many others who thought it was cool to "have personality" out there on court! For the ladies it was pretty much the same with Evonne Goolagong who was the most graceful ballerina on court and delighted crowds giving Chris Evert a lot of heartburn!

After she left I picked Martina as the next great thing on court and in '82 she broke out and took over for a good 5 years, beating Evert 14 times in a row at one time; a couple of those matches on Evert's beloved clay in Paris! I latched onto Lendl around then due to his animus towards McEnroe and Connors! I graduated to Sampras and Hingis, then Federer and Henin, settling on Nole and Radwanska now! I need to like a top player to get me to watch the tour, so I fell down on the job keeping up with the ladies when Hingis and Henin retired! It was boring watching Nadal and Federer while winning most everything in sight year in and year out, so I'm loving that Nole's broken up the exclusive party! Fed is still considered The GOAT IMO, but I lived for Nole and him taking everything these days! I'm still holding all hope that Navratilova will be considered The GOAT for the ladies with her "Box Set" of titles unmatched by anyone in the OPEN era! :

I think you never had much stress as a tennis fan because you always chose the best players of each generation.

 

[Fiero425]

Going back to the beginning when I first started watching tennis in '74, I had to like the person's style of play! Way back when, "double-handed" backhands were something new with Connors, Evert, and Bjorn Borg, but I instantly took a dislike of Connors and his antics! With Borg the anti-thesis of the "Belleville Basher," he became my favorite! Borg was also easy on eye and kept his mouth shut unlike many others who thought it was cool to "have personality" out there on court! For the ladies it was pretty much the same with Evonne Goolagong who was the most graceful ballerina on court and delighted crowds giving Chris Evert a lot of heartburn!

After she left I picked Martina as the next great thing on court and in '82 she broke out and took over for a good 5 years, beating Evert 14 times in a row at one time; a couple of those matches on Evert's beloved clay in Paris! I latched onto Lendl around then due to his animus towards McEnroe and Connors! I graduated to Sampras and Hingis, then Federer and Henin, settling on Nole and Radwanska now! I need to like a top player to get me to watch the tour, so I fell down on the job keeping up with the ladies when Hingis and Henin retired! It was boring watching Nadal and Federer while winning most everything in sight year in and year out, so I'm loving that Nole's broken up the exclusive party! Fed is still considered The GOAT IMO, but I lived for Nole and him taking everything these days! I'm still holding all hope that Navratilova will be considered The GOAT for the ladies with her "Box Set" of titles unmatched by anyone in the OPEN era! :

I think you never had much stress as a tennis fan because you always chose the best players of each generation.

True, but they hadn't become the "best player" when I took them on as faves! I have to enjoy watching to keep interests in their tour! Borg lost 7 straight matches to Connors before turning it around and owning him 16-8! Hingis came along in a very down period when Seles and Graf were on their last legs! Some players I loved due to what they could do to another player I couldn't stand; Sampras beating Agassi like a drum was always fun and that was first done in '90 before he even reached the top 10! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Great Hands]

Great thread, and really interesting to read everyone's responses.

I love a lot of the players that people have already mentioned, and for many of the same reasons. Because he hasn't been done yet, and because I know he's not that popular, I'll try to articulate why I like Andy Murray:

I always find it funny (as in surprising) how many people don't like Andy's game. To me, it is one of the more interesting games on the tour. He has a wonderfully diverse skill set, great hands, great variety of shot, and it's very interesting to watch him from a tactical perspective - e.g. how he alters his game depending on conditions, wind, opponent etc. He's not a mindless ball basher.

It seems the main reason people don't like his game is that he is deemed to be too defensive. I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked him to be more proactive at times, but I'd much prefer to watch even a more passive Andy to say, an Isner or a Raonic. I liked his game even in his earlier days when he was more defensive - he'd run rings around opponents, bamboozle them with his variety, his variations of pace and spin, and then sometimes he'd inject pace too and hit winners, to keep them guessing. His style was always unique and quirky, to me. He constructed points differently.

I'm always supportive of Andy because for me - in terms of the 'eye test', as Broken Shoelace was talking about in another thread - he is a lower-tier all-time great who has, so far, the career of a great, but not an all-time great, because he has been in the era of arguably the 2 greatest players ever, and another all-time top 10. His weaknesses only become apparent in comparison to 3 of the greatest players who've ever lived. So for me, any success he has is truly deserved because I think he would have won at least a bit more than he has if he'd been around in other eras.

He had so many setbacks and losses earlier in his career, and was criticised basically for not being as good as these legends or soon-to-be legends, but he kept working hard, never gave up, and eventually succeeded. I find that inspiring.

I like the fact that the guy gives his all to the sport too. He is totally committed.

I also like the fact that there is nothing fake about him at all. He is a very honest person. He is also, by all accounts, a really nice guy. Andre Agassi, Novak, Rafa, Darren Cahill etc have all talked about how off court, he is one of the nicest guys they know.

Whilst some people only seem to like some members of the big 4 - e.g. they like Roger and Novak but not Rafa and Andy, for example - I really love all of the big 4. I am so happy to be around in the era of these guys.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

first off: what Broken said.

I have always been drawn to more classic, traditional players. Attack oriented, variety of shots etc. I was not thrilled with Roger when I watched him beat Sampras, but I knew he was going to be my next guy right there. He had everything.

Also, all my favorites from JMac to Edberg to Muster to Pete to Roger have single handed backhands. It will be tough going for me to find a new favorite these days. Thiem probably...since I am about to give up on Grigor.

what the hell is Muster doing in your line-up? attack oriented? variety of shots? classic, traditional - well, a classic grinder, he was

as for my rationalization: i do tend to appreciate style, the effortlessness, talent (probably because i'm clumsy as f*** myself) and claim that this is why i like Fed best. love the single back-hand as well. but then again, back in the 90ies, i actually liked Agassi over Sampras at first (mainly because my aunt and my tennis-loving best friend got me into Andre; and as a kid, baseline rallies seemed more appealing than aces and s&v, because with the shorter points, i didn't know what the hell was going on). then kind of got into Sampras' style... the quiet determination played a role, plus less of a mentally ill-vibe than Agassi was giving off at times; and for all his quiet attitude, Pete hugging his father after the 2000 win was one of the most emotional moments in my sports-watching life.

as to what sparked my love for Fed: after losing interest in tennis for a couple of years when Sampras quit, some article pointed at Fed for the 2005 RG, as him having a shot at the Grand Slam. so i watched him in the SF, kinda hoping to see history in the making, only to see him beat by Rafa... with two losses in a row, he was kind of the big guy (for the tour) and the underdog (in the match-up) at the same time, that was also interesting. and then of course, just a couple of weeks later, re-match in the next Wimbledon final. and that was that.

Listen, I have a soft spot for him because of the accident he had and the wheelchair training video he taped. Plus, the guy was a relentless attacker man, he wore you down. He was not a grinding, defending kind of clay player. He took your legs out...

 

[Fiero425]

first off: what Broken said.

I have always been drawn to more classic, traditional players. Attack oriented, variety of shots etc. I was not thrilled with Roger when I watched him beat Sampras, but I knew he was going to be my next guy right there. He had everything.

Also, all my favorites from JMac to Edberg to Muster to Pete to Roger have single handed backhands. It will be tough going for me to find a new favorite these days. Thiem probably...since I am about to give up on Grigor.

what the hell is Muster doing in your line-up? attack oriented? variety of shots? classic, traditional - well, a classic grinder, he was

as for my rationalization: i do tend to appreciate style, the effortlessness, talent (probably because i'm clumsy as f*** myself) and claim that this is why i like Fed best. love the single back-hand as well. but then again, back in the 90ies, i actually liked Agassi over Sampras at first (mainly because my aunt and my tennis-loving best friend got me into Andre; and as a kid, baseline rallies seemed more appealing than aces and s&v, because with the shorter points, i didn't know what the hell was going on). then kind of got into Sampras' style... the quiet determination played a role, plus less of a mentally ill-vibe than Agassi was giving off at times; and for all his quiet attitude, Pete hugging his father after the 2000 win was one of the most emotional moments in my sports-watching life.

as to what sparked my love for Fed: after losing interest in tennis for a couple of years when Sampras quit, some article pointed at Fed for the 2005 RG, as him having a shot at the Grand Slam. so i watched him in the SF, kinda hoping to see history in the making, only to see him beat by Rafa... with two losses in a row, he was kind of the big guy (for the tour) and the underdog (in the match-up) at the same time, that was also interesting. and then of course, just a couple of weeks later, re-match in the next Wimbledon final. and that was that.

Listen, I have a soft spot for him because of the accident he had and the wheelchair training video he taped. Plus, the guy was a relentless attacker man, he wore you down. He was not a grinding, defending kind of clay player. He took your legs out...

Not sure I would call Muster an "attacking" player! He hit the ball hard, raking over the ball for the most part, but he still was a baseliner who almost "never" went into the net! He could be halfway there and retreat; "where have we seen that?" :cover uzzled :nono :angel: I remember his getting injured just a day before final in Miami against Lendl in '87, but it was more like he was hit than a real car accident! He was crunched between 2 vehicles IIRC! He was later given special dispensation to play only on clay when he became #1 for about 5 minutes in the 90's! :eyepop

 

[Puppet Master]

I will try to keep it short. I believe I already talked about it but, I am a Fedal fan.
Before Roger tennis was just the thing I would watch occasionally with my dad and played it even less, and was really disappointed by how things were. Then Roger came along. He always struck me as that pretentious genius in class who was leagues above the other children. A bit arrogant, and stubborn but a really great guy. When his reign began, and from then on, I barely missed a match from him. He was just the personification of talent. And then Wafa jumped on the scene. At first, it pissed me off how this kid from Mallorca could trouble Roger so much, but even in 2004 the level he could reach was pretty clear. I was amazed by his physical abilities and strength. Never was there such an imposing figure on court. Guys were literally afraid of him. He also possessed very unique shot making skills, since he never had much of a serve, and the focus he had, my god. This earned him a place among my faves. Both of them are very calm and quick thinkers. I could talk for days, but this pretty much summarises it.
I also like Andy, Delpo and Wawrinka.